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

Santa Barbara County - Judge Donna D. Geck - 20260605 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 Hashimoto v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Hashimoto Action).

Court records relevant to this proceeding reflect that on March 27, 2019, plaintiff Ryan Smith (Smith) filed a complaint in the Smith Action (the Smith Complaint) against defendants The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara (the Regents) and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (collectively, the Regents Parties), asserting five causes of action: (1) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (2) violation of the California Whistleblower's Protection Act section 8547; (3) failure to take corrective action; (4) false light; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On May 20, 2019, Smith and the Regents filed a joint motion or stipulation to stay the Smith Action pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies by Smith (the Smith Stipulation). On May 22, 2019, the court signed and filed an order staying the Smith Action.

February 16, 2021, the Regents filed an answer to the Smith Complaint.

On July 14, 2021, the Regents filed in the Smith Action, a notice of the filing of an unopposed motion by the Regents (the Regents Consolidation Motion) in the Signa Action, for an order transferring and consolidating with the Signa Action for pretrial purposes, the Smith Action, the Little Action, the Stern Action, the Reyes Action, and the Hashimoto Action.

On September 17, 2021, the court issued a minute order (the September 17 Order), granting the Regents Consolidation Motion, and ordering the Signa Action, the Smith Action, the Little Action, the Stern Action, the Reyes Action, and the Hashimoto Action consolidated for pretrial purposes only. A copy of the September 17 Order was filed in the Smith 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.

On August 8, 2025, a trial confirmation conference (TCC) was held in the Signa Action. After the TCC, the court issued a minute order (the TCC Order) setting the Smith Action for a seven day jury trial to commence on June 8, 2025.

On October 2, 2025, a trial call order was filed in Smith Action, ordering that action to start trial on the date certain of June 8, 2026.

On June 1, 2026, the Regents filed an ex parte application (the application) for an order shortening time to hear motions to dismiss the Smith Action, the Little Action, the Signa Action, the Stern Action, and the Reyes Action. On that same date, defendants Dustin Olson, Cathy Farley, David Millard, Robert Romero, Greg Pierce, and Greg Smorodinsky (collectively, the Individual Defendants) filed a joinder to the application, and 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 present motion for an order dismissing the Smith Action, which was filed on June 1 by the Regents and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (collectively, the Regents Parties), is made on the ground that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, and emergency rule 10(a), the latest deadline to commence trial of the Smith Action expired no later than June 1, 2026, such that the Smith Action, which is currently scheduled for trial on June 8, 2026, is subject to mandatory dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360.

On June 4, Smith filed an opposition to the motion. The Regents Parties filed their reply to that opposition on June 5.

Analysis: "An action shall be dismissed by the court ... on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in [Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 et seq.]." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.360, subd. (a).)

The requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 et seq., "are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.360, subd. (b).)

"An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.310.)

Noted above, court records in the Smith Action show that Smith filed the Smith Complaint on March 27, 2019. The motion is supported by a declaration of the Regents Parties' counsel, Enrique M. Vassallo (attorney Vassallo), who concedes that the Smith Complaint was filed on that date. (See Vassallo Dec., P. 3, exhibit 1.)

"In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: "(a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended. "(b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined. "(c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.340.)

The motion also presents no information or evidence disputing that on May 22, 2019, the court, pursuant to a stipulation of the Regents and Smith, ordered the proceedings in the Smith Action stayed as further detailed above. (See also Vassallo Dec., P.P. 5-6 & exhibits 2-3.)

The available information and evidence also shows, without dispute, that similar stay orders were entered in the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action and the Stern Action. (Vassallo Dec., P. 6 & exhibits 4-7.)

Attorney Vassallo states that, between January 15 and January 25, 2021, the court entered orders lifting the stays of the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action and the Stern Action. (Vassallo Dec., P.P. 7-9 & exhibits 8-11.)

