Michael Little et al v. The Regents of the University of California et al

defendant's counsel informed the court that they have contemplated consolidating the cases in which the plaintiffs are represented by the Dre Law firm. The court also noted in that minute order, that the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, and that no documents have been submitted to make it a true consolidation for trial.

Based on the parties' agreement, the court set the Smith Action for jury trial to commence on June 8, 2026, and the Signa Action for a 15 day jury trial to commence on June 18, 2026. Court records reflect that, though the matters described above were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, no party has filed a motion to consolidate the matters for all purposes, including trial. (See Villa Zinfandel, LLC v. Bearman (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 848, 862-863 [general discussion].)

As a result, there appears to be some confusion as to what cases, apart from the Smith Action and the Signa Action, will proceed to trial and when. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will order the parties to appear at the hearing to discuss the status of trial.

Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number 18CV05728 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Mark Signa vs The Regents of the University of California et al 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 Matthew Stern's complaint is denied.

(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint is denied.

(3) 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 Michael Little's complaint is denied.

(4) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California and University of California, Santa Barbara Police Chief Dustin Olson, to dismiss plaintiff Mark Signa's action is denied.

(5) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California, Dusin Olson, Cathy Farley, David Millard, Robert Romero, Gregory Pierce, and Gregory Smorodinsky to dismiss plaintiffs Michael Little and Tiffany Little's action is denied.

(6) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California, David Millard and Gregory Smorodinsky to dismiss plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' action is denied.

(7) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California and David Millard to dismiss plaintiff Matthew Stern's action is denied.

Background: Pursuant to a minute order entered on May 29, 2026 (the May 29 Order), this case no. 18CV05728 (the Signa Action) is consolidated with 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); and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the 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 whether the Regents can show the existence of a legitimate reason for its actions. (See Scheer, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 917-918.)

As the present record is sufficient to show, for all further reasons discussed above, the existence of triable issues of fact, including in regard to competing inferences which are reasonably deducible from the evidence presented by the parties, the court will deny the Regents Stern 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 Stern Complaint. (Regents RJN at p. 4, P. 1; Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d)(1).)

Evidentiary objections: The Regents has submitted written objections to material contained in the declaration of Stern submitted in support of Stern's opposition to the Regents Stern 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).)

As the Regents Stern Motion fails, for all reasons discussed above, to shift the burden to Stern to raise a triable issue of fact, the court need not rule on the objections raised by the Regents. Even if that motion was sufficient to shift the burden to Stern, the court does not deem the evidence to which the Regents has raised objections to be material to its disposition of the Regents Stern Motion.

In addition, the written objections of the Regents fail to comply with court rules, which require that "[e]ach written objection must be numbered consecutively and must: "(1) Identify the name of the document in which the specific material objected to is located; "(2) State the exhibit, title, page, and line number of the material objected to; "(3) Quote or set forth the objectionable statement or material; and "(4) State the grounds for each objection to that statement or material." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b)(1)-(4).)

"Written objections to evidence must follow one of the ... two formats" set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) Though the written objections of the Regents identify the document where the material objected to is located and quote the objectionable material, those objections fail to follow the format set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354.

For example, the Regents raise the same multiple objections to multiple statements contained in each cited paragraph of the Stern declaration. The manner in which those written objections are formatted effectively forces the court to guess whether the Regents contends that all or only some statements within each cited paragraph are objectionable, and why. For these reasons, the court may disregard those objections. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 (Hodjat) [a trial court may decline to rule on improperly formatted objections].)

(2) The Regents Little Motions The Little Complaint alleges that the Little Plaintiffs are employed by the Regents. (Little Complaint, P. 15.) M Little has been employed from approximately March 2014 through the present, and T Little has been employed from approximately November 2014 through the present. (Ibid.) The job titles of the Little Plaintiffs were "Police Officers", and the Little Plaintiffs worked under Olson, Farley, Millard, Romero, Smorodinsky, Pierce, and Smith. (Little Complaint, P. 17.)

