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

1,435 chars

11
that Stonecroft ignored. One, Stonecroft failed to mention
Kaushansky’s testimony that the landlord received $11,000,000
in cash from selling the apartment building that was the subject
of the underlying landlord-tenant dispute. Two, Stonecroft
omitted the fact that the landlord “had insurance and was
litigating the matter aggressively (i.e. that they had not simply
defaulted) with counsel and ultimately paid Respondent a
settlement.” We discuss in the next section why this “evidence”
does not amount to evidence, substantial or otherwise, sufficient
to support an implied finding of collectibility. As a result,
Kaushansky has not shown Stonecroft ignored evidence favorable
to her that would support an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling.
       Kaushansky also argues the trial court’s decision should be
affirmed because Stonecroft failed to present an adequate record
for meaningful review. (See Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th
594, 609.) But Kaushansky does not identify any portion of the
record material to her case missing from the appellate record.
The record before us is not so deficient that we cannot review the
basis of the trial court’s decision. (See e.g., Jameson, at p. 609
[no reporter’s transcript]; Osgood v. Landon (2005)
127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435 [same]; Hernandez v. California
Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 [no
underlying briefs or order from which appellant appealed].)

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text