Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California et al

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.)

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

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.

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 UCPD, and the University of California Santa Barbara, and against plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto as to the causes of action alleged in the complaint filed in the Hashimoto Action.

On December 24, 2025, defendants David Millard (Millard) and Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky) filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication (which the court will refer to as the Smorodinsky Motion for convenience of writing) as to the causes of action asserted in the complaint filed by plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes) in the Reyes Action. The Smorodinsky Motion was calendared for hearing on March 27, 2026. Reyes opposed the Smorodinsky Motion.

On January 22, 2026, defendants Dustin Olson, Cathy Farley, David Millard, Robert Romero, Greg Pierce, and Greg Smorodinsky (collectively, the Individual Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted by plaintiff Tiffany Little (T Little) in the complaint filed in the Little Action, and separately filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted by plaintiff Michael Little (M Little) in that same complaint (collectively, the Individual Defendant Motions). The Individual Defendant Motions were calendared for hearing on March 26, 2026. T Little and M Little opposed the Individual Defendant Motions.

Also on January 22, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication as to the causes of action asserted in the Signa FAC (the Regents Signa Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the causes of action asserted in 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 of the causes of action asserted by T Little in the complaint filed in the Little Action (the Regents T Little Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the causes of action asserted by M Little in that complaint (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. T Little and M Little have filed opposition to the Regents Little Motions.

On February 10, Olson filed a motion for summary judgment as to the claims asserted in the Signa FAC (the Olson Motion). On February 11, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the causes of action asserted 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 as to the causes of action asserted by Reyes in the complaint filed in the Reyes Action (the Regents Reyes Motion). On February 19, Millard filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action alleged by Stern in the complaint filed 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 specially 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, and ordering the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion moved to May 8, 2026.

On March 27, the court issued a minute order adopting its tentative ruling granting the Smorodinsky Motion, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, only, asserted in the complaint filed by Reyes in the Reyes Action. The Smorodinsky Motion was otherwise denied.

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, based on an inadvertent omission of certain counsel from service lists, and ordered those motions

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

Motions to Seal; Motion for Consolidation; Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling (1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith is granted, in part as to exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(2) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith, that redacts exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith.

(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Mark Signa, is denied. On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant shall file unsealed, the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal by defendant on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion, without any redactions to any exhibit or material contained in any exhibit.

(4) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Jonathan Lee Reyes, is denied. On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant shall file unsealed, the appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion, without any redactions to any exhibit or material contained in any exhibit.

(5) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Michael Little and Tiffany Little is granted as to exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, only, to the amended appendix of evidence in support of defendant's motion as to plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint; and as to exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, only, to the amended appendix of evidence in support of defendant's motion as to plaintiff Michael Little's complaint. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(6) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in the Tiffany Little matter, that redacts exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint.

(7) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against Michael Little's complaint, that redacts exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Michael Little's complaint.

(8) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Matthew Stern is granted as to exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(9) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication in the Matthew Stern matter, that redacts exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, shall be redacted from that public redacted version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication in the Matthew Stern matter.

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

(11) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiffs Mark Signa, Michael Little, Tiffany Little, Matthew Stern, and Jonathan Reyes to consolidate cases for all purposes including trial is granted. This case no. 18CV05728, shall be consolidated with Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., for trial. This case is designated as the lead case. The parties shall file all documents in the lead case. The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss future proceedings in accordance with this ruling.

Background: On November 21, 2018, plaintiff Mark Signa (Signa) filed their original complaint in this case against defendants The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD) Chief Dustin Olson (Olson), asserting four causes of action: (1) violation of Title 42 United States Code section 1983 - denial of first amendment rights; (2) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. Briefly, Signa alleges in their complaint that they have been employed as a police officer by the Regents since 1990, and that the Regents and UCSB-PD retaliated against Signa after Signa voiced concerns about purported misconduct within the UCSB-PD.

On February 4, 2019, Signa filed their operative first amended complaint (the Signa FAC), alleging two causes of action: (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and (2) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5. On February 22, 2019, the Regents and Olson filed an answer to the Signa FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-seven affirmative defenses. On May 22, 2019, the court ordered a stay of this case pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies by 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).

Case Number 18CV05728 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/05/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling (1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Mark Signa's complaint is denied.

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

Background: As a preliminary matter, the court notes that on September 17, 2021, after a hearing, the court issued an order granting a motion filed in this case (the Signa Action) on July 8, 2021, by the Regents of the University of California (the Regents). That motion sought an order transferring and consolidating with the Signa Action for pre-trial purposes only, the following cases: Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Little Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01625 entitled John Doe v.

The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara, et al. (the Smith Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Reyes Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Stern Action); and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 21CV01256 entitled Ryan Hashimoto v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Hashimoto Action).

On February 26, 2026, the court entered judgment in favor of the Regents, the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD), and the University of California Santa Barbara, as against the complaint filed by plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto in the Hashimoto Action.

