Miami had filed a motion to dismiss in Craighead County, Arkansas arguing that the previously filed suit in Florida should be heard instead of the Arkansas suit.

Arkansas State has responded and argues the Florida case cannot go forward because the Florida Long-Arm Jurisdiction Statute does not cover AState.

The university also contends the doctrine of inconvenient forum does not apply because Miami failed to submit relevant evidence as required under Arkansas law. Miami has argued that there are witnesses in Miami who would need to travel to Arkansas and AState points out there are witnesses in Arkansas who would have to travel to Miami so neither forum is more convenient. Miami alleged without providing evidence that courts in Dade County could hear the matter sooner.

Miami had argued in favor of dismissal by citing a case that found that Wal-Mart, headquartered in Arkansas, may find forums in other states more convenient. The AState response points out that unlike Wal-Mart, Arkansas State does not have business dealing and locations throughout the United States.

AState also argues that Miami misrepresented Arkansas law to the court. Miami cited an Arkansas case that Miami claims would require dismissal. AState points out that the cases under Arkansas law could proceed simultaneously citing six Arkansas cases, if the Florida courts agree that they do in fact have jurisdiction. AState also contends the game was scheduled to be played in Arkansas and Miami did not appear and play so the breach of contract took place in Arkansas.

The response from AState further argues that Miami cannot claim the benefit of filing first because it was an anticipatory suit. Miami filed its case BEFORE payment was due under the contract, in other words Miami filed before there was a breach of contract to contest. AState cites a number of cases where the filing of an anticipatory suit stripped the filing party of the first to file protection.