Fu v. Action Property Management CA4/3

Filed 2/17/26 Fu v. Action Property Management 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JIAN FU et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G064996

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01207341)

ACTION PROPERTY OPINION MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre De La Cruz, Judge. Reversed. Lubin Pham + Caplin, Namson Pham and JC Chimoures for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Feldsot, Lee & Nichter and Austin Nichter for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Following a judgment entered in their favor, Action Property Management, Inc. (APM) filed a motion for attorney fees. Jian Fu and Xiaodan Qu, in a separate appeal, appealed the underlying judgment. While that appeal was pending, the trial court granted APM’s motion for attorney fees and awarded fees in the amount of $41,997.50. Fu and Qu filed this appeal from that award. We have since reversed the underlying judgment. As such, we also reverse the trial court’s award of attorney fees in favor of APM. DISCUSSION Fu and Qu filed a negligence action against APM, the facts of which are not relevant to this appeal. APM filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted on April 12, 2024. Fu and Qu appealed that judgment. While that appeal was pending, APM filed a motion for attorney fees, which the trial court granted on November 25, 2024. This appeal challenges that award. However, on September 12, 2025, we reversed the underlying judgment with directions to permit Fu and Qu to file an amended complaint. (Fu v. Action Property Management, Inc. (Sept. 12, 2025, G064126) [nonpub. opn.].) “An order awarding attorney fees “‘falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based.”’” (Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 334, 358.) Because we reversed the underlying judgment, the associated award for attorney fees must, also, be reversed.