UCLA football playing a home football game at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena
LOS ANGELES - A Los Angeles County judge has denied a motion by the city of Pasadena to block the UCLA Bruins from moving the team’s home football games from the Rose Bowl to SoFi stadium in Inglewood.
In a lawsuit that could see damages reaching more than $1 billion, plaintiffs Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. are seeking to stop the UCLA Bruins from relocating their games to the Inglewood location, which is 13 miles from the UCLA campus, or half the distance between the campus and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.
The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on Oct. 29 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, urging the court to prevent the football team from pulling out of a commitment to play its home games through June 30, 2044, at the Rose Bowl. The plaintiffs are alleging that a future UCLA decision to abandon the Rose Bowl would amount to a breach of contract and cause irreparable harm to Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co., since the city has invested more than $150 million in stadium modernization largely at UCLA’s request.
“For decades, Pasadena and its residents have poured their hearts – and millions of taxpayer dollars – into sustaining and celebrating this partnership,” the lawsuit states. “... Now, UCLA has chosen to cast that aside, unequivocally expressing its intent to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood unless this court intervenes.”
The lawsuit describes the situation as a betrayal of trust and tradition that served to cement the reputation of UCLA football.
The plaintiffs do not see Judge James Chalfant’s Nov. 12 decision not to impose a temporary restraining order against the defendant, the University of California Board of Regents, as a setback. They point out that Chalfant also outlined a plausible basis for irreparable harm facing the plaintiffs, with the judge adding that the city and the Rose Bowl could apply for a preliminary injunction after the parties obtain more evidence during future discovery proceedings.
Chalfant indicated that because the UCLA Bruins have pledged to continue to play home games at the Rose Bowl through the current season, there is no urgency that would justify a restraining order at the current time.
The plaintiffs see UCLA’s strategy as one of shrouding what their future plans are. Pasadena and the Rose Bowl suggest that the team has been in secretive discussions with SoFi even while UCLA officials suggested no departure was in the works.
Nima Mohebbi
Nima Mohebbi, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Pasadena wants to honor its commitments.
“The city has valued and will always value its partnership with UCLA,” Mohebbi told the Southern California Record.
The lawsuit stresses that monetary damages could never fully compensate the plaintiffs for UCLA’s behavior.
“While monetary damages could never truly remedy UCLA’s conduct, the harm that would befall Pasadena and its residents could easily exceed a billion dollars (or more),” the complaint states.
Such monetary damages include the potential losses of hundreds of millions of dollars invested by taxpayers and donors to renovate the Rose Bowl; lost profits from UCLA ticket sales and concessions; harm to the stadium’s brand; and economic losses for local businesses that are dependent on sales during UCLA football weekends, according to the lawsuit.
Neither UCLA nor the UC Board of Regents responded to a request for comment.
