Little v. The Regents of the U. of Cal. CA2/6

Filed 4/2/25 Little v. The Regents of the U. of Cal. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

MICHAEL LITTLE et al., 2d Civ. No. B334021 (Super. Ct. No. 23CV00294) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

An employee and his union appeal an order confirming an arbitrator’s award in favor of the employer. (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 1285 et seq.) The parties agreed that the arbitrator shall specify a remedy. The trial court erred in confirming the award without the arbitrator’s modification specifying a remedy. We reverse.

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.

FACTS Michael Little is a former University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) police officer. The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were his employer. On April 10, 2019, the UCSB police department placed Little on leave for the safety of police department personnel. Several officers had complained that Little performed an unannounced simulated “quick draw” of his firearm against other officers. Little did not actually draw a weapon. Nevertheless, department rules expressly forbid this type of quick draw except on the firing range under the range master’s supervision. The Regents also accused Little of being dishonest during an investigation of the incidents. The Regents issued a notice of intent to terminate Little on January 14, 2020. Little challenged his termination pursuant to an agreement between his union, the Federated University Police Officers’ Association (Union), and the Regents. The agreement called for arbitration of the dispute. The arbitration agreement provided, “[T]he decision of the arbitrator will be restricted to whether there is a violation of the Agreement . . . . If such a violation is found, the arbitrator shall specify the remedy.” The parties stipulated that the arbitrator shall retain jurisdiction to “clarify, interpret, and issue any necessary post-hearing rulings needed to carry out the findings and decisions.” On February 25, 2022, after an eight-day hearing, the arbitrator ruled the Regents had just cause to discipline Little on the charge of his “quick draw” activity. The arbitrator did not, however, specify a remedy. The arbitrator ruled the Regents did not have just cause to discipline Little on the charges of dishonesty. The arbitrator signed his ruling.