The Rose Bowl has scored a significant victory in its bid to keep UCLA as a tenant.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Thursday rejected the school’s bid to compel arbitration in its breach-of-contract case with the stadium, meaning the matter will proceed in open court.
Arbitration would have limited discovery and expedited a resolution out of public view — all of which would have been favorable to UCLA.
The Bruins are seeking swift clarity as part of their efforts to abandon a Rose Bowl lease that runs through June 2044 and move to SoFi Stadium as part of a larger development project in the area that could financially benefit UCLA.
In his ruling, judge Joseph Lipner wrote that the arbitration clause included in the agreement between the parties did not cover this dispute.
“The arbitration clause at issue here contains unusual and exceedingly narrow language … that does not describe plaintiffs’ current lawsuit with UCLA,” Lipner wrote. “Moreover, the terms and structure of the agreement evidence an intent by the parties not to include in arbitration disputes about termination of the agreement or attempts to terminate the agreement.”
Nima Mohebbi, a partner with the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP who is representing the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena, hailed the ruling as another step in his clients’ bid to keep the Bruins playing at the stadium that has been their football home since the 1982 season.
“For more than 40 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,” Mohebbi said in a statement to the California Post.
“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.”
Publicly, UCLA has said only that it is assessing options for its football future. That stance has irritated Rose Bowl attorneys who contend they were informed during an October discussion that there was no way the school was staying at the stadium long-term.
Attorneys for the Rose Bowl have contended that losing UCLA as a primary tenant would cause “irreparable harm” for which monetary damages would be insufficient. That’s why they are asking the court to compel the team to remain at the stadium through the end of the lease.
The plaintiffs have also sued Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and SoFi Stadium for meddling in the situation, claiming tortious interference.
The parties are next scheduled to meet in court on Feb. 27.