On May 20, 2026, plaintiffs Mark Signa (Signa), Michael Little, Tiffany Little, Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes), and Matthew Stern (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for a hearing on a forthcoming motion by Plaintiffs to consolidate the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action, and the Stern Action (collectively, the Actions) for all purposes including trial. On May 21, after a hearing, the court granted that application, set the hearing on that forthcoming motion for May 29, 2026, and ordered that any opposition to that motion be filed no later than May 27.

On May 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their motion for an order consolidating the Actions for all purposes including trial (the Motion to Consolidate). On May 27, the Regents filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate. On May 28, defendants Dustin Olson (Olson), Cathy Farley (Farley), David Millard (Millard), Robert Romero (Romero), Gregory Pierce (Pierce), and Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky) filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate. On May 29, 2026, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order (the May 29 Order) pursuant to which the court, among other orders, adopted its tentative ruling granting the Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs.

Relevant here, t he first amended complaint filed by Signa on February 4, 2019, is the operative pleading in the Signa Action. Briefly, in the Signa FAC, Signa alleges that he has been continuously employed by the UCSB-PD since 1990, has a stellar record of performance and service at UCSB-PD, and was promoted to Lieutenant on April 6, 2014. Olson is the Chief of Police. Signa was the supervisor of officer Ryan Smith (Smith). Signa further alleges that they vocalized concerns about the impropriety or appearance of impropriety of a custom, practice, or policy through which certain UCSB-PD officers, including Smith, received favored status and were immune from any negative or critical feedback, investigations, or disciplinary action.

In addition, UCSB-PD implemented an unwritten policy, practice, or procedure of retaliating against any employee of UCSB-PD who made any report that accused Smith of any form of misconduct. Signa also made reports of misconduct, misappropriation of public funds, sexual discrimination, harassment, and other purportedly illegal behavior or misconduct to Olson and other individuals within the leadership of UCSB-PD. As a result of Signa vocalizing their concerns including in regard to the customs, practices, and policies of the UCSB-PD, Signa was subjected to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation within the UCSB-PD.

On May 31, 2018, Signa made a formal complaint with human resources regarding Signa's concerns and the retaliation, and on June 19, 2018, submitted two internal whistleblower complaints through the University of California, Santa Barbara system. No further action has been taken on those matters. The Signa FAC asserts two causes of action against defendants Olson and the Regents: (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.

Also relevant here, on May 17, 2019, Reyes filed in the Reyes Action, a complaint (the Reyes Complaint) against defendants the Regents, Smorodinsky, and Millard, asserting two causes of action: (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and (2) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5. Briefly, in the operative Reyes Complaint, Reyes alleges that they are employed by the Regents as a police officer, and worked under managers and supervisors who include, among other individuals, Olson, Millard, and Smorodinsky.

The complaint further alleges that the Regents retaliated against Reyes based on complaints made by Reyes concerning, among other things, whether a trainee was qualified for release from field training with full arrest authority; Reyes' request to Millard to see Reyes' scores for a sergeant position for which Reyes had applied; Reyes' disagreement with a yearly review of Reyes submitted by Smorodinsky who had only supervised Reyes for three months; a grievance submitted by Reyes regarding a negative performance review; and for opposing retaliation.

On January 22, 2026, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the Signa FAC (the Regents Signa Motion), which was calendared for hearing on April 24, 2026. On February 13, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint filed by Reyes in the Reyes Action (the Regents Reyes Motion). That motion was calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026.

On April 11, the court signed, and on April 13 filed, an order pursuant to which the court, among other orders, granted approval of a stipulation by the parties to continue the hearing on the Regents Signa Motion to May 15, 2026. The Regents Reyes Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026. On April 21, Signa filed an opposition to the Regents Signa Motion. On April 24, Reyes filed an opposition to the Regents Reyes Motion.

On May 11, the Regents filed a motion for an order placing under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Signa Motion (the Signa Motion to Seal), and separately filed a motion for an order placing under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Reyes Motion (the Reyes Motion to Seal). The Signa Motion to Seal and Reyes Motion to Seal were calendared for hearing on May 29.

On May 15, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order in which the court, among other orders, continued the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion to June 5, 2026, to allow time to first resolve the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal. On May 18, Signa and Reyes separately filed their respective oppositions to the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal.

Pursuant to the May 29 Order described above, the court denied the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal, and ordered the Regents to, on or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, file unsealed the amended appendix of evidence filed on February 2, 2026, in support of the Regents Signa Motion (the Signa Amended Appendix), the complete version of which was lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents on February 25, 2026; and the amended appendix of evidence filed on February 13, 2026, in support of the Regents Reyes Motion (the Reyes Amended Appendix), the complete version of which was lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents also on February 25. On June 3, the Regents filed unsealed the Reyes Amended Appendix, which includes five volumes of exhibits, and the Signa Amended Appendix.

Analysis: (1) The Regents Signa 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 Signa Motion seeks an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Regents as against the Signa FAC, and alternatively seeks summary adjudication of 13 issues set forth in the notice of that motion. (Notice at pp. 4-6.) The separate statement filed by the Regents in support of that motion sets forth 71 material facts that relate to "all causes of action" asserted in the Signa FAC, to each issue that is the subject of the Regents Signa Motion, and "that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion." (Sep. Stmt. at pp. 4-19 [material fact nos. 1 through 17 as to "all causes of action"] & pp. pp. 19-24 [incorporating material facts numbered 1 through 71 as to each issue]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(a)(2).)