The Little Complaint alleges that M Little and T Little each raised or reported concerns regarding a subordinate officer spending an inexplicable amount of time in the freshman residence halls while on duty; suspicious behavior by that officer including that officer turning off his radio and refusing to respond to calls for service; the involvement of Smith in an intimate relationship with a subordinate officer; Smith's unauthorized use of emergency lights to evade traffic when traveling to a breakfast event; Smith's use of the employer's gas card and rental vehicle for non-job related purposes; Smith driving recklessly and hitting a parked car; the possible misappropriation of department funds by Smith; and concerns about potential retaliation by Smith. (Little Complaint, P.P. 18-29.)

The Little Complaint further alleges that, after reporting the concerns described above, the Little Plaintiffs were subjected to retaliatory conduct including: M Little was not included as an instructor at an upcoming training event; Millard told T Little that she talked too much; Romero expressed discontent over the reporting of Smith's conduct and selected an applicant for a detective position who was less qualified than T Little; Smorodinsky told T Little that she should not have reported Smith's conduct, intentionally excluded T Little from assisting in an overtime assignment, and chose less senior and experienced officers to assist with a search warrant; T Little's complaint regarding Smith was never investigated; M Little was not assigned to active shooter training days despite previous past practices; T Little was not invited to participate in or coordinate new hire training; the Little Plaintiffs were demoted from corporal and Field Training Officer positions while other other less experienced officers were promoted to those positions; M Little was denied a computer forensic analyst position even though M Little had previously been selected to fill that role; M Little's concerns regarding limited choices for shift and vacation selections were dismissed; incidents against the Little Plaintiffs were fabricated; and T Little was removed from working a previously approved overtime shift. (Little Complaint, P.P. 30-56.)

The Little Complaint asserts two causes of action against the Regents, Olson, Farley, Millard, Romero, Pierce, and Smorodinsky: (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act; and (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.

(a) The Regents T Little Motion The Regents T Little Motion seeks an order granting summary judgment against T Little or, alternatively, summary adjudication of 14 issues which are set forth in the notice of that motion. (Notice at pp. 4-6.)

For the same reasons discussed above, the separate statement filed by the Regents in support of that motion sets forth 114 facts that the Regents concedes are material and relate to each cause of action asserted by T Little in the Little Complaint, each issue that is the subject of the Regents T Little Motion. (Sep. Stmt. at pp. 4-24 [material fact nos. 1 through 114 as to "all causes of action"] & pp. pp. 24-30 [incorporating material fact nos. 1 through 114 as to each issue]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(a)(2).)

As a threshold matter, and for the reasons discussed in the May 29 Order, the court considers only the T Little Amended Appendix. Though the May 29 Order provides that only exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37 to the T Little Amended Appendix may be redacted, the public redacted version of that appendix that was filed by the Regents on June 3, contains redactions to material appearing in exhibits other than exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37. (See, e.g., T Little Amended Appendix Vol. 1 at pdf pp. 123, 157, & 404-420; Vol. 2 at pdf pp. 21-67, & 72-97; Vol. 3 at pdf pp. 9-32, 38-62, 69-71, 75-89, 92-96, 107, 110-119, & 124.)

For these and all further reasons discussed above, the Regents has failed to comply with the May 29 Order. In addition, and for those same reasons, the court does not consider any redacted material apart from exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37.

The issues that are the subject of the Regents T Little Motion are similar to those further discussed above, and include that T Little's reports to the Regents did not disclose improper government activity because T Little has failed "to establish, that any state or federal laws or regulations were violated by information she reported", to show "any conduct that violated any 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, or was economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency", and because those reports "merely disclosed possible violations of internal policies, which in one instance did not exist, and which are not protected even if the policies are of a government entity." (Notice at p. 4, P.P. 1, 2.)

The issues also include that T Little's reports did not involve a "protected disclosure" or "good faith communication" because they "did not involve disclosures of an 'improper governmental activity' and the disclosures were not intended for the purposes of remedying any condition that threatened the health or safety of employees or the public as the activities [T Little] reported did not threaten such things"; that T Little "could not have a reasonable belief that illegal conduct was occurring, as [T Little] did not witness most of the alleged conduct reported and objectively could not reasonably believe those facts constituted illegal conduct"; that T Little "did not have reasonable cause to believe the reported activities disclosed 'improper government activity' or violated any law"; and that T Little "reported publicly known or already known information which does not constitute a protected disclosure ...." (Notice at pp. 4-5, P.P. 3, 4, & p. 6, P.P. 11, 14.)

