Rose Bowl Operating Committee, Pasadena Respond to UC Arbitration Bid

The Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the city of Pasadena state in new court papers that the UC Regents have no basis for seeking to compel arbitration of their lawsuit alleging that UCLA is wrongfully exploring options for a new home football venue, specifically SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

In court papers filed Thursday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner, the RBOC and the city contend that the regents are focusing on an alternative dispute resolution provision of the agreement that is “deliberately and particularly narrow” and does not take into consideration the contract as a whole.

Taken together, these provisions reflect an ADR [alternative dispute resolution] mechanism that clearly and expressly is not applicable to an attempted termination that threatens hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment and long-term municipal revenue,” the RBOC/city attorneys state in their court papers.

The provision instead is limited to expeditiously resolving routine, curable performance disputes, according to the RBOC/city lawyers’ court papers.

The parties clearly intended that the ADR provision would not cover termination disputes such as the one here and thus the motion must be denied,” the RBOC/city lawyers further contend in their pleadings.

The arguments by the city and the RBOC contrast with those of the UC Regents’ lawyers who, on behalf of UCLA, state that the plaintiffs are bound by an arbitration agreement and that “no exceptions apply to RBOC’s claims.

The UC Regents attorneys say UCLA did not deny talking with SoFi Stadium.

After all, UCLA has a duty to constantly assess what is best for the university, its football team, its fans, its alumni and its students,” according to the UC Regents’ attorneys’ pleadings. “Rather, as UCLA simply informed RBOC, the agreement does not prevent UCLA from having discussions with other venues.

When UCLA promptly responded to the RBOC’s concerns and said it would work with it in good faith to try to resolve various issues between the parties, the RBOC instead sued and lost in an attempt to get a temporary restraining order, the UC Regents lawyers further state.

The RBOC and the city also are opposing a separate motion by newly added defendants Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC and Stadco LA LLC to compel arbitration, arguing in their court papers that the operators of SoFi Stadium are “complete nonsignatories to the governing contract” and that their request “fails at the threshold.

A hearing on the motions to compel arbitration is set for Jan. 22.

The suit filed Oct. 29 seeks to enforce the terms of a lease agreement the plaintiff claims locks UCLA into playing football at the venue until 2044, which the UC Regents attorneys acknowledge in their court papers.

According to the lawsuit, UCLA has expressed its intent “to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

This is not only a clear break of the contract that governs the parties’ relationship, but it is also a profound betrayal of trust, of tradition, and of the very community that helped build UCLA football,” the lawsuit states.