Judge rejects Under Armour's motion to dismiss UCLA's $200 million lawsuit

UCLA sued Under Armour for breach of contract in 2020 when it backed out of the 15-year apparel agreement between the two parties

The battle between UCLA and Under Armour will continue after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge rejected the latter's attempt to dismiss the former's lawsuit against them.

According to a report from the Los Angeles Times on Thursday, Judge H. Jay Ford III ruled there were not grounds to dismiss UCLA's $200 million dollar lawsuit against Under Armour, as the apparel company had previously requested. UCLA is seeking damages for Under Armour backing out of its 15-year, $280 million contract to be the athletic department's exclusive apparel partner in June 2020.

Backing out of the contract, which was the largest apparel deal in college sports history when it was signed in 2016, is not the only reason UCLA is going after Under Armour. SEC documents showed that Under Armour had been falsely elevating its revenue growth through a process called "pull forward" by counting $408 million in orders for future quarters.

Mary Osako, UCLA’s vice chancellor for strategic communications, said Thursday's decision to continue with the lawsuit was a win for the university.

“Despite Under Armour’s expensive legal maneuvers, UCLA and fair play won today,” Osako told the LA Times. “The story of Under Armour’s corporate shenanigans and broken promises that left our student-athletes and the Bruin community out to dry is one that deserves to be told. We’re gratified that the court cleared the way for the case to proceed.”

Under Armour's case for terminating the contract is based around its belief that UCLA breached said contract when its baseball team played fewer than 50% of its 2020 season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the force majeure clause. Ford, however, said Under Armour terminating the contract was not clearly permitted under that force majeure clause.

“The judicially noticeable documents also do not clearly and affirmatively establish that the pandemic rendered it impossible or impracticable for Under Armour or UCLA to perform,” Ford wrote in his ruling. “At best, they establish the existence of a pandemic and the public response thereto. They do not establish the impact of the pandemic on Under Armour’s or UCLA’s ability to perform under the Agreement.”

Under Armour has a policy of not commenting on ongoing litigation, according to the Times.

While UCLA has since come to an agreement with Jordan and Nike to outfit its teams, that contract was only worth $46.45 million over six years compared to the 12 years and nearly $224 million that was remaining on the Under Armour deal.

Ford has set the next court date between UCLA and Under Armour for Sept. 23.

Follow Connon on Twitter at @SamConnon
Follow All Bruins on Twitter at @SI_AllBruins
Like All Bruins on Facebook at @SI.AllBruins

Read more UCLA stories: UCLA Bruins on Sports Illustrated
Read more UCLA news stories: UCLA News on Sports Illustrated