Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billybud, post: 4927606, member: 3850"] Nope...but the reporting of the proceedings is shaded by those who want to shade it...I am going to reply in my usual even handed manner (LOL)...and all may not gather the same impressions reviewing the same proceeding...at this point, it is predicting based on clouds in the coffee. I review the proceedings on ian ssue by issue basis as critiqued by several lawyers...and even there, you will have differences...The judge seems even handed... [I]Jurisdiction[/I].....This is about whether NC can exercise power over FSU in that state. This is usually based on whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of that power. All states have what is called a “long arm” statute that sets out how this is evaluated. Those are based on a series of USSC cases deciding the scope of such jurisdiction. However, this basic idea is not what was argued. The ACC made other arguments about FSU being a member of a NC non-profit would mean it is subjected to jurisdiction. FSU’s argument on this is that it cannot be sued outside the state of Florida. I think that the ACC argued the better side of this and I think the court will reject the idea FSU cannot be sued outside the state of Florida. [I]Venue[/I].....This is not about the power of the court to determine the rights of all parties to the case. It’s just about where the case should be. This is a messy area. Venue can be correct in many places, but you don’t want litigation in many places. I think the court messaged a bit that it may be willing to keep the case there in NC based on factors beyond the first filing and anticipatory suit issue (which includes the failure to vote on the filing). There are good reasons judicially to not want this issue litigated in multiple places. From the questions the judge asked, he may think it is best to keep the case and consolidate it with the ACC/Clemson suit (the same judge has been assigned both cases). [I]Fiduciary[/I] [I]Duties[/I]..... The judge was only being asked about the ACC claim that FSU has a fiduciary duty to the ACC. He was not asked to address the other way. From what I read, I think the judge thinks the fiduciary duty claim in the ACC suit will not carry. [I]Motion[/I] [I]to[/I] [I]Seal[/I].....Next was the motion to seal. ESPN is basically claiming the entire media contracts/deal is protected by trade secret rules. ESPN is claiming the whole thing is trade secret. The ACC lawyer that started this did so badly, in that the first thing she tried to do was tell the judge she was not there to talk about public records issues. But that is the issue. I felt like the judge gets this and the FSU lawyer did a good job on this. They pointed out how broad it is, that they can’t agree to a protective order under Florida law. I think the judge will either deny the motion outright or will rule that the court will protect actual trade secrets but not the whole media contract and will define a procedure for ESPN to identify what it thinks is trade secret for redaction/sealing. it is early yet...and Clemson also filing, I think, weights this case to be consolidated in North Carolina. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,530

Messages: 4,400,131

Members: 10,214

Latest member: illini2013