Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s attempt to relitigate his loss of his federal lawsuit against the City of Ironton, Ohio, last year in Nevada hit a snag on Tuesday as Cassaundra L. Sark, representing John Chapman and the Lawrence County Commissioners, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit or move the lawsuit back to Ohio.
In her filing, Sark states, Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “prevents parties from raising issues that could have been raised and decided in a prior action – even if they were not actually litigated.” Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 140 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 (2020). Additionally, “if a later suit advances the same claim as an earlier suit between the same parties, the earlier suit’s judgment ‘prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding.’” Id. at 1594-1595 (quoting Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979)). Suits involve the same claim when “arising from the same transaction even if brought under different statutes” (Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 482 n.22 (1982)), or involve a “common nucleus of operative facts” (Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., 140 S.Ct. at 1594-1595).
Res judicata applies when the earlier suit “(1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Systems, 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). For the reasons set forth below, the Lawrence County Defendants maintain that res judicata bars Plaintiff’s current suit.
Sark notes that a version of the lawsuit had been previously filed in Ohio by DeCastro, serving as a pro se litigant. DeCastro made the same claims in the lawsuit as he made in the lawsuit that he filed in Nevada and included the same sets of defendants.
That lawsuit was dismissed as the Judge in the Ohio lawsuit granted the Lawrence County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Judge did not rule that the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. However, Sark argues that the dismissal based on the motion to dismiss served as a final judgment on the merits of the lawsuit.
Sark further argues that DeCastro did not file in the proper venue. None of the events occurred in Nevada, none of the evidence in the lawsuit involves Nevada, and neither the defendants nor DeCastro live in Nevada.
DeCastro had previously stated that he was filing in Nevada as he was currently living in Nevada at the time of the filing of the lawsuit last year and that he was filing on behalf of his customers, some of whom lived in Nevada.
Sark requested that if the case is not dismissed entirely, that it be transferred to the Southern District of Ohio.
DeCastro originally filed the Nevada version of the lawsuit in both Nevada state and the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. At the time of the filing, his original Ohio-based federal lawsuit had been dismissed and was waiting for a ruling on DeCastro’s appeal.
The YouTuber was incarcerated soon after filing both copies of the Nevada lawsuits. This led to service issues, as DeCastro had to be later granted permission to serve the defendants. In the federal filing, DeCastro was granted an extension until mid-October of 2024, but did not actually serve the defendants in the federal lawsuit until earlier this month.
Sark’s filing comes a day after Dawn M. Frick, representing defendants Evan McKnight, Pam Wagner, Brad Spoljaric, Chance Blankenship, Robert Fouch, City of Ironton Ohio, filed for Pro Hac Vice status to practice law in the state of Nevada.
Update: Judge Daniel J. Albregts ruled on Wednesday that DeCastro now has 14 days to respond to the motion to dismiss should DeCastro agree that the lawsuit should not be dismissed. If the case continues, DeCastro needs to submit points and authorities in opposition to the dismissal. The defense then gets seven days to reply to DeCastro’s motion.
Under the guidelines set by Judge Albregts, the motions will then be submitted to the court for a final decision.
DeCastro vs. McKnight – 21 – Minutes of the Court DeCastro vs. McKnight – 18 – Dawn M. Frick Petition to Practice DeCastro vs. McKnight – 19 – Motion to Dismiss DeCastro vs. McKnight – 19a – Exhibit A DeCastro vs. McKnight – 19b – Exhibit B DeCastro vs. McKnight – 19c – Exhibit C DeCastro vs. McKnight – 20 – Lawrence County Defendants' Disclosure Statement DeCastro vs. McKnight – 01 – Complaint