The court has no record showing the entry of a similar order lifting the stay of the Smith Action. In addition, the motion of the Regents Parties and the supporting declaration of attorney Vassallo show, and effectively concede, that no party to the Smith Action filed a motion for an order lifting the stay of those proceedings. (Vassallo Dec., P. 10.)

Attorney Vassallo further states that, after the court ordered the stays of the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Stern Action, and the Reyes Action lifted, the Regents Parties proceeded in the Smith Action the same manner as those actions, including by filing and serving an answer to the Smith Complaint on February 16, 2021, as also noted above. (Vassallo Dec., P. 11 & exhibit 12.)

Because Smith did not object to the filing of that answer and actively litigated the Smith Action by participating in discovery, motion practice, and case management conferences, attorney Vassallo uses the date of January 25, 2021, which is the last date on which the court entered an order lifting the stay of the consolidated matters described above, to determine the time during which the Smith Action was stayed. (Vassallo Dec., P.P. 12-14.)

For these reasons, the Regents Parties argue, the Smith Action was stayed for a total of 614 days. (Vassallo Dec., P. 15.)

The records in the Smith Action show, and the motion presents no information or evidence to dispute, that the documents filed in that case after May 22, 2019, consist of notices of changes in address or firm name, a substitution of attorney filed by the Regents, an answer to the Smith Complaint, and notices relating to the Regents Consolidation Motion described above.

Apart from the general and conclusory arguments described above, the motion presents no reasoned factual or legal argument, with citations to supporting legal authority, showing why the type of activity described in the motion is sufficient to, unilaterally, lift the stay of the Smith Action absent a court order.

The court is also unaware of any legal authority which provides that a stay may be lifted absent judicial action, including by the type of party activity described in attorney Vassallo's declaration and above. (See, e.g., MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 656-657 [generally discussing review of a trial court order lifting a stay previously imposed by that court's order].)

Under the circumstances present here, where the court ordered the Smith Action consolidated for pretrial purposes with other actions that were not, at the time of consolidation, subject to a stay order, it can be inferred from the issuance of the September 17 Order, that the court intended to lift, and effectively lifted, the stay of the Smith Action when it ordered the pretrial consolidation on September 17, 2021 (the date the September 17 Order was issued). Smith also notes in their opposition, that the Smith Action remained separate from any other case until that date.

For the reasons discussed above, the available evidence and information shows or suggests that the prosecution and trial of the Smith Action was stayed from May 22, 2019, until September 17, 2021, or for 849 days.

The time period during which the Smith Action was stayed is excluded when computing the time within that action must be brought to trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.340, subd. (b).)

In addition, and also relevant here based on the date of filing of the Smith Complaint, "the Judicial Council issued 11 emergency rules on April 6, 2020. [Citation.] This included emergency rule 10(a), which provides the following: 'Notwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring the action to trial is extended by six months for a total time of five years and six months.' [Citation.] The rule remained in effect until June 30, 2022." (Barron v. Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1115, 1123.)

Because the Smith Complaint "was filed prior to April 6, 2020, [that] complaint falls within the purview of emergency rule 10(a)." (Id. at p. 1124.)

Because the time during which the Smith Action was stayed overlaps with the extension provided by emergency rule 10, and because Smith is not entitled to duplicative tolling, the Regents Parties argue, Smith is not entitled to "stack" the extension established by emergency rule 10 onto the time during which the Smith Action was stayed. The motion presents no reasoned argument supporting that assertion.

Further, emergency rule 10 "is located in appendix I of the California Rules of Court." (Ables v. A. Ghazale Brothers, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 823, 827.) "The ordinary principles of statutory construction govern [the] interpretation of the California Rules of Court. [Citations.] [The] objective is to determine the drafter's intent. If the rule's language is clear and unambiguous, it governs." (Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, 902.)

The court first considers "the words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative intent." (John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95-96.) Emergency rule 10, set forth above, provides that for "all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020," the time to bring the action to trial is extended by six months. (Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, emergency rule 10(a).)

