Is there any updates? Was it moved?

espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id...aryland#comment



excerpt:



"The ACC's lawsuit against Maryland is currently in limbo, as there will be a hearing in Greensboro, N.C., on Feb. 18 to determine where the trial will be held -- in Maryland or North Carolina."

Thanks! Hopefully 1st win of many!

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court then how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

From what I've seen in the media, the ACC's legal strategy works like this:

The Guilford County court, as specified in the agreement between the ACC and the member schools, rules on the validity of the $52M exit fee as a part of the contract governing the ACC. Once they get the ruling that it is legal, the ACC will then go to the court in Prince Georges County, Md, the location of UMd, and then gets that court to enforce what has been ruled in Guilford to be a valid, enforcable contract. There would be a lot of adverse legal ramifications for the state of Maryland if they don't enforce the contract.

---------------------------------------------
--- HoomanBeing wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

From what I've seen in the media, the ACC's legal strategy works like this:

The Guilford County court, as specified in the agreement between the ACC and the member schools, rules on the validity of the $52M exit fee as a part of the contract governing the ACC. Once they get the ruling that it is legal, the ACC will then go to the court in Prince Georges County, Md, the location of UMd, and then gets that court to enforce what has been ruled in Guilford to be a valid, enforcable contract. There would be a lot of adverse legal ramifications for the state of Maryland if they don't enforce the contract.

---------------------------------------------

What is to say that the court in Maryland would even rule the judgment in the North Carolina state court to be valid and binding in the state of Maryland? In fact the Maryland AG has already filed suit in a Maryland court basically asking the Maryland court to declare the exit fee unenforceable. For all we know also the judge in Maryland may agree with Maryland's claim to sovereign immunity. As I stated earlier it is going to take a federal court to technically enforce Maryland to pay up. Even if the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution were to come into play then even that is on non solid ground since Maryland is claiming sovereign immunity from judgment in another state court. This is going to have to go before the feds eventually because NC nor its laws gets to determine the final say validity of Maryland's sovereign immunity claim.

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

Also, are not the states in different federal districts and federal circuit of appeals? Could get interesting.

Sure NC law and courts can have a say. The membership contract almost certainly has both choice of law and choice of venue clauses which are binding on the parties. Assuming those clauses exist they almost certainly say the law of NC and the venue is Guilford Co.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- HoomanBeing wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

From what I've seen in the media, the ACC's legal strategy works like this:

The Guilford County court, as specified in the agreement between the ACC and the member schools, rules on the validity of the $52M exit fee as a part of the contract governing the ACC. Once they get the ruling that it is legal, the ACC will then go to the court in Prince Georges County, Md, the location of UMd, and then gets that court to enforce what has been ruled in Guilford to be a valid, enforcable contract. There would be a lot of adverse legal ramifications for the state of Maryland if they don't enforce the contract.

---------------------------------------------

What is to say that the court in Maryland would even rule the judgment in the North Carolina state court to be valid and binding in the state of Maryland? In fact the Maryland AG has already filed suit in a Maryland court basically asking the Maryland court to declare the exit fee unenforceable. For all we know also the judge in Maryland may agree with Maryland's claim to sovereign immunity. As I stated earlier it is going to take a federal court to technically enforce Maryland to pay up. Even if the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution were to come into play then even that is on non solid ground since Maryland is claiming sovereign immunity from judgment in another state court. This is going to have to go before the feds eventually because NC nor its laws gets to determine the final say validity of Maryland's sovereign immunity claim.

---------------------------------------------

They are subject to NC law when they contract with parties in the state of NC. Like I said, MD will probably get it to a federal court because of diversity jurisdiction, but that court will still be in NC and NC law will be the applicable contract law that the Federal Court would be applying.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are subject to NC law when they contract with parties in the state of NC. Like I said, MD will probably get it to a federal court because of diversity jurisdiction, but that court will still be in NC and NC law will be the applicable contract law that the Federal Court would be applying.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Again, I understand that. However, we are talking about a state government and not a private party. To be fair I think Maryland should honor its contract. However, it will still be nearly impossible to execute upon the judgment if Maryland and its court systems were uncooperative.

In reality if MD courts refused to enforce the judgment it probably would go to Federal court. However, it would go to a Federal Court in NC and the applicable contract law is still NC. MD State courts refused to enforce the order they'd face a Federal injunction, possible contempt, etc.

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

I said this from the very beginning -- the ACC's suit is 98% PR.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:


I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

In reality if MD courts refused to enforce the judgment it probably would go to Federal court. However, it would go to a Federal Court in NC and the applicable contract law is still NC. MD State courts refused to enforce the order they'd face a Federal injunction, possible contempt, etc.

---------------------------------------------

I agree. However, what if Maryland does exert sovereign immunity. Could they argue that in their own Federal District?

