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

1,599 chars

18
insurance at the relevant times, or that it was in generally good
financial standing as a partnership.”].)
       Having determined there was no evidence, much less
substantial evidence, to support an implied finding of
collectibility, we consider the disposition of the professional
negligence claim. 3 Stonecroft requests reversal with directions
for the trial court to enter judgment in its favor on this cause of
action. Kaushansky urges us to remand for a limited retrial on
collectibility.
       Kaushansky’s authorities do not support remand under the
circumstances presented because they do not address the proper
resolution of an appeal where the court found no substantial
evidence supported the judgment. (See Carmel Development Co.,
Inc. v. Anderson (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 492, 521 [trial court error
required recalculation of damages]; Corenbaum v. Lampkin
(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1333-1334 [retrial required as a
result of new California Supreme Court authority].)
       McCoy, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at pages 1660 to 1661
persuasively addressed whether a plaintiff is entitled to a new
trial following a reversal for insufficiency of the evidence on
appeal. McCoy observed the general rule is that an unqualified
reversal remands the case for new trial, but held that the general
rule did not apply where the reversal was solely for insufficient
evidence. It explained, reversal for a new trial “is
understandable in the ordinary case of prejudicial error.
[Citation.] In such a situation an error of law has occurred
during the proceedings which prevented the appellant from

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text