Having this type of landlord-tenant relationship for the next 19 years is untenable for both sides. Certainly some posturing, and the Rose Bowl/Pasadena must recognize this.
As to a re-make of Ducky or a small on-campus stadium, if it would come to that I'd recommend a move to a nice FCS league with no major financial considerations like coaches' salaries and NIL. UCLA can still rely on being considered one of the world's finest educational and medical facilities. Oh, somehow I don't think the BIG 10 would cotton to the idea anyway.
It may be untenable right now, but if the relationship is forced to continue, then there will be a entirely different group of people at some point in the future.
People change over time.
When Chip Kelly took over, RBOC GM Darryl Dunn called UCLA a good partner, even though Chip wanted the team to stay in Westwood before games rather than Pasadena as the contract requires. It was a minor detail he wasn't concerned with.
But since that point in 2018, Dunn and UCLA AD Guerrero both retired.
Now, UCLA is engaged in what the Rose Bowl attorney called a "shell game." It was a nice way of calling the UCLA administration a bunch of liars.
Perjury only applies to testimony under oath. Attorney representations are not testimony unless the attorney agreed to take an oath, which is highly unlikely. It sounds like the hearing was non-evidentiary (just attorneys arguing and no live testimony taken) and based upon written declarations instead of live testimony. Not sure if the declarations were sworn or not. Unless they were submitted to the judge directly and not filed, those written declarations should be part of the court's docket.
"Judge Chalfant graduated with his B.A. in zoology from Pomona College in 1974. He went on to earn his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law in 1979." (https://trellis.law/judge/james.c.chalfant)
..sheer incompetence. Been there and [seen] that in a couple of familial civil sorties I was engaged in. Sometimes the guys in the long black robes are headshakingly dense...
Quoting a great attorney friend (UCLA/then Harvard) of mine that practices law in West LA, Superior Court judges (add appellate judges) are attorneys that could not make the cut in the real world. AND you are at their mercy. It's obvious the judge deferred details/direction because he did not know how to proceed or know the answers. RE judges.....are you really going to take a $200,000 gig if you are a competent attorney?????
I know a lot of incompetent attorneys who make more than $200K and a lot of very competent attorneys who make less, myself included. Not all of us went to Harvard Law and practice in West LA.
Your conclusion about the judge could not be more wrong from a legal perspective. Hearings on temporary restraining orders are ex parte hearings and the relief requested is only warranted in true emergency circumstances. No verbal testimony is taken. No evidence is admitted except for written declarations and exhibits attached thereto. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. Under these extremely preliminary circumstances and without the opportunity for discovery, the Rose Bowl was unable to produce the "smoking gun" of a breach. News reports are are not sufficient. If there was a signed "letter of intent" or "Memorandum of Understanding" that they somehow obtained, that would likely have been enough for the temporary relief sought. The judge was 100% correct in his ruling and knows exactly how to proceed--have the parties take discovery (i.e., gather evidence) and then address the issue through the preliminary injunction procedure, where the legal standard is not so high. The judge was also logical in noting that there was no "emergency" since no games will be played in the 2026 season until September. Again, there is no emergency and there is plenty of time to take discovery and revisit in a few months.
If this is ignored -- the barn door can only be shut after the horses have escaped -- I'm done with the present regime at UCLA.* To be honest and though there is no hard evidence, it surely looks like a red herring to draw attention away from The Fetus.
"Help! The Paranoids are after me!"
"Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that the evil forces are NOT after you!"
Here's ChatGPT's analysis on the probable outcome of this litigation.
Summary of the Situation
UCLA has played home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982.
The current lease — Restated Agreement No. 20,501 — was extended in 2014 and runs through June 30, 2044.
That extension reportedly included UCLA’s waiver of any early termination right, except in narrow circumstances such as a “Game-Threatening Default” (if the Rose Bowl were unable to host games).
The City of Pasadena and the RBOC argue they made over $200 million in stadium renovations and bond financing based on UCLA’s long-term commitment.