The clear and unambiguous language of emergency rule 10 does not exempt or except civil actions which are subject to a stay order. The motion also does not explain why the plain language of that rule shows or indicates that the Judicial Council intended to exclude overlapping time periods, or the time within which an action is stayed. Presumably, had the Judicial Council intended to exclude civil actions which are subject to a stay or overlapping time periods, they would have explicitly done so.

For all reasons discussed above, and absent any reasoned argument showing why the express language of emergency rule 10 is unclear or ambiguous, the general and conclusory assertions of the Regents Parties do not show, or persuade the court, that the time within which the Smith Action was stayed must be excluded from the extended time in which Smith must bring that action to trial pursuant to emergency rule 10.

The undisputed present record shows that, pursuant to emergency rule 10(a), the time in which to bring the Smith Action to trial was extended to September 27, 2024. (Vassallo Dec., P. 27 [stating, with punctuation and capitalization unchanged, that the "Five year deadline of March 27, 2024 plus the California Judicial Council Emergency Rule 10(a) extension ... is September 27, 2024."].)

The court's calculations show that, when excluding the 849 days during which the Smith Action was stayed under subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, the Smith Action must, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 and emergency rule 10, be brought to trial no later than January 24, 2027, which the court also notes falls on a Sunday. (See, generally, Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 10, Sec. 12, & Sec. 12a.)

For these and all further reasons discussed above, the motion fails to show why the Smith Action is subject to mandatory dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360.

Even if the Regents Parties could present information or argument showing why the Smith Action was required to be brought to trial before June 8, 2026, Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330 provides: "The parties may extend the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article by the following means: "(a) By written stipulation. The stipulation need not be filed but, if it is not filed, the stipulation shall be brought to the attention of the court if relevant to a motion for dismissal. "(b) By oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.330, subds. (a), (b).)

Though "[Code of Civil Procedure] [s]ection 583.330 does not address what terms comprise an oral agreement extending the trial deadline[,]" courts "interpret the oral agreement prong of section 583.330 to be consistent with its written stipulation counterpart in authorizing parties to extend the statutory trial deadline by agreeing to postpone trial to a specific date beyond the statutory period." (Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 346, 354, 356 (Nunn).)

Though the motion states that the court "ultimately scheduled trial" of the Smith Action for June 8, 2026 (memorandum at p. 15), and includes a copy of the trial call order filed in that action on October 2, 2025, (Vassallo Dec., exhibit 13), notably absent from that motion is any discussion of the TCC, or the TCC Order pursuant to which the court set the trial of the Smith Action on June 8, 2026.

In their opposition, Smith asserts that, at the TCC, the court offered dates within the five year time limit relied on by the Regents; that those dates were rejected by the Regents; and that the court offered June 8, 2026, to which the parties agreed. For these reasons, the Smith argues, the parties agreed in open court to extend the trial of the Smith Action beyond the five year deadline claimed in the motion.

In support, Smith's counsel, Peter Horton (attorney Horton), states that they personally appeared at the TCC; that counsel for the parties discussed in that proceeding, the sequencing of the actions; that counsel agreed that the Smith Action would be tried first; and that the court thereafter set the Smith Action for a jury trial on June 8, 2026. (Horton Dec., P. 18.).

Attached to attorney Horton's declaration is a copy of the TCC Order, and a copy of the transcript that was made of the proceedings in the TCC. (Horton Dec., P.P. 8, 16 & exhibits G, P.) The TCC Order shows that attorney Horton, attorney Jaqueline Orozco (attorney Orozco), and attorney Daphne M. Anneet (attorney Anneet) were present at the TCC. (Horton Dec., exhibit G.)

That order reflects that, during the TCC, 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 cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, however, no documents have been submitted to make it a true consolidation for trial." (Ibid.) Further, counsel "agreed that the [Smith Action], will be tried first and the cases that are being contemplated, as indicated by Defendant's counsel, will follow." (Ibid.) The TCC Order includes an estimate of 7 days for trial of the Smith Action. (Ibid.)

