Blue Bacon Lawyer to DeCastro, Not So Fast

As today’s hearing for a motion on sanctions and to set a trial date approaches, Jose “Chille” DeCastro has been basking in the glow of a rare victory – the clerk in his California Superior Court case actually granted a dismissal of the case on April 17, 2025.

Before we dive into the story, we start with a correction. In yesterday’s article and throughout the day, we were under the impression that the hearings were set for Tuesday instead of Wednesday. We made an error. The original article has been corrected, and a note has been put on the audio version of the article. We apologize for the error.

Last week’s move by the YouTuber may prove to be largely procedural, as DeCastro apparently looked at the hearing, realized the likelihood of failure and fired his attorney and decided to “nope” his way out of the situation.

As, Michael “Blue Bacon” Pierattini’s attorney, R. Paul Katrinak, wrote in his opposition to the dismissal of the lawsuit which was filed on Tuesday:

The attempt at a voluntary dismissal here without prejudice has to be some type of record in terms of gamesmanship. After over a year in refusing to respond to discovery, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the one remaining cause of action without prejudice one week before the hearing on the continued hearing on the Motion for Terminating Sanctions. The hearing was continued to give Plaintiff the opportunity to file and serve the declaration referenced in his opposition to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions. (See Katrinak Declaration). Instead of filing and serving the declaration, Plaintiff decided to yet again employ gamesmanship to avoid the consequences of his contempt of the Court’s Orders. The law below holds that this type of tactical ploy is not permitted. As noted in the procedural history section, Plaintiff fragrantly violated court orders requiring him to respond to discovery.

Ultimately, Plaintiff produced no evidence in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment or adjudication, and summary adjudication was granted on all but one cause of action. That remaining cause of action for violation of California Civic Code Section 3344 and California common law Right of Publicity is facing its own Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on May 29, 2025. Plaintiff knows he has no evidence to avoid this Motion and instead is attempting to dismiss his case without prejudice in the face of the Motion for Summary Judgment and this Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

Katrinak continued:

It is not our position, but Plaintiff’s own admission that this is a tactical ploy. If the Court reviews Plaintiff’s Opposition to this Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Plaintiff explained that he would just file another lawsuit to endlessly harass Mr. Pierattini. In the Response to the Requests for Admission attached to his Opposition to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions,

Plaintiff states:  “The truth will come out. I will not stop suing Michael Pertini, or going after him through legal process until the truth comes out. I may not be given due process right now, I may not have been given the proper consideration, however, I will eventually one day. I’m going to file another lawsuit against him after this one. I will never stop.”

(Opposition to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions p. 35 of the document, Exhibit 3, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Request for Admission No. 26).

Only a dismissal with prejudice will stop this miscarriage of justice. If he files another frivolous lawsuit the only way to stop it is a dismissal of this matter WITH prejudice.

DeCastro, has made statements about both the original Massachusetts lawsuit, which was dismissed in 2023, an the current lawsuit that he would continue to file the suit until the merits of the case were heard and a ruling was found in his favor.

The YouTuber demonstrated his ability to do this with another case, a lawsuit against the police force of Ironton, Ohio, where that lawsuit was also dismissed in 2023 only to have DeCastro refile it in Nevada, where he was then living, while he was appealing the case in Ohio.

That lawsuit is on-going with DeCastro most recently receiving an extension to answer one of the two motions to dismiss the case or lack of jurisdiction and the fact that the lawsuit had been previously dismissed.

As with this case, DeCastro previously vowed to keep suing the defendants in every venue he had standing in until he receives a ruling in his favor.

DeCastro’s hearing in the Peter case is set for later today.

In other DeCastro related news, DeCastro has gone radio silent with no new updates as to the status of his pending novelty board game featuring his views on the constitution. Originally set for a Thanksgiving 2024 release, deadlines have been missed and the last notice investors and early buyers of the game received put the game at a May 2024 release date.

While at one point DeCastro declared on his Twitter/X account that he had “1,000 pre-sales” for the game, he never actually clarified if they were actual sales or that he was planning on putting 1,000 units up for pre-sale. In his most recent statements,

Adding to the confusion, DeCastro claimed that the first batch of games would consist of an order of 1,000 units, which would theoretically go to the pre-orders of the game if his Twitter/X statement was true.

As of Wednesday, April 23, 2025, DeCastro had also failed to launch the long-promised GoFundMe campaign for Craig Hendry.

This is an on-going news story.