When UCLA began exploring a possible move to SoFi Stadium, Pasadena and the RBOC sued, alleging breach of contract and seeking a court order to stop UCLA from leaving. Their request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) was denied by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who found that immediate irreparable harm wasn’t proven. The broader case remains active.
Key Legal Points
The lease requires UCLA to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and prohibits hosting home games elsewhere in Los Angeles or Orange County.
UCLA has no apparent contractual right to terminate early unless a “Game-Threatening Default” occurs — which hasn’t happened.
Pasadena and the RBOC have a strong breach argument, but courts are generally reluctant to order “specific performance” (forcing an ongoing relationship) when monetary damages can compensate the harm.
The TRO denial suggests the court isn’t convinced the harm is irreparable at this stage — a signal that future relief would likely be monetary, not injunctive.
Probable Outcome
Given all existing reporting and contract details, the most likely resolution is a negotiated financial settlement or lease buyout, rather than a long-term court order forcing UCLA to stay at the Rose Bowl.
Approximate likelihoods based on current facts:
~65% — Settlement / negotiated buyout:
UCLA pays Pasadena/RBOC to terminate or amend the lease. This allows both sides to avoid years of litigation and gives Pasadena compensation for its financial exposure.
~20% — Court awards damages, UCLA leaves anyway:
If UCLA moves and is found in breach, the court could issue a large monetary award to Pasadena rather than compel performance.
~10% — Court orders specific performance (UCLA must stay):
Possible if Pasadena proves unique and irreparable harm, but unlikely given judicial reluctance to supervise decades of future obligations.
~5% — Prolonged litigation or hybrid resolution:
The case drags through discovery and appeals, with partial settlements or phased arrangements.
Bottom Line
UCLA’s contract appears binding, and Pasadena’s legal position is strong on paper, but practical realities favor a financial resolution rather than forcing UCLA to remain through 2044. The TRO denial underscores that the court views this primarily as a money dispute, not one requiring emergency intervention.
In short, the most probable endgame is a settlement or buyout where UCLA compensates Pasadena/RBOC and gains freedom to relocate home games, likely to SoFi Stadium, within the next few years.
No offense to you or anyone who thinks ChatGPT is useful, but I would prefer if people didn’t use AI in their posts. We’re all human here, and people would rather talk to other humans than what the fun magic box says.
Regardless of how you feel, Joe needs to up his game. Case in point, his sparkling analysis that, “Tonight’s men’s game should be over by halftime.” Instead, we were in a tight matchup. Today’s amazingly grammatically unreadable AI like comment, “He was not especially clear has 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.” Then the topper of a lazy non-use of spell check in, “His Honor also concludedthere is real and concrete evidence of injury and irreparable harm to the City not compensable by money damages alone.”
I'm the first to admit that I had forgotten Mick Cronin's penchant for testing different lineup sets early in the season which frequently results in the Bruins allowing an opponent to stick around a lot longer than they should in an early season game.
I have NEVER used AI for any TMB articles, though I do sometimes through extra letters in.as was the case with the second sentence you referenced. When was the last time you sat down on a bench in a courthouse trying to publish something as quickly as possible while being as complete as possible?
As for the third, I published the statement from Pasadena as it was provided. Yup, I copied and pasted. So, I missed the missing space.
Fair enough. That said, given you’re posting in a semi-professional/professional role and representing UCLA, it’s best to take your time and guarantee the quality of your work, rather than rush to be the first. As Wooden said, "Be quick, but don't hurry.”
If by "semi-professional/professional role" you mean not getting paid for your work but doing it out of the love for the four letters and the community at large, then... nope, I still don't get your complaints. I thought your first comment was tongue in cheek, but your second belies the severity of your criticism. I guess you could start posting information and ensure you do it better...
Seriously? Would you turn in a paper without proofreading and spell checking it, first?
If we can’t hold ourselves to basic standards, it would be hypocritical to then criticize our players, coaches, and administration for phoning in their performance.
And where is the subscription money going? I would hope it’s going to the writers. Even some of The Daily Bruin writers get paid a pittance.