For the same reasons described above, the Regents T Little Motion argues that the first cause of action for violation of Government Code section 8547 et seq. (the California Whistleblower Protection Act or Act) and the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted by T Little in the Little Complaint lack merit. The same reasoning and analysis apply here.

For example, the Regents T Little Motion concedes that the alleged protected disclosures at issue include that in June 2017, T Little informed Millard about a purported misappropriation of department funds by Smith; Smith's improper use of emergency vehicles during mutual aid events; a possible hit and run by Smith that was reported to T Little by a subordinate; Smith driving recklessly while in pursuit and hitting a parked vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code sections 20002, 21055, and 23104; that Smith engaged in timecard fraud in violation of Penal Code section 424; and that on September 17, 2018, T Little expressed concerns that Smith was engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, causing a hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims. (Sep.

Stmt., UMF nos. 31, 40, 42, 109; Memorandum at p. 12.) T Little also claims that UCSB-PD did not investigate the concerns that she expressed to Millard in June 2018. (Sep. Stmt., UMF no. 44; Memorandum at p. 12.)

For the same reasons discussed above, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the disclosures at issue in the Regents T Little Motion relate to or implicate a misuse or waste of state expenditures, violations of law, or a threat to the safety of other employees. The Regents T Little Motion also does not explain why a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude, from the information and evidence presented here, that those disclosures were made by T Little for the purpose of remedying the purported concerns raised by T Little.

Moreover, the present record is sufficient to support a finding by the trier of fact, that the disclosures at issue implicate or concern improper activity under the Act, that T Little reasonably believed the conduct at issue constitutes improper government activity notwithstanding any lack of personal knowledge by T Little of any particular activity, and that the communications of T Little regarding those concerns were made in good faith.

The issues that are the subject of the Regents T Little Motion also include that T Little cannot establish an adverse employment action; that the issuing by UCSB-PD of "a notice to all sworn officers about the annual renewal of specialty assignments such as corporal or detective was not an adverse employment action simply because [T Little] was not selected among the multiple candidates for these positions by the review committee consisting of fellow officers"; that T Little cannot establish that the alleged protected activities at issue were "a contributing factor to any alleged adverse employment action suffered by [T Little]" or that there was a "causal link" because the purported adverse employment action was "remote in time or not in proximity", and was made by a committee who did not have knowledge of that protected activity; and that the adverse employment action alleged by T Little would have occurred for legitimate independent reasons. (Notice at pp. 5-6, P.P. 5-10 & 12-13.)

The public redacted version of the T Little Amended Appendix includes an exhibit which is described by the Regents as the "Kramer Workplace Investigation Report, Dated October 26, 2020" (the Kramer Report). (T Little Amended Appendix, Vol. 1 at p. 6, ll. 14-15.) As the Kramer Report was, pursuant to the May 29 Order, placed under seal, the court's discussion of that report "must be circumspect." (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 303.)

Information contained in the Kramer Report is sufficient to support competing inferences as to whether T Little was subjected to an adverse employment action, including as to a change in T Little's status, and whether the conduct of the Regents is sufficient to give rise to an inference of a retaliatory motive. (T Little Amended Appendix, exhibit 35 at pp. 41-42; Scheer, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 917-918 [retaliatory motive may be shown by circumstantial evidence].)

For these and all further reasons discussed above, the present record gives rise to and is sufficient to support competing inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence presented by the Regents in regard to the issues that are the subject of the Regents T Little Motion. As the present record shows, for all further reasons discussed above, the existence of triable issues of fact, and can support competing inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence presented here, the court will deny the Regents T Little 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 T Little in the Little Action. (Regents RJN at p. 4, P. 1; Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d)(1).)

Evidentiary objections: The Regents has submitted written objections to material contained in the declaration of T Little submitted in support of their opposition to the Regents T Little Motion. Those objections also fail to follow the format set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354. For example, in a similar manner to that further described above, the Regents raise the same multiple objections to the same multiple statements contained in each cited paragraph of the T Little declaration, forcing the court to guess whether the Regents contends that all or only some statements within each cited paragraph are objectionable, and why.

