College Sports Chaos: Pac-12 scores small procedural victory in case against Mountain West

A motion filed by the Mountain West to dismiss the Pac-12’s lawsuit over so-called poaching fees was denied by a district court judge Tuesday in San Jose, California.

Judge Susan van Keulen, who heard the parties’ arguments in her courtroom Sept. 9, issued a 17-page ruling denying the league’s attempt to have the case thrown out before going to trial.

After issuing a denial in each of the four courses of action, she set a Nov. 10 deadline for a joint case management statement and scheduled an initial case management conference Nov. 18 as the process continues to the next stage.

“We are in receipt of the court’s order denying the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Pac-12,” the Mountain West wrote in a statement. “The court’s ruling makes no judgment about the ultimate merits of the Pac-12’s claims. Rather, as the decision states throughout, the court found only that the allegations of the Pac-12’s complaint — which the court must accept as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss — sufficiently alleged claims. The Mountain West remains confident in its position and looks forward to vigorously defending the matter.”

The proceedings date to September 2024 when the Pac-12 sued the Mountain West over the MW’s demand for $55 million in poaching fees after five schools departed for the Pac-12.

A separate case is also pending with the departing schools suing the Mountain West over the enforcement of exit fees spelled out in the league bylaws.

At issue is more than $150 million the Mountain West believed it is owed among the Pac-12 and the five schools who have departed for the league — Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Colorado State and Utah State.

The parties previously engaged in months of settlement talks. It’s possible Tuesday’s decision could send them back to the negotiating table.

Institutions that decided to remain in the Mountain West instead of accepting invitations to the Pac-12 or other leagues, including UNLV, were promised substantial payouts from the money collected in poaching fees and exit fees.

A delay in the payment or a drastic reduction of the sums could be devastating to the league and its future.

Tuesday’s ruling, however, is not a decision on the merits of the case. The judge simply ruled there are enough legal questions to warrant the case moving on to trial.

While the exit and poaching fees the Mountain West are trying to collect are spelled out clearly in writing, the Pac-12’s federal antitrust suit claims those agreements are unenforceable for a variety of reasons.

The Mountain West’s position is built on the premise that the scheduling agreement signed between the two leagues in December 2023 — which first laid out the poaching fees — is what allowed the Pac-12 to stay viable. The Mountain West knew that could lead to the Pac-12 offering membership to some of its schools, so it protected itself by putting the fees in the contract.

The Pac-12, however, believes the poaching fees are unenforceable because they were inserted into a “wholly unrelated scheduling agreement” at a time the conference had “no leverage to reject the restriction.”

Essentially, the league is saying it signed the contract under pressure.

There is now a greater chance the parties will eventually make those cases in court.

Contact Adam Hill at ahill@reviewjournal.com. Follow @AdamHillLVRJ on X.