I was being facetious. For the 18th time in this thread, yes, it would go to Federal Court. It would go to Federal Court sitting in NC. The Federal Court would be applying NC contract law. A Maryland judge refusing to enforce the order would probably be removed from the bench.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

Not if the choice of law/venue clause in the membership contract states the law/venue is NC. Those clauses are almost always binding, especially in cases like this where MD was actively conducting "business" in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

In reality if MD courts refused to enforce the judgment it probably would go to Federal court. However, it would go to a Federal Court in NC and the applicable contract law is still NC. MD State courts refused to enforce the order they'd face a Federal injunction, possible contempt, etc.

---------------------------------------------

I agree. However, what if Maryland does exert sovereign immunity. Could they argue that in their own Federal District?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

I was being facetious. For the 18th time in this thread, yes, it would go to Federal Court. It would go to Federal Court sitting in NC. The Federal Court would be applying NC contract law. A Maryland judge refusing to enforce the order would probably be removed from the bench.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

How could a Maryland judge be removed from the bench especially if the Maryland appellate courts agreed with him? Even a federal judge could not remove a Maryland state judge from the bench since it would be a violation of the 10th to do so. However, once a federal court does get involved its decision automatically preempts any Maryland court obviously.

MD appellate courts would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. A Maryland appellate court can't do **** about a NC case nor a Federal case.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

I was being facetious. For the 18th time in this thread, yes, it would go to Federal Court. It would go to Federal Court sitting in NC. The Federal Court would be applying NC contract law. A Maryland judge refusing to enforce the order would probably be removed from the bench.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

How could a Maryland judge be removed from the bench especially if the Maryland appellate courts agreed with him? Even a federal judge could not remove a Maryland state judge from the bench since it would be a violation of the 10th to do so. However, once a federal court does get involved its decision automatically preempts any Maryland court obviously.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Not if the choice of law/venue clause in the membership contract states the law/venue is NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

In reality if MD courts refused to enforce the judgment it probably would go to Federal court. However, it would go to a Federal Court in NC and the applicable contract law is still NC. MD State courts refused to enforce the order they'd face a Federal injunction, possible contempt, etc.

---------------------------------------------

I agree. However, what if Maryland does exert sovereign immunity. Could they argue that in their own Federal District?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Again, I understand. However, sovereign immunity could be construed as a Constitutional question and maybe the District Court in Maryland would agree to consider. It could be a matter of Maryland questioning whether its claim to sovereign immunity preempts any NC civil contract law. I am not saying they would win but do not courts consider the nature and validity of laws all the time.

District Court in MD would not have jurisdiction to just start deciding **** about a case going on elsewhere. As I said, MD can argue and probably get it in Federal Court, but if the choice of venue/law clause say NC that Federal Court will sit in NC because no other court will have jurisdiction over the matter. You keep saying you understand but clearly you don't. Jurisdiction and venue will only be proper in one place. The suit was initiated in first in NC, the contract is probably formed under NC law with a NC choice of venue clause. Nobody else can legal do a damn thing about it. It will either be a state court in NC or a federal court in NC. MD courts are (probably) not legitimately within the equation. If they start circumventing the law on jurisdiction they will find themselves with contempt orders.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Not if the choice of law/venue clause in the membership contract states the law/venue is NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

In reality if MD courts refused to enforce the judgment it probably would go to Federal court. However, it would go to a Federal Court in NC and the applicable contract law is still NC. MD State courts refused to enforce the order they'd face a Federal injunction, possible contempt, etc.

---------------------------------------------

I agree. However, what if Maryland does exert sovereign immunity. Could they argue that in their own Federal District?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Again, I understand. However, sovereign immunity could be construed as a Constitutional question and maybe the District Court in Maryland would agree to consider. It could be a matter of Maryland questioning whether its claim to sovereign immunity preempts any NC civil contract law. I am not saying they would win but do not courts consider the nature and validity of laws all the time.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

MD appellate courts would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. A Maryland appellate court can't do **** about a NC case nor a Federal case.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

I was being facetious. For the 18th time in this thread, yes, it would go to Federal Court. It would go to Federal Court sitting in NC. The Federal Court would be applying NC contract law. A Maryland judge refusing to enforce the order would probably be removed from the bench.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

How could a Maryland judge be removed from the bench especially if the Maryland appellate courts agreed with him? Even a federal judge could not remove a Maryland state judge from the bench since it would be a violation of the 10th to do so. However, once a federal court does get involved its decision automatically preempts any Maryland court obviously.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Then why is the AG of the state of Maryland filing suit in the Maryland state court system?? Also, again short of federal involvement how is NC to seize 52 million of Maryland's assets short of federal involvement. Obviously, as we talked about they would ask the feds to get involved.

If Maryland decides to secede from the Union, will that get them out of paying the $52M? Would that preclude them from joining the B1G?