The same reasoning and analysis apply. As the written objections submitted by the Regents do not, for all reasons discussed above, comply with the formatting rules set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354, the court disregards those objections. (Hodjat, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 8.)

(b) The Regents M Little Motion The Regents M Little Motion seeks an order granting summary judgment against M Little or, alternatively, summary adjudication of 12 issues which are identical or nearly identical to those further discussed above in regard to the Regents T Little Motion. (See Notice at pp. 4-6.)

The supporting separate statement sets forth 145 facts that, for the same reasons discussed above, the Regents M Little Motion concedes are material to the causes of action asserted by M Little in the Little Complaint, and each issue that is the subject of the Regents M Little Motion. (Sep. Stmt. at pp. 4-24 [material fact nos. 1 through 114 as to "all causes of action"] & pp. pp. 24-30 [incorporating material fact nos. 1 through 114 as to each issue]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(a)(2).)

The same reasoning and analysis apply here. For example, the M Little Amended Appendix that was filed unsealed by the Regents on June 3, contains redactions to material appearing in exhibits other than exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, which are the only exhibits to the M Little Amended Appendix for which the court granted the Little Motion to Seal. (See May 29 Order.) For the same reasons discussed above, the Regents has failed to comply with the May 29 Order. Furthermore, and for those same reasons, the court does not consider any material that has been redacted from the M Little Amended Appendix apart from exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29.

The Regents M Little Motion also concedes or effectively concedes that the alleged protected disclosures at issue include that M Little informed Millard that Smith gave preferential treatment to an officer by dismissing a vehicle accident that caused damage to UCSB-PD property; that Smith used the Regent's vehicle and gas card to drive to Santa Cruz for non-job-related purposes and to purchase gas for that outing; that around June 6, 2017, Smith drove recklessly during a pursuit, hit a parked car, and did not stop in violation of Vehicle Code sections 20002, 21055 and 23104; that another officer "possibly witnessed" Smith committing a hit-and-run while on duty; that Smith was engaging in timecard fraud by using Community Police Patrolling allocations to work overtime while not performing any patrol duties; that on or around January 2017, Smith ordered an unsanctioned and unnecessary code three emergency response during which the involved vehicles dangerously maneuvered through traffic in an unsafe manner, and for which Smith was eventually disciplined; and that M Little filed an Ethics Point Incident complaint under the Regent's Whistleblower Protection Policy, and a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Office of the President. (Memorandum at pp. 12-14; see also Sep.

Stmt., UMF nos. 29, 35, 37, 38, 45, 47, 50, 59, 113 & 114.) Those purportedly protected disclosures occurred in May and June 2017, and September and October 2018. (Ibid.)

For the same reasons discussed above, the subject matter of the disclosures or reports by M Little are sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable trier of fact that the disclosures or reports of M Little relate to or implicate a misuse or waste of state expenditures, violations of law, or a threat to the safety of other individuals, and that those reports were made for the purpose of remedying the purported concerns described above.

The Regents M Little Motion effectively concedes that the following facts are also material to the disposition of that motion: on December 7, 2017, Sergeant Smorodinsky sent an email to range staff that M Little was not included as an instructor at upcoming training; Pierce did not take action on a training request submitted by M Little on December 20, 2017, until March 27, 2018; on February 13, 2018, M Little met with Romero who expressed that he was furious at M Little for reporting Smith; pursuant to assignments for active shooter training made or sent out by Pierce on June 13, 2018, and September and October 2018, M Little was the only range instructor not assigned to that training; on September 3, 2018, UCSB-PD announced that M Little had not been selected for the Computer Forensic Analyst position; on January 14, 2019, Millard gave M Little only two hours to make shift selection choices for the upcoming 2019 year which limited M Little's choices and did not provide all shift slots available to Patrol Corporals; Millard dismissed M Little's concerns about those limited choices; on January 25, 2019, Pierce emailed assignments for range training instructors that assigned M Little a single day of instruction for the five days scheduled; and that on March 10, 2020, UCSB-PD issued a notice of termination to M Little, which M Little appealed. (Sep. Stmt., UMF nos. 83-85, 91-94, 116-117, 122-124, 128-129, & 136.)

