UCLA’s agreement with Pasadena does not prevent talk with other venues, UC Regents say in latest filing

The UC Regents have filed separate motions asking a judge to compel arbitration of the Rose Bowl Operating Committee’s three contractual claims alleging that UCLA is wrongfully exploring options for a new home football venue, specifically SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, and to put the case on hold pending the arbitration motion’s outcome.

In court papers filed Thursday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner, the Regents attorneys, on behalf of UCLA, state that the RBOC and its fellow plaintiff, the city of Pasadena, are bound by an arbitration agreement and that “no exceptions apply to RBOC’s claims.”

The UC Regents attorneys say UCLA did not deny talking with SoFi Stadium.

“After all, UCLA has a duty to constantly assess what is best for the university, its football team, its fans, its alumni and its students,” according to the UC Regents’ attorneys’ pleadings. “Rather, as UCLA simply informed RBOC, the agreement does not prevent UCLA from having discussions with other venues.”

• Also see: Bruins bailing on the Rose Bowl is a botched play

When UCLA promptly responded to the RBOC’s concerns and said it would work with it in good faith to try to resolve various issues between the parties, the RBOC instead sued and lost in an attempt to get a temporary restraining order, the UC Regents lawyers further state.

A hearing on the UC Regents’ motion for a stay of proceedings is scheduled for Jan. 8 and the motion to compel arbitration is set for Jan. 22.

• Also see: Pasadena files lawsuit to hold UCLA to Rose Bowl lease

The suit filed Oct. 29 seeks to enforce the terms of a lease agreement the plaintiff claims locks UCLA into playing football at the venue until 2044, which the UC Regents attorneys acknowledge in their court papers.

According to the lawsuit, UCLA has expressed its intent “to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.”

“This is not only a clear break of the contract that governs the parties’ relationship, but it is also a profound betrayal of trust, of tradition, and of the very community that helped build UCLA football,” the lawsuit states.