Kanagawa University has filed a civil lawsuit against the Kawasaki Racing Association seeking 360 million yen in damages, following the association's announcement to withdraw its plans for relocating a training center to the university's former campus site in Hiratsuka. The lawsuit was officially filed on the 10th at the Yokohama District Court. According to the university, the racing association had submitted a proposal for the training center's establishment in response to a public solicitation by the university in February 2024. By May, the association was chosen as the preferred business operator, and in August, both parties signed a basic agreement aimed at advancing toward a sales contract.

As part of the site development, it was necessary to secure urban planning decisions, and discussions were ongoing with Hiratsuka City and local stakeholders. However, in October of the previous year, the racing association verbally communicated its cancellation of the relocation plan and followed up with written notification in November, declaring the basic agreement void. Despite pleas for reconsideration from the university, Hiratsuka City, and local residents, the association refused to engage further, prompting the university to seek damages based on the agreement in December, which the association subsequently rejected, leading to the current legal action.

In response, the Kawasaki Racing Association argued in a public statement released on their website that the delay in urban planning decisions negated the agreement's validity, asserting that the cancellation was not for their own reasons. They contested the university's position that planning was progressing, claiming that no agreement or actionable plans were in place. On the other hand, Kanagawa University claims that the delays were due to the association's neglect in providing essential layout information necessary to gain local consensus, suggesting that this inaction directly leads to the damages being pursued in court. They contend that the voiding of the agreement requires mutual consent and argue that the association's actions were not justified.