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

1,392 chars

20
of judgment notwithstanding the verdict where no evidence of
collectibility introduced].)
       McCoy has been cited with approval by the California
Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. In Cassista v.
Community Foods, Inc. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1050, 1066, the high
court, citing McCoy, held that the plaintiff “[h]aving . . . received
a full and fair opportunity to prove her case, . . . is not entitled to
a new trial.” (Cassista, at p. 1066; see Farmers & Merchants
Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638, 650 [plaintiff not
entitled to a new trial where it had a “full and fair opportunity to
make the requisite [damages] showing and failed to do so”];
Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc. (2018)
29 Cal.App.5th 1, 15-16 [“The [plaintiff] had a full and fair
opportunity to present its evidence, but that evidence was
insufficient to prove the [plaintiff] incurred damages. As a result,
we reverse the judgment with directions to enter judgment in
favor of [defendant].”]; Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco
Electronics Corp. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 116, 153 [“If the
plaintiff had a ‘full and fair opportunity’ to present the
supporting evidence, and the evidence was insufficient as a
matter of law to support a damages award, a reviewing court may
strike the award without ordering a retrial.”]; Frank v. County of
Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 805, 834.)

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text