Frustrations between lawyers in the Rose Bowl’s breach-of-contract case against UCLA seeped into the proceedings Tuesday during a spicy exchange in Los Angeles Superior Court.

While discussing UCLA’s refusal to commit to the terms of a lease that binds it to play home games at the Rose Bowl through the 2043 season, an attorney for the plaintiffs expressed his exasperation at piecemeal pledges such as the school only agreeing to remain through the 2026 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,” said Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena. 

“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.”

A few minutes later, Jeremy Smith, an attorney representing UCLA, shot back at that characterization.

“I have to say, it really bothers me that they call this gamesmanship – that’s how we view it,” Smith said. “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.”

The hearing centered around UCLA’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case based on its contention that the Rose Bowl’s lawsuit arose from privileged pre-litigation communications made by Jeffrey Moorad about UCLA’s alleged intentions to leave its longtime football home.

According to documents filed by the plaintiffs, Moorad – the former Arizona Diamondbacks and San Diego Padres CEO who was working as a consultant for UCLA – told them last October that UCLA was moving on from playing games at the Rose Bowl, saying there was “no way [UCLA is] staying long term” and that UCLA “will leave.”

Smith said those communications, which were privileged and confidential, directly led to the Rose Bowl’s filing of the case the same month.

But Mohebbi said even putting those statements aside, the Rose Bowl learned of UCLA’s exploration of a possible move to SoFi Stadium through other communications between UCLA athletic department staffers and their counterparts at the Rose Bowl.

Additionally, the plaintiffs recently disclosed documents revealing UCLA’s previous intentions to leave the Rose Bowl for the 2026 season. As part of an August 2025 text message exchange between then-UCLA chief financial officer Stephen Agostini and Kevin Demoff, president of Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, Kroenke replied, in part, “good luck tonight, next year at SoFi!”

In a tentative ruling, Judge Joseph Lipner wrote that he was inclined to deny UCLA’s motion because it was “untimely and unsupported by sufficient cause to permit late filing.” Attorneys for the plaintiffs have described the motion as a stall tactic designed to further delay discovery in the case.

After filing its lawsuit against UCLA, the Rose Bowl later adding Kroenke Sports and Entertainment as a co-defendant for allegedly enticing UCLA to explore making SoFi Stadium its new football home through tortious interference.

Lipner did not render a final ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion Tuesday, indicating that he was weighing whether to wait until a court of appeals had decided on a separate appeal filed by UCLA.