A ruling on whether Jarred Brooks must pay Anthony D’Amato’s legal bill is now set for Oct. 29.
A Los Angeles judge on Thursday put off deciding whether Jarred Brooks must pay $23,197.40 in attorney’s fees and costs to Anthony D’Amato Jr. She said she needs more financial information before she rules.
After hearing argument in Department 65 of the Metropolitan Courthouse, Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode found that the court “needs more information regarding income and expense to make an appropriate ruling,” according to the minute order. She continued the motion to Oct. 29 at 8:35 a.m.
Brooks, who has represented himself throughout the case, appeared by video from Louisiana. Attorney Dawn Dunbar appeared for D’Amato, the livestreamer known as Zero Dark Tony. The minute order does not list D’Amato himself as present.
Minute order, Oct. 1, 2026, D’Amato v. Brooks, L.A. Super. Ct. No. 26STRO01932.
What the judge ordered
The order sets two deadlines, both falling on Saturday, October 24. Brooks must file and serve an FL-150 Income and Expense Declaration. Both sides may also exchange “any additional evidence and supporting documentation.”
What it means
The FL-150 is a standard sworn form listing a person’s income, expenses, assets and debts. The judge ordered only Brooks to file one, which suggests she is weighing his ability to pay. Brooks raised that issue himself in his opposition, pointing to the fee waiver the court granted him in April. Section 527.6(s) gives the judge discretion over whether to award fees and how much, and the order does not say which way she is leaning.
The second deadline matters more for the fee request itself. Brooks’s central argument was that the bill was never supported. Dunbar’s declaration estimated 35.5 hours at $650 an hour, with no invoices, billing records or fee agreement attached. Brooks had objected in advance to any such records appearing late. The order now gives both sides until Oct. 24 to submit more, which means D’Amato’s side has a second chance to document the fees. That gap is the same one that sank D’Amato’s last fee request in 2025, when a different judge denied every dollar after his lawyer refused to say whether D’Amato had been billed.
Because the evidence is due before the next hearing, Brooks will be able to respond to whatever arrives when the court reconvenes. The order does not address his other challenges: the unexplained drive time, the unsupported rate, and the errors in Dunbar’s declaration.
What’s next
Both filings are due Oct. 24. The hearing resumes Oct. 29 at 8:35 a.m. in Department 65. The judge could rule from the bench that day or take the matter under submission.
Read the full analysis: A Judge Tossed ZeroDarkTony’s Last Fee Bill. The New One Has Even Less Behind It.
The minute order
Minute order, Oct. 1, 2026, D’Amato v. Brooks, L.A. Super. Ct. No. 26STRO01932. Names of court staff and the court reporter’s license number redacted by HNZ.
React to this story