Miller Barondess Secures Victory for City of Inglewood in Hollywood Park/SoFi Stadium Development Agreement Dispute

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The City of Inglewood, represented by Miller Barondess, LLP, secured a significant victory in a lawsuit brought by entities affiliated with Hollywood Park over the Development Agreement governing the multi-billion-dollar project anchored by SoFi Stadium and YouTube Theater.

On September 1, 2026, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David K. Reinert ruled in favor of the City’s position that the 2015 Development Agreement is void and unenforceable because it was adopted through the voter initiative process rather than the statutory process required under California law. The ruling means that Hollywood Park cannot enforce the agreement’s provisions against the City, including those concerning vested development rights and reimbursement for public infrastructure improvements and services.

The dispute traces back to 2015, when Hollywood Park sought to expand the development of the former Hollywood Park Racetrack property to include SoFi Stadium and related development. The project evolved into a privately funded, multi-billion-dollar mixed-use mega project. According to Hollywood Park’s complaint, more than $5 billion has been invested in SoFi Stadium, YouTube Theater, and related infrastructure.

To secure long-term certainty on zoning, development standards and other regulations, Hollywood Park pursued a development agreement with the City. Rather than following the statutory process, it prepared a voter-sponsored initiative in 2015 to amend an earlier 2009 development agreement and allow construction of SoFi Stadium. The City adopted the initiative and the 2015 Development Agreement.

Three years later, in 2018, the California Court of Appeal held in Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley, 26 Cal.App.5^th 689, that California’s development agreement statute requires a legislative process involving negotiation between local government and developer, public hearings, and the type of give-and-take that is incompatible with the up-or-down initiative process. Because the authority to enter such agreements derives from statute, an agreement adopted through an unauthorized process, like an initiative, is void.

As a result of the Moreno Valley decision, the City took the position that it could not continue performing obligations under an agreement that is void under California law. Among other provisions, the 2015 agreement called for reimbursement of public infrastructure improvements and services once specified tax-revenue thresholds were met. Hollywood Park alleged those thresholds had been reached and sued the City for over $400 million after the City declined payments.

The City defended, maintaining that a development agreement cannot be adopted through initiative because that process is “take it or leave it” and lacks the legislative “give and take” required by statute. The Court agreed, concluding that the voter-initiative process could not create a valid statutory development agreement. As a result, the 2015 Development Agreement is void and cannot support the contractual or vested rights Hollywood Park sought to enforce.

The decision has very serious implications. Hollywood Park alleged the agreement entitled it to reimbursement of over $400 million in improvements and services and ensured its ability to complete remaining development phases. The ruling, however, negates those asserted rights and invalidates a development agreement adopted through a process the Legislature did not authorize. The ruling effectively nullifies the rights Hollywood Park claims it has in the project.

“This decision has huge repercussions for the 300-acre SoFi Stadium/Hollywood Park development,” said Skip Miller, partner at Miller Barondess and lead counsel for the City of Inglewood. “It means that without a valid development agreement, Hollywood Park/SoFi Stadium no longer has vested rights and that the City has no further obligations under the 2015 Development Agreement. It’s a very important win for the City. This ruling aside, the City and the developer have agreed to engage in talks aimed toward a resolution so the project can move forward.”