Neagu v. Kron CA4/3

Filed 3/5/26 Neagu v. Kron 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CARMEN LUMINITA NEAGU, Cross-complainant and G065459 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2024- v. 01391937) SCOTT ARON THOMPSON KRON OPINION et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Recio, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Ford & Diulio and Kristopher P. Diulio for Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Stephen Abraham and Stephen E. Abraham for Cross-defendants and Respondents.

Carmen Luminita Neagu appeals from an attorney fee order imposed after the trial court dismissed her cross-complaint as a SLAPP suit.

We recently reversed the underlying order granting the anti-SLAPP motion. (Neagu v. Kron et al. (Oct. 20, 2025, G064978) [nonpub. opn.].)

Our reversal means the cross-defendants have not prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) They are no longer entitled to recover attorney fees and costs. (See Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 82, 107 [attorney fee award “‘falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based’”].)

The order is reversed. Neagu shall recover her costs on appeal.

SCOTT, J.

WE CONCUR:

DELANEY, ACTING P. J.

BANCROFT, J.* *Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

As Neagu prevails on appeal as a matter of law, we deny the cross-defendants’ request to find this appeal frivolous.