UCLA’s nightmare is not over yet. After a disappointing 3-9 season and the firing of head coach DeShaun Foster, the team hoped to make a strong comeback in 2026. But the lawsuits have made things worse, as the legal battle with the Rose Bowl has grown more complicated following a court ruling that could affect the program’s future.

As it turns out, in UCLA’s ongoing legal battle with the Rose Bowl, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has refused to dismiss the case. Judge Joseph Lipner said UCLA waited too long to file its anti-SLAPP motion, meaning the Rose Bowl’s breach-of-contract lawsuit will continue moving forward. The case has been ongoing for eight months, and the latest ruling is another setback for UCLA.

The problem was mainly about the timing. UCLA waited 125 days after receiving the complaint before filing the motion. That wait cost them big time as they couldn’t give a proper reason for the delay, and now, because of that, Lipner refused to consider the university’s request. In his ruling, he also criticized the university’s approach.

“UCLA’s late filing of an anti-SLAPP motion has the effect of stringing out UCLA’s efforts to slow down or stay these proceedings. It essentially would give UCLA two bites at the apple for purposes of attempting to obtain a stay, with those two attempts spread over a period of months. This is not a good or appropriate use of the anti-SLAPP statute,” Lipner said.

The judge also allowed the Rose Bowl to continue its claims against SoFi Stadium executives. The Rose Bowl argues that SoFi officials encouraged UCLA to consider moving its home football games from the Rose Bowl in Pasadena to SoFi Stadium, even though UCLA already had a long-term agreement with the Rose Bowl.

Now that the judge has allowed these claims to move forward, the Rose Bowl can collect documents, request information, and gather evidence to support its case. The ruling could also put more pressure on UCLA to publicly commit to staying at the Rose Bowl for the long term rather than exploring a future move elsewhere.

But where did it all begin?

It all started back in October when the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the City of Pasadena sued UCLA after learning that they are looking into the possibility of moving its home football games to SoFi Stadium. Well, according to UCLA, the stadium looked appealing because it was closer to campus and offered more opportunities to generate revenue through premium seating.

Now, under its agreement with the Rose Bowl, which runs through the 2043 season, UCLA is required to play its home games there. As a result, the proposed move didn’t sit well with the Rose Bowl, and it sued the university. The issue is that although UCLA doesn’t pay rent to the Rose Bowl, it also doesn’t receive all the revenue generated from luxury suites and sponsorships. That’s exactly why the university was exploring other options.

For now, they are playing in the stadium for this season, and the stadium has also allowed them to use its premium seating, which is scheduled to open this year. However, the severity of the text messages showed how much the team wanted to move to the new stadium.

UCLA’s text message is creating chaos

Back in May, court documents showed that UCLA came very close to moving its home football games from the Rose Bowl to SoFi Stadium. The documents included text messages between UCLA officials and executives from Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, the company that operates SoFi Stadium.

One text message in particular came before UCLA’s season opener against Utah, when Rams and Kroenke Sports & Entertainment President Kevin Demoff sent a message to UCLA Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer Stephen Agostini, saying:

“Good luck tonight, next year at SoFi!”

This message clearly displayed their intentions.

Agostini reportedly played a key role in pushing the move to SoFi Stadium. His role in the situation drew even more attention after UCLA fired him in February 2026. The university claimed that he had made inaccurate statements about the school’s debt.

Whatever might be the case, the situation has just become more complicated for UCLA.