“If He Ever Tries to Sue Me” ZeroDarkTony Says He Isn’t Worried About a Lawsuit He Has Already Been Named In

Hochstetter already has. A First Amended Complaint filed September 11 in Hochstetter v. Gomez, a civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, names D’Amato as a defendant in his individual capacity. Co-defendants include the City of Los Angeles, LAPD officers, three Church of Scientology entities, and attorney Kendrick Moxon.

The complaint alleges that D’Amato monitored Hochstetter’s livestreams while urging viewers to report him to police, and that he offered a reward for Hochstetter’s arrest. Those allegations have not been tested in court. Docket entries available as of October 20 show no proof that D’Amato has been served.

During the stream, D’Amato repeatedly claimed Hochstetter “filmed little girls going into a porta potty,” absorbed new allegations about the incident from his live chat, and said discovery would be “a real big problem” for two people he named. He also described consulting attorneys about a John Doe lawsuit he has threatened against critics, including accounts affiliated with Hero Not Zero.

D’Amato picked up both the “counting” detail and the restraining order from his chat during this clip. Two minutes later he repeated them as things he had found out: “now I find out you got a restraining order for it and you were counting the amounts of seconds they were in there.” (00:24:25)

He identified no court, case number, or date for the order he described. Minutes later, he conceded that all he had seen of the underlying incident was “a piece of a clip that didn’t have any audio on it.” (00:26:46) His claim that such an order exists, and that it relates to the filming, is unverified.

About half an hour after that concession, he cited both details as support for his view: “the counting out loud would not fare well for a reasonable opinion. Nor would the RO.” (00:58:38)

Calling something an opinion does not protect a statement that implies a provably false fact (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 1990). D’Amato’s phrasing at 00:24:32 is the kind of construction that rule addresses: “that sounds pretty fucking perverted to me. I’m not saying that it is, but it sure sounds that way.”

The clip ends with D’Amato claiming “actual evidence of… so many things” against Hochstetter. He declined to say what it is.

The appeal is D’Amato’s own. He sought attorney fees from Hochstetter, lost in the trial court, and appealed.

A “financial evaluation” most likely refers to a judgment debtor examination (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.110). That procedure is available only after a court enters a money judgment.

Ten minutes earlier, D’Amato told the same audience that a judgment against him would be worthless: “even if by some miracle he does get some kind of… judgment… again, I don’t have any money.” (00:17:30) About an hour later, he thanked viewers for $100 and $50 Cash App payments and pitched his legal fund. (01:24:42, 01:28:15)

He says the “hundreds of thousands of dollars” would be owed to “these organizations and all these high dollar attorneys.” The organizations appear to be defendants in Hochstetter’s federal suit.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing civil rights defendant recovers fees only if the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation (Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 1978). Courts apply that standard with extra leniency to plaintiffs who represent themselves (Hughes v. Rowe, 1980).

“PDF” is online shorthand for pedophile. D’Amato moves from “Ever” to “Maybe” in under ten seconds, then adds: “But I don’t remember.”

The walk-back sits awkwardly beside his earlier insistence that “I never said that he was a PDF that was creeping and stalking little girls.” (00:21:15) In the same stretch, he repeated that Hochstetter filmed little girls at a porta potty and asked viewers to “put a one in the chat if he filmed kids.” (00:18:35)

The clip then turns to discovery. Reacting to what he described as Hochstetter saying a woman named Ashley helped him, D’Amato said, “Thank you for letting me know.” He claimed “her account was already going to be subpoenaed anyway” and that “discovery is going to be a real big problem for Ashley and for Lara.”

He named no case in which those subpoenas would issue. A subpoena requires a pending case. If the account holders are anonymous, California courts also require a prima facie showing on the underlying claim before unmasking them (Krinsky v. Doe 6, 2008).

Before the clip ends, D’Amato claimed Hochstetter is “taking food off of their table” by trying to sue his sister. Minutes later, he claimed Hochstetter had “admitted a conspiracy” and said, “We have him hanging up those flyers on video.” (00:36:42, 00:38:13) He offered no source for any of them.

“The John Doe stuff” refers to a lawsuit D’Amato has threatened against anonymous critics, including accounts affiliated with Hero Not Zero. He identified no filed case.

Seven seconds after the clip ends, he added: “But that could all change… That could all change.” (01:17:36) By then, Hochstetter had already named him as a defendant in federal court.

Later in the stream, D’Amato said, “once this John Doe thing kicks off, it’s on” (01:20:23), and “maybe it’s a lot closer than I’m saying.” (01:23:43)

In the same stretch, he thanked viewers for Cash App payments and told them the only way “this is all going to get done and wrapped up and stopped is with attorneys.” (01:28:15)

What comes next

Federal rules generally give a plaintiff 90 days to serve a newly added defendant, which would run to about December 10, 2026, unless the court extends it. Once served, D’Amato will have 21 days to answer or move to dismiss, or 60 days if he waives formal service.

Because D’Amato is a private individual, Hochstetter’s civil rights claims against him depend on showing he acted jointly with government officials. That question commonly comes up on a motion to dismiss.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Hochstetter v. Gomez, No. 2:26-cv-06868 (C.D. Cal.), First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 8)
• Hochstetter v. Gomez, docket
• Date: 2026-10-11
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · 5Y-WTZS3wwU