The TCC Order also reflects that a court reporter was present at the TCC. The court reporter's transcript of that proceeding also shows that counsel for the Regents Parties, the Individual Defendants, and Smith (respectively, attorneys Orozco, Anneet, and Horton) appeared at the TCC. (Horton Dec., exhibit P at p. 2 & p. 3, ll. 11-20.)

At the TCC, the court asked the parties' counsel: "So where are we with this case?" (Horton Dec., exhibit P at p. 3, ll. 21-22.) The court also requested that the parties provide "the time estimate for this matter[.]" (Id. at p. 3, ll. 26-27.)

In response, attorney Orozco stated: "the Regents currently are preparing to file a motion for summary judgement with a [sic] projected hearing dates in November and December. Based on the availability of your Court's calendar, we estimate these matters may be set for trial in April -- March or April of 2026." (Id. at p. 3, l. 28-p. 4, l. 5, punctuation and capitalization unchanged.)

After the court again requested a time estimate, attorney Orozco confirmed that the matters are consolidated for pretrial purposes but not for trial, and further stated: "we have contemplated the possibility of consolidating the trial for which plaintiffs are represented by the DRE Law Firm. And if that were the case, given the number of plaintiffs that are involved and represented by that specific firm, we would estimate 10 to 15 days for that if that were to be consolidated. I know that with regard to the case filed by Ryan Smith he has expressed -- and Mr. Horton, I don't mean to put words in your mouth here, but I know that you have expressed that you do not want to consolidate for trial purposes. So I estimate an additional five dates for that." (Horton Dec., exhibit P at p. 4, ll. 6-24, punctuation and capitalization unchanged.)

Following the exchange described above, the court asked to hear from other counsel. (Horton Dec., exhibit P at p. 4, l. 25.) Attorney Horton stated that the trial of the Smith action "will take five days at the most." (Id. at p. 5, ll. 4-5.) Attorney Anneet stated: "We estimate 15 days for the matters that are -- where the plaintiffs are represented by the DRE Law Firm, and then a separate five days for the matter of Ryan Smith." (Id. at p. 5, ll. 10-13.)

Based on the exchange described above, and the information and trial estimates provided by attorneys Orozco, Horton, and Anneet during the TCC, the court proposed trial dates between May 12 and June 4, 2026. (Horton Dec., exhibit P at p. 5, ll. 16-22.)

In response, attorney Orozco asked the court: "Would it be possible to begin after June 5th?" (Id. at p. 5, ll. 24-25.) To accommodate attorney Orozco's request, the court stated: "We could start on Monday June 8th through July 2nd if we needed it. Does that work for everyone?" (Horton Dec., exhibit P at p. 5, l. 27-p. 6, l. 1.)

In response, counsel confirmed that those days worked including for the Regents Parties and the Individual Defendants. (Id. at p. 6, ll. 2-3 [also noting that attorney Anneet stated "Yes, that does, your Honor."].) Attorney Anneet also asked: "would this mean two concurrent trials, one for the first set of plaintiffs and then for ... that of [Smith]?"; to which the court responded "Correct." (Id. at p. 6, ll. 3-7, punctuation and capitalization unchanged.) Counsel thereafter agreed that the Smith Action would proceed first on June 8, 2026. (Id. at p. 6, ll. 8-17.)

The motion presents no information, evidence, or argument to dispute the content of the TCC Order, or the interchange that occurred during the TCC as reflected in the transcript made of that proceeding and the minutes of the court reflected in the TCC Order.

The court also notes that, pursuant to the TCC Order and the exchange described above, the court set the Signa Action for trial to commence on June 18, with a 15 day time estimate for that action "and those considered in consolidation".

The transcript of the TCC shows that the court proposed the specific dates described above based on the information and estimates provided by counsel, and counsel's discussions, and to accommodate the interests of the parties including the Regents whose counsel requested a trial date after June 5, 2026. (See Nunn, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 356 [discussing the court's accommodation of the parties].)

