LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County Judge James C. Chalfant on Wednesday denied the city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company’s request for an emergency order that would have temporarily prevented UCLA from negotiating a move to SoFi Stadium, rejecting arguments that the university’s potential departure posed an immediate threat to Pasadena’s finances or public interests.

“The court’s ruling speaks for itself,” UCLA said in a statement. “As we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.”

The approximately 80-minute hearing at Stanley Mosk Courthouse concluded with Chalfant ruling that Pasadena failed to show the kind of “imminent harm” required for a temporary restraining order, but advised the plaintiffs to pursue discovery into UCLA’s talks with SoFi Stadium and return with a motion for a preliminary injunction. Chalfant said the dispute over the Bruins’ football lease at the Rose Bowl — which runs through the end of the 2043 season — remains largely financial and thereby does not qualify as an emergency.

Representing UCLA, Morgan Lewis attorney Jordan McCrary emphasized that point in court, arguing Pasadena’s concerns did not warrant emergency relief.

“It’s fundamental that injunctive relief can’t be issued without irreparable harm,” he said. “Everything they’re talking about is money.”

Still, Nima Mohebbi, a Pasadena lawyer representing the city and the Rose Bowl, said after the ruling that the city was encouraged by portions of the judge’s comments and that his counsel had filed a public records request to gather information that has “been behind closed doors.” The plan now is for Pasadena and the Rose Bowl to file a preliminary injunction motion to seek discovery from UCLA.

“Even though he found there’s no immediate emergency,” Mohebbi said, “he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm — that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 — and we’re very confident in our facts. So I think all in all, we feel very, very good.”

In court, Mohebbi argued that UCLA had “unequivocally represented” and “indicated in no uncertain terms” its intent to leave the Rose Bowl and that the institution’s actions were “contrary and “disappointing” to the university’s principle of public service. He warned that losing UCLA — the stadium’s anchor tenant since 1982 — would cause “fundamental operational instability” and jeopardize Pasadena’s ability to repay roughly $184 million in bond debt tied to stadium renovations.

The Rose Bowl is set to begin another round of renovations Jan. 2, a project Mohebbi said was an “above and beyond” plan put in place with UCLA’s long-term occupancy in mind. The upgrades attempt to modernize the stadium and improve the game day experience, most notably with a south end zone field club and other premium upgrades to support UCLA’s requests.

He added that UCLA’s legal team told Pasadena’s counsel directly that the school planned to leave and wanted to “do it in private,” which Mohebbi even described as “bullying.”

When pressed by Chalfant on the specific “irreparable harm” UCLA’s departure would cause, Mohebbi said the stadium’s annual schedule is built around the Bruins’ six-plus home games and that organizing concerts and other large events requires months of advance coordination and “untold logistics.”

“If we wait till March or September,” Mohebbi said, “the train is already way past the station.” He also noted the need for certainty of UCLA’s tenancy to renew premium-seating subscriptions and sponsorship deals.

UCLA’s attorneys, McCrary and Maurice Suh, countered that the university has made no final decision about its home venue beyond 2025 and accused Pasadena of “jumping to conclusions” instead of continuing talks under the lease.

McCrary outlined the general timeline of UCLA’s talks with the Rose Bowl, dating back to March when discussions commenced. He emphasized that the parties are in the “same position” they were in eight months ago, but the only difference is that the Rose Bowl “stopped talking to UCLA.”

“(It’s a) pattern and practice where they (representatives for the Rose Bowl) are making accusations, jumping to conclusions,” McCrary said.

In response to McCrary’s argument about the university’s relationship with the stadium, Chalfant said: “I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don’t need to talk to them at all.”

Mohebbi disputed that, saying the parties had met as recently as June and that UCLA “misled” the Rose Bowl during those discussions.

Chalfant mostly agreed with UCLA, saying Pasadena’s claims of financial and operational instability were, at the moment, “too vague” to justify emergency relief. While he acknowledged the city’s concerns about potential harm later in the hearing, he maintained that the situation does not meet the threshold of an immediate emergency.

He also rejected UCLA’s argument that the lease was a personal-services contract — a type of agreement courts generally won’t enforce through “specific performance,” or a court order requiring continued performance. Chalfant said specific performance could be available if Pasadena later proves actual or anticipatory breach. He did not rule on whether UCLA’s conduct amounted to such a breach but noted that the lease includes an arbitration clause that could apply to some disputes.

The ruling marks a setback for Pasadena’s legal strategy, which sought to freeze UCLA’s negotiations while pursuing a broader lawsuit accusing the university of breaching its lease and secretly negotiating with SoFi Stadium officials since the first quarter of this year.

Pasadena first sued UCLA on Oct. 29, alleging the university had been privately negotiating with SoFi officials since at least March, meeting to discuss seating charts, revenue splits and future development plans without notifying the stadium authority.

Under the parties’ 2014 restated agreement, UCLA does not pay rent at the Rose Bowl. Instead, Pasadena receives a share of ticket and concession revenue.

The city has financed roughly $200 million in renovations since 2010 through bonds backed by that revenue structure. Pasadena officials have said — and repeated Wednesday morning in court — that losing UCLA could force the city to dip into its general fund to cover debt payments and potentially result in a credit downgrade.

The Rose Bowl, which has hosted UCLA since 1982 and is located 26 miles from campus, has seen declining attendance in recent seasons, with crowds averaging just over 35,000 fans this fall in a stadium that seats nearly 90,000. UCLA leaders have cited financial pressure, including a $51.8 million athletic department deficit in 2024, as they explore ways to generate more stadium revenue. At a UC Regents meeting in May, athletic director Martin Jarmond and chief financial officer Stephen Agostini said the Rose Bowl’s lease limits the program’s ability to capitalize on premium seating and sponsorship income.

For now, Chalfant’s ruling leaves UCLA free to extend discussions with SoFi while the larger case — and Pasadena’s effort to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through 2044 — proceeds in Los Angeles County Superior Court.