Le Journal

The UC Regents have filed separate motions asking a judge to compel arbitration of the Rose Bowl Operating Committee’s three contractual claims alleging that UCLA is wrongfully exploring options for a new home football venue, specifically SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, and to put the case on hold pending the arbitration motion’s outcome. In court papers filed Thursday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner, the Regents attorneys, on behalf of UCLA, state that the RBOC and its fellow plaintiff, the city of Pasadena, are bound by an arbitration agreement and that “no exceptions apply to RBOC’s claims.” The UC Regents attorneys say UCLA did not deny talking with SoFi Stadium. “After all, UCLA has a duty to constantly assess what is best for the university, its football team, its fans, its alumni and its students,” according to the UC Regents’ attorneys’ pleadings. “Rather, as UCLA simply informed RBOC, the agreement does not prevent UCLA from having discussions with other venues.” Also see: Bruins bailing on the Rose Bowl is a botched play When UCLA promptly responded to the RBOC’s concerns and said it would work with it in good faith to try to resolve various issues between the parties, the RBOC instead sued and lost in an attempt to get a temporary restraining order, the UC Regents lawyers further state. A hearing on the UC Regents’ motion for a stay of proceedings is scheduled for Jan. 8 and the motion to compel arbitration is set for Jan. 22. Also see: Pasadena files lawsuit to hold UCLA to Rose Bowl lease The suit filed Oct. 29 seeks to enforce the terms of a lease agreement the plaintiff claims locks UCLA into playing football at the venue until 2044, which the UC Regents attorneys acknowledge in their court papers. According to the lawsuit, UCLA has expressed its intent “to abandon the Rose Bowl Stadium and relocate its home football games to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.” “This is not only a clear break of the contract that governs the parties’ relationship, but it is also a profound betrayal of trust, of tradition, and of the very community that helped build UCLA football,” the lawsuit states. Related Articles Uncertain Rose Bowl future hangs over UCLA–Washington Alexander: UCLA can’t make this mistake with the Rose Bowl, can it? ‘Really upsetting’: UCLA football fans react to possible Rose Bowl exodus Judge denies Rose Bowl temporary restraining order keeping UCLA from deal with SoFi Stadium Swanson: UCLA bailing on Rose Bowl for SoFi? Nothing is sacred

In a report released last Wednesday, California’s Legislative Analyst provides an analysis of the state’s General Fund budget condition including both revenue and expenditure estimates. For taxpayers, the news isn’t good. One of the more depressing conclusions from the report was the statement that, “As it stands—with larger forecasted deficits and many fewer tools available to address them—California’s budget is undeniably less prepared for downturns.” A more easily understood translation of this would be that state leaders are playing Russian Roulette with their bloated spending plan. If California, along with the rest of the nation, experiences even a mild recession, the financial condition of the state could deteriorate to a point where even higher taxes will be on the table, no doubt accelerating the exodus out of the formerly golden state. According to the report, the state will face a nearly $18 billion budget “problem” this coming fiscal year due to higher than expected spending. (General fund spending invariably increases every year over and above inflation and population increases). During the governorship of Gavin Newsom, which began in 2019, the budget grew over 63% in five years. Particularly galling to California taxpayers – who must balance the family budget in a state with a punishinglyhigh cost of living – is the fact that the deficits persist even with huge revenue increases. According to LAO, “Across 2024-25 to 2026-27, our revenue estimates are up $11 billion compared to the budget act.” But “these revenue improvements do not, on net, improve the budget’s bottom line, because they are mostly offset by provisions of the Constitution dictating much of state spending.” So, while taxpayers are doing their part by dutifully paying their taxes, our elected political leadership fails to do its job of prioritizing spending. State Sen. Roger Niello of Roseville, the Republican vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee, hit the nail on the head by attributing the structural deficit to Democrats’ “unstoppable spending problems.” Speaking to CalMatters, Niello further stated that, “The state must assess the effectiveness and sustainability of the programs that were created during the surplus and make necessary corrections.” Similarly, Republican Assemblyman David Tangipa, who serves on the Assembly Budget Committee, noted that the LAO report confirms that “California is staring down a $35 billion structural deficit. Meanwhile, states like Texas are running a $24 billion surplus. Even the LAO notes that despite higher taxes, revenue can’t keep up with the private jets, luxury hotels, and endless spending spree Democrat leaders are billing to the taxpayers. Californians are demanding leaders who will protect taxpayers, restore fiscal sanity, and stop the runaway spending that has pushed families and businesses out of our state.” Related Articles Trump the peace candidate became another war president Could Democrats look east for 2028? Trump and Mamdani: Two statists in the White House As Los Angeles mayoral race takes shape, Beutner appears to be best of the bunch Susan Shelley: Steyer’s money can’t buy governorship The LAO report recommends dealing with the budget challenges now rather than waiting until we have a full blown crisis, such as a recession. “While important components of the state economy are sluggish, revenues are not falling, nor are conditions as bad as they would be in an outright recession. This makes solving the budget problem with ongoing solutions all the more important. Continuing to use temporary tools— like budgetary borrowing—would only defer the problem and, ultimately, leave the state ill-equipped to respond to a recession or downturn in the stock market.” We hope our elected leaders in Sacramento heed the advice of the Legislative Analyst rather than focusing on the silly issues that usually consume their time. The 2026-27 budget Kabuki Dance starts in January and, this year, it would be a…

