UCLA’s Rose Bowl Lease Dispute Moves Forward in Court

The recent victory at the Rose Bowl was crucial for UCLA’s continued presence there.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge decided on Thursday to deny UCLA’s request for arbitration in its breach of contract case against the stadium, meaning the dispute will now unfold in public court.

Arbitration, had it been allowed, would have limited the scope of discovery and potentially expedited a public resolution—beneficial for UCLA in this situation.

The Bruins are looking for a quick resolution to end their Rose Bowl contract, which runs until June 2044, while planning a move to SoFi Stadium as part of a significant development project that could offer substantial financial advantages to UCLA.

Judge Joseph Lipner ruled that the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties did not pertain to this specific disagreement.

In his ruling, Judge Lipner stated, “The arbitration clause at issue here contains unusual and highly restrictive language that does not address plaintiff’s current litigation with UCLA. Moreover, the terms and structure of the contract indicate that the parties intended to exclude disputes concerning termination or attempts to terminate the contract from arbitration.”

Nima Mohebi, a partner at Sidley Austin representing the Rose Bowl and the city of Pasadena, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, viewing it as a step toward maintaining the Bruins’ long-standing relationship with the stadium, where they have played since 1982.

Mohebi noted, “For over 40 years, UCLA has benefited from a unique partnership with the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl, solidified by a carefully negotiated contract through 2044.”

She added that this agreement was foundational for hundreds of millions of dollars in public investments aimed at modernizing and preserving one of the globe’s most iconic sports venues. In return, UCLA committed to hosting its home football games at the Rose Bowl until 2044, explicitly waiving the right to terminate that commitment early. “We believe the courts will come to agree with this,” she stated.

Publicly, UCLA has only mentioned that it’s reviewing its options for the future of its football program, a position that has frustrated legal representatives of the Rose Bowl, who were reportedly informed in previous talks that a long-term presence by the school in the stadium wasn’t likely.

The Rose Bowl’s lawyers contended that losing UCLA as a main tenant would lead to “irreparable harm,” emphasizing that financial compensation wouldn’t suffice. Therefore, they are urging the court to require the team to remain in the stadium until its lease is completed.

Additionally, plaintiffs have filed suit against Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and SoFi Stadium for alleged tortious interference regarding this matter.

The next court session is set for February 27.