Motions to Dismiss
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/15/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling
(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motions of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Mark Signa's complaint (filed on January 22, 2026), and for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' complaint (filed on February 13, 2026), are each continued to June 5, 2026.
(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant Dustin Olson for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the first amended complaint of plaintiff Mark Signa is granted, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted against defendant Dustin Olson, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant David Millard for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Matthew Stern is granted, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted against defendant David Millard, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(4) All parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss the procedural matters described herein.
Background: Plaintiff Mark Signa (Signa) filed their original complaint in this case against defendants The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD) Chief Dustin Olson (Olson) on November 21, 2018, asserting four causes of action: (1) violation of Title 42 United States Code section 1983 - denial of first amendment rights; (2) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
Briefly, in the complaint, Signa alleges that they have been employed as a police officer by the Regents since 1990, and that they were retaliated against after voicing concerns about purportedly illegal or improper conduct within the UCSB-PD.
On February 4, 2019, Signa filed their operative first amended complaint (the Signa FAC), alleging two causes of action: (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and (2) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5.
On February 22, 2019, the Regents and Olson filed an answer to the Signa FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-seven affirmative defenses.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On May 22, 2019, the court ordered a stay of this case pending Signa's exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The court lifted the stay on January 21, 2021.
On September 17, 2021, the court adopted its tentative ruling on the motion of the Regents to transfer to this department and consolidate with this case (the Signa Action) for pre-trial purposes only, the following matters: (1) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Little Action); (2) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Stern Action); (3) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the
defendant's counsel informed the court that they have contemplated consolidating the cases in which the plaintiffs are represented by the Dre Law firm.
The court also noted in that minute order, that the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, and that no documents have been submitted to make it a true consolidation for trial.
Based on the parties' agreement, the court set the Smith Action for jury trial to commence on June 8, 2026, and the Signa Action for a 15 day jury trial to commence on June 18, 2026.
Court records reflect that, though the matters described above were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, no party has filed a motion to consolidate the matters for all purposes, including trial. (See Villa Zinfandel, LLC v. Bearman (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 848, 862-863 [general discussion].)
As a result, there appears to be some confusion as to what cases, apart from the Smith Action and the Signa Action, will proceed to trial and when.
For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will order the parties to appear at the hearing to discuss the status of trial.
Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling
(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint is continued to May 29, 2026.
(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against Matthew Stern's complaint is continued to June 12, 2026.
(3) If appropriate motions for an order sealing material that has been lodged conditionally under seal by defendant as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication against the complaints of plaintiffs Ryan Smith and Mathew Stern are not filed and served by the deadline prescribed herein and in accordance with this ruling, that lodged material, which will not be considered by the court, will be permanently deleted.
(4) Any motion for an order to seal any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint and against plaintiff Matthew Stern's complaint, must be filed and served on or before May 11, 2026.
The materials submitted by defendant as a basis for adjudication of those motions shall remain conditionally lodged pending the resolution of any such motion.
(5) The opening memorandum submitted in support of any future motion for an order to seal any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint must include the notification described in this ruling.
(6) Any opposition to any motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint must be filed and served on or before May 13, 2026.
Any reply to that opposition must be filed and served on or before May 15, 2026.
(7) Any opposition to any future motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Matthew
Regents Smith Motion is not filed by May 11, the court will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted.
Any opposition to any motion for an order sealing any record lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Smith Motion must be filed and served no later than May 13.
Any reply must be filed on or before May 15.
The Regents Signa Motion, the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion: The court notes that, though the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to the Olson Motion and the Millard Motion have been filed publicly in the court, the same deficiencies exist in regard to the lodging by the Regents of material conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion.
For example, court records reflect that the two volume appendix of exhibits submitted by the Regents in support of the Regents Signa Motion was lodged conditionally under seal on January 22, 2026.
On February 25, 2026, the Regents lodged similar documents in regard to the amended appendix of evidence filed in support of that motion and of the Regents Reyes Motion, conditionally under seal.
Though the Regents Signa Motion, the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion are calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026, to the extent any material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions has been lodged conditionally under seal, the court expects that appropriate motions to seal those materials will be filed sufficiently in advance of that hearing considering the May Order and the court's ruling herein.
Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Mark Signa vs The Regents of the University of California et al Tentative Ruling
(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Matthew Stern's complaint is denied.
(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint is denied.
(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Michael Little's complaint is denied.
(4) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California and University of California, Santa Barbara Police Chief Dustin Olson, to dismiss plaintiff Mark Signa's action is denied.
(5) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California, Dusin Olson, Cathy Farley, David Millard, Robert Romero, Gregory Pierce, and Gregory Smorodinsky to dismiss plaintiffs Michael Little and Tiffany Little's action is denied.
(6) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California, David Millard and Gregory Smorodinsky to dismiss plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' action is denied.
will be sent to any new or different address obtained by the skip trace process. (Id. at P. 7.3.)
The proposed notice is attached as exhibit 1 (class notice) and exhibit 2 (workweek calculation) to the Settlement Agreement. (Melmed Decl., Ex. A, at Exs. 1-2.)
The class notice contains a brief explanation of the case (Melmed Decl., Ex. A at Ex. 1, pp. 2-3), a statement that the court will exclude a member if the request is submitted by a specified date (id. at pp. 9-10), a procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusion from the class (ibid.), a statement that the settlement if approved will bind all members who do not request exclusion and that certain claims will be released (id. at pp. 7-8), and a statement that a party who wishes to participate may object and appear through separate counsel (id. at p. 10).
The proposed notice packet contains a separate document explaining the workweek calculation and the resulting share of the settlement for a class member. (Melmed Decl., Ex. A, at Ex. 2.)
The court finds the notice easy to understand, sufficient to apprise the members of their rights and obligations in connection with the proposed settlement, and sufficient to notify those members of their right and opportunity to opt out of or present objections to the settlement.
For these reasons, the court finds that the proposed class notice complies with due process. (See Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 694-695.)
The cost of the notice and administration appears reasonable under the circumstances.
The proposed notice appears to meet the statutory requirements. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766, subds. (d)-(f).)
For all the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval.
Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Seal; Motion for Consolidation; Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling
(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith is granted, in part as to exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(2) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith, that redacts exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, only.
No other exhibit, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.
Further, exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith.
(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Mark Signa, is denied.
On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant shall file unsealed, the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal by defendant on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion, without any redactions to any exhibit or material contained in any exhibit.
(4) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Jonathan Lee Reyes, is denied.
On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant shall file unsealed, the appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion, without any redactions to any exhibit or material contained in any exhibit.
(5) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Michael Little and Tiffany Little is granted as to exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, only, to the amended appendix of evidence in support of defendant's motion as to plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint; and as to exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, only, to the amended appendix of evidence in support of defendant's motion as to plaintiff Michael Little's complaint. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(6) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in the Tiffany Little matter, that redacts exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, only.
No other exhibit, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.
Further, exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint.
(7) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against Michael Little's complaint, that redacts exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, only.
No other exhibit, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.
Further, exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Michael Little's complaint.
(8) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Matthew Stern is granted as to exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(9) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication in the Matthew Stern matter, that redacts exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only.
No other exhibit, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, shall be redacted from that public redacted version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.
Further, exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication in the Matthew Stern matter.
(10) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint is denied.
(11) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiffs Mark Signa, Michael Little, Tiffany Little, Matthew Stern, and Jonathan Reyes to consolidate cases for all purposes including trial is granted.
This case no. 18CV05728, shall be consolidated with Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court case no.
reasons discussed above, consolidation is warranted.
For all reasons discussed above, the present record is sufficient to show that the Actions involve common questions of fact and law.
For these reasons, and to avoid inconsistent results, unnecessary costs and delay resulting from the introduction of the same evidence, and promote the efficient use of judicial resources, the court will grant the Motion to Consolidate, and order the Actions consolidated for purposes of trial, with the Signa Action designated as the lead case.
All documents filed in the consolidated matters shall be filed in the lead case.
Noted above, a 15 day jury trial is set to commence in the Signa Action on June 18, 2026.
The court will order the parties to appear at the hearing to discuss future proceedings.
Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Seal Tentative Ruling
The motion to seal records set by the Court on May 8, 2026, for this hearing is continued to May 29, 2026.
Tentative Ruling: Jameson Moore et al vs Target Corporation et al Tentative Ruling: Jameson Moore et al vs Target Corporation et al