This one was inevitable.
With UCLA allegedly trying to ditch the Rose Bowl for SoFi Stadium, SoFi Stadium and owner Stan Kroenke face potential liability for intentional and tortious interference with the business interests of the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co.
Via Ben Bolch of the Los Angeles Times, SoFi Stadium and Kroenke Sports & Entertainment have been added to the existing lawsuit aimed at forcing UCLA to honor a contract that runs through 2044.
The argument is simple. If the Kroenke defendants knew about the lease agreement between UCLA and the Rose Bowl, they had a legal duty to refrain from trying to lure UCLA to violate the contract. If it can be proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Kroenke defendants recruited UCLA to break its existing deal, the Kroenke defendants become responsible for both compensation and potentially punitive damages.
It’s a very basic concept of American business. If a company knows some person or organization has a contract, the company can’t try to get them to violate it. The company has to respect it. If it don’t, the company may get sued.
Bolch explains that the amended civil complaint alleges the Kroenke defendants did indeed know about UCLA’s agreement 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 amended complaint also contends that the Kroenke defendants acted with “malice,” which (if proven) opens the door to an award of punitive damages aimed at making an example out of the Kroenke defendants in the hopes of deterring others from engaging in similar behavior.
The development positions the Rose Bowl to be a winner either way. UCLA will be forced to honor the contract, or the Rose Bowl plaintiffs will be eligible to receive a potentially significant damages award from UCLA and/or the Kroenke defendants.
Of course, the first step will be proving that the contract would be violated by a relocation some 18 years before the expiration of the agreement. If the Rose Bowl plaintiffs can satisfy that burden, UCLA stays — or the Rose Bowl gets paid, possibly a very significant amount of money.
