Motion to Dismiss
Santa Barbara County - Judge Donna D. Geck - 20260611 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 18CV05728 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/15/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment
Tentative Ruling (1) For the reasons stated herein, the motions of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Mark Signa's complaint (filed on January 22, 2026), and for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' complaint (filed on February 13, 2026), are each continued to June 5, 2026.
(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant Dustin Olson for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the first amended complaint of plaintiff Mark Signa is granted, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted against defendant Dustin Olson, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant David Millard for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Matthew Stern is granted, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted against defendant David Millard, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.
(4) All parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss the procedural matters described herein.
Background: 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) on November 21, 2018, 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, in the complaint, Signa alleges that they have been employed as a police officer by the Regents since 1990, and that they were retaliated against after voicing concerns about purportedly illegal or improper conduct 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 Signa's exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court lifted the stay on January 21, 2021.
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?”
On September 17, 2021, the court adopted its tentative ruling on the motion of the Regents to transfer to this department 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.
The lengthy procedural history of these actions reflects that on January 22, 2026, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the Signa FAC (the Regents Signa Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint filed by plaintiff Matthew Stern (Stern) 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) in the Little Action, and separately filed a motion for summary judgment or 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 to 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, moving 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, due to 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 to seal those materials, or the entry of a sealing order. Pursuant to the May Order, the court set a hearing on any motion for an order to file those lodged materials under seal on May 29, 2026. The court also set a briefing schedule, requiring that any sealing motion be filed and served on or before May 11, among other things.
On May 8, 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, also due to the lodging by the Regents of material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions conditionally under seal without filing an appropriate motion to seal those materials. Among other things, the court ordered that any motion for an order sealing materials lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion must be filed and served on or before May 11, 2026, and calendared any such motion for hearing on May 22, 2026. As to the Regents Stern Motion, the court ordered that any motion for an order sealing any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of that motion be heard on May 29, 2026.
On May 11, the Regents separately filed: (1) a motion for an order to file under seal exhibits lodged in support of the Regents Signa Motion (the Signa Motion to Seal); (2) a motion for an order to file under seal exhibits lodged in support of the Regents Reyes Motion (the Reyes Motion to Seal); (3) a motion for an order to file under seal exhibits lodged in support of the Regents Little Motions (the Little Motion to Seal); (4) a motion for an order to file under seal exhibits lodged in support of the Regents Smith Motion (the Smith Motion to Seal); and (5) a motion for an order to file under seal exhibits lodged in support of the Regents Stern Motion (the Stern Motion to Seal). The Signa Motion to Seal, and the Reyes Motion to Seal are calendared for hearing on May 29, 2026.
Analysis: (1) The Regents Signa Motion and Regents Reyes Motion As the materials which are the subject of the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal were lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion, the court will need to resolve the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal first. For these reasons, and to allow sufficient time to resolve those motions, the court will continue the hearing on the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion to June 5, 2026.
(2) The Olson 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 the pleaded issues, (2) determine if the defense has negated an element of the plaintiff's case or established a complete defense, and if and only if so, (3) determine if the plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact." (Meddock v. County of Yolo (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 170, 175, fn. omitted.)
The notice of the Olson Motion identifies four issues of which adjudication is sought by Olson. (Notice at pp. 3-4.) "Issue One" is stated as "Signa's first cause of action under Government Code [section] 8547.10 ... fails because these claims are based upon personnel management decisions that Olson undertook, which cannot lead to individual liability as a matter of law." (Notice at p. 3, ll. 20-23.) "Issue Two" is stated as "Signa's second cause of action under Labor Code [section] 1102.5 ... fails because these claims are based upon personnel management decisions that Olson undertook, which cannot lead to individual liability as a matter of law." (Notice at p. 3, ll. 24-26.)
University of California, et al. (the Reyes Action) (collectively, the Actions). 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 the pleaded issues, (2) determine if the defense has negated an element of the plaintiff's case or established a complete defense, and if and only if so, (3) determine if the plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact." (Meddock v. County of Yolo (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 170, 175, fn. omitted.) "The pleadings delimit the issues to be considered on a motion for summary judgment. [Citation.] The defendant
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 18CV05728 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. (2) 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 Matthew Stern's complaint is continued to June 12, 2026.
memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) "A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. Other parties must be served with only the public redacted version. If a party's attorney but not the party has access to the record, only the party's attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).)