In addition, the record of the TCC does not, as the Regents Parties appear to suggest, indicate or show that the court unilaterally assigned a trial date without the acceptance of the Regents Parties, whose counsel appeared at the TCC. Instead, the transcript of that proceeding shows that counsel expressly and affirmatively agreed to the specific dates proposed by the court at the TCC.

Based on the express agreement to and affirmative acceptance of those dates, it was the court's understanding that the parties agreed that the trial of the Smith Action would proceed first on June 8, 2026, to be followed by those actions considered in consolidation, notwithstanding whether that date, or any other dates, were beyond any statutory deadline to bring the Smith Action to trial.

Moreover, the court does not find the points advanced in the reply of the Regents Parties, including for the first time in regard to the TCC proceedings, persuasive.

For all reasons discussed above, the court finds that the Regents Parties "affirmatively accepted" and "expressed their agreement" that the trial of the Smith Action would commence on June 8, 2026, "when counsel for both sides 'indicated' on the record" that the dates of June 8 through July 2, 2026, worked for all parties. (Nunn, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at pp. 356-357.)

"Taken together, these expressions of mutual assent constitute an agreement" to extend any deadline, including the deadline asserted in the motion, to bring the Smith Action to trial until June 8, 2026. (Id. at p. 357.)

Therefore, and for these reasons, the court finds that the "interchange" that occurred at the TCC and described above "constitutes an oral agreement within the meaning of section 583.330." (Id. at p. 356; cf. Randolph v. Trustees of California State University (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 1228 [noting the lack of any discussion regarding the trial date in a transcript of a conference when "when the trial date was set beyond the mandatory statutory deadline"; that the "minute order from the case management conference ... merely show[ed] that counsel for the parties were present at the case management conference and the trial court set the settlement conference, trial readiness conference, and jury trial dates[]"; and that "[n]othing in the minute order indicates that there was an agreement to the trial date beyond the statutory deadline...."].)

For all reasons discussed above, the present record reflects that the Smith Action is not subject to mandatory dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360. Furthermore, the record reflects an oral agreement by the parties to extend the trial of that action to June 8, 2026, that was made in open court and entered in the minutes of the court as shown in the TCC Order and the transcript of the TCC proceedings. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the court will deny the motion.

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 Fri, 05/15/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling

Stern presents evidence showing that Millard compiled scores of applicants for corporal specialty assignments on August 15, 2017. (Olson Dec., P. 22.) That evidence is sufficient to give rise to a competing inference as to whether Millard played a role in process of selecting officers for corporal specialty assignments prior to that date. The same reasoning and analysis apply in regard to UMF nos. 33 and 38 contained in Millard's supporting separate statement.

The available information and evidence also indicates or suggests that when or after Stern reported alleged officer misconduct, among other things, and reported what Stern alleges to be retaliatory conduct towards Stern, the UCSB-PD initiated an internal investigation of Stern; placed Stern on administrative leave; and suspended Stern. (Sep. Stmt., UMF nos. 10-25.)

There is also information or evidence which shows or suggests that, after a union meeting led by Stern during which concerns about Millard's leadership were raised, Millard publicly berated Stern and accused him of being out of uniform. (Sep. Stmt. UMF nos. 58 & 60; Resp. Sep. Stmt., Additional Material Fact no. 4 & evidence cited therein.)

"We view the evidence in a light favorable to the party opposing summary judgment or summary adjudication, liberally construing that party's evidence while strictly scrutinizing the moving party's showing, and we resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of the opposing party." (Bakos v. Roach (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 390, 396.) The same or similar reasoning and analysis apply.

Though the above is not provided as an exhaustive list, for all reasons discussed above, the evidence offered by the parties is sufficient to give rise to a triable issue, based on competing or conflicting inferences, in regard to whether there existed a retaliatory motive.

For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will deny the Millard Motion to the extent it seeks summary adjudication of the first cause of action for violation of the Act alleged in the Stern Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (c).) The same reasoning and analysis applies to the request for summary judgment as to the Stern Complaint.

Evidentiary objections: Millard has filed objections to material contained in the Stern declaration and attorney Keeton's declaration. The same reasoning and analysis apply.

