Lawsuit: Adjourned Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42

[BlestSnow636130]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT





CIVIL ACTION





Marissa4,


Plaintiff


v.


SplashyBoi74,


Defendant





COMPLAINT





On October 15, 2024, the Defendant unlawfully killed 15 of the Plaintiff’s animals. This act inflicted both emotional and financial harm upon the Plaintiff by depriving her of valuable property and companionship,





WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF





I. PARTIES





1. Plaintiff: Marissa4


2. Defendant: SplashyBoi74





II. FACTS





1. The Plaintiff was the caretaker and owner of multiple animals at the time of the incident.


2. On October 15, 2024, the Defendant intentionally killed 15 of the Plaintiff’s animals, as documented in evidence exhibits P-001, P-002, P-003, and P-004.





III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The act committed by the defendant resulted in emotional distress and financial loss to the Plaintiff, depriving her of her property and the companionship of her animals.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF





The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:


.


• Punitive Damages: $10,000 to deter similar conduct in the future.


• Legal Fees: $5,000 under the Legal Damages Act.


• Additional Relief: Any further relief the court may deem appropriate.





By submitting this complaint, I acknowledge and understand the penalties of perjury for any knowingly false statements.





DATED: This 7th day of November, 2024





Exhibits:


P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@splashyboi74 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Your Honour,
The time period of 72 hours for defendant to appear has expired
Requesting you to move to default judgement

Writ of Summons

@splashyboi74 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,
The time period of 72 hours for defendant to appear has expired
Requesting you to move to default judgement

I am completely sorry for the delay in this case, but this case is currently in need of a public defender. Until we can assign a public defender this case is frozen.

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,
Soild Law Firm Will Be Defending the Defendant

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,
Soild Law Firm Will Be Defending the Defendant View attachment 49980

Ok then we with be moving to answer to complaint. The defendant has 72 hours

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,
I am sorry i accidently posted wrong un edited version

 

[KingBOB99878]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, under the following rules:

1. Rule 5.12 (lack of personal jurisdiction). The plaintiff is trying to prosecute the defendant again for violating the Animal & Pet Offences Act as they tried in Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 filed on Nov 6th, 2024 (no case number). A citizen cannot prosecute another citizen, this power is reserved for the DOJ as decided in that case. This is illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff only asks for punitive damages, and no compensatory damages.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). The plaintiff has not shown the court any evidence of extreme financial loss or any emotional harm. They have only shown that the animals were killed on a farm plot. Farms are places where animals get bred and killed regularly, it’s part of the business model.

The defence moves to have this case dismissed with prejudice so that the defendant won’t have to respond to this matter in court over and over again. If this motion to dismiss is granted then this matter will have been litigated twice. Allowing the plaintiff to refile yet again would be a waste of time and resources of the court and the parties.

The defence would like to hold off on posting the answer to complaint until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If this is not an option the defence will post the answer to complaint within 24 hours of notification.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, under the following rules:

1. Rule 5.12 (lack of personal jurisdiction). The plaintiff is trying to prosecute the defendant again for violating the Animal & Pet Offences Act as they tried in Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 filed on Nov 6th, 2024 (no case number). A citizen cannot prosecute another citizen, this power is reserved for the DOJ as decided in that case. This is illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff only asks for punitive damages, and no compensatory damages.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). The plaintiff has not shown the court any evidence of extreme financial loss or any emotional harm. They have only shown that the animals were killed on a farm plot. Farms are places where animals get bred and killed regularly, it’s part of the business model.

The defence moves to have this case dismissed with prejudice so that the defendant won’t have to respond to this matter in court over and over again. If this motion to dismiss is granted then this matter will have been litigated twice. Allowing the plaintiff to refile yet again would be a waste of time and resources of the court and the parties.

The defence would like to hold off on posting the answer to complaint until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If this is not an option the defence will post the answer to complaint within 24 hours of notification.

Denied

They are no longer trying to charge the defendant with a crime as they were doing in the original filling of this case. They are now only going for civil damages which is not prosecution.

Even though they did not provide evidence for their financial loss, emotional damage claims have a different burden of proof, the reasonable persons test. Would a reasonable person have emotional damage from the facts in this case? I believe so and therefore do have a claim

 

[KingBOB99878]

​

Answer to Complaint

​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Marissa4,
Plaintiff
v.
SplashyBoi74,
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defence AFFIRMS that SplashyBoi74 killed those animals.
The defence AFFIRMS Marissa4 lost money but DISPUTES that it is a big financial loss.
The defence DISPUTES Marrisa4 had significant emotional harm
The defence DISPUTES that punitive damages are warranted.

