Vikki Vang vs. Uniqua Sharma

34-2022-00319846-CU-PO-GDS: Vikki Vang vs. Uniqua Sharma 04/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICES: The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 will move to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Defendants John Miller, Jr. and Miller Injury Attorneys’ (collectively “Miller”) motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

On February 17, 2026, this Court granted Miller’s anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety. Miller now seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,390.00 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1) as the prevailing defendants on an anti-SLAPP motion. Judgment in Miller’s favor was entered on March 9, 2026.

Cross-Complainants Uniqua Sharma and Raj Sharma (“Sharmas”) oppose the motion.

In their opposition, the Sharmas indicate they intend to file a notice of appeal of the Court’s February 17, 2026 ruling on Miller’s anti-SLAPP. The pendency of an appeal ordinarily operates to divest a trial court of jurisdiction to act. Nevertheless, the Court retains jurisdiction to

34-2022-00319846-CU-PO-GDS: Vikki Vang vs. Uniqua Sharma 04/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 54

adjudicate a motion for attorneys’ fees. (Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 461 [appeal does not divest court of jurisdiction to address fees and costs, which is a collateral matter not affected by the order from which an appeal is taken].) The trial court retains jurisdiction to proceed on matters embraced in the action and not affected by the appealed judgment, which includes an award of attorneys’ fees as costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a); Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 368 [jurisdiction to award Civ. Code, § 1717 attorney fees as costs]; Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 360 [jurisdiction to rule on motion for statutory attorney fees as costs].)

Miller’s motion is denied because attorney’s fees are not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c). The fees were incurred by an attorney who is representing himself a defendant in the action and the defendant law firm that employs him. (Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1207–1211 [prevailing defendant law firm’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 425.16, subdivision (c) denied where firm was represented by members of the firm]; Taheri Law Group v. Evans (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 493 [denying fees to prevailing defendant attorney who represented himself].)

Although initially engaged as counsel for Plaintiffs, Miller withdrew from the representation on May 23, 2024. The Sharmas subsequently filed a FACC that alleged causes of action directly against Miller, both the individual and the firm. Miller filed the motion on his own behalf and on behalf of his firm. Self-represented attorneys who successfully move for dismissal of an action under the anti-SLAPP statute may not recover fees for their time, including those incurred in the representation of their firm. (Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 253 [citing Witte, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1208.)

Accordingly, Miller’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319846-CU-PO-GDS: Vikki Vang vs. Uniqua Sharma 04/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 54

argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.