(4) Procedural Matters Court records reflect that, pursuant to the court's minute order dated September 17, 2021, this case (the Signa Action) is consolidated with the Little Action, the Stern Action, the Reyes Action, and the Smith Action, for pre-trial purposes only, with all documents to be separately filed in any case files to which they might relate.

The court further ordered that, "[f]or the motions or other matters requiring hearings, the moving party is directed to include the following language below the document title: [P.] 'This matter is being calendared and heard in the lead case only. Cases are consolidated for pretrial and not all purposes.'" (Sept. 17, 2021, Minute Order.)

The court's minute order dated August 8, 2025, reflects that, at the trial confirmation conference held on that day, 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

were promoted to corporal and FTO positions at the same time. (Compl., P. 45.) On September 1, 2018, Tiffany submitted an Ethics Point Incident complaint to the UCSB Local Designated Officer under the UC Whistleblower Protection Policy, and on September 3, 2018, Michael did the same. (Compl., P.P. 46, 47.)

On September 3, 2018, Smorodinsky and Romero denied Michael a computer forensic analyst position despite Michael having been previously selected to fill that role during his time as a detective and having 25 years of computer programming and software development experience in the technology industry. (Compl., P. 48.)

On September 17, 2018, Tiffany met with UC Regents' Title IX office and expressed her concerns regarding her previous reports of another officer's behavior to Smith that was ignored by UC Regents. (Compl., P. 49.) Tiffany also reported her concerns that Smith was engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate causing a hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims. (Ibid.)

On October 11, 2018, Tiffany was interviewed by a UCSB Senior Investigator regarding Tiffany's whistleblower retaliation complaint. (Compl., P. 50.)

In September and October 2018, Pierce made assignments for the annual ROTC range training and Michael was not assigned. (Compl., P. 51.) Pierce did not send an email notifying the range staff of the assignment and made no notation on UC Regents' calendar that a range activity was being assigned to other instructors. (Ibid.) Pierce, after being notified that Michael was short on hours due to a shift change, suggested that Michael work patrol rather than contribute to the range instruction. (Ibid.)

On November 27, 2018, Tiffany emailed Karen Kramer, an outside investigator hired by UC Regents, that since filing the whistleblower complaint, Tiffany has had her personal belongings thrown in the trash, her house had been egged, and sergeants had ignored Tiffany. (Compl., P. 52.) Since being interviewed by the investigator, no action has been taken to address plaintiffs' complaints, nor has UC Regents done anything to protect plaintiffs from further retaliation. (Ibid.)

On January 14, 2019, Michael was instructed by Millard to make a bid for shift and vacation requests for the upcoming 2019 year. (Compl., P. 53.) Millard emailed a schedule to choose from and gave Michael only two hours to make the shift selection choices. (Ibid.) Millard's schedule limited Michael's choices and did not provide all shift slots available to patrol corporals, so Michael emailed Millard regarding the limited choices. (Ibid.) Millard dismissed Michael's concerns regarding the limited choices. (Ibid.)

On January 25, 2019, Pierce emailed assignments for the department range training instructors, which assigned Michael a single day of instruction of the five scheduled days. (Compl., P. 54.) Even after two more days of instruction were added because of inclement weather, Michael was assigned only that single day. (Ibid.)

On February 4, 2019, Tiffany was removed from working a previously approved overtime shift for February 6, 2019. (Compl., P. 55.) Tiffany was informed that Millard ordered her removal from the overtime shift. (Ibid.)

On March 13, 2019, Michael was informed of a complaint made against him by a co-worker, stating that Michael had turned around in a hallway at a UCSB-PD building, noticed his co-worker, and then turned around without saying anything. (Compl., P. 56.) The co-worker allegedly told his supervisors that he felt threatened and fearful by Michael's action in ignoring him. (Ibid.)

