Kroenke Sports and entertainment and Sophie Stadium were added as defendants to the amended complaint filed by Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena in Los Angeles Superior Court as part of the plaintiffs' bid to preserve UCLAfootball team like Rose Bowl tenant.
In new court documents filed late Thursday, attorneys for Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena alleged that “based on information and belief” in late 2024 or early 2025, Kroenke Sports & Entertainment executives openly speculated that SoFi Stadium was pursuing UCLA, “demonstrating SoFi Defendants' intent to cause UCLA to violate and prevent UCLA from complying with the agreement” of the contract that binds the Bruins to play in the Rose Bowl in the 2043 season.
The plaintiffs' attorneys further argued that the Sophie Stadium defendants were aware of UCLA's agreement with the Rose Bowl, “yet coordinated with UCLA to breach its contractual obligations and abandon Rose Bowl Stadium in favor of playing its home football games at Sophie Stadium.” The plaintiffs' attorneys argued that Sophie Stadium officials knew such discussions would violate the school's agreement with the Rose Bowl, “thus acting with malice to lure the UCLA football team away from its contract home in Pasadena.”
In addition, Plaintiffs asserted that “as a direct and proximate cause of SoFi Defendants' conduct as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm requiring equitable relief and for which monetary damages alone would be insufficient. Plaintiffs have also suffered significant pecuniary damages, including economic loss, consequential damages and other general and special damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, but such amount may exceed one billion.” dollars.”
UCLA has repeatedly said in public statements that it continues to evaluate options for its future football home. Representatives for UCLA and SoFi Stadium said they would not comment on ongoing legal matters.
As part of the amended complaint, plaintiffs' attorneys also argue that UCLA should not be allowed to renege on its commitment to play in the Rose Bowl after the stadium received approval and began implementing at least $28.5 million to build a field club in the south end zone. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the project is moving forward after UCLA gave assurances in the spring and summer that it would not abandon the stadium for the foreseeable future.
The plaintiffs asserted in their amended complaint that they suffered “irreparable harm requiring just compensation and for which monetary damages alone would not be sufficient,” which they argued gave them the right to force UCLA to continue playing in the Rose Bowl until the end of its contract.
As part of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that UCLA “breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” which required them to act honestly and fairly.
Lawyers for both sides plan to meet in court next month for a hearing on UCLA's motion to compel arbitration, a move that, if approved, would keep the matter hidden from the public. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they oppose such a move and believe the issue is of great public interest.
