Szeto v. Chen CA4/3

Filed 7/2/25 Szeto v. Chen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GENE SZETO,

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and G064497 Appellant; (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019- SHUN C. CHEN, 01087212)

Objector and Appellant, OPINION

v.

SUNG YI,

Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Law Offices of Shun C. Chen and Shun C. Chen for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant Gene Szeto and for Objector and Appellant Shun C. Chen. No appearance for Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Respondent Sung Yi.

Plaintiff Gene Szeto filed an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant Sung Yi’s cross-complaint for declaratory relief. The trial court found the motion was frivolous and awarded Yi $24,880 in attorney fees. (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 425.16, subd. (c).) Szeto appeals from that fee award. We reject the majority of Szeto’s challenges to the trial court’s fee order. Because the order failed to recite the conduct justifying the fee award, however, we reverse and remand so that the court may either specify the reasons for the award or deny sanctions. FACTS2 In 2019, Szeto obtained a judgment against Steve Yuk Woo in San Bernardino Superior Court. Unable to collect from Woo, Szeto filed this lawsuit against Woo, Yi, and others in attempt to set aside certain property transfers from Woo to Yi and from Yi to others. Yi filed a cross-complaint against Szeto, asserting a single cause of action for declaratory relief. Citing the parties’ disagreement about who must pay Szeto’s judgment against Woo in the San Bernardino case, Yi sought a declaration that he has no obligations to Szeto arising from the disputed property transfers. Szeto moved to strike Yi’s cross-complaint, asserting it arose from protected activity (Szeto’s filing of the first amended complaint) and has no merit. The trial court denied the motion, finding the challenged claim for declaratory relief was not based on Szeto’s filing of the first amended