Nico Cruz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mohawk Industries, et al.

E.D. California

Nico Cruz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mohawk Industries, et al.

DecidedSeptember 8, 2025

Docket1:20-cv-01510

StatusUnknown

This text of Nico Cruz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mohawk Industries, et al. (Nico Cruz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mohawk Industries, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nico Cruz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mohawk Industries, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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 22 U.S.C. § 1920; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54; see also Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356, 375 (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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 22 U.S.C. § 1920; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54; see also Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356, 375 (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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nico Cruz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mohawk Industries, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nico-cruz-sanchez-individually-and-on-behalf-of-other-members-of-the-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack