Szeto

DISCUSSION

If a trial court finds an anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court “shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees . . . pursuant to Section 128.5” to the plaintiff or cross-complainant who defeats the motion. (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) “‘Frivolous in this context means that any reasonable attorney would agree the motion was totally devoid of merit.’” (L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. The Independent Taxi Owners Assn. of Los Angeles (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 918, 932.) We review an award of attorney fees under sections 425.16 and 128.5 for abuse of discretion, but we review questions of law de novo. (City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures-Rocklin, LLC (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 713, 727.)

3 Szeto challenges the trial court’s fee order on several grounds. The first three are meritless. First, the trial court properly heard the fee motion despite the pending appeal. An anti-SLAPP appeal does “not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to consider [a] motion for attorney fees and costs.” (Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 461.) Second, the trial court had discretion to impose attorney fees against…