Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2025

Vuong v. Jacqueline Lopez-Flores and Saul Roberto Flores

Full caption

Phu K. Vuong and Mosaic Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Jacqueline Lopez-Flores and Saul Roberto Flores

Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Docket
3:24-cv-03510
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Phu K. Vuong v. Jacqueline Lopez-Flores, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied appellees’ attorney-fee motion for violating local-rule requirements.

Who this affects

Jacqueline Lopez-Flores and Saul Roberto Flores, whose motion for an award of attorney’s fees was denied.

What happened

Phu K. Vuong and Mosaic Real Estate Investment, LLC appealed against Jacqueline Lopez-Flores and Saul Roberto Flores. The appellees asked the court to award them attorney’s fees.

The court found that the fee motion did not comply with Civil Local Rule 54-5. The supporting declaration did not explain how the lawyers’ time records were maintained, and counsel did not make the required good-faith effort to discuss the motion with opposing counsel.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the motion for an award of attorney’s fees. The court also canceled the scheduled hearing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Vuong v. Jacqueline Lopez-Flores and Saul Roberto Flores · No. 3:24-cv-03510
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
Nov. 6, 2025

Background

The appellees moved for an award of attorney’s fees in this appeal. The court determined that the matter could be decided without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for November 20, 2025.

Reasons for Denial

Civil Local Rule 54-5 requires a fee motion to include declarations or affidavits addressing specified information. This includes a statement describing how time records were maintained and a statement that counsel met and conferred about disputes concerning the motion, or an explanation and certification concerning why no conference occurred.

The declaration submitted by Stanley Zlotoff did not describe how the time records were maintained. The court stated that this omission left it without assurance that the reported information was based on actual time spent. The court also found that Zlotoff made no effort to meet and confer. His declaration said that no conference occurred because he decided to seek fees at the last minute. The court rejected the lack of planning as an excuse for failing to follow the local rules.

Ruling

For these reasons, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the appellees’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.