DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text

468 chars 
21
in civil malpractice cases absent intentional conduct. 4 Stonecroft
contends the evidence shows, and the trial court found, that
Kaushansky’s emotional distress resulted from Stonecroft’s
negligent, rather than “intentional, reckless, grossly negligent or
repeated,” conduct. According to Stonecroft, mere negligence
cannot support emotional distress damages even when they are
awarded in connection with a breach of fiduciary claim, and not
one for malpractice. 5