Stay in Rose Bowl, City’s Lawsuit Against UCLA Would Put Pasadena In Limbo, Judge Warns

At this point, it’s getting hard to keep score.

The City and the Rose Bowl Operating Company scored another major victory over UCLA when Judge Joseph Lipner ruled that the City’s litigation against the university can move forward in a high-stakes dispute over UCLA’s future at the Rose Bowl.

In that ruling, Lipner warned that putting the case on hold could leave Pasadena in “limbo” for a year or more and delay resolution of urgent financial and operational questions tied to the stadium.

“Here, UCLA will suffer no harm from the lack of a stay other than needing to proceed with the litigation in the interim, which is the same situation facing any party appealing an arbitration denial,” the ruling reads. “By contrast, Plaintiffs City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company (“Plaintiffs”) will suffer substantial and case-specific harm if the case is stayed.”

Judge Lipner said in his ruling that the City and the RBOC filed this lawsuit to obtain a speedy determination of the parties’ rights and obligations concerning UCLA’s contractual agreement to play home football games at the Rose Bowl.

“A timely determination of this issue would allow Plaintiffs—whether they win or lose this lawsuit—to address their substantial business and financial obligations and relationships that depend on that legal question. A stay, on the other hand, would ensure that any such determination would be delayed by a year or more, leaving Plaintiffs in limbo and unnecessarily postponing resolution of this dispute.”

The City filed its lawsuit after UCLA officials said the team would move to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. The University’s lease with the stadium does not end for another 19 years.

The university hopes to make more money at SoFi Stadium with a deal for part of the profits for premium seating.

Although there is no arbitration clause in the lease, UCLA has claimed the matter should be resolved in arbitration and asked for a stay in the case while the college appeals an earlier ruling by the judge denying arbitration.

Lipner denied a request by UCLA and SoFi Stadium officials to pause proceedings finding that the potential harm to Pasadena outweighs any burden on UCLA to continue litigating.

The ruling means that the City can now depose officials at the college and the stadium and potentially learn more about the proposed deal between the college and the stadium and other details in the case.

“As a practical matter, UCLA will suffer no prejudice beyond its normal participation in a litigation process,” the court wrote, noting that discovery conducted now would be useful regardless of whether the case ultimately proceeds in court or arbitration.

Lawyers for the City argue that uncertainty over UCLA’s plans could disrupt vendor contracts, sponsorships and ticket sales, while also affecting the city’s financial planning, including debt tied to stadium renovations.

“The entire point of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit appears to be an effort to obtain an early adjudication” of whether UCLA can leave the Rose Bowl, the ruling states, underscoring the need for a timely decision.

The court also rejected UCLA’s argument that federal arbitration law requires an automatic stay, finding instead that California law applies and does not mandate halting trial court proceedings during an appeal.

The case will now move forward in Los Angeles County Superior Court even as UCLA pursues its appeal. A previously scheduled case management conference was continued to May 19.