A jury rather than an arbitrator will hear a lawsuit filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the city of Pasadena alleging UCLA is wrongfully considering SoFi Stadium in Inglewood as the new venue for home football games, a judge ruled Thursday.
Attorneys for the UC Regents and SoFi Stadium asked Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner to compel arbitration.
Lipner, however, ruled the arbitration clause in the Rose Bowl lease agreement cited by UC Regents’ lawyers is designed to address specific defects or deficiencies and not attempts to completely end the contractual relationship. The judge also denied motions by the defendants for a stay of the lawsuit pending the outcome of the arbitration.
In their opposition to the UC arbitration motion, the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the city argued the lease’s arbitration clause is limited to quickly resolving routine disputes related to performance of contractual obligations, according to court filings by RBOC and city lawyers.
UC Regents’ lawyers on behalf of UCLA countered that the plaintiffs are bound by an arbitration agreement and that “no exceptions apply to RBOC’s claims.”
UC attorneys acknowledged UCLA’s discussions 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 a motion by UC attorneys. “Rather, as UCLA simply informed RBOC, the agreement does not prevent UCLA from having discussions with other venues.”
The judge also denied a separate motion seeking arbitration filed by Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC and Stadco LA LLC, ruling 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, according to Lipner.
The plaintiffs welcomed the chance to potentially proceed to trial in a statement following the judge’s ruing.
“For more than forty years, UCLA has benefited from a unique partnership with the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl, a partnership that was memorialized in a carefully negotiated contract that extends through 2044,” according to the plaintiffs’ statement. “That agreement was the foundation for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed investments made to modernize and preserve one of the most iconic sports venues in the world. In return, UCLA made a clear and binding commitment to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and expressly waived any right to terminate that commitment early, and we are confident that a court will agree.”
The lawsuit filed Oct. 29 seeks to enforce the terms of a lease agreement that for UCLA home football games at the Rose Bowl until 2044.
According to the plaintiffs, UCLA has indicated intent “to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.” That claim “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 for Feb. 27.