LOS ANGELES — The city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. filed a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order request Monday in the Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge Joseph Lipner, attempting to halt UCLA’s alleged relocation of home football games from the Rose Bowl to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.
The request for injunction and the temporary restraining order has been scheduled to be heard as early as Wednesday morning. UCLA did not respond to a request for comment ahead of this article’s publication.
The request, received by the Southern California News Group, alleges that UCLA “will abandon its contractual obligations and refuses to withdraw that position.”
The contractual obligation at hand is UCLA football’s lease with the Rose Bowl, which is set to keep the Bruins in Westwood until 2044.
In late October, however, the plaintiffs — the city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. — sued UCLA and the University of California, claiming that the university had “long been negotiating” a move from Pasadena to Inglewood, even going as far as discussing seating charts, revenue splits — and discussions of UCLA’s potential role in potential residential developments.
According to the lawsuit, UCLA plans “to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.”
“While we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA football home games, no decision has been made,” Mary Osako, UCLA vice chancellor for strategic communications, said in a statement about the lawsuit on Oct. 30.
Monday’s filing alleges that UCLA “confirmed its imminent departure.” The plaintiffs claim that they “face the loss of a public partnership built over decades, jeopardizing taxpayer-backed bonds and the local community.”
“There is a reason why UCLA agreed that equitable relief is essential for Plaintiffs when it signed the deal: early termination (as here) presents a fundamentally unique harm,” the request for injunction and temporary restraining order reads. “The City incurred public debt and structured its stadium enterprise in reliance on UCLA’s promise to play its home games exclusively at the Rose Bowl Stadium. There is no other team that can replace UCLA at this moment.”
In the filing, the plaintiffs claimed they learned of a meeting between UCLA and SoFi representatives, including Kevin Demoff, President of Team and Media Operations for Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (the parent company of Los Angeles Rams’ owner Stan Kroenke’s business holdings) — a move that led to the first formal notice of breach sent to UCLA vice chancellor and chief financial offer Stephen Agostini and athletic director Martin Jarmond on March 11.
Eight months later — as of Tuesday — the Rose Bowl Operating Co., along with the City of Pasadena, is now in a heated legal battle with UCLA about the Bruins’ future at the stadium which hosts the “grandaddy of them all,” the moniker for the Rose Bowl game, historically held on New Year’s Day.
UCLA, which has played at the Rose Bowl since 1982, does not pay rent to host its games in Pasadena. Instead, the city receives a share of ticket and concession sales, per the 2014 reinstated agreement of the 2010 agreement.
If the injunction and temporary restraining order is implemented, UCLA would at the very least be legally halted from departing Pasadena for Inglewood ahead of the 2026 season. In the meantime, however, UCLA still has its home finale against Washington scheduled for Nov. 22.
“There is no substitute for UCLA. Period,” the filing states. “Plaintiffs, the Pasadena community, the taxpayers, and fans have invested significant resources and loyalty into UCLA Football. Plaintiffs stand nothing to gain and everything to lose if relief is not granted.”
City News Service contributed to this report.