Rose Bowl Lawsuit Against UCLA Heats Up

During a tense session in Los Angeles Superior Court, frustrations among lawyers in the breach of contract lawsuit surrounding the Rose Bowl and UCLA became evident. The legal representatives for the plaintiffs argued passionately regarding UCLA’s failure to adhere to its lease, which mandates that it host home games at the Rose Bowl until the 2043 season. They expressed disappointment over what they described as piecemeal promises, particularly a recent commitment from UCLA to stay only until the 2026 season.

Nima Mohebi, an attorney for the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the city of Pasadena, criticized the situation, alleging that it resembles a “shell game.” He noted, “We’ve been dealing with this for seven months, and it’s incredibly frustrating. This should be a straightforward case.” He insisted that the core of the lawsuit seeks to uphold contract rights to prevent UCLA from leaving the Rose Bowl.

In response, UCLA attorney Jeremy Smith challenged this view. “It bothers me that they frame this as gamesmanship,” he said. He emphasized that the other party’s reliance on statements from outside counsel is inappropriate, suggesting these discussions should happen before court proceedings to avoid mischaracterizations.

The court hearing focused on UCLA’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case, which claims the lawsuit springs from privileged discussions around UCLA’s plans to depart from the Rose Bowl. Documents presented by the plaintiffs reveal that Jeffrey Mourad, a former CEO who advised UCLA, allegedly informed them about UCLA’s withdrawal intentions last October.

Smith argued those communications were confidential and were a catalyst for the lawsuit. However, Mohebi countered these claims, stating that through conversations between UCLA’s athletic department and Rose Bowl officials, it was revealed UCLA was contemplating a move to SoFi Stadium.

The plaintiffs recently shared evidence indicating that UCLA had, in fact, intended to leave the Rose Bowl by the 2026 season. This included a text message from the former UCLA Chief Financial Officer to a president at Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, wishing good luck for an event at SoFi Stadium.

In a preliminary ruling, Judge Joseph Lipner seemed inclined to reject UCLA’s anti-SLAPP motion, calling it “untimely” and lacking a proper foundation. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued that the motion appeared to be a delaying tactic.

After initiating the lawsuit, the Rose Bowl also included Kroenke Sports and Entertainment as a co-defendant, alleging that they had unduly influenced UCLA’s decision regarding a new home at SoFi Stadium.

Judge Lipner did not make a final decision on the anti-SLAPP motion, indicating he might wait for the appeals court to address a separate appeal from UCLA.