No resolution in Pac-12-Mountain West lawsuit as judge declines to rule from bench

The latest chapter in the Pac-12’s lawsuit against the Mountain West began Tuesday morning but produced no conclusion. When it will end, nobody knows.

Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen declined to issue a ruling on the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss the “poaching penalty” case following a hearing that lasted approximately one hour.

She will render a decision in the coming days or weeks.

The Pac-12 issued the following statement:

“The Pac-12 Conference will continue to move forward with our legal action against the Mountain West Conference. We appreciate the Court’s consideration of the issues at today’s hearing, and we will await its decision. We remain confident in the strength of our position and remain focused on advancing the academic excellence, athletic achievement, and tradition that have defined the Pac-12 for more than a century.”

The lack of a resolution was considered the most likely of four possible outcomes to the hearing in the Northern District of California.

The other three:

• Van Keulen would rule in favor of the Pac-12 and reject the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, thereby sending the case into the discovery process and, eventually, a trial.

• Van Keulen would request more information from the Pac-12 about the legal basis for the lawsuit, which takes aim at the $55 million in poaching penalties owed to the Mountain West following the announced departure of five schools to the Pac-12.

• Van Keulen would approve the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss, handing the conference a momentous legal victory.

The legal proceedings began last fall, following the announced departures of Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State to the Pac-12 (next summer) and the Mountain West’s subsequent demand for $55 million in poaching penalties – a stipulation included in a scheduling agreement signed by the conferences the prior year.

The Pac-12 and Mountain West agreed to mediation in the spring, but the process produced no resolution.

At the time, a source with knowledge of the case indicated it was too early for a settlement – that neither side felt pressure to seek an escape hatch.

Van Keulen’s decision, whenever it materializes, could change the dynamics and motivate one side to negotiate a settlement and avoid a court trial.