The court may not order that a record be filed under seal unless the court "expressly finds facts that establish: "(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; "(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; "(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; "(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and "(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) "Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).) "The burden ... is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents ...." (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)
The court also has no record showing that the Regents filed or served a motion for an order to seal any material submitted as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Stern Motion. To the extent the Regents did not intend to request an order that any material be sealed, it is also unclear whether the Regents timely provided the written notice described in California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(3)(A)(iii). As a result, the present record includes a voluminous amount of material which has been lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Stern Motion, without the entry of any order setting forth appropriate express factual findings required by the court rules further discussed herein or permitting the sealing of that material in compliance with those rules.
Notwithstanding that the Stern Action is consolidated with the Signa Action for pretrial purposes only, it is the court's understanding that the parties expect to proceed with trial of the Stern Action on June 18, 2026, which is the date set for trial of the Signa Action. (See, e.g., Aug. 8, 2025, Minute Order [setting forth the parties' trial estimates as to those cases "considered in consolidation" and that the parties indicated the consolidated cases will follow the trial of the Smith Action].)
Under the circumstances present here, and for the reasons discussed above and in the May Order, the court will, for good cause, continue the hearing on the Regents Stern Motion to June 12, 2026, to allow for the filing and service of an appropriate motion for an order sealing any material lodged by the Regents conditionally under seal in support of and as a basis for adjudication of that motion. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(3).)
The court will further order that any future motion to seal those materials shall be set for hearing on May 29, 2026. In addition, the court will order that any motion for an order sealing the material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Stern Motion must be filed and served no later than May 11, 2026. Any opposition must be filed and served on or before May 18; and any reply to that opposition must be filed and served on or before May 22. If a motion for an order sealing the material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion is not filed by May 11, the court will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted.
The Regents Smith Motion: On February 11, 2026, in support of the Regents Smith Motion, the Regents lodged an appendix of evidence conditionally under seal pursuant to the Protective Order, and filed a notice of that lodging. On February 13, the Regents lodged an amended appendix of evidence in support of the Regents Smith Motion conditionally under seal, and a notice of that lodging. On February 25, the Regents filed a document titled as a lodging of their amended appendix of exhibits in support of the Regents Smith Motion conditionally under seal.
The same reasoning and analysis apply. For the same reasons discussed above and in the May Order, the court will, for good cause, continue the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to permit the filing of an appropriate motion for an order sealing any material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of that motion. The court's records reflect that the Smith Action is set for trial on June 8, 2026. (Aug. 8, 2025, Minute Order; Oct. 2, 2025, Trial Call Order.) Under the circumstances present here, the court will continue the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to May 29, 2026.
Further, the court will order that any motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion must be filed and served on or before May 11. The hearing on any such future motion shall be set on May 22, 2026. Due to the failure to comply with court rules and procedures for filing records under seal, upon any denial of any future motion to seal materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Smith Motion, it will not be feasible to follow the procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, within the time prescribed by that rule.
For these reasons, the court will order that any motion to seal any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion include a notification of whether any lodged record is to be filed unsealed in the event that motion is denied. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) If the motion fails to include this notification, the court will presume that the lodged material at issue is not to be filed unsealed upon any denial of the motion, and will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted.
Further, if a motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents in support of the Regents Smith Motion is not filed by May 11, the court will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted. Any opposition to any motion for an order sealing any record lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Smith Motion must be filed and served no later than May 13. Any reply must be filed on or before May 15.
The Regents Signa Motion, the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion: The court notes that, though the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to the Olson Motion and the Millard Motion have been filed publicly in the court, the same deficiencies exist in regard to the lodging by the Regents of material conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion. For example, court records reflect that the two volume appendix of exhibits submitted by the Regents in support of the Regents Signa Motion was lodged conditionally under seal on January 22, 2026.