---

II. Defences
Animal life on farms:
As shown by the plaintiff, SplashyBoi74 is responsible for the deaths of 15 of the Plaintiffs' animals. This is undeniably wrong behaviour, and the defence regrets this incident.

These animals were located in a barn on the plaintiffs’ farm as shown by D-001, D-002 and D-003. The defence, however, argues that the death of animals on farms is a common and expected part of agricultural life—whether they are bred, raised for sale, or ultimately slaughtered for meat and other items. It is well understood that animals on farms are killed as part of normal operations. Therefore, the defence believes that the Plaintiff did not experience significant emotional distress over the loss, as these animals were not kept as "pets", but were primarily used for farming and breeding purposes. To conclude the defence believes that the animals dying did not cause significant emotional harm, certainly not to the level that punitive damages are needed.

Financial loss:
On the financial side, the loss sustained is minimal, and does not rise to a level that could be considered outrageous or deserving of punitive damages. Exhibits D-004 and D-005 show that spawn eggs are available in chestshops at 60$ apiece.

Evidence

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

 

[ko531]

Ok time for opening statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement

 

[Omegabiebel]

Your honor the period of discovery was skipped. We have several requests and interrogatories we would like to make.

(CEO of Solid Law, temporarily filling in for KingBOB to clear up this issue)

 

[ko531]

Your honor the period of discovery was skipped. We have several requests and interrogatories we would like to make.

(CEO of Solid Law, temporarily filling in for KingBOB to clear up this issue)

My bad, with the defendant not showing up I thought discovery already happened

Discovery starts now and will last the next 72 hours

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Your Honour,
We would like to call Marissa4 as a witness

 

[KingBOB99878]

The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:

• Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
• Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The opposing counsel did not post proof of representation in their complaint as required by district court rules (specifically the “Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court” forum post). As a result the defense requests for the complaint and any further post to be struck. With no complaint we request for the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Sidenote: I will be taking over this case from KingBOB99878 (same firm Solid Law, just different lawyer). He will be unavailable for the next few days due to irl obligations.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the prayer for relief concerning the legal award in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), when asking for a legal award the lawyer should post their fee structure along with their proof of representation when filing the case. This has not happened and thus there is insufficient evidence for this prayer of relief.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), a lawyer that works on a contingency fee (no cure no pay) cannot ask for a legal award. BlestSnow636130 works as a paralegal for Titan Law as shown in D-006. Titan law uses a contingency fee for all of their cases as shown in D-007 and D-008.

 

[dodrio3]

The Defence Wishes to enter the following as evidence

Proof Of representation.

Payment Structure

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the prayer for relief concerning the legal award in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), when asking for a legal award the lawyer should post their fee structure along with their proof of representation when filing the case. This has not happened and thus there is insufficient evidence for this prayer of relief.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), a lawyer that works on a contingency fee (no cure no pay) cannot ask for a legal award. BlestSnow636130 works as a paralegal for Titan Law as shown in D-006. Titan law uses a contingency fee for all of their cases as shown in D-007 and D-008.

Response To Motion
Your Honour,

The Defendant has argued that our claim to legal fees is invalid by misinterpreting the relevant provisions of the law. Specifically, they rely on the Legal Damages Act, which states:
"Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a client on a contingency basis, wherein their fees are contingent upon the outcome of the case, they are prohibited from requesting additional legal fees."

This provision, however, does not preclude us from seeking legal fees as part of the prayer for relief. Rather, it prohibits charging the client more than the agreed-upon contingency fee. Our request for legal fees is consistent with the disclosed fee structure and the governing law. The Defendant’s interpretation of this statute conflates the prohibition against exceeding contingency agreements with the legitimate right to seek fees in the course of litigation, and thus, their objection on this basis is unfounded.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion that there is a "lack of claims" is equally flawed. They rely on Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules, which states:
"A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against any claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

Legal fees, however, are not themselves a substantive claim for relief. They are a prayer for relief that is ancillary to the substantive claims in this matter. This distinction is critical: a motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5 applies to the insufficiency of claims for relief, not to prayers for relief such as attorney fees. The Defendant's motion, therefore, misapplies Rule 5.5 and lacks merit.

In conclusion, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on a misinterpretation of both the relevant legal framework and procedural rules. Their arguments neither address the substantive claims at issue nor provide a legitimate basis for dismissal. We respectfully request that this Court deny the Defendant’s motion in its entirety and allow this matter to proceed.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The opposing counsel did not post proof of representation in their complaint as required by district court rules (specifically the “Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court” forum post). As a result the defense requests for the complaint and any further post to be struck. With no complaint we request for the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Sidenote: I will be taking over this case from KingBOB99878 (same firm Solid Law, just different lawyer). He will be unavailable for the next few days due to irl obligations.

