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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

YELENA GUREVICH et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 B330490

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 22STCP03304)

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.

__________________________________________
2

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.
3

II. Procedural History

A. Demand for Arbitration

In her signed retainer agreement with CALG, Howard 

agreed to binding arbitration under the rules of the American 

Arbitration Association (AAA) of any disputes that could not be 

resolved within a reasonable time.

Howard filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA,

alleging CALG and appellants committed legal malpractice and 

breached their fiduciary duty in representing Howard against 

Seterus, Inc. In response, CALG and appellants filed a 

counterclaim with the AAA for unpaid legal fees.

The AAA appointed Anita Rae Shapiro to preside over the 

arbitration. Arbitrator Shapiro held a preliminary management 

hearing. Howard and appellants were represented by counsel. 

Following discovery, the arbitration hearing was conducted for 

two days. Experts for both sides and Howard testified. The 

hearing was recessed until Monday, November 8, 2021.

B. Howard’s Request for the Arbitrator’s Removal

Before the hearing resumed on November 8, 2021, the AAA 

e-mailed the parties that Howard had requested the replacement 

of her counsel and the removal of Arbitrator Shapiro. The AAA’s 

e-mail included a copy of Howard’s request. In a November 8, 

2021 letter, the AAA also informed the parties that: (1) Shapiro 

would “not be copied on any correspondence related to the 

disclosure or the arbitrator’s continued service”; and (2) “At this 

time, we request comments from [CALG and appellants] 

regarding the above-referenced communication [Howard’s 

request]. Comments are to be received by the [AAA] on or before 

November 15, 2021. Absent a response to the contrary, we will 

presume your agreement with [Howard’s] position.”
4

At the November 8, 2021 hearing, CALG and appellants 

objected to Howard’s request as prejudicial. Ultimately, 

Howard’s current attorney withdrew as counsel of record, and 

Arbitrator Shapiro ordered Howard to represent herself and 

continued the hearing to December 7, 2021, to allow Howard to 

retain new counsel. Shapiro also denied Howard’s request for 

removal and advised the parties and the AAA that she would not 

stop serving as arbitrator.

Appellants and CALG failed to respond to the AAA’s 

request by the November 15, 2021 deadline. In a November 18, 

2021 letter, the AAA advised the parties that “inasmuch as 

[Howard’s] objection was unopposed,” Arbitrator Shapiro was 

removed as arbitrator in the matter. The AAA also indicated it 

intended to appoint a new arbitrator.

Appellants and CALG repeatedly wrote to the AAA on 

November 18, 2021 and thereafter, urging that Arbitrator 

Shapiro be reinstated. The AAA declined, and explained that by 

removing Shapiro, it was properly adhering to the AAA’s rules 

and procedures for consumer arbitrations.

On December 10, 2021, appellants and CALG filed a motion 

with the AAA to enforce Arbitrator Shapiro’s November 8, 2021 

order. They argued Shapiro should continue to serve as 

arbitrator and a third day of arbitration should be scheduled. 

The AAA responded that it “does not have the authority to rule 

on any motions.”

C. Appointment of a New Arbitrator and the

Arbitration Hearing

The AAA appointed George J. Kovacevich to serve as the 

new arbitrator without objection. The arbitration hearing lasted 

two days. Arbitrator Kovacevich considered the pleadings, briefs,
5

and evidence presented and issued a written ruling. Kovacevich 

found appellants liable and CALG vicariously liable for legal 

malpractice. In reaching this conclusion, Kovacevich found 

Howard’s witnesses were more credible than appellants’ and 

CALG’s witnesses on the “core issue” of the circumstances 

surrounding the letter from Seterus, Inc. Arbitrator Kovacevich 

found CALG and appellants jointly and severally liable to 

Howard and awarded her $771,780 in damages, including 

emotional distress damages and attorney fees. Kovacevich

denied the counterclaim for legal fees.

D. Post-arbitration Proceedings in Superior Court

Howard filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award. 

Appellants filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award.

The trial court simultaneously denied appellants’ petition 

to vacate and granted Howard’s petition to enforce the 

arbitration award, including the award for emotional distress 

damages, which was separately challenged. The court 

acknowledged the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award 

was limited by Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2. The court 

ruled there were no statutorily authorized grounds for vacating 

the award and the arbitrator’s findings supported the award of 

emotional distress damages.