On February 25, 2026, the Regents lodged similar documents in regard to the amended appendix of evidence filed in support of that motion and of the Regents Reyes Motion, conditionally under seal. Though the Regents Signa Motion, the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion are calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026, to the extent any material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions has been lodged conditionally under seal, the court expects that appropriate motions to seal those materials will be filed sufficiently in advance of that hearing considering the May Order and the court's ruling herein.
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 18CV05728 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings
(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).
exhibit to the T Little Amended Appendix or the M Little Amended Appendix, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from the exhibits described above, shall be redacted from the public versions of the T Little Amended Appendix or the M Little Amended Appendix.
(5) Stern Motion to Seal The Stern Motion to Seal also seeks an order placing under seal all of the exhibits to an amended appendix of evidence (the Stern Amended Appendix) filed by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion. The public redacted version of the Stern Amended Appendix was filed by the Regents on February 4, 2026. The Regents lodged the complete, unredacted version of the Stern Amended Appendix conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in the same manner described above. As to any prior version of the Stern Amended Appendix that was filed by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion, including the appendix filed on January 22, 2026, the same reasoning and analysis apply.
The court's review of the lodged Stern Amended Appendix shows that its exhibits are numbered 1 through 16, and consist of over 800 pages of material. (Lodged Stern Amended Appendix at pdf pp. 9-834.) The Stern Motion to Seal and the separately filed supporting declaration of attorney Orozco, are identical in substance to the motions and declarations further described above, and advance the same sole ground for the issuance of an order placing under seal exhibits 1 through 16 of the Stern Amended Appendix. Therefore, the same reasoning and analysis apply.
Though the Stern Motion to Seal fails, for all reasons discussed above, to show why any exhibit, or information appearing in any exhibit, to the Stern Amended Appendix is confidential or required to be kept confidential under Penal Code section 832.7, the court has conducted its own review of those exhibits. Based on that review, and for the same reasons discussed above, the court will grant the Stern Motion to Seal as to exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16 to the Stern Amended Appendix, only, and will otherwise deny that motion as to exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 through 15.
In its reply to the opposition of Stern, the Regents states: "Should the Court be inclined to deny The Regents' motion to seal, The Regents respectfully request that the Court Order The Regents to publicly file the exhibits in support of [the Regents Stern Motion] that are currently lodged with the Court...." (Reply at p. 4, ll. 13-15.) For the same reasons discussed above, the court will order the Regents to file a public redacted version of the lodged Stern Amended Appendix that redacts exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only. No other exhibit to the Stern Amended Appendix, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from the exhibits described above, shall be redacted from that public version of the Stern Amended Appendix.
(6) Regents Smith 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 the pleaded issues, (2) determine if the defense has negated an element of the plaintiff's case or established a complete defense, and if and only if so, (3) determine if the plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact." (Meddock v. County of Yolo (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 170, 175, fn. omitted.)
The Regents Smith Motion seeks summary adjudication of 25 issues, which are set forth in the notice of that motion. (Notice at pp. 4-8.) The separate statement filed by the Regents in support of the Regents Smith Moton sets forth 133 material facts that, according to the Regents, relate to "all causes of action" asserted in the complaint filed by Smith and each issue that is the subject of the Regents Smith Motion, "and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(a)(2); see also Sep. Stmt. at pp. 4-43.) " '[T]he separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of whatever facts are included. Thus, if a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in [the Regents'] separate statement, the motion must be denied!' [Citation.]" (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (Nazir), original italics.)
The issues which are the subject of the Regents Smith Motion include that Smith "failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and obtaining a notice of right to sue." (Notice at p. 6, P. 14; see also P. 15 [punctuation and capitalization unchanged]; Sep. Stmt. at p. 33, issue "F"; p. 36, issue "O"; p. 37, issues "R" & "S"; see also Memorandum at pp. 21-23 [asserting that that the evidence shows that Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies].)
The material facts that relate to that issue include that Smith "has not produced any evidence that he ever filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ... or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ... and received a right to sue letter before filing this action." (Sep. Stmt., Undisputed Material Fact [UMF] no. 103.)
