- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,152,915
- Reaction score
- 59
Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s companies are waging a high-stakes legal battle against the City of Inglewood, Calif., over the placement of new billboards near Kroenke’s SoFi Stadium and a development agreement. Inglewood claims Kroenke wants a “billionaire’s exception” from how the law treats ordinary people.
The litigation is unfolding as SoFi Stadium readies to host 2026 FIFA World Cup games, the 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Olympic events.
More from Sportico.com
There are two lawsuits occurring simultaneously.
Last July, a group of companies connected to SoFi Stadium sued to block Inglewood’s agreement with WOW Media to build billboards, kiosks, displays and other signage bordering Hollywood Park—a 300-acre development that includes SoFi Stadium, YouTube Theater and numerous businesses and residences. As described by Inglewood, the billboards will provide traffic and safety information, including for upcoming World Cup matches, on public property.
The plaintiffs argue Inglewood lacked the legal capacity to enter into this agreement and that the billboards will harm opportunities for sponsorship revenue to “offset the $5 billion private investment needed to construct the stadium.” Another alleged concern is that new signage could “impair the ability of host committees to honor the commitments they made with the NFL, LA28 and FIFA” since the new billboards would be “under the complete control of a single for-profit advertising company” that lacks any connection to the events. As a result, WOW would allegedly be “able to sell advertising directly adjacent to the venues to competitors of event partners or sponsors.” That outcome could result in ambush marketing, the plaintiffs assert, since WOW could promote brands that compete with event sponsors.
Inglewood maintains the plaintiffs are trying to control what the city does on public property for their private benefit.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Leiter denied a preliminary injunction to stop the billboards last August, stressing the alleged harm is monetary. He noted that preliminary injunctions generally require a finding of irreparable harm, meaning a harm that is difficult or impossible to quantify.
Leiter also expressed concern about “halting construction” since the validity of the billboard agreement “likely will not be resolved until trial and any subsequent appeal.” The judge further found it problematic that while the plaintiffs worry about lost sponsorships, they fail to cite an actual sponsor or specific deal threatened by the billboards. A trial on this case is set for March 13.
The second lawsuit was filed last month. Companies connected to Hollywood Park, the development led by Kroenke, insist that Inglewood has illegally reneged on obligations from a development agreement that—the plaintiffs insist—”literally saved the City from bankruptcy.”
The complaint says that in 2011, Inglewood “was on the brink of bankruptcy” with 17 percent unemployment when Hollywood Park fell into its lap. Inglewood has allegedly engaged in “bad faith” by asserting the development agreement is now void. The plaintiffs depict Inglewood as opportunistically and deceptively reneging on pledges after “Hollywood Park invested billions of dollars” that created new businesses and jobs for Inglewood residents and generated “millions in admissions and parking revenue for the City.”
More specifically, Inglewood is accused of repudiating its contractual obligation to reimburse Hollywood Park for spending millions on infrastructure improvements. The plaintiffs assert that while no taxpayer dollars were used to build the stadium, the deal allowed them to “recoup tens of millions of dollars in costs ranging from installing streetlights and fire hydrants to running shuttle buses and providing officers as security on game days.”
Other private investments that benefited the public included transferring water rights to Inglewood and contributing millions of dollars to update the city’s automated traffic-signal system. These investments, the complaint argues, positioned the stadium to host the 2022 Super Bowl, the 2023 CFP Championship Game, and the LA Bowl in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Those events generated significant revenue for Inglewood and its residents and businesses, according to the Kroenke-connected companies.
The city is also accused of failing to provide assurances that it will honor commitments regarding sponsorships for attracting major events and protecting Hollywood Park’s development against potential regulatory changes. According to the complaint, the city paid Hollywood Park $20 million last May as a “partial reimbursement” for privately funded public services, but two months later Inglewood “asserted for the first time” that the development agreement “is not legal” and was “invalid as a matter of law.”
Inglewood disagrees with Hollywood Park’s retelling of events and maintains they misunderstand the law.
In an answer filed last week, the city argues the development agreement is void because it didn’t “comply with California law when it was approved and executed.” This assertion, Inglewood insists, stems from a 2018 ruling, Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley. In that ruling, a California appellate court held that voter initiatives can’t be used to approve development agreements. Those agreements must instead be formed as contracts between a private party and the government.
The problem for Hollywood Park, Inglewood asserts, is that the developers presented development-agreement terms on a “take-it-or-leave-it basis” to city voters by initiative. That approach allegedly “precluded negotiation” with city leaders, who couldn’t alter terms approved by vote. Inglewood maintains the legal dispute can be easily extinguished by simply following the precedent of City of Moreno Valley.
Inglewood also maintains it has no choice in this matter. Without valid contractual authority, Inglewood says it can’t “lawfully disburse public tax money.” The city further points out that it can be a crime under California law for a public official to transfer public funds without legal authority.
Inglewood also takes issue with the Hollywood Park plaintiffs depicting the agreement as mainly benefiting the public.
“They built SoFi Stadium and other private facilities designed to maximize profit with their surrounding development, including a hotel, office buildings, broadcasting studios, apartments and other improvements—all under highly favorable terms,” the city said. Those terms include an exemption from having to comply with “stringent environmental requirements” and “preferential status” for land-use planning. As the city sees it, the developers have generated “enormous revenues” and “highly lucrative assets” for themselves through the deal.
Inglewood believes the litigation is fundamentally about the desire for a “billionaire’s exception to California law.” The city insists its defense “boils down to a simple, unassailable truth: Billionaires are not above the law.”
Expect more fireworks as these litigations play out, possibly into July as World Cup matches arrive at SoFi Stadium this summer.
