On Monday, the city of Pasadena and Rose Bowl Operating Co. sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking to prevent UCLA leave the Rose Bowl or terminate the stadium's lease until the lawsuit against the school is resolved.
The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs will suffer “immediate and irreparable harm if the status quo is not maintained while this lawsuit is pending.” The hearing is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday morning.
Last week The plaintiffs sued to force the Bruins to honor the terms of their lease. To do this, they need to remain in the Rose Bowl until the end of the 2043 season.
UCLA responded with a statement that it was still evaluating options for its football home, although someone familiar with the university's thinking on the matter later confirmed to The Times that if the Bruins decide to move to Sophie Stadium, they will do so. I want to do this in the 2026 season.
In their filing Monday, the plaintiffs argued that: “There is no sugarcoating the situation: UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, which will severely destabilize Plaintiffs' core operations. These operations are structured around and dependent on UCLA. Without confirmation that UCLA intends to fulfill its contractual obligations – at least while this litigation is pending – Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to plan and manage the stadium's operating schedule and their ongoing business operations, including sourcing and securing future business partners and opportunities, retaining staff and maintaining trust among the many vendors and sponsors who rely on UCLA Football.
“Equally troubling is the precedent that UCLA sets. Public-private partnerships in stadiums and arenas, and the financing that makes them possible, are based on enforceable long-term contracts whose terms are typically matched by the size of the public debt incurred. UCLA's attempt to terminate its contract decades early critically undermines these structures.”
