LOS ANGELES — The City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against UCLA, in an effort to attempt to halt its attempt to move home football games from the Rose Bowl Stadium in Pasadena to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, has been denied due to the plaintiffs’ showing a lack of emergency on the issue, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday morning.
Judge James C. Chalfant declined to rule on the anticipatory breach, in which the plaintiffs claim UCLA counsel told the Rose Bowl and Pasadena of its plans of “moving on,” but did say that he considered the issue a “problem.”
“Mere negotiating is not an anticipatory breach,” the judge said when the plaintiff’s counsel argued that UCLA was already discussing a move to SoFi Stadium.
The ruling is a blow to the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl’s case and lawsuit, which aim to keep UCLA to its lease, set to run through June 30, 2044. However, Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co., said they were confident in their standing going forward.
“We’re very pleased with the judge’s statements,” Mohebbi said. “Even though he found that there’s no immediate emergency, he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044, and we’re very confident in our facts in this case.
Mohebbi said the next steps for the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena would be to file another preliminary injunction motion and get discovery from UCLA and the University of California Regents, something Chalfant said during the hearing that he would do if he were in the plaintiff’s position. He added that they have also already sought a public records act request to receive some of the information that could be in potential discovery.
UCLA, which has played its home games at the Rose Bowl since 1982, attempted to circumvent its rent agreement to relocate to SoFi Stadium, going as far as to discuss seating arrangements and revenue splitting, according to the lawsuit filed two weeks ago.
A UCLA representative “notified the city and Rose Bowl of UCLA’s intent to take steps that will breach the agreement, an agreement that was signed back in 2010 and amended in 2014,” the lawsuit states.
On Oct 30, Mary Osako, UCLA’s vice chancellor for strategic communications, did not deny the lawsuit’s claims in a statement, instead stating, “While we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA Football home games, no decision has been made.”
On Wednesday, Jordan McCrary and Maurice Suh, the attorneys representing UCLA and the University of California Regents, denied in court that they had made any decisions about potential relocation and that they had been trying to enter settlement negotiations with the Rose Bowl for the past eight months. Mohebbi denied that any settlement negotiations were ongoing.
“I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl,” Chalfant said during the nearly 80-minute hearing to defendant’s counsel. “You don’t need to talk to them at all.”
Suh declined to comment Wednesday, departing the court after the hearing’s conclusion.
Mohebbi spoke at length about the lease-issued bonds that the City of Pasadena issued to help with its UCLA football-specific renovations, such as the ongoing Southern End Zone and the creation of the South End Zone field club – a new premium seating arrangement. The lawsuit claims that if UCLA left the Rose Bowl, the city would have to dip into its general fund to pay back potential debts.
“This is not the Rams or Lakers,” Mohebbi said. “This is a public institution playing with public money.”
Chalfant did not agree with Suh and McCrary’s claim that, in regards to a personal services contract between the university and the Rose Bowl, it was the players themselves involved and not the public entity of the university.
“They’re expecting us to put our people on the field for 20 years,” McCrary said, alleging that the Rose Bowl expects UCLA to “force” the football team to play in Pasadena across the next two decades.
Mohebbi argued that sponsorships for the Rose Bowl are directly attached to the university’s image, and were at risk of losing brand partners should UCLA leave the Rose Bowl.