Qiao

Qiao v. Chang CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 2026E085692California690 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following a court trial on Plaintiff’s action, judgment was entered on February 23,

2024, in favor of Respondents, and they moved for costs and attorney fees. (Qiao v.

Chang, et al. E083864) On July 12, 2024, Judge Lydia Villarreal awarded $45,353.01 in

costs to Respondents. On August 21, 2024, Judge Carol A. Greene entered a minute

order awarding $552,940 in attorney fees to Respondents; notice of entry of the costs and

fees award orders was served on August 23, 2024. Subsequently, Judge Greene vacated

the award of attorney fees and placed the matter back on calendar. Following a new

hearing, Judge John Molloy awarded Respondents $552,940 in attorney fees. Plaintiff

appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

“‘“‘On review of an award of attorney fees . . . the normal standard of review is

abuse of discretion. However, de novo review of such a trial court order is warranted

2 where the determination of whether the criteria for an award of attorney fees . . . have

been satisfied amounts to statutory construction and a question of law.’” [Citations.]’

[Citation.]” (Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1043,

1056.)

“A…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.