The last day of July brought significant updates to two of Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s many on-going for profit federal lawsuits as he retained an attorney to handle his lawsuit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in regards to his Valentine’s Day 2024 arrest and the Judge in his lawsuit against YouTuber John “Irish Demon” O’Dea has asked for a supplemental filing.
DeCastro, who claimed to be cash strapped until his recent windfall from his 7+ hour nightly sales livestream, hired Michael Mee to represent him in the Valentine’s Day case. Mee is currently handling the appeal for DeCastro’s loss to the LVMPD last February over his March 2023 arrest.
In his first filing in the case, Mee requested an extension of DeCastro’s current deadline to serve the defendants in the case, stating:
On May 14, 2026, the Court issued a notice of its intent to dismiss under Rule 4(m), and Plaintiff, then self-represented, timely moved ex parte to extend the time for service.
On June 15, 2026, the Court granted that motion and extended the deadline for service to July 31, 2026.
Within that extended period, on July 31, 2026, a licensed process server was engaged to serve the five Defendants at the offices of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, located at 400 South Martin Luther King Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada.
That I was informed by the process server’s written status report, dated July 31, 2026, that when service was attempted, an employee of the Department’s Office of General Counsel declined to accept the single summons issued as to all Defendants, stating that the office required a summons individualized to each Defendant because one general summons did not provide sufficient clarity, and further stating that upon receipt of individualized summonses the office would accept service on behalf of all five Defendants.
Now that counsel has appeared, Plaintiff is prepared to request that the Clerk issue a
separate summons individualized to each of the five Defendants, to effect service in the manner the Office of General Counsel has greed to accept, and to file the corresponding proofs of service.
That a period of thirty (30) days is sufficient to accomplish these steps.
That this extension is not sought for any improper purpose or for delay, and I am aware of no prejudice that the Defendants would suffer as a result.
DeCastro is represented by attorney That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., in his lawsuit against YouTuber O’Dea. That case involves O’Dea’s 2024 hack of DeCastro’s YouTube channel where he live streamed pornography that resulted in DeCastro’s temporary loss of the channel.
In that case, Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins asked for more information about the StreamYard streaming platform:
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff utilized StreamYard, “a web-based platform through which electronic communications are managed and stored for purposes of live broadcasting and streaming to third-party services such as YouTube.” ECF 1, Compl., ¶ 57. On November 22, 2024, Defendant allegedly used Plaintiff’s StreamYard login credentials, without his authorization, and initiated a broadcast from Plaintiff’s channel. Id. ¶¶ 33–34.
The Court is satisfied that the first element of the claim is met because Defendant used Plaintiff’s StreamYard credentials without his permission, so “gained unauthorized access to a facility.” Calhoun, 526 F. Supp. 3d at 627 (citation and quotation marks omitted). However, the Court requires further briefing regarding whether StreamYard provides electronic storage.
Electronic storage is defined as the “temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof” or “any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17).
Plaintiff describes StreamYard as “a web-based platform through which electronic communications are managed and stored for purposes of live broadcasting and streaming.” Compl. ¶ 57. But both live broadcasting and streaming do not appear to involve “storage” of any such communication and instead suggest immediate production. “[T]he SCA protects stored communications, whether in temporary or backup storage, not contemporaneous communications in transit from sender to recipient.” Joseph Anthony Reyna v. Apple, Inc., No. 26-cv-03137-RS, 2026 WL 2032304, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2026) (quoting Backhaut v. Apple, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2014)) (emphasis in original). The Court requires further information about StreamYard’s functionality and whether Plaintiff’s broadcasting or streaming are “stored” there, either temporarily or as a back-up. See 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17). It would aid the Court to know, for example, whether, after a live broadcast, StreamYard retains or makes a copy of Plaintiff’s video. The Court would also appreciate citations to any supporting case law.
DeCastro, through attorney Newman, has been requested to file a three page supplemental briefing by August 13, 2026 regarding the SCA claim.
This is a breaking news story.
