Attorneys for the city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. argued against arbitration in the latest action stemming from a lawsuit that alleges UCLA administrators are wrongfully exploring options for relocating home football games to SoFi Stadium.
In court papers filed Thursday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner, the city and RBOC accused the University of California Regents of focusing on an “alternative dispute resolution” provision of the agreement that is “deliberately and particularly narrow” and disregards the entirety of the contract that has the Bruins playing home games at Rose Bowl Stadium well into the 2040s.
“Taken together, these provisions reflect an ADR … mechanism that clearly and expressly is not applicable to an attempted termination that threatens hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment and long-term municipal revenue,” attorneys for the RBOC and city state in Thursday’s filing.
Rather, plaintiffs claim the contract provision is limited to swiftly resolving routine, curable performance disputes, according to the RBOC/city lawyers’ court papers.
“The parties clearly intended that the ADR provision would not cover termination disputes such as the one here and thus the motion must be denied,” the RBOC/city lawyers wrote.
The UC Regents’ attorneys on behalf of UCLA contend that the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the city are subject to an arbitration agreement and “no exceptions apply to RBOC’s claims.”
The UC Regents attorneys say UCLA did not deny talking with SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, which is over 20 miles away from the Rose Bowl.
“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 the UC Regents’ attorneys’ pleadings. “Rather, as UCLA simply informed RBOC, the agreement does not prevent UCLA from having discussions with other venues.”
After UCLA promptly responded to the concerns of the city and Rose Bowl operators and said it would work with it in good faith to try to resolve various issues between the parties, the RBOC and city chose instead to file the lawsuit and was denied a temporary restraining order, the UC Regents lawyers further state.
The RBOC and the city also are opposing a separate motion by newly added defendants Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC and Stadco LA LLC, the operators of SoFi Stadium, to compel arbitration. In their most recent court filing, Pasadena and Rose Bowl attorneys claim Kroenke and Stadco LA are “complete nonsignatories to the governing contract” and that their request “fails at the threshold.”
The lawsuit was filed Oct. 29. Pasadena and the Rose Bowl operators seek to enforce the terms of a lease agreement that locks UCLA into playing football at the venue until 2044, which the UC Regents attorneys acknowledge in their court papers.
UCLA has indicated its intent “to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood,” according to the plaintiffs. “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.”
A hearing on the motions to compel arbitration is scheduled for Jan. 22.
