City Says Tournament ‘Doubling Down’ on ‘Alternate Reality’ Regarding 2020 Rose Bowl Game Lawsuit

Attorneys for the city of Pasadena are calling out the Tournament of Roses Association, according to court documents obtained by Pasadena Now, for claiming that the city did not prevail in the Tournament’s lawsuit arising from the 2020 Rose Bowl Game.

The claim is being used by the Tournament as a reason for refusing to pay the city’s legal fees. 

The Tournament has also filed paperwork to appeal the judge’s decisions handed down in the lawsuit. 

This dispute between the two sides over legal fees is currently scheduled to be heard in federal court on Aug. 27.

Last month, a federal judge granted six City motions and dismissed associated Tournament claims related to trademark infringement, unfair competition, false association, false endorsement, and false designation of origin, and false advertising. The judge did not rule one count, saying it was hypothetical.

The Master License Agreement, which governs the relationship between the two parties, states that the loser of a court action is responsible for paying legal fees.

However, the Tournament later claimed the lawsuit “achieves key purposes” and that it is not obligated to pay legal fees.

The city strongly disagrees.

“Plaintiff doubles down on the alternate reality it presented to this Court in its opposition to the City’s anti-SLAPP motion that it somehow is the prevailing party and therefore the City taxpayers should not be reimbursed for the attorneys’ fees incurred by the City,” attorneys for the city wrote. 

“It contends, both in its opposition papers to the City’s fee motion and via serial press releases, that Plaintiff, and not the City, prevailed in this action,” 

A short time later, the Tournament filed papers with the court to appeal the decision. It was not immediately known what part of the ruling the nonprofit is appealing. In court cases, the losing party generally has the right to file an appeal. 

“It contends, both in its opposition papers to the City’s fee motion and via serial press releases, that Plaintiff, and not the City, prevailed in this action,” the city’s response states.

“How Plaintiff can make such a claim with a straight face eludes the City: this Court dismissed every claim asserted by Plaintiff. The City thus is the prevailing party for purposes of the parties’ Master License Agreement and under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the Court should enter an award of $454,359 in total fees,” the city countered. 

“Ironically, Plaintiff now has filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s July 12, 2021 Order, a move that would be wholly unnecessary if Plaintiff believed its own repeated assertions that it is the prevailing party,” the document states.

The city and the Tournament have been feuding since restrictions arising from the pandemic caused the cancellation of the annual Rose Parade and barred fans from attending the Rose Bowl Game in Pasadena. The game was ultimately moved to Arlington, Texas, marking the first time since World War II that the Rose Bowl game was played outside of Pasadena.

At that time, the two sides disagreed over the ownership of the game, which led to the lawsuit. 

Last month, U.S. District Judge Andre John Birotte sided with the city in dismissing all but one of the counts filed by the Tournament in its February lawsuit for alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, false association, slander and false advertising.

With regard to that one count — focused on the document’s so-called force majeure clause, or unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract — the court declined to rule.

“The court does not find that defendant is attempting to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the Rose Bowl Game,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff and defendant have been business partners for decades. Due to this mutually beneficial relationship, plaintiff has consistently benefited from defendant’s promotion of plaintiff’s game.”

The College Football Playoffs is looking to expand, and under a new format, the traditional Jan. 1 date would most likely not be available for the Rose Bowl Game.

Under that format, the Rose Bowl could be forced to abandon the traditional Pac-12 vs. Big 12 contest on Jan. 1 game and hold the game in early December.

The Master Licensing Agreement states the game be played on Jan. 1.

The television rights for a proposed 12-team playoff schedule could be worth about $1.9 billion annually.

“The end result of Plaintiff’s unwarranted decision to litigate instead of negotiate was to force the City to incur over $400,000 in fees,” the court documents read. “Plaintiff, not the City, was driving this dispute in the press and the Court. The City did what it had to do to prevail, achieving a complete dismissal of every claim asserted by Plaintiff, with prejudice. The fees incurred by the City were reasonable. Plaintiff lost and now is responsible for reimbursing the taxpayers for those fees.”

“Plaintiff doubles down on the alternate reality it presented to this Court in its opposition to the City’s anti-SLAPP motion that it somehow is the prevailing party and therefore the City taxpayers should not be reimbursed for the attorneys’ fees incurred by the City. It contends, both in its opposition papers to the City’s fee motion and via serial press releases, that Plaintiff, and not the City, prevailed in this action.”

The City is asking for $454,359 in legal fees. Since the matter has not been settled by a lower court, it is not part of the appeals case.