The trial court granted appellants’ motion to stay 

enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. Appellants timely 

filed a notice of appeal.1

DISCUSSION

Appellants argue the trial court erred in denying their

motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award because (1) the AAA 

1 CALG is not a party to this appeal.
6

exceeded its powers and violated its own rules by failing to give 

appellants the opportunity to be heard before removing 

Arbitrator Shapiro; (2) appellants were prejudiced by Arbitrator 

Kovacevic’s refusal to allow them to present material evidence at 

the shortened arbitration hearing; and (3) the award must be 

vacated because appellants’ motion to enforce Arbitrator 

Shapiro’s November 8, 2021 order is still pending. We 

independently review a trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate 

(Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 909, 918, fn. 1) and 

conclude the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to 

vacate was correct for four independent reasons.

First, the California Arbitration Act (Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 1280 et seq.) carefully delineates the grounds on which an 

arbitrator’s award may be vacated. Appellants’ do not dispute 

that an arbitration award may be judicially vacated under Code 

of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a) only if it was 

procured by (1) corruption, fraud, or other undue means; 

(2) corruption on the part of an arbitrator; (3) prejudicial 

misconduct of a neutral arbitrator; (4) action by the arbitrator in 

excess of his or her power; (5) prejudicial refusal to postpone the 

hearing or to hear material evidence; (6) prejudicial conduct 

contrary to the California Arbitration Act on the part of the 

arbitrator; or (7) failure of the arbitrator to disqualify himself or 

herself when required to do so. (See Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 

supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 916.) We agree with the trial court that 

none of these grounds for vacating the arbitration award exist 

here.

Second, contrary to their claim, the AAA did not violate 

AAA Consumer Arbitration rule R-19 by failing to allow 
7

appellants to be heard prior to removing Arbitrator Shapiro.2 

Rule R-19 provides: “(a) Any arbitrator shall be impartial and 

independent and shall perform his or her duties carefully and in 

good faith. The AAA may disqualify an arbitrator who shows [¶]

(1) partiality or lack of independence; [¶] (2) inability or refusal to 

perform his or her duties with diligence and in good faith; or [¶]

(3) any grounds for disqualification provided by applicable law. 

[¶] (b) If a party objects to the continued service of an arbitrator, 

or if the AAA should so decide to raise the issue of whether the 

arbitrator should continue on the case, the AAA will decide if the 

arbitrator should be disqualified. After gathering the opinions of 

the parties, the AAA will decide and that decision shall be final 

and conclusive.”

The record shows the AAA solicited appellants to make 

their objections known concerning Howard’s request. But 

appellants did not respond by the deadline. Having forfeited any 

objections by their own failure to act, appellants cannot now fault 

2 Appellants also rely on AAA Consumer Arbitration rules 

R-14 and R-23. Neither rule applies. Rule R-14 states: “(a) The 

arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own 

jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the 

existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the 

arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) A party 

must object to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator or to the 

arbitrability of a claim or counterclaim no later than the filing of 

the answering statement to the claim or counterclaim that gives 

rise to the objection. The arbitrator may rule on such objections 

as a preliminary matter or as part of the final award.” Rule R-23 

gives the arbitrator the power to enforce the fair exchange of 

information between the parties and to ensure orderly and 

efficient proceedings.
8

the AAA. While the AAA complied with rule R-19, appellants 

ignored it.

Third, to the extent appellants are contending Arbitrator 

Kovacevich “exceed[ed] [his] powers” or “refus[ed] . . . to hear

evidence material to the controversy” by improperly excluding

appellants’ evidence (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(4)–(5)),

without a reporter’s transcript, any such evidentiary ruling 

cannot be shown. Notably, appellants do not state what 

“material facts” appellants were prevented from presenting or 

how they were prejudiced as a result. In particular, as the 

arbitrator explained, his decision turned largely on the credibility 

of testimony concerning the delayed discovery of the Seterus, Inc. 

letter. Appellants do not indicate what excluded evidence could 

have bolstered their witnesses’ credibility. In any event, 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. (Moncharsh v. Heily 

& Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 6, 11; see Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, 

Meyer & Susman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1110 [incorrect 

evidentiary rulings do not exceed an arbitrator’s powers].)

Finally, appellants contend their December 10, 2021 

motion is still pending before the AAA, which advised it lacked 

the authority to rule on motions. In light of the decisions of 

Arbitrator Kovacevich and the trial court, that motion is long 

since moot.
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Howard is entitled to recover 

her costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.