Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium were added as defendants in an amended complaint filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the city of Pasadena in Los Angeles Superior Court as part of the plaintiffs’ bid to keep UCLA’s football team as a tenant at the Rose Bowl.
In new court documents filed late Thursday, attorneys for the Rose Bowl and Pasadena contend that “upon information and belief,” in late 2024 or early 2025, Kroenke executives openly suggested that SoFi Stadium was pursuing UCLA, “demonstrating the SoFi defendants’ intent to induce UCLA’s breach and disturb UCLA’s performance of the agreement” from a contract that binds the Bruins to play at the Rose Bowl through the 2043 season.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys further alleged that the SoFi Stadium defendants knew about UCLA’s agreement with the Rose Bowl “yet coordinated with UCLA to breach its contractual obligations and abandon the Rose Bowl stadium in favor of playing its home football games at SoFi Stadium.” The attorneys contend that SoFi Stadium officials were aware that such discussions would violate the school’s agreement with the Rose Bowl, “thereby acting with malice in luring UCLA football away from its contractual home in Pasadena.”
Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that “as a direct and proximate cause of the SoFi defendants’ conduct, and as described herein, plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm necessitating equitable relief and for which monetary damages alone would be inadequate. Plaintiffs have also incurred significant monetary damages, including economic loss, consequential damages, and other general and specific damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, but which amount could exceed one billion dollars.”
The amended complaint seeks to not only force UCLA to play every home football game at the Rose Bowl through the end of its lease but also asks the court to prevent Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium from interfering with the Bruins’ contractual obligations. The plaintiffs also requested monetary damages for UCLA’s breach and/or anticipatory repudiation of its contract as well as monetary damages arising from Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium’s interference with UCLA’s commitment to honor its Rose Bowl lease.
UCLA repeatedly said in public statements that it continued to evaluate its options for its future football home. Representatives for UCLA and SoFi Stadium would not comment on ongoing legal matters.
As part of the amended complaint, the attorneys also contend that UCLA should not be allowed to abandon its commitment to playing at the Rose Bowl after the stadium approved and began implementation of at least $28.5 million in construction for a field-level club in the south end zone specifically designed to enhance the Bruins’ game-day experience and generate revenue for the school. The attorneys said the project was moving forward after UCLA made assurances last spring and summer that it was not leaving the stadium for the foreseeable future.
The plaintiffs allege that the uncertainty over UCLA’s football future home already caused one Rose Bowl donor to back out of a $1-million pledge and multiple sponsors to refuse to sign new agreements. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that the Rose Bowl’s having transitioned its multimedia rights and sponsorship operations to JMI Sports because of its affiliation with UCLA could put the Rose Bowl at risk of further losses because JMI’s sponsorship agreements are “expressly structured” around UCLA football home games.
As part of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs also claimed that UCLA had “a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” that obligated the school to act honestly and fairly.
Attorneys for both sides are scheduled to meet in court next month for a hearing on UCLA’s motion to compel arbitration, a move that if granted would keep the matter out of public view. The plaintiffs’ attorneys said they oppose such a move and believe the matter is of great public interest.
