In NNN Capital Fund I, LLC v. Mikles, Case No. G064487, 2026 WL 1029889 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Div. 3, Apr. 16, 2026), a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (Sanchez, J.), vacated a $21 million judgment confirming an arbitral award on the ground that the legal standing of the parties who initiated the underlying action and pursued the arbitration remained an unresolved factual question, one the Court held was a jurisdictional question that could be raised for the first time on appeal notwithstanding California’s strong policy limiting judicial review of arbitration awards. As the dissent noted, the majority’s holding creates a loophole through which just about any arbitral award could be successfully challenged.
NNN Capital Fund I, LLC (“Cap Fund”) was a Delaware limited liability company formed to provide short-term financing to real estate borrowers. Following a dispute over Cap Fund’s management and liquidation, two of its members (and later, following one member’s death, his widow) purported to act as Cap Fund’s “liquidating trustees” and initiated derivative litigation and arbitration against the company’s former managers and affiliates for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Throughout the arbitration proceedings, defendants challenged the standing of those members to pursue the derivative claims, arguing they were never properly elected under the terms of Cap Fund’s operating agreement and that no court ever appointed them as liquidating trustees. The arbitrator rejected those challenges and issued a final award exceeding $20.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees. The California Superior Court, Orange County, confirmed the award. Defendants did not oppose the petition to confirm and did not file a petition to vacate.
On appeal, defendants argued for the first time that the Superior Court and arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the purported liquidating trustees lacked standing to sue on Cap Fund’s behalf. A majority of the three-justice panel of the Court of Appeal agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding with directions for the Superior Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on standing. The majority relied upon the settled California rule that legal standing is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, including on appeal, along with the principle that claims for injury to a corporation belong to the corporation, not its stockholders, who have no direct standing to sue (citing Jones v. H.F. Ahmanson & Co., 1 Cal.3d 93 (1969)). The Court held expressly that these principles override the equally settled rule established in Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992), that arbitral awards are subject to only the most limited judicial review and may not be disturbed for errors of law or fact. Under the majority’s reasoning, the simple existence of a disputed factual question about standing is enough to unwind a confirmed arbitral award.
Judge Bancroft dissented. The dissent reasoned that standing was not raised for the first time on appeal, but rather was raised, litigated and decided by the arbitrator, who expressly found that the two members pursuing the claims had standing. Under Moncharsh, that determination is not subject to judicial second-guessing. The dissent further noted that it was the defendants themselves who moved to compel arbitration, never raised standing in their demurrers, failed to oppose confirmation and failed to petition to vacate before seeking to use a bare standing allegation to unwind a final award on appeal. As Judge Bancroft explained, “The majority’s opinion would vacate a judgment after a final, binding arbitration award based on the aggrieved party’s contention that the other party did not have standing. The practical result of the majority’s decision will be to require the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s standing in every case before ordering the matter to arbitration on the defendant’s request. This is neither practical nor legally required.” She added, “The trial court did not err in confirming the arbitration award and entering judgment thereon. It had no obligation to sua sponte consider standing, much less conduct an evidentiary hearing on that issue.”
This case represents a meaningful crack in the wall of arbitration finality. The majority’s holding treats a disputed standing issue as a jurisdictional defect that may be raised for the first time on appeal to overturn a confirmed arbitration award. In doing so, it prioritizes one rule of California procedure over another and creates significant uncertainty for parties who believed the arbitration award was final. This is particularly significant for companies that include mandatory arbitration clauses in their organizational documents and face governance disputes over who has authority to act on the entity’s behalf. Under this decision, as long as a disputed factual question about standing can be articulated, a losing party may argue the arbitrator never had jurisdiction, regardless of whether the issue was raised and rejected in the arbitration itself, and regardless of whether the challenging party invoked the arbitral process in the first place.