MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

[n0rcalcane]

They have to ANNOUNCE they are leaving by August 15, that it the only ACC conference requirement. Then they play the 2024 season as "non voting members" and their media revenue is applied towards the exit fee when they leave. At that point the law suits to a degree become a distraction and will most likely be terminated ... at the behest of ESPN who doesn't want this to go to discovery and have their "trade secret" documents see the light of day in the State of Florida due to Sunshine laws.

Not a FL attorney, but isn’t there an exemption for trade secrets from sunshine laws?

 

[Rickd]

Not a FL attorney, but isn’t there an exemption for trade secrets from sunshine laws?

Not an attorney ... anywhere ... from the comments I have read if the ESPN media agreement is turned over to FSU attorneys in discovery ... "Florida Laws Apply" and I did read a comment that the media agreement would fall under the Sunshine Laws. Cannot comment on the veracity of that however, but apparently there are distinct types of "trade secrets".

 

[Empirical Cane]

Not an attorney ... anywhere ... from the comments I have read if the ESPN media agreement is turned over to FSU attorneys in discovery ... "Florida Laws Apply" and I did read a comment that the media agreement would fall under the Sunshine Laws. Cannot comment on the veracity of that however, but apparently there are distinct types of "trade secrets".

Since Washington St changed their law/policy to qualify, I'm now telling people that I'll "soon be practicing law in the Pacific Northwest".

Can I charge that to billable hours?

In fact, I just recorded this porst has 15 minutes of legal research.

I'm going to be soooo rich.

 

[Cajuncane]

I congratulate you for your terrible reading comprehension, your complete misunderstanding of what I said, your absolute lack of knowledge of legal concepts, your misreading of the US Constitution, and your stubborn insistence that you made a valid point when you didn't.

Happy?

Seems you should have congratulated him on what he did right…_it would have been much quicker…

 

[3GC]

You’re looking at a stupid stat that will obviously not be to our benefit. Why don’t we look at most rings in the top 25 era (which is pre WW2)? Miami is tied for 6th there. Or rings since 1970? Tied with Nebraska & USC for 2nd. You’re using stats from a time when only fraggle was alive.

I'm using the same stats, W/L % since playing organized collegiate FB.
Not cherry picking slices of time,,
Yer either Royalty or not..

 

[Cane6]

Not an attorney ... anywhere ... from the comments I have read if the ESPN media agreement is turned over to FSU attorneys in discovery ... "Florida Laws Apply" and I did read a comment that the media agreement would fall under the Sunshine Laws. Cannot comment on the veracity of that however, but apparently there are distinct types of "trade secrets".

ESPN’s “trade secrets” is just how one-sided the contract is that Swofford negotiated that fuqed the ACC compared to every other conference

It’s funny how differently the ACC tv contract was handled, and the minimal transparency, compared to BigTen SEC and Big12

 

[RightSaidFred]

ESPN’s “trade secrets” is just how one-sided the contract is that Swofford negotiated that fuqed the ACC compared to every other conference

It’s funny how differently the ACC tv contract was handled, and the minimal transparency, compared to BigTen SEC and Big12

It's offputting to me how people and companies twist the law to suit their own ends. 'Trade secrets' are intended to be something that differentiates you from your competition like McDonald's secret sauce or the formula to Coke.

What ESPN is calling a 'trade secret' is nothing but a ******* service contract. It's an agreement between two parties on the terms by which they conduct business, it's not a secret recipe for success.

As evidenced by the fact that the contract clearly sucks, or else FSU and Clemson wouldn't be suing over it on grounds of performance.

It's a joke and hopefully the judge has the balls to slap that down. Your service contract is not a ******* trade secret, ESPN, just stop.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I'm using the same stats, W/L % since playing organized collegiate FB.
Not cherry picking slices of time,,
Yer either Royalty or not..

Bull****.

Cherry-picking would be selecting a biased time period such as "1983-2001", which obviously favors Miami.

You need to set a cut-off point, because there are time periods that become incomparable, either because Yale and Army were winning all the time, or because black athletes were not allowed to compete.

That's not cherry-picking, that's being rational.

