Sadness came to the world of Jose “Chille” DeCastro on Friday as his long forgotten lawsuit against Josh “Accountability for All” Abrams, Dale “Lackluster” Hiller and Kate Peter sits at a point of near dismissal after a Massachusetts Federal District Court Judge gave the diminutive YouTuber one last chance to resolve problems with his complaint or see the lawsuit dismissed.
DeCastro filed suit in June of 2025 against the trio, along with a handful of “John Doe” defendants that were to be named later but never were, alleging that Abrams, Hiller and Peter had said mean things about him and made accusations about him on a livestream from 2022.
As with his normal pattern, DeCastro waited until the statute of limitations had nearly run out in Massachusetts before filing, with some question as to if he filed on time. Ultimately, it didn’t matter as Abrams and Hiller accepted service through their attorney and no real attempt was made to serve Peter.
There was some activity by Abrams and Hiller reminded the court that the lawsuit was essentially a rehash of the 2022 lawsuit that DeCastro had filed against Abrams and Peter before turning that lawsuit into a copyright lawsuit against Abrams, Peter and Google/YouTube.
That suit was tossed in 2023. Then quasi revived in its original form as a California Superior Court lawsuit against Peter, Michael “Blue Bacon” Pierattini, Team Skeptic and Daniel Clement in 2023, which was tossed in 2025 and the appeal tossed in 2026.
The newest suit added Hiller, even though DeCastro said he didn’t really want to sue Hiller since Hiller didn’t apologize for his comments as demanded by the inventor of the Jock Sock.
Abrams and Hill did some legal maneuvering, and the current case was reassigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs, the same judge who oversaw the original case against Abrams and Peter.
She’s also the judge that DeCastro fantasized was in his side chat as a troll had used her name during one of his livestreams. Affectionately known to DeCastro as “Sugar Tits,” most observers thought that the case was all but over with the assignment.
DeCastro at one point put in a revision to the case after Abrams had said more naughty things about him in a 2025 livestream addressing the case. This may or may not expand the statute of limitations to refile should it be dismissed this time around. Or not.
As for his demands, DeCastro wanted one million dollars from each of the defendants for damage to his reputation that included the loss of 401 subscribers. DeCastro has added over 500,000 subscribers between 2022 and 2026, but, at the time, the subscribers were, according to his filing, worth $2,493.77 each.
It’s actually hard to figure out what DeCastro is asking for as he said that at the basic level, all he had to do was put an ask for money in and he’d justify the ask at a later time. Remember that point.
Abrams and Hiller eventually filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction (as to Hiller) and failure to state a claim. They also wanted the Court to address DeCastro’s previous claims that he’d pursue all of them relentlessly to the end of time, filing and refiling the same case until he got a judgment against them.
Burroughs side-stepped most of the pairs claims, to focus on diversity jurisdiction, specificially the requirement that DeCastro show that he’s had over $75,000.00 in damages to justify filing in the federal court system.
She ruled:
Federal district courts may exercise jurisdiction over civil actions (1) arising under federal laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) in which the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the Court “accept[s] the factual averments of the complaint as true, and construe[s] those facts in the light most congenial to the [plaintiff’s] cause.” Royal v. Leading Edge Prods., 833 F.2d 1, 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (first citing Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U.S. 308, 310 (1952); and then citing Chongris v. Bd. of Appeals, 811 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir. 1987)). “Dismissal can be justified only if it clearly appears that no colorable hook exists upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be hung.” Id. Even so, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 907 F.3d 61, 64 (1st Cir. 2018) (citing Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 2017)).
