1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 NICO CRUZ SANCHEZ, individually and on ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-1510 JLT EPG behalf of other members of the general public ) 12 similarly situated, ) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ) SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE REGARDING 13 Plaintiff, ) THE LITIGATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY ) CLASS COUNSEL 14 v. ) ) 15 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, et al., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17

18 Class Counsel report litigation costs in the amount of $21,597.01 in this action. (Doc. 82-1 at 19 8.) Graham B. LippSmith reports that he identified “the costs Class Counsel incurred to date and that 20 they anticipate incurring through final approval.” (Doc. 82-1 at 8, ¶ 20.) However, the Court will not 21 award costs for anticipated costs, but rather actual litigation expenses that were incurred. See 28

; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54; see also Ontiveros v. Zamora,

(E.D. Cal. 23 2014) (indicating that payments from the common fund for litigation expenses are intended to be a 24 “reimbursement”). Nevertheless, Mr. LippSmith also indicates that “Class Counsel has a more detailed 25 itemization of the costs that Class Counsel can make immediately available for the Court’s review.” 26 (Doc. 82-1 at 8, ¶ 21.) Such information is necessary for the Court to determine whether the requested 27 litigation expenses are fair, reasonable, and adequate in reviewing the requested payments from the 28 Settlement fund. 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Class Counsel SHALL file supplementary evidence 2 || regarding their litigation expenses, including an itemization the costs incurred, no later than 3 || September 15, 2025. 4 5 IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ September 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn 7 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28