Response To Objections
Your Honour,

The Defendant’s objection, asserting that the Plaintiff failed to post proof of representation as required by district court rules, is misplaced. While proof of representation may be a procedural requirement, its omission does not invalidate the filing of the complaint. Any procedural deficiency of this nature is curable and does not warrant dismissal of the case. Striking the complaint or dismissing the case outright for such a minor and correctable issue would result in undue prejudice to the Plaintiff and run counter to principles of fairness and justice.

Moreover, the Plaintiff’s filing substantially complies with the intent of the rule. The complaint clearly identifies legal representation, outlines the claims at issue, and specifies the relief sought. This provides sufficient notice to the Defendant and allows them to respond appropriately. The absence of a specific procedural document does not impair the Defendant’s ability to address the substance of the claims.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant’s objection and allow the case to proceed.

The Following are links to cases in which no Proof of Representation has been give and the case has proceeded to a verdic. (This is only a phew of many)

1. Lawsuit: Adjourned - totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40

2.https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/ishowed_up-v-michealson-2024-dcr-35.22697/

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor, the defense would like to request 72 hours extra in discovery to wait for staff and DHS to provide logs the defense requested. This has been requested since 19/11/2024 9:43 GMT+1 and the request is still processing according to D-009 and D-010. These logs are critical for the argument of the defense. Currently we would like to keep the log request confidential as to prevent disclosing parts of our argument prematurely to the plaintiff. If necessary we can disclose within 24 hours if needed for a ruling on this request.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Voluntary discovery submission (some of these may be duplicate with the answer to complaint):

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The opposing counsel did not post proof of representation in their complaint as required by district court rules (specifically the “Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court” forum post). As a result the defense requests for the complaint and any further post to be struck. With no complaint we request for the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Sidenote: I will be taking over this case from KingBOB99878 (same firm Solid Law, just different lawyer). He will be unavailable for the next few days due to irl obligations.

Overruled. This is strictly procedural and not a reason to dismiss an entire case. Plus, the plaintiff has now shown proof of representation.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the prayer for relief concerning the legal award in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), when asking for a legal award the lawyer should post their fee structure along with their proof of representation when filing the case. This has not happened and thus there is insufficient evidence for this prayer of relief.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), a lawyer that works on a contingency fee (no cure no pay) cannot ask for a legal award. BlestSnow636130 works as a paralegal for Titan Law as shown in D-006. Titan law uses a contingency fee for all of their cases as shown in D-007 and D-008.

Denied. Lack of claim goes for claims of relief not prayers. As you did nothing to attack their claims for relief, I must deny the motion. Besides even if lack of claim could be used against prayers of relief, and I were to strike their legal damages, they still have punitive damages they are asking for which would still be standing.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor, the defense would like to request 72 hours extra in discovery to wait for staff and DHS to provide logs the defense requested. This has been requested since 19/11/2024 9:43 GMT+1 and the request is still processing according to D-009 and D-010. These logs are critical for the argument of the defense. Currently we would like to keep the log request confidential as to prevent disclosing parts of our argument prematurely to the plaintiff. If necessary we can disclose within 24 hours if needed for a ruling on this request.

Unless the plaintiff has an extremely good reason as to not extend discovery, Discovery will be extended until the 24th.

 

[dodrio3]

Unless the plaintiff has an extremely good reason as to not extend discovery, Discovery will be extended until the 24th.

The plaintiff does not object to extending discovery.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Voluntary submission: the criminal record of the defendant prior to this case.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Staff still haven’t provided the logs requested as shown in D-019. The defense would like to request either another extension, or request that this case be frozen until the logs are provided by staff. The defense would like to stress that these logs are absolutely critical for our defense.

 

[Omegabiebel]

The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:

• Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
• Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.

Your honor, could we get a ruling on this request?

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Staff still haven’t provided the logs requested as shown in D-019. The defense would like to request either another extension, or request that this case be frozen until the logs are provided by staff. The defense would like to stress that these logs are absolutely critical for our defense.

Since it does seem Staff is being slow getting the defendant's evidence I will extend discovery another 3 days, but this will be the last extension.

 

[ko531]

The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:

• Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
• Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.

The Plaintiff is required to provide this information.

