The Rose Bowl’s request for a restraining order was not granted as a judge claimed there was no imminent danger of UCLA leaving the venue
Yesterday, a judge denied a request by the City of Pasadena and the operators of the Rose Bowl for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would bar UCLA’s football team from playing its home games at any other venue in Los Angeles or Orange counties and from trying to terminate its Rose Bowl lease. The paperwork for this restraining order was submitted on Monday, in an attempt to prevent the stated actions from occurring while a lawsuit against UCLA and the UC Regents is pending. The RBOC and the City of Pasadena sued in late October, seeking to enforce the terms of their lease agreement, which consists of UCLA playing football at the Rose Bowl until 2044, as it seemed the Rose Bowl was looking to move operations to SoFi Stadium.
Judge James C. Chalfant explained his decision, “At this stage, it is denied from lack of an emergency”, because there was no evidence of an immediate emergency, as UCLA has made no progress in moving to SoFi. In most cases, judges only award a TRO when, among other factors, there is a risk of irreparable injury and immediate harm, which the judge did not find this time. However, he mentioned that the plaintiffs could reapply for an injunction at a later time after both parties obtain more evidence, which the Plaintiffs have made clear they will do, so UCLA could still lose at a later stage.
UCLA agreed with the Judge’s decision as Mary Oskao, UCLA Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications, stated, “while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA football home games, no decision has been made,” mirroring UCLA’s original response to the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs and their lawyers expressed their gratefulness to the judge because, although he did not award the TRO as “no emergency exists” with no actual movement from UCLA, he “concluded there is real and concrete evidence of injury and irreparable harm to the City not compensable to money damages alone” that would occur should UCLA abandon the Rose Bowl.
How the lawsuit will work out is still unclear, as both the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl believe “UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, ” which would breach the specific performance provision in their lease. The remedy for such a breach would be a court order mandating UCLA remain at the Rose Bowl until 2044, when the lease is up, as monetary damages would not be substituted for the money they may lose. In the past, specific performance clauses have not always been effective, as they did not prevent the New Orleans Jazz from moving to Utah, the Cleveland Browns from moving to Baltimore, or the Seattle Supersonics from moving to Oklahoma City. But they have been successful in keeping the New York Jets, New York Yankees, and Minnesota Twins from playing home games elsewhere, so only time will determine which category UCLA will fall under.
Taylor Ford
Source link