A University of California attorney says in a sworn declaration that a Rose Bowl Operating Co. lawyer insinuated in a settlement meeting months before a lawsuit was filed in 2025 that litigation would follow if UCLA considered playing its future games anywhere but the Rose Bowl.
The statements by UC lawyer Scott Abram appear to contradict those of an RBOC official in a separate declaration who contends that no such intimidation occurred.
The RBOC and the city of Pasadena contend in a lawsuit filed last Oct. 29 that the Bruins are wrongfully exploring options to move their future home games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. The RBOC’s suit seeks to enforce the terms of a lease agreement the plaintiff claims locks UCLA into playing football at the venue until 2044.
In opposition to a motion by the UC Regents, on behalf of UCLA, to dismiss the case, RBOC CEO Jens Weiden says in his sworn declaration that he learned about the possible move between the end of 2024 and early 2025 “through multiple credible sources.”
Weiden said the two sides met on May 21, 2025, and that he offered UCLA help in improving its revenue stream.
“Specifically, I noted how projects such as the south end-zone renovations were examples of how my organization was helping UCLA to grow profits within the framework of our partnership,” Weiden said.
Weiden said that to the best of his recollection, he did not hear anyone from UCLA discuss the Bruins playing their home football games anywhere other than the Rose Bowl.
“Additionally, at no point during this meeting did I instruct, or observe, RBOC’s outside counsel, or anyone else from RBOC, threaten imminent litigation to our UCLA counterparts,” Weiden says.
But in his declaration, Abrams said the overall tone of the meeting changed when RBOC attorney Nima H. Mohebbi allegedly stated that if UCLA considered playing its football home games anywhere besides the Rose Bowl, RBOC would do everything in its power to enforce its rights and force UCLA to play at the Rose Bowl.
Contrary to Weiden’s declaration, Mohebbi’s statement “clearly and unambiguously threatened UCLA with litigation,” according to Abrams, who further says that the effect of Mohebbi’s statement was “palpable” on the meeting.
“It was clear to me — even over video conference — that the tone of the meeting dramatically shifted following Mr. Mohebbi’s threat,” Abrams says.