Here, DeCastro invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, see [Am. Compl. ¶ 1], meaning that he must show that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. “The . . . plaintiff carries the burden to establish that the minimum amount in controversy has been met.” Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC, 665 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2012). “While normally ‘a plaintiff’s general allegation that the dispute exceeds the jurisdictional minimum is sufficient to support jurisdiction,’ when challenged, the plaintiff ‘has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount.’” Andersen v. Vagaro, Inc., 57 F.4th 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Dep’t of Recreation & Sports of P.R. v. World Boxing Ass’n, 942 F.2d 84, 88 (1st Cir. 1991)). “Merely reiterating general descriptions of damages is insufficient, particularly when a plaintiff is put on notice of the complaint’s deficiencies by a . . . motion to dismiss.” Id. (quoting Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 42–43).
The Amended Complaint and DeCastro’s subsequent pleadings fail to establish that the requisite amount is in controversy. The Amended Complaint states, without elaborating, that “the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000,” [Am. Compl. ¶ 1], and later alleges vaguely that DeCastro has suffered “[r]eputational harm and loss of professional credibility,” “[d]ecreased viewership and subscriber engagement,” “[l]oss of potential business opportunities and collaborations,” “[e]motional distress, anxiety, and [f]ear of [f]uture losses,” unspecified “[c]osts associated with attempting to mitigate the reputational damage,” and a loss of “402 subscribers” to his YouTube channel. [Id. ¶ 17]. It does not assign a dollar value to any of these harms or explain the basis for the valuation. The Amended Complaint also seeks damages of $1,000,000, [Am. Compl. at 9], but it does not explain how any of DeCastro’s claimed damages support that figure. Turning to DeCastro’s opposition, it states that “Plaintiff need only allege damages in good faith” at this stage, [ECF No. 34 at 6 (citing Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 41)], but Abdel-Aleem does not support that formulation. In that case, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint where there was “no substantiation for or valuation of any of the economic, emotional or physical damages” alleged in the complaint, Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 42, despite an “amendment adding ‘at least $1,000,000’ as the alleged amount in controversy,” id. at 43.
All told, DeCastro has failed to adequately support his claimed amount in controversy, and the Court must dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). That said, pursuant to its obligation, “within reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims due to technical defects,” Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 2000)), the Court will give DeCastro leave to amend within 21 days if he can set forth specific facts that support, with “sufficient particularity,” his “contention that there is more than $75,000 at stake.” Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 42.
Finally, Judge Burroughs added a poison pill for future filing of the same lawsuit by DeCastro:
Because the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, it does not reach the other grounds for dismissal advanced by Abrams and Hiller.2 Though it retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 138–39 (1992), on the record presently before it, the Court sees no basis for sanctioning DeCastro. Nonetheless, DeCastro is warned that further conduct that suggests he is abusing the judicial system to harass and vex those he dislikes may change the calculus.
Burroughs added a note to this passage:
Without deciding those issues, the Court notes that if DeCastro ultimately satisfies the jurisdictional requirements, Abrams and Hiller’s arguments for dismissal will require serious consideration.
She then ruled:
For the foregoing reasons, Abrams and Hiller’s motion, [ECF No. 32], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction with leave to file a second amended complaint within 21 days of this order if DeCastro can cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified herein.
With another note addressing the lack of service to Kate Peter:
This dismissal is applicable to all Defendants. The Court separately notes that DeCastro has not filed proof of service for Peter. If DeCastro intends to file a second amended complaint and wishes to continue maintaining this action against Peter, he must file a proof of service for Peter or Peter will be dismissed for failure to effect timely service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
The attention to DeCastro brought no new activity to his remaining GoFundMe campaign.
Friday saw Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney take the top crowd sourcing spot with $240.00 in new donations to his GiveSendGo account. He was followed by SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes, who took in $100.00 to his YouTube Demonetized Long Island Audit, Help Us Keep Fighting campaign.
Central Tyrant Investigations placed third with $17.00 in new donations to his Justice for Unlawful Arrest in Paduch fund.
Saturday saw Roy “Pigs Under Pressure” Tripoloni’s campaign for James “James Freeman” Springer earn $25.00 in new donations to take the crowd sourcing title. Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney placed second with $10.00 in new donations.
No other campaigns that we follow saw new donations for the day.
This is a breaking news story.
