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

For convenience of writing and to preserve judicial efficiency, the court addresses only those procedural matters that are relevant to the present proceeding.

On November 21, 2018, plaintiff Mark Signa (Signa) filed in the Signa Action, a complaint (the Signa Complaint) against defendants The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and University of California Santa Barbara Police Chief Dustin Olson (Olson).

On February 4, 2019, Signa filed a first amended complaint against the Regents and Olson.

On March 19, 2019, plaintiffs Michael Little (M Little) and Tiffany Little (T Little) (collectively, the Little Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the Little Action (the Little Complaint) against the Regents, Olson, Cathy Farley (Farley), David Millard (Millard), Robert Romero (Romero), Gregory Pierce (Pierce), and Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky).

On May 17, 2019, plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes) filed a complaint in the Reyes Action against the Regents, Millard, and Smorodinsky.

On May 22, 2019, the court signed and filed an order, upon a joint motion or stipulation, staying the proceedings in the Signa Action; and separately signed and filed an order, also upon a joint motion or stipulation, staying the proceedings in the Little Action.

On July 23, 2019, the court signed and filed an order upon a joint motion or stipulation, staying the proceedings in the Reyes Action.

On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Matthew Stern (Stern) filed a complaint in the Stern Action (the Stern Complaint) against the Regents and Millard.

On October 3, 2019, the court signed and filed an order, upon a stipulation by the parties, staying the proceedings in the Stern Action.

On January 15, 2021, the court entered a minute order granting the motion of Signa for an order lifting the stay of the Signa Action; and entered a separate minute order granting the motion of the Little Plaintiffs for an order lifting the stay of the Little Action.

On January 19, 2021, the court entered a minute order granting the motion of Stern for an order lifting the stay of the Stern Action.

On January 25, 2021, the court entered a minute order granting the motion of Reyes for an order lifting the stay of the Reyes Action.

On February 16, 2021, the Regents filed an answer to the Little Complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-seven affirmative defenses, and separately filed an answer to the Stern Complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-seven affirmative defenses.

On that same date, Olson, Farley, Romero, Pierce, and Smorodinsky separately filed their answer to the Little Complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-seven affirmative defenses.

On July 8, 2021, the Regents filed in the Signa Action, an unopposed motion (the Regents Consolidation Motion) to transfer and consolidate with that action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action, the Stern Action, and 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), for pretrial purposes.

On September 17, 2021, the court entered a minute order granting the Regents Consolidation Motion.

On March 29, 2023, Millard filed an answer to the Little Complaint, and separately filed an answer to the Stern Complaint.

On August 8, 2025, after a trial confirmation conference (TCC), the court entered a minute order (the TCC Order) setting the Smith Action for a seven day jury trial to commence on June 8, 2026; and setting the Signa Action "and those considered in consolidation" for a fifteen day jury trial to commence on June 18, 2026.

On October 2, 2025, a trial call order was entered in the Signa Action, ordering that case to start trial on the date certain of June 18, 2026.

On January 22, 2026, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the Stern Complaint (the Regents Stern Motion).

The Regents Stern Motion was calendared for hearing on April 24, 2026.

On January 26, 2026, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against the complaint of T Little in the Little Action (the Regents T Little Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, against the complaint of M Little in the Little Action (the Regents M Little Motion).

The Regents T Little Motion and M Little Motion (collectively, the Regents Little Motions) were calendared for hearing on May 1, 2026.

On April 3, Stern filed an opposition to the Regents Stern Motion.

On April 10, T Little and M Little separately filed their respective oppositions to the Regents Little Motions.

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.

On May 1, the court entered a minute order continuing the Regents Little Motions to June 12, 2026, due to the lodging by the Regents of materials conditionally under seal in support of those motions without the filing of an appropriate motion for the entry of an order to place those materials under seal.

On May 8, the court entered a minute order continuing the Regents Stern Motion to June 12, 2026, also due to the lodging by the Regents of materials conditionally under seal in support of that motion without the filing of an appropriate motion for the entry of an order to place those materials under seal.

On May 11, the Regents filed a motion for an order to file under seal the materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Little Motions (the Little Motion to Seal), and a motion for an order to file under seal the materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Stern Motion (the Stern Motion to Seal).

On May 18, the Little Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Little Motion to Seal, and Stern filed an opposition to the Stern Motion to Seal.

On May 29, the court entered the May 29 Order described above, pursuant to which the court also granted, in part, the Little Motion to Seal as to exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37 to the amended appendix of evidence filed by the Regents on February 4, 2026, in support of the Regents T Little Motion (the T Little Amended Appendix), only; and as to exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29 to the amended appendix of evidence also filed on February 4, 2026, in support of the Regents M Little Motion (the M Little Amended Appendix).

Further, the court granted the Stern Motion to Seal as to exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only, to the amended appendix of evidence filed by the Regents on February 4, 2026, in support of the Regents Stern Motion (the Stern Amended Appendix).

The May 29 Order otherwise denied the Little Motion to Seal and the Stern Motion to Seal, and ordered the Regents to, no later than 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, file public versions of the T Little Amended Appendix, the M Little Amended Appendix, and the Stern Amended Appendix, with redactions to only those exhibits described above for which the court granted the Little Motion to Seal and Stern Motion to Seal.

On June 1, the Regents filed an ex parte application (the application) for an order shortening time to hear forthcoming motions to dismiss the Smith Action, the Little Action, the Signa Action, the Stern Action, and the Reyes Action.

On that same date, Olson, Farley, Millard, Romero, Pierce, and Smorodinsky (collectively, the Individual Defendants) filed a joinder to that application; and plaintiff Ryan Smith (Smith) filed an opposition to the application.

