BREAKING NEWS: Judge Denies Rose Bowl TRO Request, Says There is "No Emergency"

The Rose Bowl will now seek a preliminary injunction through the normal litigation process.

(Photo Credit: uclabruins.com)

---

This morning, LA County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant denied a request by the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order preventing UCLA from playing football games anywhere but the Rose Bowl.

In making his decision today, Judge Chalfant refused to consider the news reports from over the weekend that indicated that UCLA’s move to SoFi is a done deal. As a result, the Rose Bowl will now have to go through the discovery process and public records process to obtain documents which should indicate how far along the discussions between UCLA and SoFi have gone and whether or not a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties exists.

If one does exist, it would appear to prove the Rose Bowl’s argument of breach of contract.

In court today, UCLA was basically making several arguments. The first is that the Rose Bowl contract requires the dispute process in the contract to be followed. Essentially, UCLA was suggesting that it meant that they had to go to arbitration. While he was initially unpersuaded by that argument, he later vacillated and opined that it “could” have to happen.

The second argument UCLA made is that the contract between the university and the RBOC is personal services contract. Judge Chalfant appeared to be entire unswayed by this argument, even though attorney Jordan McCrary offered case law suggesting that an organization such as UCLA can provide personal services, in this case, the form of the football team playing its games.

Honestly, this seemed like a stretch.

Another of UCLA’s arguments is that the university has not breached the contract by having discussions with SoFi, even though any discussions with SoFi now would be ridiculous given the fact that 19 years remain on UCLA’s lease with the Rose Bowl.

Judge Chalfant didn’t really rule on that and the Rose Bowl was arguing that they are anticipating the university will be breaching the contract. Unfortunately for the City of Pasadena and the RBOC, Judge Chalfant was unmoved by the need for an emergency TRO would provide. He was unconvinced that the entire matter couldn’t be settled through the usual litigation process rather than an emergency TRO. And, ultimately, that’s why he did not issue the temporary restraining order or anything else.

He didn’t seem to consider the impact UCLA’s tenancy status would have on the Rose Bowl’s operations since there are “just six home games a year” which don’t start until September. He was unconcerned with the Rose Bowl’s relationships with its partners and even their premium seat holders.

Ultimately, he declined to issue the TRO because he didn’t see an immediate harm coming to the Rose Bowl until UCLA actually chooses to breach the contract. He was not especially clear as to what level the situation need to rise to constitute that breach as Rose Bowl attorney Nima Mohebbi argued that UCLA attorney Jeff Moorad’s statements that UCLA is moving on essentially indicated that they will be leaving the Rose Bowl.

Mohebbi indicated that he was willing to withdraw the request for a TRO if UCLA was willing to stipulate that they would not move their games until the case can be resolved. While UCLA’s attorneys did not agree to stipulate to that, Judge Chalfant, at the same time, failed to ask UCLA if they would agree to that. It seemed like a significant omission on the judge’s part.

After the hearing, attorneys for UCLA declined to comment and referred all media present to UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications Mary Osako. The Mighty Bruin did receive a statement from Vice Chancellor Osako this afternoon. It is listed as an update below

Mohebbi spoke briefly with the media outside the courtroom, saying he remains confident that they will prevail in the end. Despite the obvious setback, he remained positive.

“We’re very pleased with the judge’s statements. Even though he found that there is no immediate emergency, he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there is irreparable harm and that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044. We’re very confident of our facts in this case. All in, we feel very, very good.”

We’re going to file a [preliminary injunction] motion to get discovery from them. And, we’ve already sought a PRA request, which is a public record acts request. As you saw from the hearing, they didn’t commit to anything because all of it has been behind closed doors. We’re very happy with the judge’s statements and look forward to continuing our aggressive litigation to force UCLA to honor its obligations.”

The end result of today’s proceedings is that this was just the first round of what looks to be a protracted battle between the university and the Rose Bowl.

UPDATE: After today’s hearing, the City of Pasadena issued the following statement:

“We appreciate the Court’s careful and thoughtful consideration before its ruling today. While the Court held that—on UCLA’s representation that it had not signed an agreement with SoFi Stadium yet—no emergency existed which demanded temporary relief, the Court did invite the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company to seek discovery and to file a motion for a preliminary injunction. His Honor also concluded there is real and concrete evidence of injury and irreparable harm to the City not compensable by money damages alone.

Following the Court’s lead, the City intends to file a motion for preliminary injunction and pursue comprehensive discovery. The City is confident the Court will see the irreparable harm facing the Rose Bowl Stadium, the City of Pasadena, public taxpayers, and the regional economy should UCLA move forward with plans to breach its lease. The written lease signed by UCLA is clear—UCLA made a binding commitment not to leave the Rose Bowl Stadium until 2044 and it waived its right to terminate the lease agreement. We look forward to the hearing on the preliminary injunction.”

UPDATE: The following statement was received from UCLA Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications Mary Osako:

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

Go Bruins.

---

Thanks again for supporting The Mighty Bruin. Your paid subscriptions make this site possible. Questions, comments, story ideas, angry missives and more can be sent to @TheMightyBruin on Twitter.