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, should be stayed pending an appeal of a judge’s ruling that the case should not be arbitrated, the UC Regents attorneys’ states in new court papers.
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 before ruling on Feb. 5 that the case should be heard by a jury.
“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.
But the UC Regents, on behalf of UCLA, state in court papers filed with Lipner on Thursday that a hold on proceedings is again warranted, this time because of their appeal of the arbitration denial. UCLA’s appeal raises at least “substantial or debatable” issues; namely that UCLA would be irreparably harmed if it has to continue litigating in court a case that appellate courts may conclude can be heard only in arbitration, according to the UC Regents’ attorneys’ court papers.
“Moreover, there is no urgency in resolving this matter because UCLA confirmed that it intends to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl Stadium for the 2026 college football season,” the UC Regents further contend in their court papers.
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 contend that the plaintiffs are bound by an arbitration agreement and that “no exceptions apply to RBOC’s claims.”
In denying a separate motion to compel arbitration filed by Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC and Stadco LA LLC to compel arbitration, the judge said 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 hearing on the UC Regents’ motion for a stay, as well as a case management conference, are scheduled April 21.