UC Regents, and the individually named defendants, retaliated against plaintiffs based on plaintiffs' reports of activities that would result in violation of, or noncompliance with, state or federal laws and regulations, including Penal Code section 424, Vehicle Code section 21055, Vehicle Code section 23104, Vehicle Code section 20002, and policies of UCSB-PD and UC Regents' regarding nepotism. (Compl., P. 57.)

As relevant to these motions, on February 16, 2021, UC Regents filed an answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth twenty-eight affirmative defenses.

On September 17, 2021, the court ordered that six actions pending in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Barbara be consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to department 4: Signa v. UC Regents, Case No. 18CV05728; Little v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV01431; Stern v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV04418; Reyes v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV02586; Smith v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV01625; and Hashimoto v. UC Regents, Case No. 21CV01256. The court designated the Signa v. UC Regents action (Case No. 18CV05728) as the lead case.

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 California (the Regents). That motion sought an order transferring and consolidating with the Signa Action for pre-trial purposes only, the following cases: 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. 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. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Reyes Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Stern Action); and 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, 2026, the court entered judgment in favor of the Regents, the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD), and the University of California Santa Barbara, as against the complaint filed by plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto in the Hashimoto Action.

On May 20, 2026, plaintiffs Mark Signa (Signa), Michael Little, Tiffany Little, Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes), and Matthew Stern (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for a hearing on a forthcoming motion by Plaintiffs to consolidate the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action, and the Stern Action (collectively, the Actions) for all purposes including trial.

On May 21, after a hearing, the court granted that application, set the hearing on that forthcoming motion for 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 27, the Regents filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate. On May 28, defendants Dustin Olson (Olson), Cathy Farley (Farley), David Millard (Millard), Robert Romero (Romero), Gregory Pierce (Pierce), and Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky) filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate.

On May 29, 2026, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order (the May 29 Order) pursuant to which the court, among other orders, adopted its tentative ruling granting the Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs.

Relevant here, t he first amended complaint filed by Signa on February 4, 2019, is the operative pleading in the Signa Action. Briefly, in the Signa FAC, Signa alleges that he has been continuously employed by the UCSB-PD since 1990, has a stellar record of performance and service at UCSB-PD, and was promoted to Lieutenant on April 6, 2014. Olson is the Chief of Police. Signa was the supervisor of officer Ryan Smith (Smith).

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. 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

either the percentage or lodestar approach being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts." (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 504.)

"The " 'experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.' " [Citations.]" (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)

The primary problem with using a percentage in this case is that a PAGA action operates differently than a class action, namely in that it does not create a common fund with which to determine fees as a percentage of the recovery. Rather, the lodestar approach is more appropriate for a case such as this where there is both a class action and a PAGA action. This is especially true where counsel has not differentiated between time spent on the class action as opposed to the PAGA action.

While counsel does not set forth the time expended in great detail, the time spent is not challenged, and the court will accept the representation of time spent as true and reasonable. However, the requested fee is excessive.

"The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case." (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

"The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) While the court does not question counsels' training, experience, or skill level, $1,500.00 per hour is not a prevailing rate in the community of Santa Barbara County.

The 2025 "Real Rates" report attached to counsel's declaration is for the County of Los Angeles and sets forth rates from the low of $485 per hour to a high of $1,365 per hour. It then lists rates for employment and labor attorneys with the low being $384 per hour and the high being $1,252 per hour. The rates for pre-litigation work are even lower. Thus, even in Los Angeles County the prevailing rates, and even the highest rates, are lower than the rate counsel seeks.

In this case, there is no explanation of why the attorney claiming a rate of $1,500 per hour billed more than twice as many hours as the next highest paid attorney, at $900 per hour. And there is no explanation why the $900 per hour attorney billed more than twice as many hours as any other of the billing attorneys. This does not appear to have been a particularly novel or difficult case and many, if not most, tasks should have been delegated to less senior attorneys.

The court will use the reasonable Santa Barbara County "blended" rate of $600 per hour for all attorneys (see 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5 th 426, 439 fn. 16), resulting in total attorneys' fees approved of $237,540.00.

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.