UCLA, Rose Bowl Trade Barbs in Court
The legal battle between UCLA and the Rose Bowl is still ongoing. In a proceeding on Tuesday, both sides expressed their frustrations in a string of heated statements to the judge at the Los Angeles Superior Court. Jan 2, 2012; Pasadena, CA, USA; A general view of the Rose Bowl entrance prior to the game between the Oregon Ducks and the Wisconsin Badgers in the 2012 Rose Bowl game.
Mandatory Credit: Kelvin Kuo-USA TODAY Sports Nima Mohebbi, who is an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena, explained how what should be a simple case has been turned into a difficult one. Mohebbi said the terms of the lease state UCLA must play home games at the Rose Bowl through the 2043 season.
“This is like a shell game, your honor, and it’s so frustrating because we’ve been doing this for seven months and going through these sorts of machinations that I just think is inappropriate for such an easy case,” Mohebbi said, per Ben Bolch of the California Post . “This is not a difficult case – this is a plain vanilla breach-of-contract case where we want to exercise the rights we have in the contract to prevent our counter party from leaving – that’s exactly what the contract allows us to do and we’ve been denied at every possible opportunity to do that. ” One of UCLA’s attorneys, Jeremy Smith, responded to Mohebbi’s “shell game” comment by explaining how the Rose Bowl’s lawsuit sparked from privileged pre-litigation communications made by a UCLA consultant, Jeffrey Moorad, in October.
“I have to say, it really bothers me that they call this gamesmanship – that’s how we view it,” Smith said, per Ben Bolch of the California Post . . “The other side is relying on the statements of outside counsel as the basis for their lawsuit.
That’s exactly what is not supposed to happen; that’s why you’re supposed to have those conversations before [litigation] so that we don’t end up in your court, not that those conversations become the essence of the lawsuit. ” UCLA is trying to use the anti-SLAPP argument to dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Joseph Lipner wrote in a tentative ruling that he is considering denying UCLA’s motion.