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

1,105 chars

6
plead these causes of action deprived Kaushansky of not only the
opportunity to seek additional monetary recovery but also
decreased the settlement value of her case.
       Second, the trial court found Stonecroft failed to conduct
any discovery in the underlying action. The court rejected
Akhidenor’s testimony that blamed Kaushansky’s need for
control of the litigation for the failure and his explanation that
his strategy was to wait until other discovery was completed to
propound discovery. The court determined, “The so-called
strategies amount to after-the-fact excuses for a failure to
undertake the most basic tasks performed by any reasonable
litigator.”
       Third, the court found Stonecroft failed to respond to
discovery propounded by the landlord. The court stated it was
“not inclined to accept [Akhidenor’s] testimony as accurate or
true,” finding the evidence did not corroborate Akhidenor’s
assertions that Kaushansky was uncooperative and unavailable.
The evidence instead showed Stonecroft received a six-week
extension to respond to the landlord’s written discovery requests.

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text