Filed 8/7/26 Valle v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
RICHARD R. VALLE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E084887
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2305751)
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH OPINION
PLAN, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Eric A. Keen, Judge.
Affirmed.
Richard V. Valle, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, Amy Elizabeth Rankin; Wood Smith
Henning & Berman and Scott Blakeley for Defendants and Respondents.
In arbitration, plaintiff and appellant Richard R. Valle (Valle) brought a medical
malpractice claim against defendants and respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
1
(collectively, Kaiser). Following a four-day evidentiary hearing on the merits, the
arbitrator decided the claim in favor of Kaiser and awarded Kaiser $27,135 in expert
witness costs. Valle petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitrator’s decision (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1286.2)1, while Kaiser petitioned the trial court to confirm the arbitrator’s
decision. The trial court denied Valle’s petition and entered a judgment confirming the
arbitrator’s decision.2 Valle contends the trial court erred. We affirm.
FACTS
After hearing the parties’ evidence, the arbitrator found that Valle suffered from
skin conditions, but his skin conditions were not caused by Kaiser’s alleged medical
malpractice of injecting Valle with a medication to which Valle alleges he is allergic.
In Valle’s first amended petition to vacate the arbitrator’s decision, he asserted
the arbitrator failed to admit all the available evidence and that the arbitrator’s written
decision included a misleading rendition of the facts. In an unsigned and unsworn
statement included with Valle’s first amended petition, he explained that Kaiser’s
alleged medical malpractice affected his ability to work and caused ongoing health
problems.
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 The trial court denied Valle’s petition on July 12, 2024. The trial court’s
judgment confirming the arbitrator’s decision was filed on August 12, 2024. On Valle’s
notice of appeal, it is written that he is appealing from a judgment entered on September
10, 2024. Valle’s notice of appeal is signed by Scott Bearden, who is the person who
served the notice of appeal. When this court ordered Valle to file a copy of the
September 10, 2024, judgment, Valle filed a copy of the August 12, 2024 judgment.
We infer that Valle is appealing from the judgment entered on August 12, 2024. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2) [notices of appeal are liberally construed].)
2
In the trial court’s decision on the motion to vacate, it notes that Valle included a
declaration in support of his petition; we do not have a copy of that declaration in the
record on appeal. The trial court’s decision reflects that, in the declaration, Valle
declared that Loma Linda doctors told him the doctors at Kaiser should have tested
Valle for drug allergies earlier in their treatment of him. The trial court denied Valle’s
petition because it concluded that Valle failed to meet his burden of proving a basis for
vacating the arbitrator’s decision, i.e., misconduct by the arbitrator (§ 1286.2, subd.
(a)(3)).
DISCUSSION
Valle raises multiple alleged errors. First, Valle contends, “The court entered
summary judgment on November 24, 2024, based solely on the service timeline issue.”
Contrary to Valle’s assertion, the trial court did not enter summary judgment. (§ 473c.)
Additionally, there is no entry in the register of actions for November 24, 2024.
Second, Valle asserts that the reasons for the trial court’s denial of his petition
“were confined to procedural technicalities and timeliness.” Valle is mistaken. The
trial court denied his petition because Valle failed to meet his burden of proving the
allegations in his petition, i.e., evidence of misconduct by the arbitrator (§ 1286.2, subd.
(a)(3)).
Third, Valle asserts, “The record demonstrates the hearing [in the trial court] was
narrowly focused on timeliness and related technical issues.” The record does not
include a reporter’s transcript, so we have no basis for knowing what was discussed
during the hearing in the trial court. In Kaiser’s written opposition to Valle’s petition,
3
Kaiser argued that Valle’s petition was untimely. The trial court’s ruling expressly
reflects that Kaiser’s timeliness argument was not the basis for the trial court denying
Valle’s petition. Accordingly, any issues regarding timeliness were decided in Valle’s
favor.
Fourth, Valle asserts, “The trial court relied on a declaration asserting April 8
service contradicting the February 15 proof of service. (CT [provide page:line].)” The
trial court wrote, “On April 8, 2024, [Valle] filed a First Amended Petition correcting
the names of [Kaiser] after dismissing the arbitrator from this action.” In its ruling, the
trial court wrote, “[T]he court will not deny the petition on the grounds it was untimely
served.” It is unclear why Valle is asserting the trial court erred in regard to the
timeliness issue when that issue was decided in Valle’s favor.
Fifth, Valle asserts Kaiser filed its respondent’s brief in this court one day past
the deadline. Valle moves this court to strike the respondent’s brief or disregard
Kaiser’s arguments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) We deny the motion.
Nevertheless, if we were to grant the motion, our opinion would be unchanged as Valle
failed to meet his burden of demonstrating error. (Baker v. Smith-Booth-Usher Co.
(1919) 180 Cal. 309, 311 [“The burden is upon appellant to show prejudicial error”].)
Sixth, Valle contends, “[Kaiser] include[d] arbitration documents that were not
presented in the Superior Court.” Valle does not identify the documents at issue.
Because we do not know to what documents Valle is referring, we are unable to address
this issue. Accordingly, the contention is forfeited. (Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC
v. GoldenTree Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384 [“ ‘It is the duty
4
of [appellant] to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports
appellant’s contentions on appeal. [Citation.] If no citation “is furnished on a particular
point, the court may treat it as waived” ’ ”].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
J.
FIELDS
J.
5