The rebuilt Pac-12 secured a major victory in its authorized combat with the Mountain West on Tuesday when a federal choose denied the Mountain West’s movement to dismiss the so-called “poaching penalty” lawsuit.
Justice of the Peace Choose Susan van Keulen of the Northern District of California denied all 4 causes of motion within the movement and set a case administration convention for Nov. 18.
However she did greater than that: van Keulen’s ruling legitimized the Pac-12’s claims and seemingly signaled a protracted highway forward for the Mountain West, which is relying on $55 million in poaching penalty charges that might be in jeopardy.
On a key piece of the Pac-12’s lawsuit — that the poaching penalties violated antitrust legislation by restraining commerce — van Keulen wrote:
“The MWC’s arguments do not provide a basis for the Court to disregard the Complaint’s allegations of antitrust injury. Although the Pac-12 agreed to the terms of the Scheduling Agreement, it has alleged that it was “desperate” and “had little leverage” on the time it entered into the settlement. “To hold that a contract is exempt from antitrust scrutiny simply because one party ‘reluctant[ly]’ accepted its terms” can be to misinterpret part 1 of the Sherman Act, which reaches “every contract” that unreasonably restrains commerce.
The scheduling settlement between the conferences was signed in 2023, when Washington State and Oregon State had been adrift following the demise of the Pac-12 and determined to fill out their 2024 schedules.
The Mountain West included the poaching penalty clause within the settlement. After Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State introduced within the fall of 2024 that they had been leaving the Mountain West for the Pac-12 (in the summertime of 2026), the Mountain West demanded $55 million in charges.
The Pac-12 responded by submitting a lawsuit in opposition to Mountain West, claiming the penalties had been unlawful.
The Mountain West countered with a movement to dismiss the case.
The conferences tried mediation over the summer season however failed to achieve a decision.
Van Keulen declined to rule from the bench throughout a Sept. 9 listening to and spent three weeks assessing the movement.
She denied all 4 causes of motion: antitrust standing; sufficiency of pleading; violation of California’s unfair competitors legislation; and invalid contract for unenforceable penalties.
Authorized sources conversant in the case imagine the mediation try was too early — that neither facet had motive to barter.
However the dynamics might change following van Keulen’s ruling, which propels the case nearer to the invention course of and a possible trial.
The Pac-12 issued the next assertion following van Keulen’s ruling:
“The Pac-12 Conference (Pac-12) is pleased that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Mountain West Conference’s motion to dismiss. We will move forward with our case. The ruling allows our antitrust and related claims to proceed. We remain confident in our position and focused on advancing academic excellence, athletic achievement, and the tradition that has defined the Pac-12 for more than a century.”
The Mountain West is a defendant in a separate lawsuit filed by three of the departing faculties (Utah State, Colorado State and Boise State) over roughly $100 million in exit charges.
Initially Printed: September 30, 2025 at 7:40 PM PDT