For all reasons discussed herein, even if the Regents could carry its initial burden of production (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850), the present record reflects the existence of triable issues of material fact which preclude the granting of the Regents Signa Motion for all reasons discussed herein. As a threshold matter, and for the reasons discussed in the May 29 Order, the court considers only the Signa Amended Appendix. Pursuant to the May 29 Order, the Regents were required to file the Signa Amended Appendix unsealed and without any redactions to any material contained in any exhibit. The court's review of the Signa Amended Appendix that was filed unsealed on June 3, shows that the exhibits to that appendix contain redactions to material or information appearing in the exhibits. (See Signa Amended Appendix at pdf pp.

(2) The Regents Reyes Motion The Regents Reyes Motion seeks summary adjudication or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of 12 issues which are stated in the notice of that motion. (Notice at pp. 4-12.) The separate statement submitted in support of that motion sets forth 93 facts which, for the same reasons discussed above, relate and are material to each of the issues stated in the Regents Reyes Motion. (Sep. Stmt. at pp. 20-25 [incorporating each material fact numbered 1 through 93].)

For the same reasons discussed above and in the May 29 Order, the court considers only the Reyes Amended Appendix. The courts review of the Reyes Amended Appendix also shows that appendix includes redactions to information or material appearing in the attached exhibits, in violation of the May 29 Order as further discussed above. (Reyes Amended Appendix, Volume 3 at pdf pp. 16-44, 47-48, 51-55; Volume 4 at pdf pp. 7, 9, 11-22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33-56; Volume 5 at pdf pp. 7-17, 23-25, 28, 31, 39-109.) In addition, and for the reasons discussed above, the court does not consider any redacted material.

The same reasoning and analysis set forth above applies here. For example, the issues which are the subject of the Regents Reyes Motion include that the reports made by Reyes concerning the alleged violations at issue did not disclose "improper government activity" for the same or similar reasons as those asserted in the Regents Signa Motion; that those reports do not involve any protected disclosure and were not a good faith communication for the same or similar reasons discussed above; and that Reyes could not have had a reasonable belief that illegal conduct was occurring. (Notice at pp. 4-5, P.P. 1-3.)

The Regents Reyes Motion concedes that the facts material to the issues described above include that from June 15 to June 23, 2017, Reyes, as a "Field Training Officer" or "FTO", assigned a trainee; that during that time, Reyes prepared Daily Observation Reports or "DOR" related to the trainee which rates that trainee's performance; that in the DOR, Reyes noted, among other things, concerns about the trainee's failure to control the movement of a suspect and that the trainee struggled with handcuffing an individual during an arrest; that Reyes did not recommend the trainee be allowed to move to the next phase known as the "Ghost Phase"; that on June 27, 2017, UCSB-PD issued a memorandum that the trainee had completed field training; that on June 29, 2017, Reyes sent correspondence to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training or "POST" documenting Reyes' concerns related to the release of a trainee and the trainee's performance; and that Reyes claims the Regents violated Penal Code section 832 because "it was 'an unsafe work practice to release of an unqualified officer with full arrest authority was (sic) a threat to the safety of the public and the University.'" (Sep. Stmt., Undisputed Material Fact or "UMF" nos. 13, 24-28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 51 & evidence cited therein [not disputed or reasonably disputed on these points].)

For the same or similar reasons further discussed above, and considering the provisions of Penal Code section 832, there exist triable issues of fact, including competing inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence presented, in regard to whether the concerns or reports of Reyes constitute a protected disclosure under Government Code section 8547.2, subdivision (e)(1)(B), and whether the communications of Reyes described above were made in good faith for the purpose of remedying those concerns.

In addition, though the material facts which relate to the issues and causes of action that are the subject of the Regents Reyes Motion include that at the time Reyes wrote to POST, "he never informed Olson, Farley, Millard, or the FTO Supervisor, Sergeant Pierce, of his alleged concerns about the trainee[]", the available evidence and information, including that presented by Reyes, gives rise to an inference that Millard was aware of the concerns raised by Reyes, and that Millard, Olson, and Sergeant Pierce were aware or knew of those concerns whether they were communicated by Reyes directly or in a different manner. (See Sep. Stmt., UMF nos. 3 & 43-44; Resp. Sep. Stmt., Additional Material Fact nos. 1-2 & evidence cited therein [dec. of counsel Jaime Keeton, exhibit A at pdf p. 16; Reyes dec., P. 6].)

For all reasons discussed above, there exist triable issues of fact, including competing inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence presented by the parties, that preclude the granting of the Regents Reyes Motion as to each issue that is the subject of that motion. Therefore, the court will deny that motion including as to the request for summary judgment.

The Regents' request for judicial notice: The court will grant the request of the Regents for judicial notice of the complaint filed by Reyes in the Reyes