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

1,583 chars

15
Collectibility is a fact-intensive inquiry, which “‘“looks to the
actual circumstances to determine whether the judgment ‘would
have been collectable.’” [Citation.] It is not enough for a plaintiff
to present speculation or assumptions about an underlying
defendant’s ability to respond in damages, as opposed to proof of
same.’” (Wise, at p. 1191.) On the other hand, absolute certainty
is not required. (See ibid.) “Admissible evidence on collectibility
can include information about the basic solvency of the defendant
in the underlying case, as shown by its assets, net worth or
available proceeds from investments.” (Hecht, supra,
137 Cal.App.4th at p. 591.)
       When the plaintiff does not introduce evidence from which
a trier of fact could conclude, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
the judgment would have been collectible, a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff must be reversed. (See McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991)
227 Cal.App.3d 1657, 1660-1661 (McCoy); see also Garretson,
supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 571-575 [affirming grant of
judgment notwithstanding the verdict where no evidence of
collectibility introduced]; Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Gardner (1992)
9 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1220 [“The plaintiff was not suffering under
any improper court-imposed limitations on its ability to introduce
evidence, nor was its litigation theory erroneously based. We
may consequently assume it marshalled the best case it could at
trial. Under these circumstances, it is proper for us to direct that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendant to avoid any
additional expense.”].)

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text