Gov. Tom Corbett and Auditor General Eugene DePasquale are no longer being sued by the NCAA.
The two, both originally named defendants in the lawsuit, were dropped Monday when both sides filed a joint stipulation and dismissal. The suit protests the Endowment Act, state legislation that demands that the $60 million in fines the NCAA levied against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal stay in Pennsylvania.
According to paperwork filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Corbett and DePasquale were each deemed “not an indispensable party” to the case, and their dismissal would “not affect the court’s jurisdiction.”
State Treasurer Rob McCord and Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Chairman Mark Zimmer remain defendants in the suit.
Never miss a local story.
The joint motion was filed the same day that Corbett and Zimmer, through Senior Deputy General Counsel Linda Barrett, filed a motion asking for more time to file briefs in opposition to the NCAA’s lawsuit.
The NCAA filed a motion Oct. 6 asking that the court take expedited action on the case, specifically referencing the federal judgment that could then prevent a pending Commonwealth Court trial on a similar case in which McCord and state Sen. Jake Corman, R-Benner Township, are suing the NCAA and Penn State to force compliance with the Endowment Act.
The NCAA had earlier tried to have that suit dismissed, claiming the parties had agreed to comply with the Endowment Act, making the suit moot. Judge Anne Covey disagreed.
Because of personal conflicts with the timeline to file briefs, Barrett asked for an extension.
The NCAA entered an opposition to the request, in part because of the dismissal of Corbett, but also saying that the NCAA was not seeking judgment against Zimmer, making it “unnecessary for either party to file an opposition, and an extension for that purpose is unwarranted.”
The NCAA also wants the speedy nature of its request kept in mind.
“As the NCAA explained in its brief in support of that motion, expedited treatment is essential to ensuring this court’s resolution of the important federal questions presented by this case,” the opposition read.