 

[USNAVYCANE]

 

[JennStrawley’sBabyDaddy]

I'm using the same stats, W/L % since playing organized collegiate FB.
Not cherry picking slices of time,,
Yer either Royalty or not..

So back to my original point, we’re putting Yale & Princeton on a pedestal then? I don’t ever @ people on here, but you’re being dumb and making irrelevant points.

 

[3GC]

So back to my original point, we’re putting Yale & Princeton on a pedestal then? I don’t ever @ people on here, but you’re being dumb and making irrelevant points.

I'm on the pedestal, you're in the toilet, haja..

 

[Peachycarnahan]

View attachment 286055

Since you were relatively civil, I will give you my reasoning as to the point I made that this could be a state versus state battle. Then, if you'd like, you can give me your reasoning on how two lawsuits pending in two separate state courts can become consolidated (spoiler -- they can't).

This may not be our exact case, but here is the hypothetical.

Assume the FSU v. ACC lawsuits are identical. Assume all judges in Florida are partisans and want FSU to win the breach of contract case now pending in the Florida circuit court for Leon County. Assume all judges in North Carolina (and here is where you need an imagination) are partisans and want the ACC to win their breach of contract case in the North Carolina trial court. In both cases, neither court cedes jurisdiction to the other and both cases go to trial.

In the Florida court FSU gets a final judgment in their favor that contains an declaratory judgment allowing FSU out of the ACC and awards FSU $100 million in damages . The exact opposite happens in North Carolina. The ACC gets a final judgment that enjoins FSU from leaving the ACC and awards them damages of $100 million against FSU.

Both losing parties in each state appeal first to the intermediate appellate court of each state (affirmed) and then an appeal is taken to each state's supreme court. Assume that enforcement of the judgments are stayed pending final appeal to each state's supreme court.

The Florida supreme court affirms and FSU is allowed out of the ACC, and the ACC owes FSU $100 million in damages. The same process is followed in North Carolina and the North Carolina supreme court affirms a final judgment for the ACC that keeps FSU in the ACC and FSU owes them $100 million.

Assume that the final opinions of each state are rendered at the same time. Further assume that because they are partisans nobody in either state supreme court is going to change their minds. Further assume that each state's supreme court will not let the other state's final judgment be domesticated nor otherwise enforced in their state.

What happens next? I don't know. But we now have a dispute between the supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of North Carolina over the same parties and controversy. . . . thus my one sentence blurb in an earlier post that this dispute could be resolved by the U.S. supreme court as a dispute between two states. Granted, this is not a typical riparian rights dispute between two states, but there is definitely a dispute.

/fin/

 

[NorthernVirginiaCane]

Since you were relatively civil, I will give you my reasoning as to the point I made that this could be a state versus state battle. Then, if you'd like, you can give me your reasoning on how two lawsuits pending in two separate state courts can become consolidated (spoiler -- they can't).

This may not be our exact case, but here is the hypothetical.

Assume the FSU v. ACC lawsuits are identical. Assume all judges in Florida are partisans and want FSU to win the breach of contract case now pending in the Florida circuit court for Leon County. Assume all judges in North Carolina (and here is where you need an imagination) are partisans and want the ACC to win their breach of contract case in the North Carolina trial court. In both cases, neither court cedes jurisdiction to the other and both cases go to trial.

In the Florida court FSU gets a final judgment in their favor that contains an declaratory judgment allowing FSU out of the ACC and awards FSU $100 million in damages . The exact opposite happens in North Carolina. The ACC gets a final judgment that enjoins FSU from leaving the ACC and awards them damages of $100 million against FSU.

Both losing parties in each state appeal first to the intermediate appellate court of each state (affirmed) and then an appeal is taken to each state's supreme court. Assume that enforcement of the judgments are stayed pending final appeal to each state's supreme court.

The Florida supreme court affirms and FSU is allowed out of the ACC, and the ACC owes FSU $100 million in damages. The same process is followed in North Carolina and the North Carolina supreme court affirms a final judgment for the ACC that keeps FSU in the ACC and FSU owes them $100 million.

