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

586 chars 
4     Stonecroft does not challenge the amount of emotional
distress damages awarded. Nor does it contend Kaushansky did
not prove she suffered emotional distress.
5     Kaushansky argues Stonecroft forfeited this argument
because it did not assert in the trial court that she could not
recover emotional distress damages under the breach of fiduciary
duty cause of action. Because Stonecroft’s argument raises a
question of law—whether a breach of fiduciary duty claim may
support emotional distress damages—there is no forfeiture. (See
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888-889.)