Motion to Compel and Production of Pitchess Documents
The Motion to Dismiss Little Action and the procedural history described above also show that the Little Action was stayed from May 22, 2019, until the court lifted that stay on January 15, 2021. (Vassallo Dec., P.P. 4-5, 7, exhibits 2-3 [joint motion and order to stay Little Action] & exhibit 5 [Jan. 15, 2021, minute order].) For the same reasons discussed above, the undisputed record reflects that the Little Action was also stayed for 604 days, which are, as further discussed above, excluded when computing the time within which that action must be 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.
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?”
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: Robert Kirsch et al vs County of Santa Barbara et al Tentative Ruling: Robert Kirsch et al vs County of Santa Barbara et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 07/31/2026 - 10:00