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

1,537 chars

5
committed professional negligence by failing to plead all
applicable causes of action, failing to propound discovery, and
failing to provide verified discovery responses or coordinate
Kaushansky’s availability for deposition. It also found Stonecroft
breached its fiduciary duties to Kaushansky by failing to “take[]
steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice” to Kaushansky
before withdrawing in violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, rule 1.16(d).
       The trial court found in favor of Stonecroft on the Business
and Professions Code section 17200 claim, holding that
Kaushansky failed to demonstrate she was entitled to any
remedy—injunctive or declaratory relief—available under that
statute. It also declined to impose punitive damages on
Stonecroft, finding Kaushansky failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Stonecroft acted with malice,
oppression, or fraud. The court also found Kaushansky failed to
prove the landlord’s financial position for purposes of punitive
damages.
       As to the professional negligence cause of action, the court
relied on Kaushansky’s expert, who testified that Stonecroft’s
representation of Kaushansky fell below the standard of care of a
reasonably competent litigator. First, Stonecroft failed to plead
statutory violations under Civil Code sections 789.3 and 1942.4.
According to Kausahansky’s expert, these statutes allowed for
recovery of general or special damages, civil penalties, attorney
fees, and punitive damages. 1 The court concluded the failure to

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text