"A motion for summary judgment must be supported by evidence, and it is the moving party who bears the initial burden of producing evidence." (Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 655.) "A burden of production entails only the presentation of 'evidence.' [Citation.]" (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) Each of the material facts set forth in the Regents' separate statement that the Regents contends are undisputed "shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (b)(1); see also subd. (f)(2) ["[a] motion for summary judgment ... shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment"].) The evidence referenced in the separate statement that supports the material fact set forth above includes the responses and supplemental responses of Smith to the Regents' set one special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (Sep. Stmt., UMF no. 103 & evidence cited therein; Smith Amended Appendix, exhibits 13-16.)
"[S]ummary judgment law in California requires the defendant to present evidence, and not simply point out through argument, that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain the needed evidence." (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 110, original italics.) "The defendant may ... present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence--as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing." (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)
Even if the Regents Smith Motion is sufficient to show that, on the date of the discovery responses on which the Regents rely to support the material fact stated above and set forth in the separate statement, Smith did not possess evidence regarding that material fact, the motion fails to present any information, evidence, or reasoned argument showing why Smith cannot reasonably obtain necessary evidence, any admissions by Smith during discovery, or that Smith has discovered nothing in regard to that material fact.
The Regents Smith Motion also concedes, for all reasons discussed above, that the following material facts relate to the causes of action and issues that are the subject of that motion: Smith "has not ... produced any evidence that any complaints by the individual defendants made against [Smith] 'on or around May or June of 2017' were made under oath or penalty of perjury[]"; Smith "has not established that any complaint of misconduct filed against him was accepted by UCSB-PD and involved a complaint..."; and Smith claims "with no evidence that 'no investigation was ever conducted...." (Sep.
Stmt., UMF nos. 108, 109, 111 & evidence cited therein.) The same reasoning and analysis applies to those material facts. Because the Regents Smith Motion, for all reasons discussed above, does not show that Smith cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence in regard to the causes of action or issues that are the subject of that motion, the Regents has failed to meet its burden to show, with supporting evidence, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the Regents is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to those causes of actions and issues.
The Regents Smith Motion also asserts that the alleged protected disclosures by Smith at issue in the Smith Action involve personnel matters and not protected whistleblowing. (Memorandum at pp. 25-26.) For this reason, the Regents argue, Smith cannot establish a violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act (the Act). The Act, codified as Government Code section 8547, et seq., "prohibits retaliation against state employees who 'report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health' [Citation.] The Act authorizes 'an action for damages' to redress acts of retaliation. [Citation.]" (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 882.)
Pursuant to Government Code section 8547.2, a "protected disclosure" is "a good faith communication, including a communication based on, or when carrying out, job duties, that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence either of the following circumstances: "(A) An improper governmental activity. "(B) A condition that may significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public if the disclosure or intention to disclose was made for the purpose of remedying that condition." (Gov. Code, Sec. 8547.2, subd. (e)(1)(A), (B).)
Under Government Code section 8547.2, "'[i]mproper governmental activity' means an activity by a state agency or by an employee that is undertaken in the performance of the employee's duties, undertaken inside a state office, or, if undertaken outside a state office by the employee, directly relates to state government, whether or not that activity is within the scope of their employment, and that meets any of the following criteria: "(A) The activity is in violation of any state or federal law or regulation, including, but not limited to, corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property, misuse of state expenditures, including allocations, loans, or grants, or willful omission to perform duty. "(B) The activity is in violation of an executive order of the Governor, a California Rule of Court, or any policy or procedure mandated by the State Administrative Manual or State Contracting Manual. "(C) The activity is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency." (Gov. Code, Sec. 8547.2, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(C).)
Relevant here, "any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a university employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party." (Gov. Code, Sec. 8547.10, subd. (c).) "Complaints made 'in the context of internal administrative or personnel actions, rather than in the context of legal violations' do not constitute protected whistleblowing. [Citations.] 'To exalt these exclusively internal personnel disclosures with whistleblower status would create all sorts of mischief.
Most damagingly, it would thrust the judiciary into micromanaging employment practices and create a legion of undeserving protected "whistleblowers" arising from the routine workings and communications of the job site.' [Citation.]" (Levi v. Regents of University of California (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 892, 904.)
