Howard v. Gurevich CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 26, 2024 No. B330490Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate any statutory grounds under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 for vacating the award.

Issues

Whether the AAA violated its rules by removing the initial arbitrator without considering the appellants' objections.
Whether the successor arbitrator exceeded his powers or improperly excluded material evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the alleged errors they cite are neither supported by the record nor cognizable grounds for overturning an arbitration award, we affirm.”

“We agree with the trial court that none of these grounds for vacating the arbitration award exist here.”

“An arbitrator does not exceed his or her powers by making an “error[] of fact or law,” and thus does not exceed his or her powers by making an erroneous evidentiary ruling.”

Filed 7/26/24 Howard v. Gurevich CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

GEROLYN HOWARD, B330490 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 22STCP03304) YELENA GUREVICH et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gail Killefer, Judge. Affirmed. Yelena Gurevich, in pro. per., and Lauren Rode, in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants. Law Offices of Soheila Azizi, Soheila Azizi and Joshua Edmondson for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________________

An arbitrator found a law firm and two attorneys had committed legal malpractice in representing a homeowner in a suit against her mortgage lender for breach of a loan modification agreement. The arbitrator awarded the homeowner $771,780. The trial court confirmed the arbitrator’s award. The two attorneys appealed. Because the alleged errors they cite are neither supported by the record nor cognizable grounds for overturning an arbitration award, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts Howard was prompted by financial problems to have Veritas Law Group assist her in obtaining a loan modification of her mortgage payment to lender Seterus, Inc. Believing her loan modification had been successful, Howard began making reduced monthly payments to the lender. Months later, a Seterus, Inc. representative notified Howard that if certain documents were not received, a foreclosure sale would proceed. Howard retained Consumer Action Law Group (CALG), a consumer litigation firm. On June 19, 2015, on behalf of Howard, CALG sued Seterus, Inc. for breaching a modification agreement and proceeding with a foreclosure sale. Attorneys Lauren Rode and Yelena Gurevich (appellants) handled Howard’s case. On June 26, 2015, CALG received a letter from Seterus, Inc., stating the loan modification could proceed and the foreclosure sale would be cancelled if Howard signed and returned the enclosed documents. Howard was never made aware of the documents; she never signed and returned them to the lender. Howard’s house was sold in foreclosure. Howard did not discover the Seterus, Inc. letter until after appellants and CALG had terminated their attorney-client relationship with her.

Howard v. Gurevich CA2/2

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.

AI Brief