Naeini v. TD Ameritrade Clearing CA2/5

Filed 1/13/26 Naeini v. TD Ameritrade Clearing CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

AVA NAEINI, B343830

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 24SMCP00143)

TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Jay Ford III, Judge. Affirmed. Ava Naeini, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Keesal, Young & Logan, Christopher A. Stecher and Adriana F. Erquiaga, for Defendants and Respondents. ——————————

Plaintiff and appellant Ava Naeini appeals a trial court judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendants and respondents TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. and TD Ameritrade Inc. (collectively, Ameritrade). As discussed below, Naeini has forfeited her appellate contentions by filing a brief without any citations to the record and with minimal legal argument. Even absent forfeiture, Naeini has not provided sufficient evidence to require vacating the arbitration award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivisions (a)(3) or (a)(5).1 Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

In October 2022, Naeini’s then counsel filed a statement of claim on her behalf with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) seeking damages from Ameritrade based on claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with stock trades Naeini executed through Ameritrade in 2021. In essence, Naeini claimed that the default settings of