Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al

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. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., for trial. This case is designated as the lead case.

The parties shall file all documents in the lead case. The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss future proceedings in accordance with this ruling. Background: On November 21, 2018, 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), 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, Signa alleges in their complaint that they have been employed as a police officer by the Regents since 1990, and that the Regents and UCSB-PD retaliated against Signa after Signa voiced concerns about purported misconduct 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.

On May 22, 2019, the court ordered a stay of this case pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies by Signa. The court lifted the stay on January 21, 2021. On September 17, 2021, the court adopted its tentative ruling on a motion of the Regents to transfer 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 Reyes Action); (4) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01625 entitled John Doe v. The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara, et al. (the Smith Action); and (5) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 21CV01256 entitled Ryan Hashimoto v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Hashimoto Action).

On February 26, 2025, the court entered judgment in favor of the Regents, the UCSB-PD, and the University of California Santa Barbara, and against plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto, as to the complaint filed in the Hashimoto Action. Relevant here, on January 22, 2026, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the Signa FAC (the Regents Signa Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the complaint of Matthew Stern (Stern) filed in the Stern Action (the Regents Stern Motion).

The Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Stern Motion were calendared for hearing on April 24, 2026. On January 26, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Tiffany Little (T Little) filed in the Little Action, and separately filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Michael Little (M Little) in the Little Action (collectively, the Regents Little Motions).

The Regents Little Motions were calendared for hearing on May 1, 2026. T Little and M Little have filed opposition to the Regents Little Motions. On February 10, Olson filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against the Signa FAC (the Olson Motion). On February 11, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint filed by plaintiff Ryan Smith (Smith) in the Smith Action (the Regents Smith Motion). On February 13, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint filed by plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes) in the Reyes Action (the Regents Reyes Motion).

On February 19, defendant David Millard (Millard) filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against the complaint filed by Stern in the Stern Action (the Millard Motion.) The Olson Motion, the Regents Smith Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion were calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026. On March 16, the Regents filed an ex parte application for an order to set the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion on May 8, 2026, to allow that motion to be heard no later than 30 days before trial.

On March 18, the court signed and entered an order granting that application, and moved the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to May 8, 2026. On April 3, Stern filed their opposition to the Regents Stern Motion. On April 11, the court signed, and on April 13 filed, an order approving a stipulation by the parties to continue the hearing on the Regents Stern Motion to May 8, 2026, and the hearing on the Regents Signa Motion to May 15, 2026. The Regents Smith Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 8.

The Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026. On April 17, Smith filed their opposition to the Regents Smith Motion. On April 21, Signa filed their opposition to the Regents Signa Motion. On April 24, Signa filed opposition to the Olson Motion, Reyes filed opposition to the Regents Reyes Motion, and Stern filed opposition to the Millard Motion. On May 1, the court issued a minute order (the May 1 Order), continuing the hearing on the Regents Little

Motions to June 12, 2026, as a result of the lodging by the Regents of material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions conditionally under seal without having filed an appropriate motion for an order placing those materials under seal, or the entry of any such order. The court set a hearing on any motion for an order to file the materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Little Motions on May 29, 2026, and a briefing schedule that requires any such motion to be filed and served on or before May 11, among other things.

On May 8, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order (the May 8 Order), continuing the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to May 29, 2026, and the hearing on the Regents Stern Motion to June 12, 2026, as a result of the lodging by the Regents of material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions conditionally under seal without having filed an appropriate motion for an order placing those materials under seal. The May 8 Order also requires that any motion for an order to place under seal the materials lodged by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion be filed and served on or before May 11, 2026; set a briefing schedule for oppositions and replies as to that motion; and set a hearing on any such motion on May 22, 2026.

As to the materials lodged by the Regents conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Stern Motion, the May 8 Order set a hearing date for any motion to place those materials under seal on May 29, 2026. On May 11, the Regents separately filed: (1) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Signa Motion (the Signa Motion to Seal); (2) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Reyes Motion (the Reyes Motion to Seal); (3) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Little Motions (the Little Motion to Seal); (4) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Smith Motion (the Smith Motion to Seal); and (5) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion (the Stern Motion to Seal).

On May 15, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order adopting its tentative ruling denying the Olson Motion and the Millard Motion. Further, the court continued the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion to June 5, 2026, to allow time to resolve the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal. Also on May 15, after the deadline prescribed in the May 8 Order, Smith filed an opposition to the Smith Motion to Seal. On May 18, M Little and T Little filed an opposition to the Little Motion to Seal; Stern filed an opposition to the Stern Motion to Seal; Signa filed an opposition to the Signa Motion to Seal; and Reyes filed an opposition to the Reyes Motion to Seal.

On May 20, Signa, M Little, T Little, Reyes, and Stern (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for a hearing on a forthcoming motion to consolidate the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action, and the Stern Action (collectively, the Actions) for trial. On May 21, after a hearing, the court granted that application, set the hearing on that motion on May 29, 2026, and ordered that any opposition to that motion be filed no later than May 27. On May 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their motion for an order consolidating the Actions for all purposes including trial (the Motion to Consolidate).

