Kroenke Sports & Entertainment has been added as a defendant in an amended complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the city of Pasadena as part of the plaintiffs’ bid to keep the football team afloat.
In new court documents filed late Thursday, attorneys for the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the city of Pasadena claim that “on information and belief” Kroenke Sports & Entertainment executives publicly suggested that SoFi Stadium was pursuing UCLA in late 2024 or early 2025, “demonstrating the SoFi Defendants’ intent to induce UCLA to breach and impede UCLA’s performance of the contract” from a binding contract. The Bruins will play in the Rose Bowl until the 2043 season.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys further argued that the SoFi Stadium defendants were aware of UCLA’s agreement with the Rose Bowl and yet “in breach of their contractual obligations, they arranged with UCLA to abandon Rose Bowl Stadium in favor of playing home football games at SoFi Stadium.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that SoFi Stadium officials knew such discussions would violate the school’s agreement with the Rose Bowl and were “acting in bad faith thereby separating UCLA football from its contractual home in Pasadena.”
Additionally, the plaintiffs state in their claim that “as a direct and proximate cause of the SoFi Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, the plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm requiring equitable relief, and that monetary damages alone are insufficient.” Plaintiffs have also suffered significant monetary damages, including economic losses, consequential damages, and other general and specific damages, the amount of which will be determined at trial, but could exceed $1 billion. It’s a dollar. ”
UCLA has repeatedly said in public statements that it continues to consider options for its future football home. Representatives for UCLA and SoFi Stadium said they do not comment on ongoing legal matters.
As part of the amended complaint, plaintiffs’ attorneys also argue that UCLA should not be allowed to abandon its promise to play in the Rose Bowl after the stadium has approved and begun construction of at least $28.5 million in field-level club construction in the south end zone. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the project is moving forward after UCLA assured them last spring and summer that it would not leave the stadium for the foreseeable future.
In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs reiterated that they have suffered “irreparable harm requiring an equitable remedy” and that monetary damages alone are insufficient, giving them the right to force UCLA to continue playing in the Rose Bowl until the end of their contracts.
As part of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that UCLA “breached an implied contract of good faith and fair dealing” that obligates UCLA to act honestly and fairly.
Lawyers from both sides are scheduled to meet in court next month for a hearing on UCLA’s motion to force arbitration, which, if granted, would keep the matter hidden from public view. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they oppose such a move and believe the issue is of great public interest.
