A lawsuit filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. that alleges UCLA is wrongfully exploring options to move its home games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood should not be stayed pending the UC Regents’ appeal of a judge’s ruling denying arbitration, the RBOC’s attorneys’ states in new court papers while accusing the defense of “stonewalling.”
The suit filed by the city of Pasadena and the RBOC on Oct. 29 in Los Angeles Superior Court seeks to enforce the terms of a lease agreement the plaintiff claims locks UCLA into playing football at the venue until 2044. According to the lawsuit, UCLA has expressed its intent “to abandon the Rose Bowl” and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.
“UCLA has attempted to stay this case three different times in the five months since plaintiffs city of Pasadena and RBOC brought suit and twice in the last month,” the RBOC lawyers state in pleadings filed Monday with Judge Joseph Lipner. “All the while, plaintiffs have sought basic, reasonable discovery in the face of UCLA’s stonewalling.”
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 while denying defense motions for a stay of the case.
Recently, however, the UC Regents, on behalf of UCLA, filed court papers with Lipner arguing 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.
But the RBOC attorneys contend that there is real prejudice to their clients by further delays.
“Regardless of UCLA’s contention that past breaches belong in arbitration, plaintiffs’ claim for forward-looking declaratory relief — whether UCLA remains bound to perform for the full term despite its affirmative “waiver of termination rights — is not arbitrable and demands prompt resolution,” according to the RBOC lawyers’ pleadings.
Only after the court’s February ruling denying arbitration did UCLA confirm it would play at the Rose Bowl for the 2026 season, but no commitment was made beyond that, the RBOC attorneys state 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.”
“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 13.