Trial dates have been set in the Marshall University Board of GovernorsÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™ lawsuit against the University of Pittsburgh Commonwealth System of Higher Education after a scheduling conference took place on Monday.
Trial is scheduled to commence on Sept. 29, 2026, with four days allotted for trial. All discovery for the trial must be completed by July 20, 2026 ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ” referring to the disclosure of fact and expert witnesses.
Timeline of Events
The Marshall Board of Governors, represented by Steptoe & Johnson in Bridgeport, filed a $1 million lawsuit against Pitt, represented by Marcus & Shapira in Pittsburgh, in December 2024 in Cabell County Circuit Court regarding a football game scheduled for Sept. 26, 2020, at MarshallÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s Joan C. Edwards Stadium.
After Marshall played against Pitt in Pittsburgh in 2016, a second game on that contract was canceled and never rescheduled following complications with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Marshall seeks $1 million in damages, agreed as reasonable and just compensation for the failure to participate in the original home-and-home contract.
MarshallÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s lawsuit came in response to a declaratory judgement action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania that sought the declaration that Pitt is not obligated to reschedule the game or pay any damages to Marshall.
Marshall filed its preliminary objections that December before filing in Cabell County on the same date. The Pennsylvania court has not yet ruled on MarshallÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s objections.
Pitt filed motions to dismiss the case in Cabell County, citing the four-year statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for breach of contract. Marshall, in response, argued that West VirginiaÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s 10-year statute of limitations applies and that the 2024 Pennsylvania action ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬœwas the first time that Marshall was put on notice.ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ The motion was denied by the Cabell court.
Pitt also sought a motion to stay, or suspend, the lawsuit pending the Pennsylvania action. However, it was also denied by the Cabell court. The two parties met for a scheduling conference on Monday to set dates listed above.
Playing the Game
The main dispute is whether Pitt owes Marshall damages due to the cancellation of the Thundering HerdÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s home game in 2020.
In 2020, conferences across the nation began to set rules for how schedules were to be formed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Atlantic Coast Conference, of which Pitt is a member, limited its schools to 10 conference games and one nonconference game that season.
The ACC mandated that nonconference games that year be played in its member schoolÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s home state.
At the same time, Conference USA, of which Marshall was a member in 2020, allowed four nonconference games to be scheduled with no restrictions on travel.
In August 2020, then-Pitt athletic director Steve Pederson informed then-Marshall AD Mike Hamrick that the Panthers, due to those ACC restrictions, could not travel to play in Huntington. Talks of rescheduling did not result in a resolution.
It creates the primary issue now seen in the lawsuit ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ” Marshall states the agreement outlined that the rules and regulations of the home teamÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s applicable athletics conference were in effect at the time of each game.
In simple terms, Marshall says Conference USAÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s COVID-19 rules should have been used instead of the ACCÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s because Marshall was the home team, and the game couldÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™ve been played using them. Therefore, Marshall thinks Pitt owes it damages.
Pitt holds the position that the ACCÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s rules made it impossible to travel to Huntington in 2020 for a nonconference game, and that, therefore, it is not responsible because it was out of the PanthersÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™ control.
MarshallÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s complaint says Austin Peay traveled from Tennessee to Pitt for a nonconference game on the date that the Panthers were to play at Marshall before cancellation.
ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬœDespite PittÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s position that the ACCÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s rules regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic made it impossible to travel to Huntington to play the 2020 Game against Marshall, Pitt traveled to four (4) other states for five (5) conference games during the Fall 2020 season,ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ the complaint reads.
PittÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s answer to MarshallÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s complaint argued that playing an out-of-state conference game at home was in line with the ACCÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s rules and that both the agreement and C-USA rules did not govern whether it was possible for Pitt to play ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ” specifically denying that C-USA rules required Pitt to play.
The ACCÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s COVID-19 rules did not require members to play in-state opponents in nonconference matchups. Instead, it required them to play the game in the memberÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s home state. Therefore, Pitt argues that the location of Austin Peay is irrelevant.
Eight of 15 nonconference games played by ACC teams that season were between teams from different states. That means that Marshall could have traveled to Pittsburgh on the same date if it met medical protocols, but the opposite, Pitt going to Marshall, was barred by ACC rules.
Marshall would claim those points as moot because Conference USA was the home conference and therefore the gameÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s regulator, making the game playable by its rules and the cancellation a breach of contract.
Question of COVID-19 cancellations
Both parties have cited Section 9 of the home-and-home contract, regarding a permissible basis for cancellation without the responsibility of damages. It reveals as follows:
ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬœIf, prior to the start of a game, it becomes impossible to play that game for reasons of power failure, strikes, severe weather conditions, riots, wars or other unforeseen catastrophes or disasters or circumstances beyond the control of a party hereto, that game shall be canceled, and neither party hereto shall be responsible to the other for any related loss or damage.
ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬœCancellations of a game solely under this section 9 shall not be deemed a breach of this agreement, and section 11 below shall not apply. Notice of such a catastrophe or disaster shall be given as soon as possible. No such cancellation or disaster shall affect the partiesÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™ obligations as to a subsequent game covered by this agreement. The punishment or sanctioning of a party by the NCAA or its relevant athletics conference shall not be considered ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ˜beyond the controlÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™ of the sanctioned party and shall not relieve the sanctioned party of its obligations, including financial obligations, hereunder.ÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ
This creates the second major point of contention.
Marshall claims the section does not explicitly reference the occurrence of a pandemic or epidemic as a permissible basis for cancellation and that Pitt is liable.
Pitt argues the ACC COVID-19 rules made the game impossible and, according to the section, that it should not be liable. Pitt also says Marshall did not argue the cancellation or argue the ACCÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s rules in 2020.
Christian Spears, MarshallÈËÑýÉ«ÇéƬ™s athletic director, was the deputy AD and chief operating officer at Pitt before he started his tenure in Huntington in 2022.
When Pitt played Marshall in 2016, attendance for the game was 45,246. It was the most-attended Herd game of the season.
