Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium have been 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 Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena contended that “upon information and belief,” in late 2024 or early 2025, Kroenke Sports & Entertainment 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 plaintiffs attorneys contended 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 contended in their allegations 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.”
UCLA has repeatedly said in public statements that it continued to evaluate its options for its future football home. Representatives for UCLA and SoFi Stadium have said they would not comment on ongoing legal matters.
As part of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs attorneys also are contending 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. The plaintiffs 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 reiterated in their amended complaint that they have suffered “irreparable harm necessitating equitable relief and for which monetary damages alone would be inadequate,” which they claim entitled them to force UCLA to keep playing at the Rose Bowl through the end of its contract.
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 them 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 have said they oppose such a move and believe the matter was of great public interest.
