The widely reported departure of the University of California, Los Angeles football team from the historic Rose Bowl could jeopardize Pasadena's ability to repay more than $100 million in stadium bond debt and bring cuts to city services.
That's according to an amended complaint filed Dec. 4 by the city-owned stadium's attorneys in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which also added SoFi Stadium and stadium developer Kroenke Enterprises as defendants along with the original defendants, the University of California Board of Regents.
"SoFi Stadium and its related entities have been added as defendants for their tortious interference with the UCLA lease agreement, and two new claims against UCLA have been included: an equitable claim and a claim for lack of good faith and fair dealing," according to a statement provided by Lisa Derderian, Pasadena's chief communications officer.
UCLA hasn't announced a move — its official football website still calls the Rose Bowl home — but the move to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood has been
The lawsuit was disclosed in the preliminary official statement
The bond disclosure noted Pasadena's original lawsuit complaint filed Nov. 4 claimed the city had invested over $150 million in stadium renovations and could potentially suffer up to $1 billion in damages if UC Regents failed to comply with the obligation under the lease agreement. It adds the court denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order on Nov. 12.
"The dispute is still in the preliminary stages, and the Regents can't determine that either a favorable or an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote and cannot currently estimate the amount or range of potential recovery or loss in the event of a favorable or unfavorable outcome," according to the disclosure.
Starting in late 2024 and continuing into the spring, Jens Weiden, chief executive officer of the Rose Bowl Operating Co., which operates the stadium for the city, began receiving multiple credible reports that UCLA was actively exploring a relocation of its home games to SoFi Stadium,
The lawsuit alleges UCLA gave both public and private assurances about plans to uphold the Rose Bowl contract even as it held private meetings with SoFi officials. Those SoFi discussions were detailed enough to discuss seating charts, revenue splits and how the UCLA Bruins' move could fit into a larger development project, according to the lawsuit.
Behind the scenes, UCLA and SoFi officials had been discussing the potential move since late 2024, which is a breach, on its own, of the contract, the lawsuit says.
SoFi, opened in 2020, was developed by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke and hosts the Rams and another NFL team, the Los Angeles Chargers. The 70,000-seat venue has hundreds of luxury suites and a roof protecting fans from the elements, unlike the open-air Rose Bowl.
Neither venue is near UCLA's campus in the Westwood neighborhood, but SoFi is a bit closer at 12 miles to the Rose Bowl's 26.
The contract binding UCLA to play home football games in the Rose Bowl has no early exit clause, the lawsuit says.
The agreement "is as clear as the blue and gold on a fall Saturday in Pasadena: UCLA is bound to play all of its home football games at the Rose Bowl Stadium through June 30, 2044," the lawsuit says.
Furthermore, the lawsuit says, the lease prohibits UCLA from conducting home games in the Los Angeles area anywhere but at the Rose Bowl.
To secure such longevity, the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and Pasadena agreed to pick up operations costs, including trash pick-up after games.
"Essentially, UCLA plays at the stadium for free, and even takes a portion of the stadium revenues for ticket sales and food and beverage concessions for each home football game played," the lawsuit says.
"As the city and the RBOC have stated from the outset, they seek only to have a public institution — UCLA — live up to the terms of a lease agreement that it willingly signed in 2010 and again in 2014, on which the city and the RBOC undertook significant expenses based on UCLA's commitment," Derderian's statement said. "We remain confident in our legal standing and in the ultimate result of this matter and look forward to hosting the UCLA Bruins for decades to come."
UCLA spokesman Reggie Kumar said the university, as a general practice, doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The 103-year-old Pasadena stadium has been the home field for UCLA's football games since 1982.
In 2014, Janet Napolitano, then president of the University California system, signed a long-term lease agreement, without an opt-out clause, in exchange for renovations funded from $200 million in lease-revenue bonds issued by the Pasadena Financing Authority, according to the lawsuit. In 2024, the Pasadena City Council approved a refinancing plan to restructure the city's debt payments, according to the lawsuit.
The Pasadena Public Financing Authority issued $103 million of
The bonds, secured by the city's agreement to pay rent under a sublease, according to the official statement, were rated AA-plus by S&P Global Ratings, notched off its AAA issuer rating of Pasadena.
"The bond structure was designed so that stadium revenues, not taxpayer dollars, would service the debt," the lawsuit says. "Under the financing model, the city makes semi-annual debt-service payments to the authority, which are reimbursed by RBOC from stadium revenues generated in large part by UCLA.
The city and operating company relied on UCLA's commitments when it entered into expensive renovations, and it continues to incur significant costs and obligations to contractors, the stadium's lawsuit said. The upgrades were "predicated on a stable, multi-decade tenancy by UCLA."
In 2026, the city was prepared to spend $26.5 million on south end zone fan improvements, which the lawsuit said were specifically "designed to enhance UCLA Football's gameday experience, generate additional UCLA-controlled revenue, and strengthen the long-term partnership between the parties." The project, still promoted on
The university could be considered to be in breach of contract for even entertaining talks about holding games at another site prior to the expiration of the lease agreement, the lawsuit said.
UCLA's lease can only be terminated in the event of a "game-threatening default," a situation preventing a scheduled home game, according to the lawsuit. Given no such situation has occurred, Pasadena contends any move to relocate represents a breach of contract.
UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond said roughly 47 minutes into a May 13 UC Board of Regents
A hearing has been scheduled next month on a motion to compel arbitration UC filed Tuesday, a move that if granted would keep the matter out of public view.
Pasadena's attorneys have said they oppose arbitration, because the fate of the historic Rose Bowl should be determined in a public forum.
