1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PHU K. VUONG and MOSAIC REAL Case No. 24-cv-03510-AMO ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC, 8 Appellants, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN 9 AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 19 JACQUELINE LOPEZ-FLORES and 11 SAUL ROBERTO FLORES, Appellees. 12

13 14 Before the Court is Appellees’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees. The matter is fully 15 briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 16 November 20, 2025, is VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-6, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). Having read the 17 parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good 18 cause appearing, the Court hereby denies the motion for an award of attorney’s fees, because 19 Appellees’ motion does not comply with Civil Local Rule 54-5. 20 Civil Local Rule 54-5 requires, in pertinent part:

21 Unless otherwise ordered, the motion for attorney fees must be supported by declarations or affidavits containing the following 22 information: (1) A statement that counsel have met and conferred for the 23 purpose of attempting to resolve any disputes with respect to the motion or a statement that no conference was held, with certification 24 that the applying attorney made a good faith effort to arrange such a conference, setting forth the reason the conference was not held; and 25 (2) A statement of the services rendered by each person for whose services fees are claimed, together with a summary of the 26 time spent by each person, and a statement describing the manner in which time records were maintained. Depending on the 27 circumstances, the Court may require production of an abstract of or the contemporary time records for inspection, including in 1 Civil Local Rule 54-5(b). 2 The declaration Stanley Zlotoff offers in support of Appellees’ fee motion contains no 3 statement that “describ[es] the manner in which time records were maintained.” See Dkt. No. 19-1 4 || (“Zlotoff Decl.”). This deficiency warrants denial of the motion because without it, the Court has 5 no assurance that the information Zlotoff reports is grounded in actual time expended. Denial of 6 || the motion is additionally warranted because Zlotoff did not make a good faith effort to meet and 7 confer with opposing counsel. See, e.g., Gomez v. Braby, No. 22-CV-00036-PJH,

16556792, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022) (denying motion for attorney’s fees because counsel 9 failed to meet and confer as required by the local rules); Van v. Language Line, LLC, No. 14-CV- 10 03791-LHK,

, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) (same). Zlotoff made no effort 11 to comply with the meet and confer requirement, as his declaration states, “no meet and confer 12 occurred, as I decided to move for fees at the last minute.” Zlotoff Decl. 9.5. Neither does 5 13 Zlotoff contend that a meet and confer was unnecessary as it would have been futile. See 14 Hernandez v. Caliber Bodyworks LLC, No. 21-CV-05836-EMC,

, at *4 (N.D. 3 15 Cal. June 14, 2022) (excusing failure to meet and confer regarding a fees motion where counsel a 16 || explained meeting and conferring would have been futile). Zlotoff’s lack of planning does not 3 17 constitute excuse for failing to comply with the local rules. 18 For these reasons, Appellees’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 6, 2025 21 Med □□ / 22 coh 74 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28