Perhaps you'd like to think for yourself rather than post what a data-scraping program that invents "information" when "it" can't find actual factual information about a topic(s) culls from random internet sources... F
There are a few fairly large parcels of land in Westwood that could be obtained/leased for the construction of a small stadium if the right cards were played. It would require money, political pressure/will, and possibly land swaps or other deals with the city, LADWP, Metro, and Feds. There probably isn't the will to make deals and "settle" for a 35-40,000 seat stadium close to campus.
Option 1:
Westwood Park and LADWP land south of the Federal Building. Complete overhaul of the park with a stadium built on the western side where the rec center stands. Rebuild park amenities around the stadium and make the park better for area residents with the remaining space. Possibly link Bad News Bears Field across Sepulveda with a pedestrian bridge and build a UCLA Baseball complex there. Lease parking from the Federal Building.
Option 2:
Existing UCLA and Metro property north of Wilshire, surrounded by Veteran, Kinross, and Gayley. Yes there are buildings and a metro stop to worry about (probably too far along), but a small stadium would fit. Could incorporate amenities (fitness center, offices) for year-round school use. Lease parking from the Federal Building. Public transportation can't get closer.
This whole mess by Donut Head Jelly 2.0 and his Donut Holes, along with his BFF Blockhead 2.0 and his Block Holes, seems to be smeared in back room deals, leaderless liars, and a whole lot of money vanishing into thin air.
UCLA is acting like a huge corrupt corporation not an entity for the greater good...
Meanwhile, the Bruin Fam is my savior through it all. Thank you Joe, DD for your tenacious work, and so grateful for every one of my friends here.
And War, keep the brilliant humor going... I can always count on you to lift my day with your historic Warriorisms 💙💛
Thank you again for your in-depth reporting on this…the old adage “there will be lawyers” has never been more true.
we might as well face it, we're moving to sofi probably next year...
after reading Joe's article I definitely think this is the most likely outcome. Idk about next year, but definitely sometime before the lease ends.
I wouldn't say that. The judge did say that based on what he considered there is no reason UCLA shouldn't play at the Rose Bowl next year.
So, aside from not issuing the TRO because there is "no emergency", he seemed to acknowledge the contractual points the Rose Bowl raised.
I would suggest that this is akin to taking the opening drive and quickly getting a field goal.
Yes, there are some points on the scoreboard, but this game is long from over at this point.
good point
Having this type of landlord-tenant relationship for the next 19 years is untenable for both sides. Certainly some posturing, and the Rose Bowl/Pasadena must recognize this.
As to a re-make of Ducky or a small on-campus stadium, if it would come to that I'd recommend a move to a nice FCS league with no major financial considerations like coaches' salaries and NIL. UCLA can still rely on being considered one of the world's finest educational and medical facilities. Oh, somehow I don't think the BIG 10 would cotton to the idea anyway.
It may be untenable right now, but if the relationship is forced to continue, then there will be a entirely different group of people at some point in the future.
People change over time.
When Chip Kelly took over, RBOC GM Darryl Dunn called UCLA a good partner, even though Chip wanted the team to stay in Westwood before games rather than Pasadena as the contract requires. It was a minor detail he wasn't concerned with.
But since that point in 2018, Dunn and UCLA AD Guerrero both retired.
Now, UCLA is engaged in what the Rose Bowl attorney called a "shell game." It was a nice way of calling the UCLA administration a bunch of liars.
If there is a signed deal with Sofi, did someone commit perjury?
Perjury only applies to testimony under oath. Attorney representations are not testimony unless the attorney agreed to take an oath, which is highly unlikely. It sounds like the hearing was non-evidentiary (just attorneys arguing and no live testimony taken) and based upon written declarations instead of live testimony. Not sure if the declarations were sworn or not. Unless they were submitted to the judge directly and not filed, those written declarations should be part of the court's docket.
"Judge Chalfant graduated with his B.A. in zoology from Pomona College in 1974. He went on to earn his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law in 1979." (https://trellis.law/judge/james.c.chalfant)
Conflict of interest? j/k 😁
..sheer incompetence. Been there and [seen] that in a couple of familial civil sorties I was engaged in. Sometimes the guys in the long black robes are headshakingly dense...
...or just tuned to a different frequency. .
