[Updated] A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied Pasadena’s request for a temporary restraining order, ruling that the city had not demonstrated an emergency requiring immediate judicial relief.
The city sought the restraining order in connection with its dispute over UCLA’s football scheduling and long-term contractual obligations to the Rose Bowl. Pasadena alleges that UCLA is attempting to shift home games away from the stadium, violating a lease agreement that runs through 2044.
“We appreciate the Court’s careful and thoughtful consideration before its ruling today,” the City said in a statement released on Wednesday. “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.”
Judge James V. Chalfant also concluded there is real and concrete evidence of injury and irreparable harm to the City not compensable by money damages alone, according to the statement.
The City intends to file a motion for preliminary injunction and pursue comprehensive discovery.
Pasadena’s attorney said the city now intends to pursue either a permanent injunction or a mandatory injunction and will begin the discovery process. A motion for a preliminary injunction is expected to be filed in the coming days.
After the hearing, attorneys representing the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl expressed confidence in the judge’s remarks and the strength of their case.
“Even though the judge found there was no immediate emergency, we’re very pleased with his statements,” said Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena. “He made very clear that there’s irreparable harm and that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044. We’re very confident in our facts.”
The attorneys said they have already submitted a Public Records Act request seeking documentation from UCLA and plan to use discovery to compel further disclosures.
“As you saw from the hearing, they didn’t commit to anything,” the attorney added. “Everything has been behind closed doors. We look forward to continuing aggressive litigation to force UCLA to honor its obligations.”
Another attorney described the hearing as a “big deal,” noting that the judge’s comments suggest Pasadena may ultimately prevail. “Based on the assumptions the judge made and the facts we presented, there’s a real chance of success in the long term,” the attorney said.
Judge Chalfant spoke in a quiet, measured tone throughout the proceedings. UCLA did not make any public statements during or after the hearing, and it remains unclear whether university representatives were present in court.
No timeline was set for the next hearing, but further filings are expected as the case moves toward full evidentiary review.
“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.”
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