Peter Adolph (Al) Larson emigrated from his native Sweden to the United States as a 16-year-old in 1890. He first began learning the boatbuilding trade in the San Francisco Bay area, and eventually moved south to Los Angeles. He founded the Al Larson Boat Shop on the Salt Lake Wharf at the harbor in Wilmington in 1903. At that time, most of the structures in the harbor were built on stilts, and transportation from place to place could be accomplished only by boat. The lumber industry was thriving in San Pedro at the time, and wood for potential boatmakers was plentiful. Though he offered repair services, Larson spent much of his early years crafting wooden fishing boats. The boat repair sideline of his business eventually would become more dominant, but that came a few decades later. Employees pose in front of the Al Larson Boat Shop in 1908. “Repair work promptly attended to.” (San Pedro Historical Society) Wooden blocks for holding ships under repair in the dry docks at Al Larson Boat Shop at the Port of Los Angeles. Undated photo. (Al Larson Boat Shop Facebook page) The USS YMS-324 minesweeper in San Francisco Bay, after the end of World War II, circa 1945-46. This ship became the USS Gull (AMS-16) in 1947. (U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command photo) A tugboat under repair at the Al Larson Boat Shop in 2014. (Al Larson Boat Shop Facebook page) Aerial view shows Al Larson Boat Shop, center top, and Al Larson Marina, center bottom, on Terminal Island. 2025 image. (Google Earth) Show Caption1 of 5Employees pose in front of the Al Larson Boat Shop in 1908. “Repair work promptly attended to.” (San Pedro Historical Society) Expand Larson had arrived in the Harbor Area four years before the city of Los Angeles chose San Pedro as its official harbor. He certainly chose the right spot to establish his business, which he moved to Berth 224 on Terminal Island. Its success, and increased defense industry work during World War I, led to its relocation in 1924 to an even larger space at Berth 258 on Terminal Island in the heart of the harbor. The complex is still located on the site at 1046 South Seaside Ave, which also includes the Al Larson Marina with its 128 boat slips. The Al Larson Boat Shop survived a blazing fire, possibly caused by a nearby bonfire, on Nov. 21, 1937. It caused $15,000 in damage and destroyed the lumber storage building and a nearby boat hangar. Hundreds of spectators watched the blaze, which was doused by firefighters on land and sea before more disastrous damage could be done. The onset of World War II brought about a change in focus for the business. Shipbuilding for the war effort became a major industry in the Port of Los Angeles. California Shipbuilding (aka Calship), Bethlehem Steel and Todd Shipyards all were turning out warships. The Al Larson Boat Shop also contributed to the effort, focusing on building smaller patrol boats and minesweepers for the U.S. Navy during the war years. The boatbuilding business fell off drastically following the war. The company built its last ship, an 80-foot-long fishing boat, in the late 1940s. By the late 1950s, the company’s repair workload had dwindled to the point where it only had only five employees, and its physical plant had become run down. In 1959, the family-owned business was purchased from then-owner Adolph Larson, Al’s son, by Andy Wall and his wife, Gloria. Wall was a police officer based in San Pedro who became an aviator in the U.S. Coast Guard. The couple married in 1943. Wall had experience in the business, having worked for a time in his father-in-law’s boat shop. He invested money in fixing up and expanding the Larson Boat Shop’s facilities, and began concentrating more on repairing more large commercial ships instead of smaller yachts and pleasure craft. The Wall family succeeded in turning the business around. It survived, and thrived, while other similar operations such as nearby Southwest Marine left the business. The shop’s facilities sit on…

Q: I have two questions, starting with this: I want to get a basic gun for self-protection, but am not sure what’s required in California. What are the rules? K.L., Torrance Ron Sokol A: It is legal to purchase a gun for self-protection in California, but there are a number of rules and regulations. The California Attorney General’s office has a useful link online about guns generally, and item #3 delves into the requirements: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#3 Here is a summary: The purchase or transfer of a firearm in California must include a Dealer’s Record of Sale, and must be done through a firearm’s dealer licensed in California The Dealer submits your information to the California Department of Justice who runs a background check There is a 10-day waiting period prior to when you can take possession of the firearm. Also note that in general you must be at least 21 years of age to buy a firearm here. You are required to have a valid Firearm Safety Certificate to purchase or acquire a firearm. This means you must take a written test on firearms safety and the pertinent laws. The Firearm Safety Certificate typically is good for 5 years Prior to taking possession of the firearm, you are required to perform a safe-handling demonstration, with the firearm itself, in the presence of a DOJ-certified instructor. You and the Dealer are then required to sign an affidavit once the handling demonstration is completed. Some other details to be aware of: To get a gun in California, you must have a valid I.D., such as a current California Driver’s License. If you are purchasing a handgun, you must have proof of California residency, and the address of the residency has to match your I.D. Q: Second question, are there some guns that are not legal in California? K.L., Torrance A: California Penal Code Section 16590 prohibits possession, making or selling of certain firearms. Examples include: undetectable firearms, which also are illegal under Penal Code Section 24610; short-barreled shotguns and rifles, which also are illegal per Penal Code Section 33215; zip guns, also illegal under Penal Code Section 33600; and assault weapons and BMG rifles, which are banned here per Penal code Section 30600. Personal Eligibility Test California Penal Code Section 30105 provides that you can request the California Department of Justice to check your eligibility for a firearm. If you make the request, then authorized state records will be examined to determine whether you are prohibited by state or by federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or buying a firearm. This is the online link for your reference: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pfecfaqs#1 Ron Sokol has been a practicing attorney for more than 40 years, and has also served many times as a judge pro tem, mediator, and arbitrator. It is important to keep in mind that this column presents a summary of the law, and is not to be treated or considered legal advice, let alone a substitute for actual consultation with a qualified professional. Related Articles Can I quit and still get unemployment? Ask the Lawyer An attorney asks, should I go out on my own? Ask the Lawyer Can my neighbor’s tree be removed? Ask the Lawyer What if the puppy we bought is very ill? Ask the Lawyer Am I legally allowed to go after the person who hurt my daughter? Ask the Lawyer