BILLMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

23CV047777: BILLMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant) CRS# 582980097124 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 06/01/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion of The Regents for summary judgment is CONTINUED under CCP 437c(h).

The central issue is whether, assuming that the Regents acted improvidently in investing in 8minuteenergy and during the unwinding of the joint venture, the plaintiff suffered cognizable injury (whether damages or a basis for restitution). The theory of injury in the SAC is that the plaintiff’s contributions to the defined benefit pension plan would have decreased but for the bad investment decisions.

Whether the plaintiff suffered a cognizable injury turns principally on the strength of expert testimony. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff offers the declaration of their expert Ellen Kleinstuber, which addresses injury in Section IX of the declaration. The Regents argue that these opinions are insufficient and amount to speculation. The decision raised by this motion might turn on (or at least be affected by) an analysis of the plaintiff’s expert opinions under Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v.

University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747. In any event, the plaintiff’s expert relies on the fact record, and fact discovery is incomplete. At this point, among other things, the plaintiff is waiting for documents from The Segal Group, which prepares actuarial valuations and long-term funding projections and advises on the selection of actuarial assumptions and methods, funding policy, and contribution requirements. (Kleinstuber Decl. ¶¶ 8, 56, 74 at fn.78.) Other potentially relevant discovery from the Regents and thirdparties are outstanding.

Accordingly, the expert opinions are not fully ripe.

Testing whether the plaintiffs’ expert opinions are sufficient to warrant a factual finding of injury caused by the alleged fiduciary duty breaches based on the 8minuteenergy investment decisions to survive summary judgment is more appropriately done after discovery is complete and final expert opinion and reports are produced and depositions are concluded. Whether Regents are subject to immunity or other dispositive defenses should be determined at the same time, not piecemeal.

PARTIES TO APPEAR to discuss a case management schedule, including: Early fact discovery cut off; expert disclosures and production of expert reports; expert discovery cut off; and dates for hearing this summary judgment motion (including supplemental briefing) and any related Sargon motions. The parties should attempt to meet and confer on these issues before the hearing.