""Even though he found that there was no immediate emergency," Mohebbi said, "he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there's irreparable harm, that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and we're very confident in our facts of this case. So I think all in, we feel very, very good.""
""I don't know why UCLA can't just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don't need to talk to them at all.""
The Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena sought a temporary restraining order to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl; the court denied the request for lack of an immediate emergency. The judge recommended that plaintiffs pursue discovery into UCLA's discussions with SoFi Stadium and file a motion for a preliminary injunction. An attorney for the plaintiffs filed a public records request and asserted irreparable harm and an obligation for UCLA to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044. UCLA declined to comment. The court indicated specific performance could be available for an actual or anticipatory breach of the lease.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]