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)