Pasadena Files Emergency Motion to Block UCLA’s Exit From the Rose Bowl
The City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company have asked a Los Angeles Superior Court to block UCLA from ending its lease and moving its home football games before their lawsuit is decided. The motion, filed Monday, asks the court for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to keep the university at the Rose Bowl while the case continues. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday morning.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, asks the court to require UCLA and the Regents of the University of California to honor the 2010 Rose Bowl contract. That contract, signed after a major renovation paid for with city bonds, requires the UCLA Bruins to play home games at the Rose Bowl through the end of the 2043 season. Pasadena officials say the university’s consideration of other venues, including SoFi Stadium, would violate the long-term lease.
According to court filings, Pasadena says UCLA’s possible departure would cause lasting financial harm to the city, its residents, and local businesses that rely on game days. The filing states that the stadium’s finances and bond payments depend on the expectation of regular UCLA home games. Uncertainty about the team’s plans, the city argues, has already disrupted operations and relationships with vendors and sponsors.
Under the 2010 lease, UCLA can terminate the agreement early only if a “Game Threatening Default” occurs, defined as an immediate condition preventing the team from playing at the stadium. Pasadena maintains that no such circumstance exists and that even considering relocation breaks the contract. UCLA denies any wrongdoing and says it is meeting all its lease obligations while reviewing options for its football program.
Under California law, a breach of contract occurs when one side fails to live up to its end of a valid agreement and causes harm to the other. Pasadena says UCLA’s actions break both the written terms and the good faith promise that comes with a long-term contract. The city also claims anticipatory repudiation, which applies when a party clearly communicates that it does not plan to follow the contract in the future. Pasadena points to UCLA’s discussions about other stadiums as evidence of that intent.
UCLA could respond that exploring other venues does not, by itself, amount to a legal breach. Courts usually look for a clear statement or action showing that one side does not plan to follow the contract. The university may argue that it is only reviewing options and has not taken any step to withdraw from its commitments.
Pasadena’s motion also seeks an injunction, a type of court order meant to keep things as they are while a case is pending. An injunction is considered an unusual remedy because it limits what a party can do in the future. To get one, the requesting side must show that money would not fix the harm and that keeping things as they are is fairer overall. Pasadena argues that financial damages would not be enough to make up for the loss of UCLA’s games, which it says are essential to the Rose Bowl’s operations and stability.
In its filing, the city notes that the lease itself remains in effect through June 30, 2044, covering the 2043 football season. City lawyers are asking the court to bar UCLA from scheduling or hosting home games at any other stadium until that date and to award damages to be determined at trial. The dispute shows how cities rely on long-term leases to fund and manage large public venues. The court’s decision could affect how future stadium contracts are enforced when a major team tries to leave early.
