We've broken the ACC's response to FSU's amended complaint in Florida into two articles. This one addresses what we believe is an argument to Florida Judge Cooper to dismiss or stay FSU's amended motion in Florida in favor of a North Carolina venue, which the ACC argues is more appropriate for four reasons.
A second article will address the ACC's response to a number of assertions in their Feb. 16 filiing, including the ACC's response to FSU's assertion that the Grant of Rights is excessively punitive. In a lengthy and response, the ACC defends itself by saying the witdrawal fee is not punitive but an opportunity for FSU to buy its rights back, something we've long known. Some have interpreted that to be the first hint the ACC may be willing to negotiate. In an abundance of caution, we've asked our legal analysts to weigh in on that response and other items for what will be a second article on this topic.
FSU filed a similar motion to dismiss or stay in North Carolina, which that court has scheduled for a March 22 hearing.
We invite you to weigh in with your thoughts.
.
ACC response rooted in venue argument for NC
A second article will address the ACC's response to a number of assertions in their Feb. 16 filiing, including the ACC's response to FSU's assertion that the Grant of Rights is excessively punitive. In a lengthy and response, the ACC defends itself by saying the witdrawal fee is not punitive but an opportunity for FSU to buy its rights back, something we've long known. Some have interpreted that to be the first hint the ACC may be willing to negotiate. In an abundance of caution, we've asked our legal analysts to weigh in on that response and other items for what will be a second article on this topic.
FSU filed a similar motion to dismiss or stay in North Carolina, which that court has scheduled for a March 22 hearing.
We invite you to weigh in with your thoughts.
.
ACC response rooted in venue argument for NC
Last edited:
