Jose “Chille” DeCastro had a minor setback in his ongoing harassment and defamation lawsuit against Kate Peter, Blue Bacon, Team Skeptic, Daniel Clement and 50 John Doe YouTube creators in California Superior Court on Friday as a judge denied his most recent motion while setting a trial date.
DeCastro was seeking to recover costs of serving Michael “Blue Bacon” Pierattini (Bacon) at a scheduled hearing in the lawsuit on Friday along held concurrently with a rescheduled case management hearing. Both DeCastro, who had missed Tuesday’s scheduled case management hearing due to “technical issues,” and Bacon were in attendance via Zoom.
According to Bacon’s account, Bacon confirmed he was seeking advice with legal counsel when asked by the judge as the event started, DeCastro said he was not seeking legal help at this time and had a “team” working with him.
The Judge briefly discussed the requirement to meet and confer under previous orders and the Judge ruled that neither side could record their conversations. According to Bacon’s account, the judge officially waived the need to communicate via voice call as most of the pre-trial conditions could be met via e-mail.
The Judge ordered Bacon, or Bacon’s new counsel to file a responsive pleading to his Anti-SLAPP ruling by August 1, 2023. The Judge then set a status conference meeting for August 28, 2024, and a final status conference for February 10, 2025. The jury trial in the case was then scheduled for February 24, 2025.
Again, according to Bacon’s account, Judge Ford admonished both men for improperly formatting and filing their motions. When DeCastro inquired about help with formatting and with serving Daniel Clement and Team Skeptic, the Judge indicated that he would put some formatting notes in his ruling and urged both men to seek legal representation or visit a law library in order to learn how to properly format motions in the future.
Judge Ford denied DeCastro’s request for compensation for his service of Bacon, writing, “Plaintiff Jose DeCastro’ s Motion (without notice) to Recover Costs of Personal Service on Michael Pierattini is DENIED.
“If the person to whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint are mailed pursuant to this section fails to complete and return the acknowledgment form set forth in subdivision (b) within 20 days from the date of such mailing, the party to whom the summons was mailed shall be liable for reasonable expenses thereafter incurred in serving or attempting to serve the party by another method permitted by this chapter, and, except for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending, upon motion, with or without notice, shall award the party such expenses whether or not he is otherwise entitled to recover his costs in the action.” CCP §415.30(d).
As the moving party, it is Decastro’s burden to submit competent evidence in support of his motion. Decastro claims the the summons and complaint was mailed to Pierattini with a Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt (NAR) pursuant to CCP §415.30(d). Decastro claims Pierattini refused to accept service and did not return the signed NAR. DeCastro fails to submit any evidence that proper service pursuant to CCP §415.30 was attempted and fails to submit any evidence suppo1iing his costs in the amount of $145.”
As promised, Judge Ford included criticisms of DeCastro’s recent motions and included tips on how to properly format motions before ending with an admonishment of both men. Judge Ford wrote, “Both parties are admonished to fully comply with the requirements relating to the filing of motions or other papers with the Court and are encouraged to seek help of a lawyer if able.”
