Reason Was That The Grant Of Fees/Costs Was Summarily Made, Not Meeting Specificity Requirements Under CCP § 128.5.
Although we have not looked at the underlying papers in this matter, we can say that Lichtenstein v. Stalley, Case No. B347325 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 19, 2026) (unpublished) reminds that a plaintiff defeating a SLAPP motion—if they want fees—needs to make sure the trial court issues a sufficient order to justify sanctions under CCP § 128.5. Tenants did not win their SLAPP motion, with the lower court awarding $1,850 to Landlord in fees and costs based on the theory the SLAPP motion was frivolous. However, although the merits ruling was affirmed, the fee award was reversed because the lower court’s order was summary in nature and did not specify the conduct or tactics showing the SLAPP motion was frivolous under section 128.5.