Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,267 chars

2
      Kaushansky provided to Stonecroft her contemporaneous
notes, photographs, and documents of the problems. She was told
her case was worth $140,000. She understood this was not a
guarantee of recovery but merely an estimate. Kaushansky
signed a retainer agreement with Stonecroft on March 26, 2014.
      Stonecroft filed a complaint against the landlord on
Kaushansky’s behalf on July 24, 2014, asserting causes of action
for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and negligent
maintenance of the premises. From July 2014 to September
2015, Stonecroft did almost nothing to advance Kaushansky’s
case. It failed to propound or respond to discovery. It did not
appear for scheduled hearings. It failed to coordinate dates for
Kaushansky’s deposition with opposing counsel despite
Kaushansky’s stated willingness to attend. Stonecroft also
stipulated to strike claims for punitive damages and attorney fees
from the complaint without advising Kaushansky.
      On September 4, 2015, less than two weeks before the
discovery cut-off date and six weeks before trial was scheduled to
begin, Stonecroft persuaded Kaushansky to sign a substitution of
attorney form. Unable to retain other counsel, Kaushansky
settled the case against her landlord for $2,500.

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text