Assume that the final opinions of each state are rendered at the same time. Further assume that because they are partisans nobody in either state supreme court is going to change their minds. Further assume that each state's supreme court will not let the other state's final judgment be domesticated nor otherwise enforced in their state.

What happens next? I don't know. But we now have a dispute between the supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of North Carolina over the same parties and controversy. . . . thus my one sentence blurb in an earlier post that this dispute could be resolved by the U.S. supreme court as a dispute between two states. Granted, this is not a typical riparian rights dispute between two states, but there is definitely a dispute.

/fin/

Normally, state courts respect the other states matter and stay their case if the matters in dispute are essentially the same. But that doesn't always happen in high profile or political matters like this. In that case, where you have two parallel state matters proceeding at the same time, it's really the first matter to be decided beyond appeals.

ie, good explanation here: "Full faith and credit is the requirement, derived from Article IV, Section I of the Constitution, that state courts respect the laws and judgments of courts from other states. This clause attempts to prevent conflict among states and ensure the dependability of judgments across the country. This does so by requiring courts to follow the judgments made on the same issue in another state. Otherwise, individuals could simply go to another state to relitigate issues that did not receive favorable judgments in previous cases, and this would result in states having different judgments that could cause competition among states. Therefore, the full faith and credit clause prevents this kind of relitigation, under the doctrines of res judicata and issue preclusion, as long as the state issuing the original judgment had jurisdiction to do so."

North Carolina has a special business court that acts essentially as a rocket docket - moves fast and efficiently. Be very unlikely for the Florida matter to be resolved first in the event the Florida judge doesn't stay/dismiss that matter. Will be interesting for sure.

 

[CaneinBroward]

It's offputting to me how people and companies twist the law to suit their own ends. 'Trade secrets' are intended to be something that differentiates you from your competition like McDonald's secret sauce or the formula to Coke.

What ESPN is calling a 'trade secret' is nothing but a ******* service contract. It's an agreement between two parties on the terms by which they conduct business, it's not a secret recipe for success.

As evidenced by the fact that the contract clearly sucks, or else FSU and Clemson wouldn't be suing over it on grounds of performance.

It's a joke and hopefully the judge has the balls to slap that down. Your service contract is not a ******* trade secret, ESPN, just stop.

Perhaps they are looking at the ACC Network portion of the agreement as the "trade secret"? I agree with you just the airing of ACC games on ABC/ESPN is just a regular service agreement. However, the ownership, proceeds sharing, etc. of the ACC Network could be viewed as something unique.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Since you were relatively civil, I will give you my reasoning as to the point I made that this could be a state versus state battle. Then, if you'd like, you can give me your reasoning on how two lawsuits pending in two separate state courts can become consolidated (spoiler -- they can't).

This may not be our exact case, but here is the hypothetical.

Assume the FSU v. ACC lawsuits are identical. Assume all judges in Florida are partisans and want FSU to win the breach of contract case now pending in the Florida circuit court for Leon County. Assume all judges in North Carolina (and here is where you need an imagination) are partisans and want the ACC to win their breach of contract case in the North Carolina trial court. In both cases, neither court cedes jurisdiction to the other and both cases go to trial.

In the Florida court FSU gets a final judgment in their favor that contains an declaratory judgment allowing FSU out of the ACC and awards FSU $100 million in damages . The exact opposite happens in North Carolina. The ACC gets a final judgment that enjoins FSU from leaving the ACC and awards them damages of $100 million against FSU.

Both losing parties in each state appeal first to the intermediate appellate court of each state (affirmed) and then an appeal is taken to each state's supreme court. Assume that enforcement of the judgments are stayed pending final appeal to each state's supreme court.

The Florida supreme court affirms and FSU is allowed out of the ACC, and the ACC owes FSU $100 million in damages. The same process is followed in North Carolina and the North Carolina supreme court affirms a final judgment for the ACC that keeps FSU in the ACC and FSU owes them $100 million.

Assume that the final opinions of each state are rendered at the same time. Further assume that because they are partisans nobody in either state supreme court is going to change their minds. Further assume that each state's supreme court will not let the other state's final judgment be domesticated nor otherwise enforced in their state.

