After its request to dismiss its lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference was denied in North Carolina, Florida State's legal team was in Tallahassee Tuesday for a hearing on its lawsuit against the conference.

The case was taken to Leon County Circuit Civil Court and was presided over by Circuit Judge John C. Cooper.

The seven-hour affair eventually ended with Cooper denying the ACC's motion to stay (postpone) FSU's lawsuit against the league.

That was the lone definitive decision of the day from the judge, though he often signaled his alignment with FSU's position.

Another hearing will be held on Monday, April 22 at the Leon County Courthouse.

Here is what we learned from the first day of FSU's lawsuit hearing against the ACC in Leon County.

Forum shopping is critical point made by Cooper against ACC

Throughout the day Cooper brought up the phrase "forum shopping" when talking about the ACC's filing in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, which is where the conference offices are located.

Forum shopping is the practice of choosing the court or jurisdiction that has the most favorable rules or laws for the position being advocated.

Cooper said that the ACC's anticipatory filing against FSU was a form of forum shopping.

Having the case in North Carolina, and the ACC's legal team constantly referencing North Carolina's previous rulings and laws, indicates that a trial in Mecklenburg County would favor the ACC.

However, Cooper said that the lawsuit between FSU and the ACC isn't a county issue, but one at the state level, and one that should be a concern for every state that has an ACC institution.

North Carolina has four institutions (Duke, North Carolina, NC State and Wake Forest), Florida has two (FSU and Miami), Virginia has two (Virginia and Virginia Tech) and seven other states have one member. The addition of California, Stanford and SMU next fall adds two more states (California and Texas) to the conference.

Toward the end of the hearing, Cooper brought up multiple cases that had to do with forum shopping, most of which were similar to the FSU/ACC lawsuit.

The ACC released a statement following Cooper's ruling, saying, “While we respect the court’s decision, we strongly disagree with its determination surrounding our requested stay in Florida, especially following the North Carolina court’s decision. We are examining our options as it relates to next steps.”

FSU, meanwhile, was pleased with the ruling denying the ACC’s motion to postpone its lawsuit over the mishandling of media rights.

"We agree with his conclusions that the ACC’s North Carolina action was an anticipatory filing disfavored by courts, and that the sovereignty of the State of Florida supports the resolution of these matters in Florida," FSU said in a statement. "We will continue to press our case both in Leon County and North Carolina to show the ACC seeks to impose an unconscionable financial penalty to prevent its members from exercising their right to leave."

FSU 'being held hostage' by media contract

FSU legal representative Peter Rush said that FSU is "being held hostage" by its media contract.

An ACC representative noted that FSU can leave the ACC for $130-$140 million dollars whenever it wants, but won't retain media rights. The ACC legal representation also mentioned that media rights didn't seem like a major issue to FSU's legal representation.

When Rush spoke, he disagreed and went on to say how important the media contract is to FSU.

"They [ACC] want to take the next 12 years of every home game Florida State plays," Rush said.

Rush said the only way FSU can see the ESPN agreement is with someone in the room with them asking if the person viewing the contract is writing the contracts down "verbatim."

FSU not being included in major decisions

A letter from University of Virginia president James E. Ryan was constantly referenced throughout the hearing when FSU and the ACC's legal representatives were talking about a board meeting on January 12 Board of Trustees's meeting.

At the meeting, the ACC's board of trustees ratified the lawsuit. Rush claimed that the ACC violated its own rules at that meeting according to the letter based off a quote in Ryan's letter saying "We didn't ever need that kind of a vote."

Rush claims that the ACC never voted to ratify the lawsuit. He said it's an Ultra Vires Act, which is when a corporation, in this case, the ACC, exceeds the power it was given by law.

FSU was also not a part of conversations with the ACC when Clemson filed its lawsuit against the conference on March 19.

"They're [ACC] is treating us like we've have already withdrawn," Rush said. "We're still part of the ACC."

Disagreements on grant of rights

The grant of rights remains one of the main focal points of these hearings. If FSU wanted to leave the conference and break the grant of rights it signed in 2013 it would cost the institution roughly $572 million.

Cooper said that in the grant of rights, there's no direct language that says FSU can't sue the conference, but there is enough language to where the ACC can challenge FSU.

FSU responded by saying that its Board of Trustees never approved the grant of rights.

"This document [grant of rights] would not be brought in front of the Florida State University Board of Trustees," Rush said. "They knew that in 2013."

The ACC's legal team asked why FSU was getting upset over the grant of rights as it had been collecting money from the contract since 2013. Cooper said that it would've been a fair point to bring up if the ACC was looking to get that money back from FSU.

Toward the end of the hearing, Cooper said that he sided more with FSU when it came to the issues with the grant of rights but is still "troubled putting signature" on it.

Jack Williams covers Florida State athletics for Tallahassee Democrat. Contact him via email at jwilliams@tallahassee.com or on X @jackgwilliams.

This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Biggest things we learned in FSU's lawsuit hearing against ACC in Tallahassee