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
Other Sections in This Document (56)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Full Text
1,674 chars7
It attempted to get Kaushansky’s input on the discovery
responses for the first time the day before the extension expired.
While Stonecroft served unverified responses to the landlord
three days before they were due, there was no evidence
Kaushansky saw or approved those answers. Additionally,
Stonecroft failed to produce any documents to the landlord that
Kaushansky had provided to it at their initial meetings. The
court also concluded Stonecroft offered no dates for Kaushansky’s
deposition even though she attempted to contact him at least
10 times to discuss her availability.
Next, the court determined Stonecroft breached its
fiduciary duty to Kaushansky by violating rule 1.16(d) of the
California Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires a lawyer
to take steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the
rights of the client prior to withdrawing. The court found
“Akhidenor essentially browbeat Plaintiff into signing the
substitution of attorney form without informing her about the
litigation landscape,” which consisted of impending discovery cut-
off and trial dates, and discovery and sanctions motions. Despite
these issues, Stonecroft “took no steps at all to protect Plaintiff
from the reasonably foreseeable prejudice arising from
Defendants’ abrupt disappearance.”
The trial court then engaged in an extensive examination of
the nature and extent of damages caused by Stonecroft’s
misconduct but did not make any findings on the collectibility of
a hypothetical judgment against the landlord. Judgment was
entered against Stonecroft on October 6, 2021, and Stonecroft
timely appealed. 8
DISCUSSION