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

1,803 chars

4
C.     The Statement of Decision
       The court issued a tentative statement of decision in favor
of Kaushansky, finding she was entitled to recover $91,734.29
($94,234.29 minus the $2,500 settlement) in damages on the
professional negligence claim and $25,000 on the breach of
fiduciary duty claim for a total damages award of $116,734.29.
Stonecroft filed extensive objections to the proposed statement of
decision, arguing the trial court in the underlying landlord-
tenant case continued the trial date and thus Kaushansky had an
additional five months to amend her complaint, conduct
discovery, and hire new counsel. Under these circumstances,
Stonecroft argued its failures were “not fatal” to Kaushansky’s
case and that the trial court failed to resolve how the breaches of
duty caused any damages.
       Stonecroft further challenged the merits of Kaushansky’s
case against her landlord, arguing Kaushansky did not prove she
would have received a better award or settlement. According to
Stonecroft, Kaushansky settled her case for $2,500, and it was
speculative to assume she would have received more. Stonecroft
also contended the court failed to apply the proper legal
standards in reaching its decision, improperly assumed
Stonecroft could not have withdrawn without a substitution of
attorney, erred in concluding Stonecroft should have pleaded
statutory claims against the landlord, and erred in concluding
Stonecroft should have provided unverified responses to the
discovery requests. It also argued Kaushansky’s attorney fee
recovery was capped at $500 pursuant to the terms of her lease.
       After considering the parties’ objections, the court issued a
final statement of decision on September 10, 2021, reaching
substantially the same conclusions. The court found Stonecroft

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text