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

1,785 chars

10
supra, 162 Cal. at pp. 72-73; Mundy, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1407.) Kaushansky’s arguments to the contrary are
unpersuasive.
       First, Kaushansky argues Stonecroft may not assert new
theories of nonliability on appeal. But the cases on which she
relies—Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (2018)
27 Cal.App.5th 565, 569, and Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc.
(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 874—underscore the limits to this
rule. Findleton explained, generally “[t]he rule applies to
defenses as well as theories of liability, and to a ‘new theory for or
against recovery’ of attorney fees.” (Findleton, at p. 569.) In
Findleton, the court determined the defendant failed to argue
that the scope and effect of attorney fees clauses in contracts
between the parties limited the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery.
(See ibid.) Likewise, Richmond held that a party may not assert
on appeal a new theory of recovery that was not presented to the
trial court. (See Richmond, at p. 874.) But Stonecroft does not
assert a new defense, new theory of liability, or new theory for
recovery of damages or attorney fees. Neither Findleton nor
Richmond supports the argument that Stonecroft may not
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time on
appeal.
       Second, Kaushansky contends Stonecroft’s challenges to
the sufficiency of the evidence are forfeited because it ignored
evidence favorable to her in its opening brief. (Doe v. Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
209, 218 [“A party who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a finding must set forth, discuss, and analyze all the
evidence on that point, both favorable and unfavorable.”].)
Kaushansky points to two pieces of “evidence” in the trial record

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text