Quoting a great attorney friend (UCLA/then Harvard) of mine that practices law in West LA, Superior Court judges (add appellate judges) are attorneys that could not make the cut in the real world. AND you are at their mercy. It's obvious the judge deferred details/direction because he did not know how to proceed or know the answers. RE judges.....are you really going to take a $200,000 gig if you are a competent attorney?????
I know a lot of incompetent attorneys who make more than $200K and a lot of very competent attorneys who make less, myself included. Not all of us went to Harvard Law and practice in West LA.
Your conclusion about the judge could not be more wrong from a legal perspective. Hearings on temporary restraining orders are ex parte hearings and the relief requested is only warranted in true emergency circumstances. No verbal testimony is taken. No evidence is admitted except for written declarations and exhibits attached thereto. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. Under these extremely preliminary circumstances and without the opportunity for discovery, the Rose Bowl was unable to produce the "smoking gun" of a breach. News reports are are not sufficient. If there was a signed "letter of intent" or "Memorandum of Understanding" that they somehow obtained, that would likely have been enough for the temporary relief sought. The judge was 100% correct in his ruling and knows exactly how to proceed--have the parties take discovery (i.e., gather evidence) and then address the issue through the preliminary injunction procedure, where the legal standard is not so high. The judge was also logical in noting that there was no "emergency" since no games will be played in the 2026 season until September. Again, there is no emergency and there is plenty of time to take discovery and revisit in a few months.
Thanks for the legal analysis!
What are your thoughts on UCLA's likelihood to get out of the contract if the Rose Bowl refuses to terminate early?
If this is ignored -- the barn door can only be shut after the horses have escaped -- I'm done with the present regime at UCLA.* To be honest and though there is no hard evidence, it surely looks like a red herring to draw attention away from The Fetus.
"Help! The Paranoids are after me!"
"Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that the evil forces are NOT after you!"
*As if they care.
Here's ChatGPT's analysis on the probable outcome of this litigation.
Summary of the Situation
UCLA has played home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982.
The current lease — Restated Agreement No. 20,501 — was extended in 2014 and runs through June 30, 2044.
That extension reportedly included UCLA’s waiver of any early termination right, except in narrow circumstances such as a “Game-Threatening Default” (if the Rose Bowl were unable to host games).
The City of Pasadena and the RBOC argue they made over $200 million in stadium renovations and bond financing based on UCLA’s long-term commitment.
When UCLA began exploring a possible move to SoFi Stadium, Pasadena and the RBOC sued, alleging breach of contract and seeking a court order to stop UCLA from leaving. Their request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) was denied by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who found that immediate irreparable harm wasn’t proven. The broader case remains active.
Key Legal Points
The lease requires UCLA to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and prohibits hosting home games elsewhere in Los Angeles or Orange County.
UCLA has no apparent contractual right to terminate early unless a “Game-Threatening Default” occurs — which hasn’t happened.
Pasadena and the RBOC have a strong breach argument, but courts are generally reluctant to order “specific performance” (forcing an ongoing relationship) when monetary damages can compensate the harm.
The TRO denial suggests the court isn’t convinced the harm is irreparable at this stage — a signal that future relief would likely be monetary, not injunctive.
Probable Outcome
Given all existing reporting and contract details, the most likely resolution is a negotiated financial settlement or lease buyout, rather than a long-term court order forcing UCLA to stay at the Rose Bowl.
Approximate likelihoods based on current facts:
~65% — Settlement / negotiated buyout:
UCLA pays Pasadena/RBOC to terminate or amend the lease. This allows both sides to avoid years of litigation and gives Pasadena compensation for its financial exposure.
~20% — Court awards damages, UCLA leaves anyway:
If UCLA moves and is found in breach, the court could issue a large monetary award to Pasadena rather than compel performance.
~10% — Court orders specific performance (UCLA must stay):
Possible if Pasadena proves unique and irreparable harm, but unlikely given judicial reluctance to supervise decades of future obligations.
~5% — Prolonged litigation or hybrid resolution:
The case drags through discovery and appeals, with partial settlements or phased arrangements.
