Lull

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Christopher Lull and Autotek, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-01645-KJM-CKD Plaintiffs, ORDER v. County of Sacramento, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 In a previous order, this court concluded that the plaintiffs and their counsel had violated Rule 11 by filing and maintaining this action despite the unfavorable resolution of a previous 19 action involving identical claims. See generally Prev. Order, ECF No. 29. The court declined the defendants’ request for fees of $8,520 “to defray costs in responding to the complaint and opposition.” /d. at 11; see also Matooka Decl. § 18, ECF No. 16-2. That figure included 22 estimates of future costs, some of which the defendants would certainly not incur. See Prev. Order at 11-12 (citing Matooka Decl. Jj 15-18). The court directed the defendants to file a 24 declaration with itemized entries for time actually incurred and permitted the plaintiffs to 25 respond. /d. at 12. …