For the same reasons discussed above, the present record, when viewed in the light most favorable to M Little, shows the existence of triable issues of fact, and can support competing inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence presented here, in regard to whether the Regents acted with a retaliatory motive or intent, notwithstanding whether the Regents can show the existence of a legitimate reason for the purported adverse employment action. (See Scheer, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 917-918.). Therefore, and for those reasons, the court will deny the Regents M Little 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 M Little in the Little Action. (Regents RJN at p. 4, P. 1; Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d)(1).) The Regents also request judicial notice of an "Arbitrators Decision" dated February 25, 2022, including joint exhibit 4 to that decision (collectively, the Arbitrators Decision), and an April 2, 2025, decision by the Court of Appeals in case no. B334021, entitled Michael Little et al. v. The Regents of the University of California et al. (the Appeal Decision). (RJN at p. 4, P.P. 2, 3.) In support of that request, the Regents' counsel, Jaqueline Orozco (attorney Orozco), states that the Arbitrators Decision and the Appeal Decision are attached to the M Little Amended Appendix as, respectively, exhibits 20 and 41. (Orozco Dec. [RJN], P.P. 3, 4.)

The court will grant the Regents' request for judicial notice of the Arbitrators Decision. (Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d); Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 525.) Apart from generally referencing or describing the Appeal Decision (see memorandum at pp. 11 & 18), the Regents M Little Motion does not include any factual or legal reasoned argument explaining why the Appeal Decision is relevant to the issues presented in, or the adjudication of, that motion. For these reasons, the court will deny the Regents' request for judicial notice of the Appeal Decision. (See Evid. Code, Sec. 350; Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063, overruled on other grounds in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1276 (Mangini).)

Evidentiary objections: The written objections by the Regents to material contained in the declaration of M Little contain the same formatting deficiencies further discussed above, and fail to follow the format set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354. In addition, the court does not deem the matters to which the Regents has objected material to its disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (q).) For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will disregard and decline to rule on those objections. (Hodjat, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 8.)

(3) Motion to Dismiss Signa Action The information, evidence, and arguments presented in the Motion to Dismiss Signa Action are the same or effectively the same as those presented in the Motion to Dismiss Smith Action. The Motion to Dismiss Signa Action is also supported by a declaration of the Regents' counsel, Enrique M. Vassallo (attorney Vassallo), and is made on the ground that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 and emergency rule 10(a), the deadline to commence trial of the Signa Action expired no later than January 17, 2026, such that the Signa Action, which the Regents and Olson concede is set for trial on June 18, 2026, is subject to mandatory dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360.

of mutual assent constitute an agreement" to extend any deadline, including the deadline asserted in the motion, to bring the Signa Action to trial. (Id. at p. 357.) Therefore, and for these reasons, the court finds that the "interchange" that occurred at the TCC and described above "constitutes an oral agreement within the meaning of section 583.330." (Id. at p. 356; cf. Randolph, supra, 117 Cal.App.5th at p. 1233 [noting the lack of any discussion regarding a trial date in the transcript at issue; that the minute order at issue "merely show[ed] that counsel for the parties were present at the case management conference and the trial court set the ... jury trial dates[]"; and that "[n]othing in the minute order indicates that there was an agreement to the trial date beyond the statutory deadline...."].)

For all reasons discussed above, the court finds that the parties orally agreed at the TCC to postpone the trial of the Signa Action to a date beyond the specific statutory period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, as extended by emergency rule 10, and that the parties' oral agreement was made in open court and entered in the minutes of the court as shown or reflected in the transcript of the TCC proceedings and the TCC Order. Therefore, and for these reasons, the court will deny the Motion to Dismiss Signa Action.

