Barajas v. Vasquez, H052737

Background

Ochoa Barajas appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration award arising from a business dispute over J.M. Supermarkets and Los Cuates Supermercado. 1
The dispute stemmed from Ochoa Barajas’s 2023 sale of the business to Vasquez and Ting, after which she later claimed the sale was incomplete and sought to take back control. 2
In her civil action, Ochoa Barajas alleged she was supposed to retain 80% ownership, but defendants refused to sign a final agreement reflecting that interest. 3
The trial court compelled arbitration based on an arbitration clause in an addendum to a promissory note tied to the sale. 4
The arbitrator issued an award for defendants, and the trial court later confirmed the award and entered judgment despite Ochoa Barajas’s petition to vacate. 5
On appeal, Ochoa Barajas claimed fraud, identity theft, forgery, and other misconduct, but the record lacked supporting trial-court materials and factual detail for her vacatur theories. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants’ judicial-notice requests should be granted 7	Ochoa Barajas opposed notice of the arbitration stipulation and other materials not before the trial court	Defendants sought notice of trial, arbitration, and related-case documents	Both requests were denied, including the supplemental stipulation request 8
Whether Ochoa Barajas showed reversible error from the record on appeal 9	Ochoa Barajas claimed fraud, identity theft, coercion, and medical incapacity	Defendants argued she provided no adequate record or legal support	She failed to meet her burden to show reversible error 10
Whether new arguments in the reply brief could be considered 11	Ochoa Barajas raised new challenges to consent, bankruptcy, and timing of the judgment	Defendants objected that the reply brief improperly raised new issues	The new reply-brief arguments were forfeited 12
Whether any alleged errors regarding arbitration or the vacatur petitions warranted reversal 13	Ochoa Barajas said there was no valid arbitration agreement and the court erred by confirming before ruling on vacatur	Defendants argued she lacked record support and showed no prejudice	She failed to show prejudicial error, so the judgment was affirmed 14

Key Cases Cited

Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (judicial notice generally does not extend to evidence not presented to the trial court 15)
Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (appellate judgments are presumed correct and error must be affirmatively shown 16)
Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (appellant bears the burden to provide an adequate record and show reversible error 17)
Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 (Cal. 1987) (appellant must provide an adequate record to assess claimed error 18)
USLIFE Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Surety Corp., 115 Cal.App.3d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (appellate review is confined to the record from the trial court 19)
Dryer v. Dryer, 231 Cal.App.2d 441 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964) (facts outside the record and briefs alone cannot be considered on appeal 20)
Ehman v. Moore, 221 Cal.App.2d 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) (facts not in the record are disregarded on appeal 21)
In re S.C., 138 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (meaningful legal analysis and record citations are required; conclusory claims fail 22)
Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio, 236 Cal.App.4th 1175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (the appellate court does not develop arguments for the parties 23)
Berglund v. Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center of San Diego, L.P., 44 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2008) (arbitration awards are generally immune from judicial review 24)
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (courts generally may not review the merits or evidentiary sufficiency of an arbitration award 25)
Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC, 134 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are ordinarily forfeited 26)
F.P. v. Monier, 3 Cal.5th 1099 (Cal. 2017) (reversal requires prejudicial, not merely technical, trial-court error 27)