What happens next? I don't know. But we now have a dispute between the supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of North Carolina over the same parties and controversy. . . . thus my one sentence blurb in an earlier post that this dispute could be resolved by the U.S. supreme court as a dispute between two states. Granted, this is not a typical riparian rights dispute between two states, but there is definitely a dispute.

/fin/

Good lord, you are a waste of time and effort. Both you and Northern Virginia Cane. Two dopes who like to double-down when you are WRONG.

It's not a state vs. state battle. And you said the Supreme Court would have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over it. Both statements are wrong, completely and totally wrong. If you don't know what original jurisdiction is, then you never should have mentioned it.

Look, if you want me to be civil, at least make the effort to Google before you type 8 paragraphs of PURE BULL****.

Did you go to law school? Answer the question directly.

Do you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever? I already know the answer to that one.

Look at what I wrote. I said "Wake me up when A JUDGE makes the more significant ruling to consolidate the cases". Meaning, that is something that I do NOT expect to happen currently, but which could happen down the line UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Not necessarily a state court judge, it could be a federal court judge. I'm sorry that you are too dense to realize what I was saying (that this past ruling was yawn-inducing and unimportant) and you will never understand the various circumstances by which cases could converge. There has already been a discussion of removing one or more of the cases to federal court based on diversity of jurisdiction and the amount in controversy. As such, multiple federal court cases COULD be consolidated.

Here's the reality, you jumped into the tail-end of an 848-page thread and are trying to swing your **** around as if you know something. But you don't.

Your entire "reasoning" is based on stuff that is highly unlikely to ever happen. Such as, a case (any of the cases) going to a full trial court verdict, and then going to an appellate court (before, I guess, getting to the "Supreme Court" on "original jurisdiction").

It's just ridiculous. With all due respect to the number of times you've watched "The Firm" and "The Pelican Brief" and "The Client", all of your "assume this and further assume this and further further assume this" is just a bunch of overheated nonsense.

Try Googling something more precise on the subject matter. There are a variety of ways that the cases could converge, sometimes voluntarily, other times by court rules or judicial rulings. PARTICULARLY if, as you have failed to consider, any of the OTHER courts ruled that the forum was incorrect, thus requiring the plaintiff to refile in a different state court. You know, like in North Carolina.

But, hey, you know everything. ****, you tried to fix your INCORRECT statement on the Supreme Court having ORIGINAL JURISDICTION on a "dispute between states" by inventing some word salad involving separate state supreme court decisions constituting "a dispute between states". Ridiculous.

Just admit it. You were wrong from the beginning. You misread what I wrote (which implied that I did NOT expect consolidation of lawsuits anytime soon) and then you started blathering on about "original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court", a subject you know nothing about, except possibly having read something one time that misexplained it.

Oh, and for the record, could you tell me if the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" over the important issue of which state has the best clam chowder? Because, you know, THAT would be a "dispute between states". Maybe not a riparian dispute, but a dispute nonetheless.

 

[Angry Ibis]

Good lord, you are a waste of time and effort. Both you and Northern Virginia Cane. Two dopes who like to double-down when you are WRONG.

It's not a state vs. state battle. And you said the Supreme Court would have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over it. Both statements are wrong, completely and totally wrong. If you don't know what original jurisdiction is, then you never should have mentioned it.


View attachment 286109


Look, if you want me to be civil, at least make the effort to Google before you type 8 paragraphs of PURE BULL****.

Did you go to law school? Answer the question directly.

Do you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever? I already know the answer to that one.

Look at what I wrote. I said "Wake me up when A JUDGE makes the more significant ruling to consolidate the cases". Meaning, that is something that I do not expect to happen currently, but which could happen down the line UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Not necessarily a state court judge, it could be a federal court judge. I'm sorry that you are too dense to realize what I was saying (that this past ruling was yawn-inducing and unimportant) and you will never understand the various circumstances by which cases could converge. There has already been a discussion of removing one or more of the cases to federal court based on diversity of jurisdiction and the amount in controversy. As such, the federal court cases COULD be consolidated.

