Espinoza v. Chuang CA3

Filed 3/12/26 Espinoza v. Chuang CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

JOSE ESPINOZA, C101833

Plaintiff, Cross-complainant, (Super. Ct. No. CV-2021- and Appellant, 0958)

v.

RONALD CHUANG et al.,

Defendants, Cross-defendants, and Respondents.

Jose Espinoza appeals from the trial court’s order granting Ronald Chuang and Linda Chuang’s (the Chuangs) motion for attorney fees following their successful anti- SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to strike Espinoza’s cross- complaint. Espinoza contends: (1) the trial court erred in granting the anti-SLAPP motion and (2) the attorney fees award was unreasonable because the hours reported by the Chuangs’s counsel included undisclosed, nonrecoverable hours the Chuangs’s daughter (daughter) spent drafting the anti-SLAPP motion.

1

The Chuangs filed a motion for sanctions on the grounds that Espinoza’s appeal is meritless and misrepresents the record and our prior opinion in this case. We have no jurisdiction to consider Espinoza’s first contention because the anti- SLAPP motion was not identified in the notice of appeal. We reject his second contention because the record does not show daughter spent time on the anti-SLAPP motion. We deny the Chuangs’s motion for sanctions. The order awarding attorney fees is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2021, Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. (Bail Bonds) sued the Chuangs and their son for breach of contract. The Chuangs filed a cross-complaint in pro per against Bail Bonds and Espinoza for financial elder abuse, alleging that Bail Bonds was not incorporated in California at the time the contract at issue was signed. In 2023, Espinoza filed a cross-complaint against the Chuangs and their son, claiming that he, not Bail Bonds, signed the contract at issue. On January 30, 2024, the Chuangs filed an anti-SLAPP motion, signed by counsel Aaron Morris, to strike Espinoza’s cross-complaint. On February 27, 2024, the trial court issued an order granting the anti-SLAPP motion. On April 5, 2024, it denied Espinoza’s motion to reopen and reconsider that order. On April 26, 2024, the Chuangs served a “notice of ruling re motion for reconsideration” on Espinoza and Bail Bonds. On the same day, the Chuangs moved to recover $24,826.64 in attorney fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), consisting of $20,344.50 in fees for work on the anti-SLAPP motion, $4,207.50 in fees for work on the attorney fees motion, and $274.64 in costs. Morris declared he spent a total of 41.1 hours on the anti-SLAPP motion, including 18.2 hours preparing the anti-SLAPP motion, 6.7 hours on the reply, 7.3 hours opposing the motion for reconsideration, and 8.9 hours on related activities such as communicating with clients, reviewing tentative rulings, preparing for and attending oral argument, and