McAdoo v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill

• Decision Date: 15 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. COA12–256.,COA12–256.
• Citation: 736 S.E.2d 811
• Parties: Michael McADOO, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; H. Holden Thorp in his official capacity as Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

736 S.E.2d 811

Michael McADOO, Plaintiff,

v.UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; H. Holden Thorp in his official capacity as Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants.

No. COA12–256.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 15, 2013.

Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 23 November 2011 by Judge Orlando F. Hudson,Jr. in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 September 2012.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Raleigh, by Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Stephen D. Martin, and Elizabeth B. Frock, for plaintiff-appellant.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Melissa L. Trippe and Assistant Attorney General Stephanie A. Brennan, for defendant-appellees the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and H. Holden Thorp.

Ellis & Winters LLP, Raleigh, by Paul K. Sun, Jr., Thomas H. Segars, and Jeremy N. Falcone, and Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, by Jonathan F. Duncan and William C. Odle, for defendant-appellee National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Poyner Spruill LLP, Raleigh, by Robert F. Orr and John W. O'Hale, for Student Athlete Human Rights Project, amicus curiae.

ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.

Michael McAdoo (“Plaintiff” or “McAdoo”) appeals from a 23 November 2011 order dismissing his amended complaint. Upon de novo review and based upon the record presented, we affirm the trial court's order on the sole ground that the dispute does not present a justiciable controversy. This affirmation makes it unnecessary to reach the other issues raised by Plaintiff.

I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

This Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A–27(b) (2011). “The standard of review on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction is de novo.” Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Midsouth Golf, LLC, –––N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 715 S.E.2d 273, 280 (2011)(quotation marks and citation omitted). “ ‘Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment’ for that of the lower tribunal.” State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632–33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quoting In re Greens of Pine Glen Ltd., 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003)).

All three Defendants filed Rule 12(b)(1) motions in this case raising lack of justiciability as a component of subject matter jurisdiction. “Concepts of justiciability have been developed to identify appropriate occasions for judicial action ... The central concepts often are elaborated into more specific categories of justiciability—advisory opinions, feigned and collusive cases, standing, ripeness, mootness, political questions, and administrative questions.” 13 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3529, at 278–79 (2d ed.1984). Thus, the trial court's rulings dismissing Plaintiff's claims for relief on the basis of “standing” and “mootness” are necessarily incorporated into its decision to dismiss the complaint on “justiciability” grounds.

In Neuse River Foundation, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 110, 574 S.E.2d 48 (2002), our Court discussed “standing” as a subset of the justiciability doctrine and compared its federal and state counterparts as follows:

Standing is among the “justiciability doctrines” developed by federal courts to give meaning to the United States Constitution's “case or controversy” requirement. U.S. Const. Art. 3, § 2. The term refers to whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy so as to properly seek adjudication of the matter. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731–32, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364–65, 31 L.Ed.2d 636, 641 (1972). The “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing contains three elements:

(1) “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan [v. Defenders of Wildlife], 504 U.S. [555,] 560–61 [112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351] [ (1992) ].

North Carolina courts are not constrained by the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. Our courts, nevertheless,began using the term “standing” in the 1960s and 1970s to refer generally to a party's right to have a court decide the merits of a dispute. See, e.g., Stanley, Edwards, Henderson v. Dept. of Conservation & Development, 284 N.C. 15, 28, 199 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1973).

Id. at 114, 574 S.E.2d at 51–52.

Like “standing,” “mootness” is another subset of the justiciability doctrine. Our Court, for example, in Hindman v. Appalachian State Univ., –––N.C.App. ––––, 723 S.E.2d 579 (2012), recently applied the mootness doctrine as follows:

Although plaintiffs argue that a mere declaration of a past wrong is a sufficient basis for a declaratory judgment action, it is still true that actions filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 1–253 through –267 (2005), are subject to traditional mootness analysis. A case is considered moot when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy. Typically, courts will not entertain such cases because it is not the responsibility of courts to decide abstract propositions of law.

Id. at ––––, 723 S.E.2d at 581 (quoting Citizens Addressing Reassignment and Educ., Inc. v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 182 N.C.App. 241, 246, 641 S.E.2d 824, 827 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted).

II. Factual History

McAdoo was a highly-recruited high school football player from Antioch, Tennessee. He received a football scholarship to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”), a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”) of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”).¹ After signing the relevant form agreements and enrolling, McAdoo played football for UNC during the 2008 and 2009 seasons.

In order to “participate in intercollegiate competition,” McAdoo signed a document entitled “Student–Athlete Statement—Division I” (the “Statement”) on 31 July 2008. The Statement contains the following affirmations:

You affirm that your institution has provided you a copy of the Summary of NCAA Regulations or the relevant sections of the Division I Manual and that your director of athletics (or his or her designee) gave you the opportunity to ask questions about them.

You affirm that you meet the NCAA regulations for student-athletes regarding eligibility, recruitment, financial aid, [and] amateur status[.]

....

You affirm that you have reported to the director of athletics or his or her designee of your institution any violations of NCAA regulations involving you and your institution.

You affirm that you understand that if you sign this statement falsely or erroneously, you violate NCAA legislation on ethical conduct and you will further jeopardize your eligibility.

The Statement further cautions that:

[b]efore you sign this form, you should read the Summary of NCAA Regulations provided by your director of athletics or his or her designee or read the bylaws of the NCAA Division I Manual that deal with your eligibility. If you have any questions, you should discuss them with your director of athletics or your institution's compliance officer, or you may contact the NCAA[.]

The Statement specifically directs student-athletes to examine NCAA Bylaws 10, 12, 13, 14, 14.1.3.1, 15, 16, 18.4, and 31.2.3, which deal with player eligibility. When Plaintiff signed the Statement, he affirmed “[his] institution has provided [him] with a copy of the Summary of NCAA Regulations or the relevant sections of the Division I Manual and that [his] director of athletics (or his or her designee) gave [him] the opportunity to ask questions about them.” Plaintiff also signed a second similar statement on 6 August 2009.

All student-athletes at UNC also have access to a Student–Athlete Handbook (the “Handbook”) which summarizes, inter alia, relevant UNC, ACC, and NCAA regulations and standards of conduct. The Handbook states:

[i]t shall be the responsibility of every student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to obey and support the enforcement of the Honor Code, which prohibits lying, cheating, or stealing when these actions involve academic processes or University, student, or academic personnel acting in an official capacity.

The Handbook specifically addresses plagiarism as a “serious academic offense”:

Normally, it is considered cheating if you have unauthorized help on examinations or course work. Plagiarism is submitting a paper or project written by someone else or paraphrasing someone else's ideas and claiming the material as your own.

Scholastic integrity is strongly supported not only by the University, but also by the student body through the University's Honor System. If you have questions regarding the Honor System, check with your professor or an academic counselor before turning in your paper in question. Students have been accused of plagiarism simply because they didn't understand that when paraphrasing someone else's work, they must still acknowledge the source.

Because this has been an area of confusion for some students, general tips on how to avoid plagiarism have been included in the Academics Section of this handbook.

Another section of the Handbook deals with unintended plagiarism, stating “[o]ccasionally, scholastic dishonesty occurs as the result of a lack of information or misinformation. Everyone knows cheating on an exam is dishonest; however, students have, on occasion, turned in papers which they thought were acceptable only to find they were accused of plagiarism.” The Handbook clarifies that while “[t]...