Rose Bowl: "We Will Not Agree to Terminate UCLA Lease Early"
Pasadena and RBOC filed for temporary restraining order today which would prohibit UCLA football from playing anywhere but the Rose Bowl.
Much of the speculation surrounding UCLA’s plan to move to SoFi Stadium as soon as next season has centered around the possibility of a negotiated settlement to end UCLA’s long-term lease at the Rose Bowl.
Well, court filings obtained by TheMightyBruin.com (see page 10) make the Rose Bowl’s position crystal clear. An October 28 letter from attorney Nima Mohebbi, who represents the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company, states the following:
Let me speak clearly: the City and the RBOC will not agree to an early termination of the Agreement. Absent termination, UCLA may not play its home football games in any stadium located in Los Angeles County or Orange County other than the Rose Bowl. UCLA voluntarily extended the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2044, expressly waived any right to terminate early, and agreed that its commitments could be enforced through equitable remedies.
Take a second to re-read that.
“'[T]he City and the RBOC will not agree to an early termination of the Agreement.”
Period.
Full stop.
Ouch.
In response to the reports over the weekend that UCLA is planning to move its home games to SoFi Stadium as soon as 2026, the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Committee have filed for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against UCLA to prevent the school from moving its home football games to SoFi Stadium.
According to court documents which were filed in LA County Superior Court, Pasadena is looking for an injunction preventing UCLA from leaving the Rose Bowl or terminating its stadium lease until the lawsuit which was previously filed against the university is resolved.
Among other things, the TRO brief states:
UCLA waived (emphasis included) its “right to terminate th[e] Agreement prior to the expiration of the term of th[e] Agreement,” and UCLA’s termination of the Agreement in the absence of a Game-Threatening Default, which has never occurred, is a breach of contract.
As I’ve written before, the only possible way UCLA can terminate the lease would be if there was a “Game Threatening Default.” Basically, the conditions at the Rose Bowl would have to be so bad that the team just absolutely could not play a game at the facility. When I say that, I’m talking about the sort of reports that were frequent about the Oakland Coliseum in thee final years that the Oakland A’s played there.
Oaklandside.org described the state of the Oakland Coliseum this way back in 2021 including reports from both the NY Times and Bleacher Report:
Over this time, the Coliseum fell into disrepair. Mice began appearing in vending machines. The dugouts began flooding with feces. For some fans, one product of all this was disenchantment. It began to feel as if the Coliseum that we loved—and, implicitly, the city we called our own—stopped loving us back.
To date, there haven’t been any reports of this level of disrepair at the Rose Bowl. In fact, the document states very clearly on page 35 of the PDF which containts Part 1 of the exhibits provided with the Nima Mohebbi declaration that the Rose Bowl and Pasadena “have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required of them, and UCLA has never claimed otherwise. Paragraphs 30.a and 32 of the Agreement permit UCLA to terminate the Agreement only upon RBOC’s failure to cure a ‘Game Threatening Default’ that creates ‘an imminent likelihood that UCLA will be prevented from playing a scheduled Home Game’ at the Rose Bowl Stadium, after UCLA provides RBOC with written notice and an opportunity to cure. No ‘Game Threatening Default’ has occurred; nor has UCLA ever provided RBOC with notice of one.” (emphasis added)
Wow.
So, UCLA hasn’t ever claimed that the conditions at the Rose Bowl were insufficient for the team to play a game there, meaning that their one and only way to terminate the lease just went out the window.
The TRO brief lays out the case clearly. In discussing UCLA’s breach of contract, it says:
UCLA’s breach—or in the alternative, anticipatory repudiation—is plain. UCLA told Plaintiffs it would “mov[e] on” from the Rose Bowl Stadium and that “there’s no way [it’s] staying long term.” This is a clear violation of the Agreement. Post-litigation statements that UCLA “continue[s] to evaluate” other stadium options, only highlight its disregard for its contractual obligations. And recent reporting based on sources within UCLA shows UCLA has gone beyond evaluation. The ink is nearly dry on a deal to move to SoFi Stadium next 2026 season.
Other documents provided in court filings including a declarartion from RBOC attorney Nima Mohebbi, a declaration from RBOC CEO Jens Weiden, a declaration from Rose Bowl attorney Irwin Raij, a declaration from former UCLA Associate Athletic Director and current Rose Bowl General Manager Derek Doolittle, a declaration from Pasadena Deputy Finance Director Vicken Erganian and, finally, Part 2 of the exhibits which were attached to Mohebbi’s declaration.
So, while I’m not an attorney, the language of both the contract and the court filings are simple enough.
Not only is there no buyout, but without something occurring which became a “game threatening default” for consecutive home games, there is no way out of this lease unless UCLA negotiates a settlement with the RBOC and the City of Pasadena, and they sure seem to have indicated that there will not be a negotiated settlement.
Frankly, looking at the facts here, which are supported by numerous legal precedents, I don’t see a reason for Pasadena and the RBOC to agree to any settlement with UCLA which would release them from this lease agreement.
Given that it seems doubtful that UCLA will prevail, it seems very likely that UCLA will be smacked down hard in Wednesday’s court hearing.
While the pleading indicates that the request for the TRO will be held in Department 72, the LA County Superior Court advised me that the hearing will actually be in Department 85 at 8:30 am on Wednesday morning.
Stay tuned.
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.
Update for everyone from Ben Bolch:
Judge ruled against the RBOC and City of Pasadena and denied the TRO, which was to be expected given that UCLA hasn't formally announced its intention to leave, and thus there is no legal emergency the RBOC and Pasadena would need a TRO to fix.
This does not mean UCLA is gone from the Rose Bowl yet, but it takes a big tool out of the RBOC's toolbox.
Perhaps the Rose Bowl Operating Committee can invoke the “Game Threatening Default" clause, whereby the Bruins are impersonating a D1 program and competent Athletic Department, thus releasing the Bruins to play elsewhere.