The Regents do not dispute that the alleged protected disclosures at issue include or concern "how officers were handling sexual assault cases", "one officer's contact with sexual assault victims outside of assigned calls for service[]", "misconduct by officer [Hashimoto] for creating inappropriate cartoon videos of ... University of California Santa Barbara officials, citizens and victims of crime[]", and "another officer spending too much time at a student housing residence hall." (Sep. Stmt., UMF nos. 34-39 & 43; Memorandum at p. 25.)
Apart from generally asserting, in a conclusory manner, that the alleged protected disclosure made by Smith concern or consist of internal administrative or personnel actions, the Regents Smith Motion fails to explain why the nature or subject of those concerns do not implicate any alleged abuse of authority, violations of law, or any threat to public health. Instead, a reasonable trier of fact could find, based on the material facts and evidence presented here, that the disclosures at issue implicate or concern improper activity for purposes of the Act, and that Smith's communications regarding those concerns were made in good faith.
In addition, Smith presents evidence of reports made by Smith which Smith contends they reasonably believed constitute or concern unlawful or improper activity, including as to the matters described above and in the Regents' separate statement. (See Resp. Sep. Stmt., Additional Material Fact no. 2; Smith Appendix of Evidence, exhibit A at p. 82, 95, 108, 109.) For these and all further reasons discussed above, the evidence and information presented here gives rise to competing inferences as to whether, based on the content or subject of the reports made by Smith, those disclosures are protected pursuant to the Act. "[S]ummary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (c).)
Furthermore, even if the Regents could meet its initial burden to show that any protected disclosures by Smith were not a contributing factor to any alleged acts of retaliation by the Regents against Smith, the available evidence and information is, for present purposes, sufficient to give rise to an inference of retaliation. "Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used to show an employer's intent to retaliate. 'Direct evidence of retaliation may consist of remarks made by decisionmakers displaying a retaliatory motive. [Citation.]' [Citation.] Circumstantial evidence typically relates to such factors as the plaintiff's job performance, the timing of events, and how the plaintiff was treated in comparison to other workers." (Colarossi v. Coty US Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1153.)
The parties do not dispute, or reasonably dispute, that Smith was placed on administrative leave on June 15, 2017. (Resp. Sep. Stmt., UMF no. 68 & evidence cited therein [not reasonably disputed on this point].) Considering the dates of the reports made by Smith disclosed by the Regents' supporting separate statement (see, e.g., Sep. Stmt., UMF nos. 43, 45, 57), and the timing of those reports in relation to the date Smith was placed on administrative leave, among other factors, a reasonable trier of fact could find, based on competing inferences that arise from the evidence and information presented by the parties and notwithstanding whether the Regents can show the existence of a legitimate reason to place Smith on leave or that its actions were justified, that there existed an intent to retaliate. (See Scheer v.
Regents of the University of California (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 904, 917-918 [general discussion].)
In evaluating the evidence presented by the parties on summary judgment, " '[w]e accept as true the facts ... in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.' [Citation.] And we must 'view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff[] ...' and 'liberally construe plaintiff['s] evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize defendant's own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff['s] favor.' " (Nazir, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 254.)
The court may not weigh the evidence to determine whose version is more likely true. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) Though the examples provided herein are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, for all reasons discussed above, the present record gives rise to conflicting or competing inferences including as to whether the reports made by Smith constitute protected disclosures pursuant to the Act, and whether the Regents intentionally engaged in any acts of retaliation against Smith based on those disclosures, and which raise a triable issue of material fact.
For these reasons, the court will deny the Regents Smith Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subds. (c), (f)(1); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 845; Gov. Code, Sec. 8547.10, subd. (e).)
The Regents' request for judicial notice: The court will grant the request of the Regents for judicial notice of the complaint filed by Smith in the Smith Action. (Regents RJN, P. 1; Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d)(1).)