Best of Sportico.com
Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Continue reading...
The litigation is unfolding as SoFi Stadium readies to host 2026 FIFA World Cup games, the 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Olympic events.
More from Sportico.com
- ESPN Sets Ad Sales Record as Buyers Flock to a Wild and Woolly CFP
- NBCU Sells Out Winter Olympics as Advertisers Eye Ratings Rebound
- How Facial Recognition Tech Took Over U.S. Sporting Events
There are two lawsuits occurring simultaneously.
Last July, a group of companies connected to SoFi Stadium sued to block Inglewood’s agreement with WOW Media to build billboards, kiosks, displays and other signage bordering Hollywood Park—a 300-acre development that includes SoFi Stadium, YouTube Theater and numerous businesses and residences. As described by Inglewood, the billboards will provide traffic and safety information, including for upcoming World Cup matches, on public property.
The plaintiffs argue Inglewood lacked the legal capacity to enter into this agreement and that the billboards will harm opportunities for sponsorship revenue to “offset the $5 billion private investment needed to construct the stadium.” Another alleged concern is that new signage could “impair the ability of host committees to honor the commitments they made with the NFL, LA28 and FIFA” since the new billboards would be “under the complete control of a single for-profit advertising company” that lacks any connection to the events. As a result, WOW would allegedly be “able to sell advertising directly adjacent to the venues to competitors of event partners or sponsors.” That outcome could result in ambush marketing, the plaintiffs assert, since WOW could promote brands that compete with event sponsors.
Inglewood maintains the plaintiffs are trying to control what the city does on public property for their private benefit.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Leiter denied a preliminary injunction to stop the billboards last August, stressing the alleged harm is monetary. He noted that preliminary injunctions generally require a finding of irreparable harm, meaning a harm that is difficult or impossible to quantify.
Leiter also expressed concern about “halting construction” since the validity of the billboard agreement “likely will not be resolved until trial and any subsequent appeal.” The judge further found it problematic that while the plaintiffs worry about lost sponsorships, they fail to cite an actual sponsor or specific deal threatened by the billboards. A trial on this case is set for March 13.
The second lawsuit was filed last month. Companies connected to Hollywood Park, the development led by Kroenke, insist that Inglewood has illegally reneged on obligations from a development agreement that—the plaintiffs insist—”literally saved the City from bankruptcy.”
The complaint says that in 2011, Inglewood “was on the brink of bankruptcy” with 17 percent unemployment when Hollywood Park fell into its lap. Inglewood has allegedly engaged in “bad faith” by asserting the development agreement is now void. The plaintiffs depict Inglewood as opportunistically and deceptively reneging on pledges after “Hollywood Park invested billions of dollars” that created new businesses and jobs for Inglewood residents and generated “millions in admissions and parking revenue for the City.”
More specifically, Inglewood is accused of repudiating its contractual obligation to reimburse Hollywood Park for spending millions on infrastructure improvements. The plaintiffs assert that while no taxpayer dollars were used to build the stadium, the deal allowed them to “recoup tens of millions of dollars in costs ranging from installing streetlights and fire hydrants to running shuttle buses and providing officers as security on game days.”
Other private investments that benefited the public included transferring water rights to Inglewood and contributing millions of dollars to update the city’s automated traffic-signal system. These investments, the complaint argues, positioned the stadium to host the 2022 Super Bowl, the 2023 CFP Championship Game, and the LA Bowl in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Those events generated significant revenue for Inglewood and its residents and businesses, according to the Kroenke-connected companies.
The city is also accused of failing to provide assurances that it will honor commitments regarding sponsorships for attracting major events and protecting Hollywood Park’s development against potential regulatory changes. According to the complaint, the city paid Hollywood Park $20 million last May as a “partial reimbursement” for privately funded public services, but two months later Inglewood “asserted for the first time” that the development agreement “is not legal” and was “invalid as a matter of law.”
Inglewood disagrees with Hollywood Park’s retelling of events and maintains they misunderstand the law.
In an answer filed last week, the city argues the development agreement is void because it didn’t “comply with California law when it was approved and executed.” This assertion, Inglewood insists, stems from a 2018 ruling, Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley. In that ruling, a California appellate court held that voter initiatives can’t be used to approve development agreements. Those agreements must instead be formed as contracts between a private party and the government.
The problem for Hollywood Park, Inglewood asserts, is that the developers presented development-agreement terms on a “take-it-or-leave-it basis” to city voters by initiative. That approach allegedly “precluded negotiation” with city leaders, who couldn’t alter terms approved by vote. Inglewood maintains the legal dispute can be easily extinguished by simply following the precedent of City of Moreno Valley.
Inglewood also maintains it has no choice in this matter. Without valid contractual authority, Inglewood says it can’t “lawfully disburse public tax money.” The city further points out that it can be a crime under California law for a public official to transfer public funds without legal authority.
Inglewood also takes issue with the Hollywood Park plaintiffs depicting the agreement as mainly benefiting the public.
“They built SoFi Stadium and other private facilities designed to maximize profit with their surrounding development, including a hotel, office buildings, broadcasting studios, apartments and other improvements—all under highly favorable terms,” the city said. Those terms include an exemption from having to comply with “stringent environmental requirements” and “preferential status” for land-use planning. As the city sees it, the developers have generated “enormous revenues” and “highly lucrative assets” for themselves through the deal.
Inglewood believes the litigation is fundamentally about the desire for a “billionaire’s exception to California law.” The city insists its defense “boils down to a simple, unassailable truth: Billionaires are not above the law.”
Expect more fireworks as these litigations play out, possibly into July as World Cup matches arrive at SoFi Stadium this summer.
Best of Sportico.com
Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Continue reading...
