A lawsuit filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. that alleges UCLA is wrongfully exploring options for a new home football venue, specifically SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, will be heard by a jury rather than an arbitrator, a judge ruled Thursday.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner heard arguments on the UC Regents and SoFi Stadium motions to compel arbitration, then took the issues under submission.
“It would have been simple to require arbitration of lawsuits like the current one, including claims of anticipatory repudiation, if the parties had intended to do so,” the judge wrote.
However, the arbitration clause cited by the UC Regents is designed to address specific defects or deficiencies and not attempts to end the contractual relationship altogether, according to Lipner, who also denied motions by the defendants for a stay of the lawsuit pending the outcome of the arbitration.
“It would be bizarre if a dispute about UCLA attempting to terminate the agreement as a remedy would be exempted from arbitration, but a dispute about UCLA attempting to terminate the agreement in some other way were made subject to arbitration,” Lipner wrote, adding, “This further supports that the prohibition on an attempt to terminate … should not be interpreted to fall within the arbitration clause.”
In their opposition to the UC Regents’ arbitration motion, the RBOC and the city contended that the regents are focusing on an alternative dispute resolution provision of the agreement that is “deliberately and particularly narrow” and does not take into consideration the contract as a whole.
The provision instead is limited to expeditiously resolving routine, curable performance disputes, according to the RBOC/city lawyers’ court papers.
The arguments by the city and the RBOC contrasted with those of the UC Regents’ lawyers who, on behalf of UCLA, state that the plaintiffs 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.”
In denying a separate motion to compel arbitration filed by Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC and Stadco LA LLC to compel arbitration, the judge said that the outcome of the request was dependent upon that of the UC Regents and that therefore the Kroenke motion also was denied. In addition, Kroenke and the plaintiffs did not have an arbitration agreement to begin with, the judge said.
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.
A case management conference is scheduled Feb. 27.