A federal judge on Friday dismissed the NCAA from a lawsuit that had been filed against the association and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in connection with the academic scandal involving Tar Heels athletes.

The case against the university remains in place, pending a jurisdictional ruling that U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs has determined she must make in a similar, but separate, suit against the university.

The suit, which sought to become a class action, was filed in January 2015 in a North Carolina state court on behalf of women’s basketball player Rashanda McCants and football player Devon Ramsay by lawyers from Washington-based Hausfeld LLP. That firm also is pursuing the Ed O’Bannon antitrust case against the NCAA concerning college athletes’ compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses.

The NCAA had the North Carolina case removed to federal court, and the association and the university both sought dismissals.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by the NCAA, saying the association “voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the education and educational opportunities of student-athletes (including the provision of academically sound courses) participating in NCAA-sponsored athletic programs at NCAA member institutions.”

In her ruling, Biggs wrote the she “recognizes that the public has a strong interest in the myriad of policy concerns surrounding the NCAA’s role in intercollegiate athletics and in connection with the alleged academic improprieties that took place at UNC Chapel Hill; however, the scope of the Court’s authority is limited to a determination of whether Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim for relief against the NCAA under North Carolina law.”

And she determined that they had not.

Michael Hausfeld, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told USA TODAY Sports on Friday night his side will appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the association had no comment on the ruling.

Biggs said the plaintiffs provided no North Carolina court decisions — and she was not aware of any — that supported the plaintiffs’ claim that the NCAA’s “public statements espousing aspirational goals, statements of generic intent, or statements vowing or acknowledging that it has a duty … constitute promises that would create a legal duty” under the state’s law.

In addition, she rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the NCAA had a specific duty of trust toward McCants and Ramsay, saying that because the NCAA “serves interests other than those of student-athletes, specifically the interests of its member institutions … these existence of these divided loyalties precludes a fiduciary relationship between the NCAA” and the athletes “under the circumstances of this case.”

She added that although the NCAA has a variety of academic eligibility standards, “it does not follow … that the NCAA has voluntarily assumed a fiduciary duty to safeguard the ‘academic soundness’ of classes at its member schools, including UNC-Chapel Hill.”

Wrote Biggs: “(P)ublic statements by NCAA officials, as well as general, gratuitous statements contained in NCAA governing documents and on its website … are insufficient as a matter of law to support imposition of a legal duty upon the NCAA” in this case.