{"id":896257,"date":"2026-05-20T09:30:22","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T09:30:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/896257\/"},"modified":"2026-05-20T09:30:22","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T09:30:22","slug":"uclas-rose-bowl-fight-gets-heated-in-court-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/896257\/","title":{"rendered":"UCLA’s Rose Bowl fight gets heated in court hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Frustrations between lawyers in the Rose Bowl\u2019s breach-of-contract case<\/a> against UCLA seeped into the proceedings Tuesday during a spicy exchange in Los Angeles Superior Court.<\/p>\n

While discussing UCLA\u2019s refusal to commit to the terms of a lease that binds it to play home games at the Rose Bowl through the 2043 season, an attorney for the plaintiffs expressed his exasperation at piecemeal pledges such as the school only agreeing to remain through the 2026 season<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is like a shell game, your honor, and it\u2019s so frustrating because we\u2019ve been doing this for seven months and going through these sorts of machinations that I just think is inappropriate for such an easy case,\u201d said Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not a difficult case \u2013 this is a plain vanilla breach-of-contract case<\/a> where we want to exercise the rights we have in the contract to prevent our counter party from leaving \u2013 that\u2019s exactly what the contract allows us to do and we\u2019ve been denied at every possible opportunity to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Frustrations between lawyers in the Rose Bowl\u2019s breach-of-contract case against UCLA seeped into the proceedings Tuesday during a spicy exchange in Los Angeles Superior Court. Getty Images<\/p>\n

While discussing UCLA\u2019s refusal to commit to the terms of a lease that binds it to play home games at the Rose Bowl through the 2043 season, an attorney for the plaintiffs expressed his exasperation at piecemeal pledges such as the school only agreeing to remain through the 2026 season. Getty Images<\/p>\n

UCLA is pushing to leave the Rose Bowl Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag<\/p>\n

A few minutes later, Jeremy Smith, an attorney representing UCLA, shot back at that characterization.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have to say, it really bothers me that they call this gamesmanship \u2013 that\u2019s how we view it,\u201d Smith said. \u201cThe other side is relying on the statements of outside counsel as the basis for their lawsuit. That\u2019s exactly what is not supposed to happen; that\u2019s why you\u2019re supposed to have those conversations before [litigation] so that we don\u2019t end up in your court, not that those conversations become the essence of the lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

The hearing centered around UCLA\u2019s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case based on its contention that the Rose Bowl\u2019s lawsuit arose from privileged pre-litigation communications made by Jeffrey Moorad about UCLA\u2019s alleged intentions to leave its longtime football home.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSign up for the California Morning Report newsletter\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCalifornia’s top news, sports and entertainment delivered to your inbox every day.\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\tThanks for signing up!\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

According to documents filed by the plaintiffs, Moorad \u2013 the former Arizona Diamondbacks and San Diego Padres CEO who was working as a consultant for UCLA \u2013 told them last October that UCLA was moving on from playing games at the Rose Bowl, saying there was \u201cno way [UCLA is] staying long term\u201d and that UCLA \u201cwill leave.\u201d<\/p>\n

Smith said those communications, which were privileged and confidential, directly led to the Rose Bowl\u2019s filing of the case the same month.<\/p>\n

UCLA playing their Spring Game at the Rose Bowl on May 2, 2026. Icon Sportswire via Getty Images<\/p>\n

But Mohebbi said even putting those statements aside, the Rose Bowl learned of UCLA\u2019s exploration of a possible move to SoFi Stadium through other communications between UCLA athletic department staffers and their counterparts at the Rose Bowl.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the plaintiffs recently disclosed documents<\/a> revealing UCLA\u2019s previous intentions to leave the Rose Bowl for the 2026 season. As part of an August 2025\u00a0text message exchange between then-UCLA chief financial officer Stephen Agostini and Kevin Demoff, president of Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, Kroenke replied, in part, \u201cgood luck tonight, next year at SoFi!\u201d<\/p>\n

In a tentative ruling, Judge Joseph Lipner wrote that he was inclined to deny UCLA\u2019s motion because it was \u201cuntimely and unsupported by sufficient cause to permit late filing.\u201d Attorneys for the plaintiffs have described the motion as a stall tactic designed to further delay discovery in the case.<\/p>\n

After filing its lawsuit against UCLA, the Rose Bowl later adding Kroenke Sports and Entertainment as a co-defendant for allegedly enticing UCLA to explore making SoFi Stadium its new football home through tortious interference.<\/p>\n

Lipner did not render a final ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion Tuesday, indicating that he was weighing whether to wait until a court of appeals had decided on a separate appeal filed by UCLA.<\/p>\n

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters <\/p>\n

California Post News: Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, TikTok<\/a>, X<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, WhatsApp<\/a>, LinkedIn<\/a>
California Post Sports Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, TikTok<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, X<\/a>
California Post Opinion<\/a>
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!<\/a>
California Post App: Download here!<\/a>
Home delivery: Sign up here!<\/a>
<\/a>Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here!<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t