Kroenke Sports, SoFi Stadium new defendants in

Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium have been added as defendants in an amended criticism filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena in Los Angeles Superior Court as half of the plaintiffs’ bid to keep UCLA’s soccer group as a tenant at the Rose Bowl.

In new court paperwork 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 overtly urged 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 additional alleged that the SoFi Stadium defendants knew about UCLA’s settlement 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 officers had been conscious that such discussions would violate the college’s settlement 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 consider its choices for its future soccer home. Representatives for UCLA and SoFi Stadium have said they’d not remark on ongoing legal issues.

As half of the amended criticism, the plaintiffs attorneys also are contending that UCLA shouldn’t be allowed to abandon its dedication to enjoying at the Rose Bowl after the stadium authorized and started implementation of at least $28.5 million in construction for a field-level membership in the south end zone. The plaintiffs attorneys said the project was shifting ahead after UCLA made assurances last spring and summer season that it was not leaving the stadium for the foreseeable future.

The plaintiffs reiterated in their amended criticism that they’ve suffered “irreparable harm necessitating equitable relief and for which monetary damages alone would be inadequate,” which they declare entitled them to power UCLA to keep enjoying at the Rose Bowl through the end of its contract.

As half of the amended criticism, the plaintiffs also claimed that UCLA had “a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” that obligated them to act actually and pretty.

Attorneys for both sides are scheduled to meet in court next month for a listening to on UCLA’s movement to compel arbitration, a transfer that if granted would keep the matter out of public view. The plaintiffs’ attorneys have said they oppose such a transfer and consider the matter was of great public curiosity.