Bottom Line
UCLA’s contract appears binding, and Pasadena’s legal position is strong on paper, but practical realities favor a financial resolution rather than forcing UCLA to remain through 2044. The TRO denial underscores that the court views this primarily as a money dispute, not one requiring emergency intervention.
In short, the most probable endgame is a settlement or buyout where UCLA compensates Pasadena/RBOC and gains freedom to relocate home games, likely to SoFi Stadium, within the next few years.
No offense to you or anyone who thinks ChatGPT is useful, but I would prefer if people didn’t use AI in their posts. We’re all human here, and people would rather talk to other humans than what the fun magic box says.
^^^This
Regardless of how you feel, Joe needs to up his game. Case in point, his sparkling analysis that, “Tonight’s men’s game should be over by halftime.” Instead, we were in a tight matchup. Today’s amazingly grammatically unreadable AI like comment, “He was not especially clear has 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.” Then the topper of a lazy non-use of spell check in, “His Honor also concludedthere is real and concrete evidence of injury and irreparable harm to the City not compensable by money damages alone.”
I'm the first to admit that I had forgotten Mick Cronin's penchant for testing different lineup sets early in the season which frequently results in the Bruins allowing an opponent to stick around a lot longer than they should in an early season game.
I have NEVER used AI for any TMB articles, though I do sometimes through extra letters in.as was the case with the second sentence you referenced. When was the last time you sat down on a bench in a courthouse trying to publish something as quickly as possible while being as complete as possible?
As for the third, I published the statement from Pasadena as it was provided. Yup, I copied and pasted. So, I missed the missing space.
Fair enough. That said, given you’re posting in a semi-professional/professional role and representing UCLA, it’s best to take your time and guarantee the quality of your work, rather than rush to be the first. As Wooden said, "Be quick, but don't hurry.”
If by "semi-professional/professional role" you mean not getting paid for your work but doing it out of the love for the four letters and the community at large, then... nope, I still don't get your complaints. I thought your first comment was tongue in cheek, but your second belies the severity of your criticism. I guess you could start posting information and ensure you do it better...
Seriously? Would you turn in a paper without proofreading and spell checking it, first?
If we can’t hold ourselves to basic standards, it would be hypocritical to then criticize our players, coaches, and administration for phoning in their performance.
And where is the subscription money going? I would hope it’s going to the writers. Even some of The Daily Bruin writers get paid a pittance.
Perhaps you'd like to think for yourself rather than post what a data-scraping program that invents "information" when "it" can't find actual factual information about a topic(s) culls from random internet sources... F
There are a few fairly large parcels of land in Westwood that could be obtained/leased for the construction of a small stadium if the right cards were played. It would require money, political pressure/will, and possibly land swaps or other deals with the city, LADWP, Metro, and Feds. There probably isn't the will to make deals and "settle" for a 35-40,000 seat stadium close to campus.
Option 1:
Westwood Park and LADWP land south of the Federal Building. Complete overhaul of the park with a stadium built on the western side where the rec center stands. Rebuild park amenities around the stadium and make the park better for area residents with the remaining space. Possibly link Bad News Bears Field across Sepulveda with a pedestrian bridge and build a UCLA Baseball complex there. Lease parking from the Federal Building.
Option 2:
Existing UCLA and Metro property north of Wilshire, surrounded by Veteran, Kinross, and Gayley. Yes there are buildings and a metro stop to worry about (probably too far along), but a small stadium would fit. Could incorporate amenities (fitness center, offices) for year-round school use. Lease parking from the Federal Building. Public transportation can't get closer.
This whole mess by Donut Head Jelly 2.0 and his Donut Holes, along with his BFF Blockhead 2.0 and his Block Holes, seems to be smeared in back room deals, leaderless liars, and a whole lot of money vanishing into thin air.
UCLA is acting like a huge corrupt corporation not an entity for the greater good...
Meanwhile, the Bruin Fam is my savior through it all. Thank you Joe, DD for your tenacious work, and so grateful for every one of my friends here.
And War, keep the brilliant humor going... I can always count on you to lift my day with your historic Warriorisms 💙💛