A judge has denied a motion by the UC Regents to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the city of Pasadena that alleges UCLA has considered playing its future football games elsewhere besides the iconic Pasadena venue in violation of a contract.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner heard arguments on May 19, took the issues under submission and ruled Thursday that he was denying the UC’s anti-SLAPP motion because it is “untimely and unsupported by sufficient cause” to permit a filing at this time.
“Because UCLA had an ability to raise these issues at the outset of this case, UCLA is not prejudiced by the court’s decision to not reach the merits of the anti-SLAPP,” Lipner wrote.
The judge further said that he was not making any conclusions regarding the merits of anti-SLAPP motion.
The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
Ruling in a separate motion, the judge also said in tentative ruling that he is inclined to find in a separate motion that only one of five causes of action targeted for dismissal by the UC Regents, for promissory estoppel, will be tossed out. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows a court to enforce a promise, even without a formal contract or mutual exchange of something of value.
The RBOC and the city of Pasadena contend in the lawsuit filed last Oct. 29 that the Bruins are wrongfully exploring options to move their future home games to another venue, including 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.