{"id":375409,"date":"2025-11-13T07:13:13","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T07:13:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/375409\/"},"modified":"2025-11-13T07:13:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T07:13:13","slug":"judge-rejects-rose-bowls-bid-to-block-ucla-from-sofi-stadium-move","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/375409\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge rejects Rose Bowl\u2019s bid to block UCLA from SoFi Stadium move"},"content":{"rendered":"

LOS ANGELES \u2014 Los Angeles County Judge James C. Chalfant on Wednesday denied the city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company\u2019s request for an emergency order that would have temporarily prevented UCLA from negotiating a move to SoFi Stadium, rejecting arguments that the university\u2019s potential departure posed an immediate threat to Pasadena\u2019s finances or public interests.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe court\u2019s ruling speaks for itself,\u201d UCLA said in a statement. \u201cAs we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.\u201d<\/p>\n

The approximately 80-minute hearing at Stanley Mosk Courthouse concluded with Chalfant ruling that Pasadena failed to show the kind of \u201cimminent harm\u201d required for a temporary restraining order, but advised the plaintiffs to pursue discovery into UCLA\u2019s talks with SoFi Stadium and return with a motion for a preliminary injunction. Chalfant said the dispute over the Bruins\u2019 football lease at the Rose Bowl \u2014 which runs through the end of the 2043 season \u2014 remains largely financial and thereby does not qualify as an emergency.<\/p>\n

Representing UCLA, Morgan Lewis attorney Jordan McCrary emphasized that point in court, arguing Pasadena\u2019s concerns did not warrant emergency relief.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s fundamental that injunctive relief can\u2019t be issued without irreparable harm,\u201d he said. \u201cEverything they\u2019re talking about is money.\u201d<\/p>\n

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\u2019s comments and that his counsel had filed a public records request to gather information that has \u201cbeen behind closed doors.\u201d The plan now is for Pasadena and the Rose Bowl to file a preliminary injunction motion to seek discovery from UCLA.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven though he found there\u2019s no immediate emergency,\u201d Mohebbi said, \u201che made very clear in a lot of his statements that there\u2019s irreparable harm \u2014 that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 \u2014 and we\u2019re very confident in our facts. So I think all in all, we feel very, very good.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

NEW: Judge Joseph Lipner has ruled against the city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co.\u2019s attempt to file a TRO and preliminary injunction to prevent UCLA from negotiating a deal with SoFi Stadium.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ira Gorawara (@IraGorawara) November 12, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In court, Mohebbi argued that UCLA had \u201cunequivocally represented\u201d and \u201cindicated in no uncertain terms\u201d its intent to leave the Rose Bowl and that the institution\u2019s actions were \u201ccontrary and \u201cdisappointing\u201d to the university\u2019s principle of public service. He warned that losing UCLA \u2014 the stadium\u2019s anchor tenant since 1982 \u2014 would cause \u201cfundamental operational instability\u201d and jeopardize Pasadena\u2019s ability to repay roughly $184 million in bond debt tied to stadium renovations.<\/p>\n

The Rose Bowl is set to begin another round of renovations Jan. 2, a project Mohebbi said was an \u201cabove and beyond\u201d plan put in place with UCLA\u2019s 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\u2019s requests.<\/p>\n

He added that UCLA\u2019s legal team told Pasadena\u2019s counsel directly that the school planned to leave and wanted to \u201cdo it in private,\u201d which Mohebbi even described as \u201cbullying.\u201d<\/p>\n

When pressed by Chalfant on the specific \u201cirreparable harm\u201d UCLA\u2019s departure would cause, Mohebbi said the stadium\u2019s annual schedule is built around the Bruins\u2019 six-plus home games and that organizing concerts and other large events requires months of advance coordination and \u201cuntold logistics.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we wait till March or September,\u201d Mohebbi said, \u201cthe train is already way past the station.\u201d He also noted the need for certainty of UCLA\u2019s tenancy to renew premium-seating subscriptions and sponsorship deals.<\/p>\n

UCLA\u2019s attorneys, McCrary and Maurice Suh, countered that the university has made no final decision about its home venue beyond 2025 and accused Pasadena of \u201cjumping to conclusions\u201d instead of continuing talks under the lease.<\/p>\n

McCrary outlined the general timeline of UCLA\u2019s talks with the Rose Bowl, dating back to March when discussions commenced. He emphasized that the parties are in the \u201csame position\u201d they were in eight months ago, but the only difference is that the Rose Bowl \u201cstopped talking to UCLA.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c(It\u2019s a) pattern and practice where they (representatives for the Rose Bowl) are making accusations, jumping to conclusions,\u201d McCrary said.<\/p>\n

In response to McCrary\u2019s argument about the university\u2019s relationship with the stadium, Chalfant said: \u201cI don\u2019t know why UCLA can\u2019t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don\u2019t need to talk to them at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mohebbi disputed that, saying the parties had met as recently as June and that UCLA \u201cmisled\u201d the Rose Bowl during those discussions.<\/p>\n

Chalfant mostly agreed with UCLA, saying Pasadena\u2019s claims of financial and operational instability were, at the moment, \u201ctoo vague\u201d to justify emergency relief. While he acknowledged the city\u2019s concerns about potential harm later in the hearing, he maintained that the situation does not meet the threshold of an immediate emergency.<\/p>\n

He also rejected UCLA\u2019s argument that the lease was a personal-services contract \u2014 a type of agreement courts generally won\u2019t enforce through \u201cspecific performance,\u201d 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\u2019s conduct amounted to such a breach but noted that the lease includes an arbitration clause that could apply to some disputes.<\/p>\n

The ruling marks a setback for Pasadena\u2019s legal strategy, which sought to freeze UCLA\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Pasadena first sued UCLA<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Under the parties\u2019 2014 restated agreement, UCLA does not pay rent at the Rose Bowl. Instead, Pasadena receives a share of ticket and concession revenue.<\/p>\n

The city has financed roughly $200 million in renovations since 2010 through bonds backed by that revenue structure. Pasadena officials have said \u2014 and repeated Wednesday morning in court \u2014 that losing UCLA could force the city to dip into its general fund to cover debt payments and potentially result in a credit downgrade.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s lease limits the program\u2019s ability to capitalize on premium seating and sponsorship income.<\/p>\n

For now, Chalfant\u2019s ruling leaves UCLA free to extend discussions with SoFi while the larger case \u2014 and Pasadena\u2019s effort to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through 2044 \u2014 proceeds in Los Angeles County Superior Court.<\/p>\n