Signa's request for judicial notice: The court will grant Signa's request for judicial notice of the reporter's transcript of the TCC, the TCC Order, and the trial call order entered on October 2, 2025. (Signa RJN, P.P. 1-3; Keeton Dec., exhibits A, B & K; Evid. Code, Sec. 452, subd. (d)(1).) Signa also requests that the court take judicial notice of: (exhibit C to Keeton Dec.) the Clerk of the Court's certificate of mailing of the October 2, 2025, trial call order in the Signa Action; (exhibit E to Keeton Dec.) a stipulation and proposed order to continue hearing dates filed on April 10, 2026; (exhibit F to Keeton Dec.) a stipulation to permit discovery after the cut-off deadline filed on May 8, 2026; (exhibits G-I & D to Keeton Dec.) minute orders entered on May 1, May 8, May 15, and May 29, 2026; and (exhibit J to Keeton Dec.) the opposition of the Regents to the motion to consolidate described above, and filed on May 27, 2026. (Signa RJN, P.P. 4-11.)

The court records contained in exhibits C through J of attorney Keeton's declaration are not necessary or relevant to the court's determination of the Motion to Dismiss Signa Action. (Mangini, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1063.) For these reasons, the court will deny Signa's request for judicial notice of those exhibits.

(4) Motion to Dismiss Little Action, Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action, and Motion to Dismiss Stern Action The Motion to Dismiss Little Action, Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action, and Motion to Dismiss Stern Action are each supported by separately filed and substantively similar declarations of attorney Vassallo, and are made on the same grounds further discussed above, which, for convenience of writing and judicial efficiency, will not be repeated at length here. In addition, and for convenience of writing, the court will refer to the declarations of attorney Vassallo collectively, where appropriate.

The Motion to Dismiss Little Action, Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action, and Motion to Dismiss Stern Action each conceded that trial of the Little Action, the Reyes Action, and the Stern Action is set for June 18, 2026, which the moving parties assert is beyond the statutory deadlines to bring those actions to trial.

As to the Motion to Dismiss Little Action, which does not dispute that the Little Action was filed on March 19, 2019, the present record reflects that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 and emergency rule 10, the Little Action was, exclusive of any additional extensions of time and for the same reasons discussed above, required to be brought to trial no later than September 19, 2024. (See Vassallo Dec., P. 10.)

The Motion to Dismiss Little Action and the procedural history described above also show that the Little Action was stayed from May 22, 2019, until the court lifted that stay on January 15, 2021. (Vassallo Dec., P.P. 4-5, 7, exhibits 2-3 [joint motion and order to stay Little Action] & exhibit 5 [Jan. 15, 2021, minute order].) For the same reasons discussed above, the undisputed record reflects that the Little Action was also stayed for 604 days, which are, as further discussed above, excluded when computing the time within which that action must be brought to trial.

Though the present record, including the court's calculations, show that the Little Action was required to be brought to trial no later than May 18, 2026, (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 10, Sec. 12, & Sec. 12a ["[i]f the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday."]), the same reasoning and analysis apply. For the same reasons discussed above including as to the evidence, information, and arguments presented by the Individual Defendants who are represented by attorney Anneet, the court will deny the Motion to Dismiss Little Action.

As to the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action, that motion and the relevant procedural history also shows, without dispute, that, exclusive of any additional extensions of time, the Reyes Action filed on May 17, 2019, was required to be brought to trial no later than November 17, 2024, which is a Sunday. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.310; Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, emergency rule 10(a); see also Vassallo Dec., P. 10; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 10, Sec. 12, & Sec. 12a.)

For the same or similar reasons discussed above, the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action and the procedural history of these matters show that the Reyes Action was stayed from July 23, 2019, until January 25, 2021, for a total of 552 days. (Vassallo Dec., P.P. 5, 7, 8, exhibit 3 [July 23, 2019, order] & exhibit 5 [Jan. 25, 2021, minute order].) Excluding those days from the time within which the Reyes Action is required to be brought to trial, the court's calculations show that the Reyes Action was required to be brought to trial no later than April 24, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 12a.)

As the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action also does not dispute or effectively dispute that the Reyes Action was set for trial on June 18, 2026, pursuant to the TCC Order (memorandum at p. 9, l. 18), the same reasoning and analysis apply including as to the information, evidence, and arguments presented or advanced by Millard and Smorodinsky. For the same reasons discussed above, the court will deny the Motion to Dismiss Reyes Action.

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.