Pasadena Heads Back to Court Monday in Fight to Keep UCLA Football at the Rose Bowl

The Rose Bowl has stood at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains for more than a century, and for the past 44 years it has been UCLA football’s home. Monday morning, city lawyers will argue in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom that it should stay that way — and that they should not have to wait any longer to prove it.

At stake is a lease Pasadena says commits the Bruins to the Rose Bowl through 2044, a publicly owned stadium that Pasadena taxpayers have backed with more than $280 million in renovation bonds, and the outcome of a legal fight that the city and the Rose Bowl Operating Company launched in October when they sued UCLA, accusing the university of working to move its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, according to the complaint. The question before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 72, is whether to put the entire case on pause.

The UC Regents — suing on behalf of UCLA — are asking the court for a “stay,” meaning a suspension of all proceedings, while they pursue an appeal of Lipner’s February 5 ruling. In that ruling, the judge rejected UCLA’s attempt to force the dispute into private arbitration, finding instead that a jury should hear it. The regents argue the appeal raises at least “substantial or debatable” issues and that UCLA would be “irreparably harmed” if it must keep litigating in a public courtroom only to have an appellate court later conclude the case belonged in arbitration all along, according to court papers.

Attorneys for Pasadena and the RBOC push back hard. In filings submitted to Lipner this month, they accuse UCLA of deliberate delay. “UCLA has attempted to stay this case three different times in the five months since plaintiffs city of Pasadena and RBOC brought suit and twice in the last month,” the RBOC’s lawyers wrote in those filings. “All the while, plaintiffs have sought basic, reasonable discovery in the face of UCLA’s stonewalling.” The RBOC attorneys also argue that even if past alleged breaches might theoretically be subject to arbitration, their claim for “forward-looking declaratory relief” — a court order confirming UCLA is bound to honor the lease through its full term — “is not arbitrable and demands prompt resolution,” according to their court papers.

For Pasadena, the financial argument is concrete. City officials contend taxpayers invested more than $150 million in stadium renovations, with an additional $130 million in bonds recently refinanced for further improvements — all premised on UCLA’s lease commitment. The complaint puts potential damages from a UCLA departure at more than $1 billion.

UCLA, for its part, has maintained that the 2026 season is settled. “UCLA will play the upcoming football season at the Rose Bowl,” Mary Osako, UCLA’s vice chancellor for strategic communications, said in a February statement. “We know how much game day means to Bruins — to our students, alumni and fans who plan their autumn around Saturdays together. Our priority is delivering a strong season experience for our student-athletes and our community, and we have great momentum in our football program.” The university has not publicly committed beyond this season, and the regents’ court papers note there is “no urgency” in resolving the dispute before the Bruins have any scheduled home games. The RBOC’s lawyers counter that only after Lipner denied arbitration did UCLA confirm the 2026 season — and that no commitment was made beyond it.

Judge Lipner was direct in his February ruling about why the arbitration clause did not apply. “It would have been simple to require arbitration of lawsuits like the current one, including claims of anticipatory repudiation, if the parties had intended to do so,” he wrote. The clause, he found, was designed for narrow, curable performance disputes — not for a claim that one party is trying to walk away from the contract altogether.

The lawsuit has grown since it was filed. The city and RBOC added Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC and Stadco LA LLC — entities affiliated with SoFi Stadium — as defendants, alleging those parties coordinated with UCLA to induce a breach of the Rose Bowl contract. Discovery is ongoing. The case is proceeding toward a jury trial, although a stay, if granted today, could suspend that progress for months or longer while the appellate proceedings play out.

The hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Monday, April 13, in Department 72 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles. The case is assigned to Judge Joseph Lipner.

Nima Mohebbi, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, represents the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company.

In February, Lipner rejected UCLA’s third attempt to move the case out of court — and sent the dispute toward a jury. Whether Monday’s hearing moves that process forward or pauses it is now his call again.