Evidentiary objections: In its reply to the opposition of Smith to the Regents Smith Motion, the Regents submit objections to material contained in Smith's declaration and the declaration of Smith's counsel, Peter Horton, submitted in support of Smith's opposition; and to exhibits H, K, O, and P to attorney Horton's declaration. "In granting or denying a motion for 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).) As the Regents Smith Motion fails, for all reasons discussed above, to shift the burden to Smith, the court need not consider the evidentiary objections raised by the Regents. Even if the burden shifted to Smith to raise a triable issue of fact, the court does not deem the evidence to which the Regents have raised objections to be material to its disposition of the Regents Smith Motion under the circumstances present here.
Smith's notice of new authority and additional evidence or, in the alternative, request to continue hearing: Court records reflect that on May 13, 2026, Smith filed a notice of new authority and additional evidence, or in the alternative, request to continue the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion. As the court will deny that motion for all reasons discussed herein, it is not necessary for the court to consider Smith's notice and request.
(7) Motion to Consolidate The Motion to Consolidate is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), which provides: "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1048, subd. (a); see Notice of Motion to Consolidate at p. 1, ll. 7-11.)
In support of the Motion to Consolidate, Plaintiffs' counsel, Jaime Keeton, states that the Actions involve overlapping parties, witnesses, documentary evidence, legal claims, and factual allegations that arise from alleged retaliation within the UCSB-PD, and that multiple supervisory personnel identified in the Actions overlap across the cases, including Olson, Millard, Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky), Robert Romero (Romero), Cathy Farley (Farley), and Gregory Pierce (Pierce). (Keeton Dec., P.P. 2-9.)
It is attorney Keeton's professional judgment that separate trials would require substantial duplication of witness testimony, documentary evidence, expert testimony, motion practice, and court resources, and would create a risk of inconsistent factual findings and verdicts. (Keeton Dec., P. 16.) Attorney Keeton asserts that consolidation for all purposes, including trial, would promote judicial economy and avoid unnecessary costs and delay. (Keeton Dec., P. 17.)
Attorney Keeton further states that, at the trial confirmation conference held on August 8, 2025, the parties discussed that the related actions might be subject to consolidation for trial. (Keeton Dec., P. 11.) On May 6, 2026, attorney Keeton emailed defense counsel regarding consolidation of the Actions for trial. (Keeton Dec., P. 12 & exhibit A.) Defense counsel did not respond. (Keeton Dec., P. 12.) On May 14, 2026, attorney Keeton sent follow-up correspondence to defense counsel regarding consolidation. (Keeton Dec., P. 13 & exhibit B.) On May 14, 2026, attorney Daphne Anneet responded, stating that defendants were "adamantly opposed" to consolidation for trial and that consolidation would create prejudice and confusion. (Keeton Dec., P. 14 & exhibit C.)
In the memorandum submitted in support of the Motion to Consolidate, Plaintiffs assert that the Actions were each brought by a current or former officer of the UCSB-PD; that each of the Actions asserts claims for violations of the Act and Labor Code section 1102.5; that the Actions each name the Regents as the primary defendant; and that the Actions arise from a common pattern of alleged institutional retaliation wherein each of the Plaintiffs reported misconduct by the same supervisory personnel within UCSB-PD, and thereafter suffered adverse employment actions.
Plaintiffs also assert that Olson is a defendant in the Signa Action; Millard is a defendant in the Little, Reyes, and Stern Actions; Smorodinsky is a defendant in the Little and Reyes Actions; Romero, Farley, and Pierce are defendants in the Little Action; that those individuals served in the same supervisory hierarchy at USCB-PD during the same period of time; and that those individuals will be witnesses in all four trials regardless of the manner in which the Actions are structured. The common questions of fact claimed by Plaintiffs concern the policies, practices, and culture of the UCSB-PD during the relevant period; the roles and conduct of its supervisory personnel including Olson, Millard, Smorodinsky, Romero, Farley, and Pierce; the pattern of UCSB-PD management responses to officers' reports of misconduct; the alleged adverse employment actions taken against each of the Plaintiffs; and the causal
Action. (Regents RJN at p. 4, P. 1; Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d)(1).)
Evidentiary objections: The Regents has filed with the court, written objections to material contained in the declaration of Reyes submitted in support of their opposition to the Regents Reyes Motion. "In granting or denying a motion for 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 18CV05728 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