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff is required to provide this information.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER


Your Honour the Plaintiff is not requesting any damages for the loss of profit made from the animals that were killed. we are only requesting to revive punitive and emotional damages for the outargues conduct of the defendant thus these logs only revile confidential information and trade secrets of my client which they whish to keep secret. Thus going ahead with the motion would deny my client of their constitutional rights.

Secondly the amount of items sold does not bare any value on the case. it is only the value of the items that is important as their is always potential for the items to be sold. Thus the plaintiff does not wish to reveal any links to their client.

If this motion is not granted then the defendant wishes to present all the information above in a closed court as it could give sensitive information to their competitors.

 

[dodrio3]

Since it does seem Staff is being slow getting the defendant's evidence I will extend discovery another 3 days, but this will be the last extension.

Motion

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER

Your Honour their is no evidence of D-19 the defence has based their motion to dismiss upon. This is ether because they are in competent of court and deleted the entry or because they ever provided this in the first place. it is not fair on the plaintiff to prolong this trial based on a motion to extended discovery where the extension was granted based on a piece of evidence that does not exist within the trial.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER

Your Honour their is no evidence of D-19 the defence has based their motion to dismiss upon. This is ether because they are in competent of court and deleted the entry or because they ever provided this in the first place. it is not fair on the plaintiff to prolong this trial based on a motion to extended discovery where the extension was granted based on a piece of evidence that does not exist within the trial.

My apologies this was a simple clerical error. This should be D-021 as attached in the motion. As for the evidence, the logs are received and will be posted in court within 24 hours. Well within the deadline.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Voluntary submission: (see attached).
NOTE: D-035 shows the request that was submitted to staff/dhs.
NOTE: D-029 and D-030 show the same logs as are submitted in the plaintiffs complaint.
The defence will also be calling ASlayingFish(AsexualDinosaur) as a witness since he is the one who fulfilled the discovery request.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER


Your Honour the Plaintiff is not requesting any damages for the loss of profit made from the animals that were killed. we are only requesting to revive punitive and emotional damages for the outargues conduct of the defendant thus these logs only revile confidential information and trade secrets of my client which they whish to keep secret. Thus going ahead with the motion would deny my client of their constitutional rights.

Secondly the amount of items sold does not bare any value on the case. it is only the value of the items that is important as their is always potential for the items to be sold. Thus the plaintiff does not wish to reveal any links to their client.

If this motion is not granted then the defendant wishes to present all the information above in a closed court as it could give sensitive information to their competitors.

Overruled. In your claims for relief, you have emotional distress and financial loss. By putting financial loss, you have opened the door to this level of scrutiny as the defense is entitled to explore the validity of your claims. By claiming financial loss based on the potential to sell someone is too broad. for financial loss the acts must have either caused money to leave the plaintiff's account (added cost) or prevented money from entering their account (loss of sales).

I will grant the closed court request.

Motion

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER

Your Honour their is no evidence of D-19 the defence has based their motion to dismiss upon. This is ether because they are in competent of court and deleted the entry or because they ever provided this in the first place. it is not fair on the plaintiff to prolong this trial based on a motion to extended discovery where the extension was granted based on a piece of evidence that does not exist within the trial.

Overruled. There does seem to be no Evidence D-19 but it is clear with the context of the request to extend discovery and the evidence provided in the same message that D-21 must be what they were talking about. This is most likely a clerical error and without you providing evidence on the contrary, the discovery extension will stand.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to Provide Discovery (Rule 5.13): The deadline to submit the discovery request has run out even though the plaintiff claimed they had it more than 35 hours ago in closed court and the court mandated they had to submit it. This gives the defense a huge disadvantage regarding the claim of outrageous financial loss. The defense therefore requests for the claim of financial loss to be dismissed. The defense believes that based on the evidence provided (D-004 and D-005 in the answer to complaint) this claim lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5): D-022 until D-035 show that Marissa4 kills their own animals regularly, just as expected on a commercial farm where animals are bred and killed for money. The plaintiff even admitted as having chestshops with animal products.
Between 15th of October and 25th of November 218 animals were killed directly by Marissa4, this excludes the 27 pages with at least 27 kills (at least 1 kill per page) related to physics based deaths. The inclusion of fire and cramming shows Marissa4 burning their own animals alive and neglecting them to the point that they die by entity cramming. No person with a strong emotional connection to these animals would kill them, especially not in this way.

In addition to that, not a single use, mention or even hint of a nametag was found on the farming plot where the animals were killed. This shows Marissa4 not even giving them a name, let alone that there was an emotional connection. The only thing the plaintiff has that may even begin to prove an emotional connection is the biased testimony of Marissa4, the plaintiff themself.

