DeleteLawZ Disaster – Suit Moved to Nemesis’s Court

Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s latest judicial defeat hurt the YouTuber perhaps the hardest of all of his losses in the court system because his failure to successfully argue his point landed his defamation lawsuit against Dale “Lackluster” Hiller, Josh “Accountability for All” Abrams and Kate Peter into the courtroom of a woman he once referred to as “Judge Sugar Tits.”

Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote:

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 24 Motion to Reassign Case. On June 3, 2025, pro se plaintiff Jose DeCastro filed the present suit asserting defamation claims based on certain statements defendants allegedly made on their YouTube channels. Doc. No. 1. In his first motion of substance after appearing in this case, defendant Joshua Abrams moved to have this case reassigned to Judge Burroughs’s Session, arguing that the case was related to Case No. 22-cv-11421-ADB under Local Rule 40.1(g). Doc. No. 24. DeCastro opposed, arguing that the cases were insufficiently similar and that Abrams had waived relatedness. Doc. No. 27.The Court concludes that the present case is related to the prior case under Local Rule 40.1(g). The plaintiff and two of the defendants are the same parties. L.R. 40.1(g)(1)(A). The prior case was closed on July 11, 2023, less than two years before DeCastro filed the present suit. L.R. 40.1(g)(4). Abrams moved for reassignment before any responsive pleading in this case, making his motion timely. L.R. 40.1(g)(6)(C). Finally, the two cases involve the same or substantially similar issues of fact and arise out of the same occurrence[] [or] transaction. L.R. 40(g)(1)(B). Namely, DeCastro brought substantially similar allegations of defamation against defendants Abrams and Kate Peters in both the prior suit and the present one. Compare Doc. No. 1, with Complaint, DeCastro v. Abrams, Case No. 22-cv-11421-ADB (D. Mass. filed Sep. 2, 2022), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants answered those allegations in the prior case. See, e.g., Answer, DeCastro, Case No. 22-cv-11421-ADB (D. Mass. filed Nov. 7, 2022), Dkt. No. 53. True, Judge Burroughs had no occasion to rule on DeCastros defamation claims because he subsequently amended his complaint to drop those allegations. Amended Complaint, DeCastro, Case No. 22-cv-11421-ADB (D. Mass. filed Nov. 16, 2022), Dkt. No. 62. But the Rules provide that cases are related if they involve the same or substantially similar issues of fact or arise out of the same occurrence; a simple comparison of the two original complaints demonstrates that this standard is met here. One further consideration bears note. The related-case rule prevents judge shopping, i.e., it prevents a party from bringing a claim before one judge, dismissing it when unhappy, and then filing the claim(s) again in a new lawsuit before a different judge. This consideration counsels reassignment here. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Abramss motion to reassign (Doc. No. 24) and transfers this case to Judge Burroughs’ Session. (SED) Modified on 12/9/2025 (SED). (Entered: 12/09/2025)

Judge Allison Burroughs oversaw the lawsuit in 2022 when DeCastro first attempted to sue Abrams and Peter. She became a source of scorn for the YouTuber in 2022 when he attempted to file his amended complaint to transform his lawsuit from a defamation lawsuit to a copyright infringement lawsuit before Abrams and Peter filed counter claims against DeCastro.

DeCastro had been in Colombia visiting relatives when he supposedly filed his amended complaint and the amended complaint ultimately hit the system after Peter and Abrams counter claims. No matter how many times he argued the point with Judge Burroughs, she refused to dismiss the counter claims by Peter and Abrams.

The diminutive YouTuber never could move past this ruling. After multiple attempts to file and refile, Burroughs ultimately shut him down and the counter claims would stay until they were dismissed for being moot after she dismissed the lawsuit entirely.

The two would also clash over DeCastro’s continued attempts to silence Kate Peter’s YouTube and social media accounts. Peter would livestream her thoughts about the lawsuit and DeCastro in general, which resulted in multiple attempts by DeCastro to sanction her for talking about the lawsuit.

Again, Burroughs would not play along, nor with Peter’s attempts to call for sanctions against DeCastro. While Peter would shrug things on, DeCastro took every loss or denial personally, and would often express his dissatisfaction with Burroughs.

DeCastro would claim that Burroughs was conspiring with Peter and others and grew more and more unhinged as the lawsuit progressed which culminated in the incident where he was sure that a YouTube sock account using the name “Allison Burroughs” was in fact the judge.

Burrough’s eventual dismissal of DeCastro’s suit for failure to state a claim seemed to be a blessing to the YouTuber. He was then allowed to sue Peter, along with a new cast of defendants, in California Superior Court.

The failure of that lawsuit brought DeCastro back to square one. All of the statutes of limitations for defamation had passed for the states he recently lived in, leaving DeCastro to sue in Massachusetts and its three-year statute of limitations. By filing the lawsuit there, though, he still had the possibility of the new suit landing in Burroughs’ court.

Abrams recognized this and successfully argued that there were enough similarities between the lawsuits to reassign the suit to Burroughs’ court. While DeCastro attempted to protest the move, he was unsuccessful and does not have the ability to appeal Tuesday’s decision.