On June 2, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order (the Ex Parte Order) granting the application; specially setting a hearing on the forthcoming motion to dismiss the Smith Action for June 8, 2026; and ordering that any opposition to that motion be filed and served by 12 p.m. on June 4, with any reply to be filed and served by 10 a.m. on June 5.

The Ex Parte Order also set a hearing on the forthcoming motions to dismiss the Little Action, the Signa Action, the Stern Action, and the Reyes Action, for June 12, 2026, to be heard at the same time as the pending Regents Stern Motion and Regents Little Motions, and ordered that any opposition to those motions to dismiss be filed and served no later than 3 p.m. on June 4, with any replies to be filed and served no later than 3 p.m. on June 5.

On June 1, the Regents and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD) filed a motion for an order dismissing the Smith Action (the Motion to Dismiss Smith Action).

On that same date, the Regents and Olson filed a motion for an order dismissing the Signa Action (the Motion to Dismiss Signa Action); the Regents and the Individual Defendants filed a motion for an order dismissing the Little Action (the Motion to Dismiss Little Action); the Regents and Millard filed a motion for an order dismissing the Stern Action (the Motion to Dismiss Stern Action); and the Regents, Millard, and Smorodinsky filed a motion for an order dismissing the Reyes Action (the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action).

Also on June 1, Olson filed a notice of joinder and joinder to the Motion to Dismiss Signa Action; the Individual Defendants filed a notice of joinder and joinder to the Motion to Dismiss Little Action; Millard filed a notice of joinder and joinder to the Motion to Dismiss Stern Action; and Millard and Smorodinsky filed a notice of joinder and joinder to the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action.

Each of the motions to dismiss described above is made on the ground that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, and emergency rule 10(a), the Actions are subject to mandatory dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360.

On June 3, the Regents filed a public redacted version of the Stern Amended Appendix, which consists of six volumes of exhibits; and separate filed public redacted versions of the T Little Amended Appendix, which consists of three volumes of exhibits, and the M Little Amended Appendix, which consists of five volumes of exhibits.

On June 4, Smith, the Little Plaintiffs, Stern, Reyes, and Signa separately filed and served their respective oppositions to the motions to dismiss described above.

Replies to those oppositions, joinders to those replies, and supplemental replies were filed with the court on June 5 as further discussed herein.

On June 8, the court entered a minute order adopting its tentative ruling denying the Motion to Dismiss Smith Action.

Analysis: (1) The Regents Stern Motion "A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(1).)

"A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.

A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. [P.] A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. " (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (f)(1)-(2).)

"The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Aguilar).)

The party moving for summary judgment "bears the burden of persuasion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Id. at p. 845.)

Relevant here, a defendant meets that burden by showing "that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

"In reviewing a defense summary judgment, we apply the traditional three-step analysis ..., that is, we (1) identify brought to trial.

Though the present record, including the court's calculations, show that the Little Action was required to be brought to trial no later than May 18, 2026, (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 10, Sec. 12, & Sec. 12a ["[i]f the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday."]), the same reasoning and analysis apply.

For the same reasons discussed above including as to the evidence, information, and arguments presented by the Individual Defendants who are represented by attorney Anneet, the court will deny the Motion to Dismiss Little Action.

As to the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action, that motion and the relevant procedural history also shows, without dispute, that, exclusive of any additional extensions of time, the Reyes Action filed on May 17, 2019, was required to be brought to trial no later than November 17, 2024, which is a Sunday. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.310; Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, emergency rule 10(a); see also Vassallo Dec., P. 10; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 10, Sec. 12, & Sec. 12a.)

For the same or similar reasons discussed above, the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action and the procedural history of these matters show that the Reyes Action was stayed from July 23, 2019, until January 25, 2021, for a total of 552 days. (Vassallo Dec., P.P. 5, 7, 8, exhibit 3 [July 23, 2019, order] & exhibit 5 [Jan. 25, 2021, minute order].)

Excluding those days from the time within which the Reyes Action is required to be brought to trial, the court's calculations show that the Reyes Action was required to be brought to trial no later than April 24, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 12a.)

As the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action also does not dispute or effectively dispute that the Reyes Action was set for trial on June 18, 2026, pursuant to the TCC Order (memorandum at p. 9, l. 18), the same reasoning and analysis apply including as to the information, evidence, and arguments presented or advanced by Millard and Smorodinsky.

For the same reasons discussed above, the court will deny the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action.

The Motion to Dismiss Stern Action also does not dispute that the trial of the Stern Action is, pursuant to the TCC Order, "currently scheduled for June 18, 2026...." (Memorandum at p. 9, l. 18.)

Even if the Regents or Millard, who is also represented by attorney Anneet, could present evidence and information showing why that date is beyond the statutory deadline, the same reasoning and analysis apply.

For all reasons discussed above, the court will also deny the Motion to Dismiss Stern Action.

The Little Plaintiffs, Reyes, and Stern's requests for judicial notice: For the same reasons discussed above, the court will grant the respective requests of the Little Plaintiffs, Reyes, and Stern, for judicial notice of the transcript of the TCC proceeding, the TCC Order, and the trial call order entered on October 2, 2025; and will deny the requests for judicial notice of the court records contained in exhibits C through J of the declarations of attorney Keeton separately filed in support of the oppositions of the Little Plaintiffs, Reyes, and Stern.

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

(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 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 Fri, 06/05/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions 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, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Mark Signa'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, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' complaint is denied.

Background: As a preliminary matter, the court notes that on September 17, 2021, after a hearing, the court issued an order granting a motion filed in this case (the Signa Action) on July 8, 2021, by the Regents of the University of 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 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. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Stern Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Reyes Action); and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 21CV01256 entitled Ryan