Filed 10/1/26 Sinclaire v. Sacramento Valley Limited Partnership CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Siskiyou)
SAMMI SINCLAIRE, C102738
Plaintiff and Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. SCCV-CVCV-
v. 2017-1107)
SACRAMENTO VALLEY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
SUMMARY OF THE APPEAL
Plaintiff and appellant Sammi Sinclaire appeals from an order granting
defendants’ and respondents’ petition to confirm final arbitration award and enter
judgment in confirmation with the final arbitration award. Defendants and respondents
were identified in the order as “Sacramento Valley Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon
Wireless and American Tower Corporation[ ] (erroneously sued as Cal One Cellular).”
Sinclaire’s arguments focus on the legal and factual merits of her underlying claims.
Because Sinclaire has not met her burden to demonstrate the arbitration award is
reviewable, we affirm the order and judgment.
1
FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The copy of the purported first amended complaint contained in the appendix does
not bear a file stamp, contains blanks and highlighted text, and is unsigned by either
counsel or Sinclaire. Additionally, the date Sinclaire has listed for its filing in the table of
contents to her Appellants Appendix does not match the filing date listed on the trial
court’s docket. We rely on the dates listed on the trial court docket here when describing
the procedural history of this matter.
Sinclaire filed her original complaint on October 4, 2017. She filed an amended
complaint on January 18, 2018. From what we can glean from the appendix and
statements made by the parties in their briefing, the underlying dispute appears to involve
a ground lease and sale agreement entered between Sinclaire and Cal-One Cellular in
1996 regarding a parcel of land Sinclaire once owned in Siskiyou County. Paragraph 31
of the agreement, which is attached to the draft first amended complaint contained in the
appendix, contains an arbitration clause, which states, “[a]ny controversy or claim arising
out of or relating to this Agreement, or the alleged breach thereof, shall be settled by
arbitration conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered by any court having
jurisdiction thereof.”
Sometime before February 17, 2022, the trial court ordered the parties to “arbitrate
the matter pursuant to a written agreement between the parties.” On March 23, 2022, the
trial court issued an order clarifying that the parties were to arbitrate the matter with
JAMS.
After the arbitrator entered an award, defendants petitioned the trial court to
confirm the final arbitration award and issue a judgment in conformance with the final
award. The trial court granted the petition. Sinclaire appealed the entry of the order and
judgment.
2
DISCUSSION
I
General Principles of Appellate Review
“ ‘[W]ith an appeal from any judgment, it is the appellant’s responsibility to
affirmatively demonstrate error and, therefore, to point out the triable issues the appellant
claims are present by citation to the record and any supporting authority. In other words,
review is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and briefed.’ (Lewis v.
County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 116 [].)” (Christoff v. Union Pacific
Railroad Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 126.)
Every brief must, “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading
summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation
of authority.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).)
“Appropriate headings require litigants to ‘ “present their cause systematically and
so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to
apply may be advised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of
being compelled to extricate it from the mass.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (United Grand
Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153.) Thus, “ ‘[f]ailure to
provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not
clearly identified by a heading.’ (Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 179
[].)” (Johnson v. Department of Transportation (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 917, 948; see
also Dameron Hospital Assn. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th
530, 541.)
With respect to the need for arguments supported with citations to authority, when
a brief does not furnish a “legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made,”
we may treat the argument raised as waived and pass on it without consideration. (See
3
People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 (Stanley).) It is not our role to construct an
appellant’s arguments for them. (Ibid.)
“Generally speaking, the scope of the issues on appeal is determined by the
appellant’s opening brief; that is, the issues presented through reasoned argument in an
appellant’s opening brief are normally the only bases upon which we will reverse the
judgment or order challenged on appeal.” (People v. Hannon (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 94,
104 (Hannon).)
II
Statutes Governing Review of Arbitration Awards
“The California Arbitration Act (§§ 1280–1294.4; the Arbitration Act) ‘represents
a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating private arbitration in this state.’
(Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9 [] (Moncharsh).) ‘The statutes ...
describe the circumstances in which arbitrators’ awards may be judicially vacated,
corrected, confirmed, and enforced ... , and specify where, when, and how court
proceedings relating to arbitration matters shall occur ....’ (Vandenberg v. Superior Court
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 830 [].)” (Ortiz v. Elmcrest Care Center, LLC (2024)
106 Cal.App.5th 594, 605-606.)
“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the
court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285, undesignated
section references will be to the Code of Civil Procedure.)
When a party petitions to confirm an arbitration award, and the petition “is duly
served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made ... unless in accordance with
this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or
dismisses the proceedings.” (§ 1286.)
Sections 1286.2 and 1286.6 provide the exclusive bases for judicial review—i.e.,
vacatur or correction—of an arbitration award. (See Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 74
4
[“an award reached by an arbitrator pursuant to a contractual agreement to arbitrate is not
subject to judicial review except on the grounds set forth in sections 1286.2 (to vacate)
and 1286.6 (for correction)”].)
Under section 1286.2, subdivision (a), an arbitration award will be vacated if, “(1)
The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. [¶] (2) There was
corruption in any of the arbitrators. [¶] (3) The rights of the party were substantially
prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator. [¶] (4) The arbitrators exceeded their
powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision
upon the controversy submitted. [¶] (5) The rights of the party were substantially
prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause
being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the
controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.
[¶] (6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time
required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then
aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91
but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by
that provision.”