---------------------------------------------
--- bartholemew wrote:

If Maryland decides to secede from the Union, will that get them out of paying the $52M? Would that preclude them from joining the B1G?

---------------------------------------------

The ACC would just go to a UN court lol!!!!!!

Because he's playing to a constituency and/or doing whatever he can to try to protect UMD, even if it is probably futile. As long as the ACC's contract lawyers did a decent job of drafting choice of law/venue clauses, the MD suit would have to be dismissed.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

MD appellate courts would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. A Maryland appellate court can't do **** about a NC case nor a Federal case.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

I was being facetious. For the 18th time in this thread, yes, it would go to Federal Court. It would go to Federal Court sitting in NC. The Federal Court would be applying NC contract law. A Maryland judge refusing to enforce the order would probably be removed from the bench.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

How could a Maryland judge be removed from the bench especially if the Maryland appellate courts agreed with him? Even a federal judge could not remove a Maryland state judge from the bench since it would be a violation of the 10th to do so. However, once a federal court does get involved its decision automatically preempts any Maryland court obviously.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Then why is the AG of the state of Maryland filing suit in the Maryland state court system?? Also, again short of federal involvement how is NC to seize 52 million of Maryland's assets short of federal involvement. Obviously, as we talked about they would ask the feds to get involved.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Because he's playing to a constituency and/or doing whatever he can to try to protect UMD, even if it is probably futile. As long as the ACC's contract lawyers did a decent job of drafting choice of law/venue clauses, the MD suit would have to be dismissed.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

MD appellate courts would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. A Maryland appellate court can't do **** about a NC case nor a Federal case.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

I was being facetious. For the 18th time in this thread, yes, it would go to Federal Court. It would go to Federal Court sitting in NC. The Federal Court would be applying NC contract law. A Maryland judge refusing to enforce the order would probably be removed from the bench.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

How could a Maryland judge be removed from the bench especially if the Maryland appellate courts agreed with him? Even a federal judge could not remove a Maryland state judge from the bench since it would be a violation of the 10th to do so. However, once a federal court does get involved its decision automatically preempts any Maryland court obviously.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Then why is the AG of the state of Maryland filing suit in the Maryland state court system?? Also, again short of federal involvement how is NC to seize 52 million of Maryland's assets short of federal involvement. Obviously, as we talked about they would ask the feds to get involved.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I agree but there is no guarantee that a Maryland judge would dismiss. IMHO, this whole circumstance is going to be tied up in various courts for a long time. It would not surprise me if there was some type of settlement that eventually happened. I find this to be a fascinating legal subject because of the different questions and circumstances involved. Also, I do find it a bit of a stretch and convenient for the university to be an actual extension of the Maryland state government. IMHO, that may be the biggest question of all.

It is not $52MM, but the ACC has been withholding payment to Maryland since they announced their leaving and I think this is the origin of their suit against the league. Note that Maryland will not get paid their "share" of the ESPN money, NCAA tourney money, or BCS payout for two years. It won't cumulatively approach the $52MM, but it will be in the $35-40MM range. The lawsuit will probably just be about that last remainder in the end (at least from the league's standpoint).

This is a big deal for the league. It will be a lot easier to get the judge to agree that Maryland owes the remaining $15MM than the total $52MM...

The ACC is withholding money, and that is largely the focal point of the suit presented by the Maryland AG. However, the suit is still over the entire $52MM. If the ACC is not entitled to the exit fee then UMD will counterclaim to recover the money withheld.

Reality, I think you are probably right about the suit being long, drawn out, and ultimately ending in a settlement, but that could be expected with most cases of this size.

The one thing that doesn't look good for the ACC is that exit fees that are seen as punitive are not legally enforceable. The ACC looks like they've put together a stellar legal team, but it will be interesting to see how they spin this--especially considering the drastic increase in the exit fee earlier in the year.

They should try it in california...noone there cares about maryland, the b10 or the acc..it would be the most impartial court to have

I would say the dramatic increase in exit fees coincided with the huge increase in revenue. When they decided to increase the fees, 2 major items had happened:

1) ND joins the conference and guarantees 5 games a year which is an automatic bump in TV revenue.
2) ACC signs the deal with the OB. $55 mill is nothing to sneeze at.

On top of this, the ACC can't jeopardize losing the seat at the table for the playoff payouts. The bulk of the money is split 5 ways between the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12, and ACC. Losing members will undoubtedly take that away.

If you look at how much money the conference could lose $52 mil is actually cheap.

---------------------------------------------
--- uncguitarist69 wrote:

The ACC is withholding money, and that is largely the focal point of the suit presented by the Maryland AG. However, the suit is still over the entire $52MM. If the ACC is not entitled to the exit fee then UMD will counterclaim to recover the money withheld.

