DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV04947·butte·Civil·Civil
Hearing in about 4 hoursGRANTED

Roberts, Christopher Neil v. Davis, Nathan Charles et al

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
Law & Motion
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffChristopher Neil Roberts
DefendantNathan Charles Davis

Ruling

As to number of hours, the Court finds several billings excessive and makes the following monetary deductions. $250.00 (prepare client agreement) $191.25 (protective order) $1,445.00 (initial disclosure reviews) $2,537.50 (motion) $4,423.75 total deductions Further, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s requested amount of $3,312.50 for reply related work to $1,700.00. As a result, Plaintiff is awarded $21,920.85 in attorney fees. ($24,644.60 - $4,423.75 + $1,700) Additionally, Plaintiff is awarded $790.97 in costs and expenses. The Court will sign the proposed order.

13. 25CV04947 Roberts, Christopher Neil v. Davis, Nathan Charles et al

EVENT: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Plaintiff’s Counsel)

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order. The order will become effective upon the filing of a proof of service demonstrating the order was served on Plaintiff.

14. 26CV00710 Morris, Dawn v. AOCL LLC et al

EVENT: Defendant AOCL, LLC’s Petition to Enforce Class Action Waiver and Compel Arbitration and Dismissal

Defendant AOCL, LLC’s Petition to Enforce Class Action Waiver and Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The request for dismissal is DENIED. The case is stayed pending arbitration. The Court rules on evidentiary objections as follows. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections: paragraph 3 of the declaration of Ms. Santos: sustained to the extent the declaration attempts to suggest that Plaintiff had sufficient time to review the documents. There is no indication declarant was personally present when Plaintiff reviewed the documents.

6|Page

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share