On May 22, the court continued the hearing on the Smith Motion to Seal to May 29, 2026. On May 27, the Regents filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate with the court. Analysis: (1) Smith Motion to Seal California has "long recognized a common law right of access to public documents, including court records." (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483 (Overstock); see also McGuire v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1685, 1687 ["Court records are open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality."].) "California law also recognizes a constitutional right of access, grounded in the First Amendment, to court

without any objection by the Regents, and noted that the time estimate for trial of that action and "those considered in consolidation" is 15 days. (Ibid.) For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court questions the present assertion by the Regents that the Actions are different and distinct. Even if the Regents could present information or evidence showing that the common questions of law or fact pending before the court as of the filing of the Regents Motion have changed, "[t]he fact that evidence in the one case might not [be] admissible in the other does not bar a consolidation. [Citation.]

Nor does the fact that all the parties are not the same." (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.) The court also notes that the Actions involve only four plaintiffs, and will require four separate trials. Even if the court were to credit the Regents' assertion that Plaintiffs' respective claims each require individualized proof regarding the alleged protected disclosures, adverse employment actions, or involved supervisors, the opposition of the Regents does not explain why the same deposition testimony would not be introduced, why the same expert witnesses would not be called, or why the same evidence would not be presented. (See Todd-Stenberg, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.)

The opposition of the Regents also does not explain why the jury cannot be provided with "a separate binder of evidence and separate chronologies prepared on each plaintiff." (Todd-Stenberg, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) The opposition also does not show why the preparation of appropriate jury instructions would be insufficient to cure any potential prejudice or avoid misleading the jury. (See, e.g., Pilliod v. Monsanto Co. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, 637 [general discussion]; Shivers v. Van Loben Sels (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 286, 290 [noting that "the principles of law applicable to each of the consolidated cases could well have been stated in a few, simple, readily understandable instructions."].)

For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court is not persuaded that consolidation of the Actions for trial will confuse each of the cases or the jury. (Todd-Stenberg, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) The Regents also fail to explain why any prejudice that may arise from its engagement in another trial is peculiar or different from the typical circumstances which routinely arise in litigation, generally, or why the Regents must prepare its present witness examinations, evidentiary objections, pretrial motions, exhibit designations, or trial themes "anew". (See also Los Angeles City High School Dist. of Los Angeles County v.

Swensen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 574, 583 [finding no abuse of discretion notwithstanding claim of prejudice].) As to the assertion that the Actions are subject to mandatory dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360, the court will determine that issue upon the filing and service of an appropriate motion by the Regents. The remaining arguments advanced by the Regents do not persuade the court that consolidation of the Actions for trial is not appropriate or warranted under the circumstances present here.

Instead, the court finds that for all 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

summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (q).) The written objections of the Regents to material contained in the Reyes declaration are formatted in the same manner as the written objections to the Signa declaration further discussed above. For example, instead of stating the page and line number of the material objected to, the Regents raise the same multiple objections to the same multiple statements contained in each cited paragraph of the Reyes declaration, which effectively forces the court to determine whether all or only some statements within each cited paragraph are objectionable, and why.

The same reasoning and analysis apply to the written objections submitted by the Regents in support of their reply to Reyes' opposition to the Regents Reyes Motion. For the same reasons discussed above, those written objections fail to follow the format set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b). Notwithstanding that the written objections submitted by the Regents fail to comply with court rules, the court will overrule objection no.

4. As to the remaining objections, the court, for the same reasons discussed above, disregards those objections. (Hodjat, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 8.)

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: 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 Mon, 06/08/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Dismiss Tentative Ruling For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California and University of California Santa Barbara Police Department to dismiss plaintiff Ryan Smith's action is denied. Background: This case number 18CV05728 (the Signa Action) is consolidated for pretrial purposes with Santa Barbara Superior Court case number 19CV01625, entitled John Doe v. The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara, et al. (the Smith Action); 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); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no.

employees, members, agents, predecessors, successors, and assigns." (Id. at P. 1.36.) The release appears "appropriately tethered to the complaint's factual allegations...." (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538.) Further, the release appears sufficiently tethered to the facts and transactions giving rise to the PAGA penalties at issue in the PAGA period. (See Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 83, disapproved on another ground in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664, 709-710.) (8) Content of Proposed Notice "The content of the class notice is subject to court approval.

If class members are to be given the right to request exclusion from the class, the notice must include the following: [P.] (1) A brief explanation of the case, including the basic contentions or denials of the parties; [P.] (2) A statement that the court will exclude the member from the class if the member so requests by a specified date; [P.] (3) A procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusion from the class; [P.] (4) A statement that the judgment, whether favorable or not, will bind all members who do not request exclusion; and [P.] (5) A statement that any member who does not request exclusion may, if the member so desires, enter an appearance through counsel." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.766, subd. (d).) "In determining the manner of the notice, the court must consider: [P.] (1) The interests of the class; [P.] (2) The type of relief requested; [P.] (3) The stake of the individual class members; [P.] (4) The cost of notifying class members; [P.] (5) The resources of the parties; [P.] (6) The possible prejudice to class members who do not receive notice; and [P.] (7) The res judicata effect on class members." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766, subd. (e).) ILYM Group, Inc. (ILYM), will act as settlement administrator. (Melmed Decl., P. 53, Exs.

D, E.) The Settlement Agreement contains detailed notice procedures. (Melmed Decl., Ex. at P. 7.1-7.5.) Within 14 days after preliminary approval, Big Green will provide the class data to ILYM. (Id. at P. 7.2.) Within 28 days after preliminary approval, ILYM will mail the class notice. (Ibid.) If a notice is returned as undeliverable, ILYM will perform a skip trace search and seek an address correction for such class members, and a second notice packet 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