Court Rejects Restraining Order, Allowing UCLA Rose Bowl Move

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have kept UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl. The decision was made by Judge James C. Chalfant, who stated the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an urgent need for such an order.

Court Dismisses Request to Retain UCLA at Rose Bowl

The Rose Bowl Operating Company and the City of Pasadena sought the restraining order in their ongoing legal battle with UCLA. Judge Chalfant highlighted that comparisons to previous cases involving professional teams like the New York Yankees were not applicable. Unlike those cases, UCLA’s next home game at the Rose Bowl is not until fall 2026, following its last game against Washington on November 22.

No Imminent Financial Harm

Chalfant noted that there was no immediate financial threat to the Rose Bowl or the city, partially because an agreement to build a field-level club had not yet been signed. The legal matters surrounding UCLA and its future at the Rose Bowl remain unresolved.

Legal Counsel Comments

• Nima Mohebbi, attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed satisfaction with the ruling.
• He mentioned pursuing discovery information related to UCLA’s talks with SoFi Stadium.
• Mohebbi reassured that UCLA holds an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044.

Mary Osako, vice chancellor of strategic communications at UCLA, commented that no decisions regarding the football program’s long-term arrangements have been made. UCLA has been utilizing the Rose Bowl for its home games since 1982, supported by a long-term lease signed in 2014.

Long-Term Lease Agreement

This lease amendment, signed by Janet Napolitano, established commitments for about $200 million in stadium improvements. Despite assertions from Judge Chalfant that specific performance could compel UCLA to adhere to the lease, UCLA’s attorneys rejected claims that they intended to end the agreement.

Dispute Over Decision-Making

The court proceedings included discussions about alleged efforts by UCLA to explore possibilities outside of the Rose Bowl. Mohebbi accused UCLA of attempting to negotiate an exit silently. He argued that the situation arose from the obligation that both public entities have towards their communities.

Moving Forward

Chalfant’s assertions promote further dialogues regarding the legal responsibilities of UCLA. The case continues to unfold, with implications not just for UCLA but for local public interests, including potential impacts on funding for essential services.