LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County Choose James C. Chalfant on Wednesday denied the town of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Working Firm’s request for an emergency order that might have briefly prevented UCLA from negotiating a transfer to SoFi Stadium, rejecting arguments that the college’s potential departure posed an instantaneous risk to Pasadena’s funds or public pursuits.
“The court docket’s ruling speaks for itself,” UCLA mentioned in an announcement. “As we have now mentioned, whereas we proceed to guage the long-term association for UCLA soccer house video games, no determination has been made.”
The roughly 80-minute listening to at Stanley Mosk Courthouse concluded with Chalfant ruling that Pasadena failed to point out the sort of “imminent hurt” required for a brief restraining order, however suggested the plaintiffs to pursue discovery into UCLA’s talks with SoFi Stadium and return with a movement for a preliminary injunction. Chalfant mentioned the dispute over the Bruins’ soccer lease on the Rose Bowl — which runs by the tip of the 2043 season — stays largely monetary and thereby doesn’t qualify as an emergency.
Representing UCLA, Morgan Lewis lawyer Jordan McCrary emphasised that time in court docket, arguing Pasadena’s issues didn’t warrant emergency reduction.
“It’s elementary that injunctive reduction can’t be issued with out irreparable hurt,” he mentioned. “The whole lot they’re speaking about is cash.”
Nonetheless, Nima Mohebbi, a Pasadena lawyer representing the town and the Rose Bowl, mentioned after the ruling that the town was inspired by parts of the decide’s feedback and that his counsel had filed a public information request to collect info that has “been behind closed doorways.” The plan now’s for Pasadena and the Rose Bowl to file a preliminary injunction movement to hunt discovery from UCLA.
“Despite the fact that he discovered there’s no rapid emergency,” Mohebbi mentioned, “he made very clear in lots of his statements that there’s irreparable hurt — that UCLA has an obligation to play on the Rose Bowl by 2044 — and we’re very assured in our information. So I believe all in all, we really feel very, superb.”
NEW: Choose Joseph Lipner has dominated towards the town of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Working Co.’s try to file a TRO and preliminary injunction to stop UCLA from negotiating a cope with SoFi Stadium.
— Ira Gorawara (@IraGorawara) November 12, 2025
In court docket, Mohebbi argued that UCLA had “unequivocally represented” and “indicated in no unsure phrases” its intent to depart the Rose Bowl and that the establishment’s actions have been “opposite and “disappointing” to the college’s precept of public service. He warned that shedding UCLA — the stadium’s anchor tenant since 1982 — would trigger “elementary operational instability” and jeopardize Pasadena’s capacity to repay roughly $184 million in bond debt tied to stadium renovations.
The Rose Bowl is ready to start one other spherical of renovations Jan. 2, a challenge Mohebbi mentioned was an “above and past” plan put in place with UCLA’s long-term occupancy in thoughts. The upgrades try to modernize the stadium and enhance the sport day expertise, most notably with a south finish zone discipline membership and different premium upgrades to assist UCLA’s requests.
He added that UCLA’s authorized crew instructed Pasadena’s counsel straight that the college deliberate to depart and needed to “do it in non-public,” which Mohebbi even described as “bullying.”
When pressed by Chalfant on the particular “irreparable hurt” UCLA’s departure would trigger, Mohebbi mentioned the stadium’s annual schedule is constructed across the Bruins’ six-plus house video games and that organizing live shows and different massive occasions requires months of advance coordination and “untold logistics.”
“If we wait until March or September,” Mohebbi mentioned, “the practice is already well beyond the station.” He additionally famous the necessity for certainty of UCLA’s tenancy to resume premium-seating subscriptions and sponsorship offers.
UCLA’s attorneys, McCrary and Maurice Suh, countered that the college has made no remaining determination about its house venue past 2025 and accused Pasadena of “leaping to conclusions” as a substitute of constant talks underneath the lease.
McCrary outlined the final timeline of UCLA’s talks with the Rose Bowl, relationship again to March when discussions commenced. He emphasised that the events are within the “identical place” they have been in eight months in the past, however the one distinction is that the Rose Bowl “stopped speaking to UCLA.”
“(It’s a) sample and apply the place they (representatives for the Rose Bowl) are making accusations, leaping to conclusions,” McCrary mentioned.
In response to McCrary’s argument in regards to the college’s relationship with the stadium, Chalfant mentioned: “I don’t know why UCLA can’t simply present up and play soccer on the Rose Bowl. You don’t want to speak to them in any respect.”
Mohebbi disputed that, saying the events had met as lately as June and that UCLA “misled” the Rose Bowl throughout these discussions.
Chalfant principally agreed with UCLA, saying Pasadena’s claims of economic and operational instability have been, in the intervening time, “too imprecise” to justify emergency reduction. Whereas he acknowledged the town’s issues about potential hurt later within the listening to, he maintained that the state of affairs doesn’t meet the brink of an instantaneous emergency.
He additionally rejected UCLA’s argument that the lease was a personal-services contract — a kind of settlement courts typically gained’t implement by “particular efficiency,” or a court docket order requiring continued efficiency. Chalfant mentioned particular efficiency could possibly be out there if Pasadena later proves precise or anticipatory breach. He didn’t rule on whether or not UCLA’s conduct amounted to such a breach however famous that the lease contains an arbitration clause that might apply to some disputes.
The ruling marks a setback for Pasadena’s authorized technique, which sought to freeze UCLA’s negotiations whereas pursuing a broader lawsuit accusing the college of breaching its lease and secretly negotiating with SoFi Stadium officers for the reason that first quarter of this yr.
Pasadena first sued UCLA on Oct. 29, alleging the college had been privately negotiating with SoFi officers since at the very least March, assembly to debate seating charts, income splits and future growth plans with out notifying the stadium authority.
Underneath the events’ 2014 restated settlement, UCLA doesn’t pay lease on the Rose Bowl. As a substitute, Pasadena receives a share of ticket and concession income.
Town has financed roughly $200 million in renovations since 2010 by bonds backed by that income construction. Pasadena officers have mentioned — and repeated Wednesday morning in court docket — that shedding UCLA might pressure the town to dip into its common fund to cowl debt funds and probably lead to a credit score downgrade.
The Rose Bowl, which has hosted UCLA since 1982 and is situated 26 miles from campus, has seen declining attendance in current seasons, with crowds averaging simply over 35,000 followers this fall in a stadium that seats almost 90,000. UCLA leaders have cited monetary strain, together with a $51.8 million athletic division deficit in 2024, as they discover methods to generate extra stadium income. At a UC Regents assembly in Could, athletic director Martin Jarmond and chief monetary officer Stephen Agostini mentioned the Rose Bowl’s lease limits this system’s capacity to capitalize on premium seating and sponsorship revenue.
For now, Chalfant’s ruling leaves UCLA free to increase discussions with SoFi whereas the bigger case — and Pasadena’s effort to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs by 2044 — proceeds in Los Angeles County Superior Court docket.