Under section 1286.6, an award may be corrected if, “(a) There was an evident
miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or
property referred to in the award; [¶] (b) The arbitrators exceeded their powers but the
award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy
submitted; or [¶] (c) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits
of the controversy.”
Notably, “the existence of an error of law apparent on the face of the award that
causes substantial injustice does not provide grounds for judicial review.” (Moncharsh,
supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 33, italics added.)
5
“We review de novo a trial court order confirming an arbitration award, including
its determination whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers in granting relief.
[Citations.] However, to the extent the trial court’s decision to grant a petition to confirm
or deny an arbitration award rests on its determination of disputed factual issues, we
review the court’s orders for substantial evidence. [Citations.] ‘There is a presumption
favoring the validity of the award, and appellant bears the burden of establishing [its]
claim of invalidity.’ (Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919, 923 [].)” (Valencia v.
Mendoza (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 427, 442.) “[E]valuating a challenge to an arbitration
award is a two-step process—first the court must determine whether the award is
reviewable, and only if review is appropriate does the court consider whether the award
should be upheld.” (SingerLewak LLP v. Gantman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 610, 622
(SingerLewak).)
III
Sinclaire Has Not Established Reviewability
Based on Sinclaire’s opening brief, with a particular focus on her headings, it
appears she is arguing this court should reverse the trial court’s order and judgment
confirming the arbitration award because: (1) the agreements between her and Cal One
Cellular were void because fraud occurred when she initially signed them; (2) Verizon
and other defendants violated a host of local, state, and federal laws (including
constitutional protections) by their behavior with respect to the property; (3) defendants’
use of Sinclaire’s property was tantamount to conversion, intrusion, and trespass; (4)
Sinclaire suffered significant damages because of defendants’ material breach of their
agreement; and (5) the arbitrator and trial court were biased against Sinclaire. (See
Johnson, supra, 109 Cal.App.5th at p. 948; Hannon, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 104.)
These arguments fail to clear the first hurdle an appellant must confront in
challenging an arbitration award: they do not demonstrate that the award was subject to
6
vacatur or correction under sections 1286.2 and 1286.6. (SingerLewak, supra,
241 Cal.App.4th at p. 622.) Arguments (1)-(4) address the factual and legal merits of the
underlying dispute. But, as our Supreme Court has stated, “it is the general rule that,
‘The merits of the controversy between the parties [to an arbitration] are not subject to
judicial review.’ [Citations.]” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 11.)
Argument (5), that the court and arbitrator were biased against her, is largely a
repetition of Sinclaire’s merits argument, asserting that the “Arbitrator and the Court
were biased and made up the law as they saw fit.” But “ ‘[a]rbitrators, unless specifically
required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad
principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly reject a claim
that a party might successfully have asserted in a judicial action.’ (Sapp v. Barenfeld
(1949) 34 Cal.2d 515, 523 []; see also Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d 686, 691 [];
Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. L.A. Joint Board (1959) 52 Cal.2d 568, 589 [].) As early as
1852, this [Supreme Court] recognized that, ‘The arbitrators are not bound to award on
principles of dry law, but may decide on principles of equity and good conscience, and
make their award ex aequo et bono [according to what is just and good].’ (Muldrow v.
Norris (1852) 2 Cal. 74, 77.)” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11.) Moreover,
this portion of the opening brief lacks legal authority to support an argument that acts of
the arbitrator rose to a level that demonstrates their actions warrant a review of the
arbitration award for bias. (See Stanley, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 793; Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.204(1)(B).)
Absent from the opening brief is any meaningful argument applying sections
1286.2 and 1286.6 to this case. The closest it comes is in an argument contained in the
conclusion where Sinclaire asserts, “Prejudice (Cal. Civ. Code Subsection 1285:2 and 8)
allows [an order to be vacated] if 1) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced,
and for 2) Refusal to postpone the hearing on sufficient cause being shown for a
postponement and 3) An award may be corrected if there is evidence of a mistake.
7
Sinclaire enumerated the mistakes and prejudice below by way of the causes of action in
her 1st Amended Complaint which she enumerated in her Memorandum of Points and
Authorities.”
Even assuming Sinclaire meant to cite sections 1286.2 and 1286.6, and not a
section of the Civil Code that does not exist, this argument fails. First, it relies on an
incorporation of trial court arguments, and “it is not appropriate to incorporate by
reference, into a brief, points and authorities contained in trial court papers, even if such
papers are made a part of the appellate record.” (Colores v. Board of Trustees (2003)
105 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1301, fn. 2.) Second, the document in the trial court that she
attempts to incorporate is the First Amended Complaint, which says nothing about the
arbitrator, how the arbitration proceeded, or the contents of the arbitration award that may
serve as grounds for vacatur or correction of the award under sections 1286.2 and 1286.6.
Finally, the version of the First Amended Complaint contained in the appendix submitted
to this court does not appear to be the final version filed in the trial court, giving us no
means to confirm the incorporated arguments using the record before us.
Based on the above, Sinclaire fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s award was
subject to review and, having failed to do so, we may not overturn the trial court’s
confirmation of the award and entry of judgment. (See § 1286 [“the court shall confirm
the award as made ... unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and
confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceedings”].)
8
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award and entering judgment in
conformance with the award is affirmed. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
8.278(a)(5) the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
/s/
HULL, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
KRAUSE, J.
9