NBA star Kevin Garnett can continue on with his lawsuit against his former accountant, who he has accused of helping steal $77 million from him.

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, a Minnesota judge recently denied the accountant’s motion seeking to dismiss the case. The order notes that Garnett has shown enough at this point in the case.

The judge also did not buy the accounting firm's attempt to say the lawsuit was filed in the wrong state.

The case is ongoing.

RELATED Kevin Garnett’s Estranged Wife Seeking Over $190k a Month in Spousal and Child Support

Last year, Garnett sued his Kentucky-based accounting firm, Welenken CPAs, and its partner, Michael A. Wertheim.

Garnett accused the firm of participating in a scheme in which they helped a third-party money manager steal $77 million from the NBA star over the years.

The suit claimed that the accountant helped a man named Charles Banks IV in defrauding millions from Garnett. The scheme involved using businesses that both Banks and Garnett had an interest in.

Garnett accused his accountant of knowing that millions were being stolen but did nothing about it.

Banks was sentenced to four years in prison over allegations he defrauded fellow NBA star Tim Duncan out of millions.

The accounting firm and Wertheim came back and demanded Garnett’s case be dismissed.

They stated, “With prospects of recovery against Banks appearing dim, Garnett has turned his sights on Welenken and Wertheim. Putting aside the lack of substantive merit to plaintiff’s claims, no personal jurisdiction exists over Welenken CPAs and Wertheim in Minnesota."

The firm said they were called by Banks to perform accounting services for himself and then-Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett.

They argued, “Wertheim has never spoken to or communicated with Garnett in any way regarding Hammer Holdings, LLC. In fact, Wertheim met Garnett briefly only once, at a basketball game in New York, and they did not discuss any business on that occasion”

The firm demanded the entire case be dismissed saying “the allegations in this case have nothing to do with the services defendants were retained to, and did, provide to Garnett and his business. Instead, all of the claims relate to allegedly fraudulent transactions by Banks.”