Here's the reality, you jumped into the tail-end of an 848-page thread and are trying to swing your **** around as if you know something. But you don't.

Your entire "reasoning" is based on stuff that is highly unlikely to ever happen. Such as, a case (any of the cases) going to a full trial court verdict, and then going to an appellate court (before, I guess, getting to the "Supreme Court" on "original jurisdiction").

It's just ridiculous. With all due respect to the number of times you've watched "The Firm" and "The Pelican Brief" and "The Client", all of your "assume this and further assume this and further further assume this" is just a bunch of overheated nonsense.

Try Googling something more precise on the subject matter. There are a variety of ways that the cases could converge, sometimes voluntarily, other times by court rules or judicial rulings. PARTICULARLY if, as you have failed to consider, any of the OTHER courts ruled that the forum was incorrect, thus requiring the plaintiff to refile in a different state court. You know, like in North Carolina.

But, hey, you know everything. ****, you tried to fix your INCORRECT statement on the Supreme Court having ORIGINAL JURISDICTION on a "dispute between states" by inventing some word salad involving separate state supreme court decisions constituting "a dispute between states". Ridiculous.

Just admit it. You were wrong from the beginning. You misread what I wrote (which implied that I did NOT expect consolidation of lawsuits anytime soon) and then you started blathering on about "original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court", a subject you know nothing about, except possibly having read something one time that misexplained it.

At this point, someone should petition the Bar to count this thread as CLE...

 

[Ispyin]

It's just ridiculous. With all due respect to the number of times you've watched "The Firm" and "The Pelican Brief" and "The Client", all of your "assume this and further assume this and further further assume this" is just a bunch of overheated nonsense.

Honestly based on your tone maybe “A time to kill” is the best court room movie reference

 

[Peachycarnahan]

yes i'm a lawyer. i still stand by my analysis and i didn't use the google (nor westlaw, nor gemini) i've been tying cases in florida for for 32 years. i've filed motions to transfer cases (i.e. transferring a lawsuit from one from one court to another court), i've filed motions to consolidate cases (connecting 2 related matters pending before the same judge to be joined together . . . sometimes for discovery and pretrial purposes and sometimes for trial) . sometimes i win, sometimes i lose, and sometimes it rains.

question: why do you go out of your way to be a ****? everything is an ad hominem with you. are you never wrong? i'm wrong sometimes. the smart people i know are usually gracious when someone knows less than them.

just remember, please don't hate. . . . congratulate.

 

[Ispyin]

 

[TheOriginalCane]

yes i'm a lawyer. i still stand by my analysis and i didn't use the google (nor westlaw, nor gemini) i've been tying cases in florida for for 32 years. i've filed motions to transfer cases (i.e. transferring a lawsuit from one from one court to another court), i've filed motions to consolidate cases (connecting 2 related matters pending before the same judge to be joined together . . . sometimes for discovery and pretrial purposes and sometimes for trial) . sometimes i win, sometimes i lose, and sometimes it rains.

question: why do you go out of your way to be a ****? everything is an ad hominem with you. are you never wrong? i'm wrong sometimes. the smart people i know are usually gracious when someone knows less than them.

just remember, please don't hate. . . . congratulate.

I congratulate you for being so bad at this.

You want to whine about ad hominem, that's your choice. You continued to double-down on being wrong, so I'm going to call you out. You talk about "being wrong sometimes", but you still haven't admitted you were wrong. You still haven't addressed how you misread what I wrote in the first place (when I was NOT predicting any sort of imminent consolidation of the cases as currently filed).

And, please, don't act like this isn't one of the tools in the argumentative ****nal. You know, to complain about personal attacks when your factual, legal, and/or logical arguments have failed.

You want to settle this? Try explaining your "one sentence blurb" about how the Supreme Court has ORIGINAL JURISDICTION in this matter. I copied and pasted it for you. My head is still spinning on how a person who went to law school can botch such a simple thing as that.

Just admit that you screwed up on this one. If you want to be "smart" and "gracious".

I'm Catholic, I'm quick to forgive. But not if you are going to keep blaming me for your incorrect postings.