Reality, I think you are probably right about the suit being long, drawn out, and ultimately ending in a settlement, but that could be expected with most cases of this size.

The one thing that doesn't look good for the ACC is that exit fees that are seen as punitive are not legally enforceable. The ACC looks like they've put together a stellar legal team, but it will be interesting to see how they spin this--especially considering the drastic increase in the exit fee earlier in the year.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- yallreadyforthis wrote:

I would say the dramatic increase in exit fees coincided with the huge increase in revenue. When they decided to increase the fees, 2 major items had happened:

1) ND joins the conference and guarantees 5 games a year which is an automatic bump in TV revenue.
2) ACC signs the deal with the OB. $55 mill is nothing to sneeze at.

On top of this, the ACC can't jeopardize losing the seat at the table for the playoff payouts. The bulk of the money is split 5 ways between the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12, and ACC. Losing members will undoubtedly take that away.

If you look at how much money the conference could lose $52 mil is actually cheap.

---------------------------------------------

This makes me think Maryland is better off if the case is decided early. If this drags out more than a few years, then the college football landscape could look very different, and the ACC's case that $52mil is non-punitive is probably stonger.

Not suing the state of Maryland. The suit is against the university of Maryland. No sovereignty issues there.

You don't have to go all the way to California to find places that don't care about Maryland, the ACC or B1G.

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

They should try it in california...noone there cares about maryland, the b10 or the acc..it would be the most impartial court to have

---------------------------------------------

LOL....maybe the world court? I would love to see the WC and the UN debateing this....could you see the ambassador from the US talking to the ambassador from Maryland!

---------------------------------------------
--- bartholemew wrote:

If Maryland decides to secede from the Union, will that get them out of paying the $52M? Would that preclude them from joining the B1G?

---------------------------------------------

well true, but I figure it's on the opposite end and they probably dont even know about this....I guess we could take it to Vermont or Alabama!

---------------------------------------------
--- bartholemew wrote:

You don't have to go all the way to California to find places that don't care about Maryland, the ACC or B1G.

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

They should try it in california...noone there cares about maryland, the b10 or the acc..it would be the most impartial court to have

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

Peaceably seize $52 million worth of MD's property.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

They are when the contract with parties in the state of NC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCBAdookJD wrote:

The State of Maryland would be violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if it refused to enforce the court order of another state. That said, MD can likely remove it to federal court, but they probably won't be able to get it out of North Carolina.

---------------------------------------------
--- Reality1330 wrote:

If the ACC prevails in a North Carolina state court the how would they still have the power and authority to force Maryland to pay since Maryland is a SOVEREIGN entity from North Carolina. Let's be honest in that ultimately it would take an order from a FEDERAL court to enforce the judgment if Maryland does claim sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Let's suppose it would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then still how short of the feds getting involved would NC technically be able to physically enforce the judgment? Maryland is a sovereign state and they are not bound by NC General Statutes when it comes to their claim of sovereign immunity.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I understand that. However, the question is even if a judgment is obtained in North Carolina how short of federal intervention could the ACC execute on the judgment if Maryland refuses to pay and is exerting sovereign immunity and its respective state court system agrees?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

So you are implying that a NC sheriff can just go up to Maryland where he has no legal authority and seize 52 million dollars worth of property?

---------------------------------------------

No, you wait until they play in North Carolina and seize the team's equipment before the game.

---------------------------------------------
--- yallreadyforthis wrote:

I would say the dramatic increase in exit fees coincided with the huge increase in revenue. When they decided to increase the fees, 2 major items had happened:

1) ND joins the conference and guarantees 5 games a year which is an automatic bump in TV revenue.
2) ACC signs the deal with the OB. $55 mill is nothing to sneeze at.

On top of this, the ACC can't jeopardize losing the seat at the table for the playoff payouts. The bulk of the money is split 5 ways between the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12, and ACC. Losing members will undoubtedly take that away.

If you look at how much money the conference could lose $52 mil is actually cheap.

---------------------------------------------
--- uncguitarist69 wrote:

The ACC is withholding money, and that is largely the focal point of the suit presented by the Maryland AG. However, the suit is still over the entire $52MM. If the ACC is not entitled to the exit fee then UMD will counterclaim to recover the money withheld.

Reality, I think you are probably right about the suit being long, drawn out, and ultimately ending in a settlement, but that could be expected with most cases of this size.

The one thing that doesn't look good for the ACC is that exit fees that are seen as punitive are not legally enforceable. The ACC looks like they've put together a stellar legal team, but it will be interesting to see how they spin this--especially considering the drastic increase in the exit fee earlier in the year.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

The you might agree that UM was legally remisss in NOT demanding a cap on the multiplier? Since the multiplier of expenses formula was proposed by Dr Loh of Maryland one would think he and their legal staff had the ability to see that if it could be raised it would be and possibly to UM's detriment.