The Reason Was That The Lower Court’s Order Failed To Make Written Findings About The Sanctionable Conduct.
SLAPP litigants and their counsel can be liable for attorney’s fees if they lose a SLAPP motion which is deemed frivolous, based on CCP § 128.5. In Szeto v. Chen, Case No. G054497 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 2, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff/cross-defendant lost a SLAPP motion directed against a cross-complaint, with the lower court deeming the motion frivolous and awarding $24,880 (out of a requested $54,975) against cross-defendant and his counsel. The 4/3 DCA reversed and remanded because the lower court’s order did not set forth in writing the sanctionable conduct underlying the award, as required under section 128.5. So, that had to be specified on remand or the sanctions request had to be denied. However, the appellate panel—in a 3-0 opinion penned by Justice Scott—did reject these arguments: (1) an appeal of the SLAPP motion itself did not stay matters such that the lower court could entertain the fee motion; (2) the sanctions were properly assessed against the losing litigant and its counsel; and (3) the lower court did not award an unreasonable amount of fees because it did over a 50% reduction by finding the requested fees were excessive (especially because there was no delegation of work to less expensive associates).