For these reasons the defense believes that the emotional distress claim has little to no evidence and no merit, we therefore move for dismissal with prejudice.

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to Provide Discovery (Rule 5.13): The deadline to submit the discovery request has run out even though the plaintiff claimed they had it more than 35 hours ago in closed court and the court mandated they had to submit it. This gives the defense a huge disadvantage regarding the claim of outrageous financial loss. The defense therefore requests for the claim of financial loss to be dismissed. The defense believes that based on the evidence provided (D-004 and D-005 in the answer to complaint) this claim lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5): D-022 until D-035 show that Marissa4 kills their own animals regularly, just as expected on a commercial farm where animals are bred and killed for money. The plaintiff even admitted as having chestshops with animal products.
Between 15th of October and 25th of November 218 animals were killed directly by Marissa4, this excludes the 27 pages with at least 27 kills (at least 1 kill per page) related to physics based deaths. The inclusion of fire and cramming shows Marissa4 burning their own animals alive and neglecting them to the point that they die by entity cramming. No person with a strong emotional connection to these animals would kill them, especially not in this way.

In addition to that, not a single use, mention or even hint of a nametag was found on the farming plot where the animals were killed. This shows Marissa4 not even giving them a name, let alone that there was an emotional connection. The only thing the plaintiff has that may even begin to prove an emotional connection is the biased testimony of Marissa4, the plaintiff themself.

For these reasons the defense believes that the emotional distress claim has little to no evidence and no merit, we therefore move for dismissal with prejudice.

As per the first point I have been busy with a funeral of a close family member so I have not had time to post some pictures for a video game. I will post them shortly.

For the second point the defence is only arguing that one claiming that no emotional distress was taken upon and fails to acknowledge the finical loss that is also stated as a claim for relief

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Your Honour,
May we get a ruling on the motion and proceed to opening statements as it has been a week since the 72h extention was granted

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to Provide Discovery (Rule 5.13): The deadline to submit the discovery request has run out even though the plaintiff claimed they had it more than 35 hours ago in closed court and the court mandated they had to submit it. This gives the defense a huge disadvantage regarding the claim of outrageous financial loss. The defense therefore requests for the claim of financial loss to be dismissed. The defense believes that based on the evidence provided (D-004 and D-005 in the answer to complaint) this claim lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5): D-022 until D-035 show that Marissa4 kills their own animals regularly, just as expected on a commercial farm where animals are bred and killed for money. The plaintiff even admitted as having chestshops with animal products.
Between 15th of October and 25th of November 218 animals were killed directly by Marissa4, this excludes the 27 pages with at least 27 kills (at least 1 kill per page) related to physics based deaths. The inclusion of fire and cramming shows Marissa4 burning their own animals alive and neglecting them to the point that they die by entity cramming. No person with a strong emotional connection to these animals would kill them, especially not in this way.

In addition to that, not a single use, mention or even hint of a nametag was found on the farming plot where the animals were killed. This shows Marissa4 not even giving them a name, let alone that there was an emotional connection. The only thing the plaintiff has that may even begin to prove an emotional connection is the biased testimony of Marissa4, the plaintiff themself.

For these reasons the defense believes that the emotional distress claim has little to no evidence and no merit, we therefore move for dismissal with prejudice.

Denied

1. The plaintiff did provided the evidence requests in closed court. I am not going to hold the late filing against them as they had a real life to attend to.

2. The claim being made is Emotional Damage AND Financial Loss. Even without the emotional damage they would still have a claim. I do not buy this argument against emotional damages as they clearly were using the animals for financial gain due to claims of financial loss. Also a reasonable person does not only suffer emotional damages when emotionally attached to the animals, they may also suffer it when they suffer financial losses.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to post opening statements

 

[BlestSnow636130]

OPENING STATEMENT
Your Honor,

On October 15, 2024, the Defendant, SplashyBoi74, carried out a deliberate and malicious act by killing 15 animals belonging to the Plaintiff, Marissa4. This act was not accidental or incidental to farm life; it was intentional destruction, as captured in clear, undeniable screenshots documenting the killings.

These animals were far more than replaceable items. They represented both a significant financial investment and a meaningful part of the Plaintiff’s daily life. Their violent loss caused substantial emotional harm to the Plaintiff, who cared for and relied on them. The Defendant’s actions stripped the Plaintiff of not only her property but also the comfort and livelihood these animals provided.

Financially, the loss is significant. These 15 animals had inherent value as contributors to the Plaintiff’s farm operations and future economic potential. The Defendant attempts to minimize this, suggesting replacement costs are trivial, but this view ignores the long-term impact of such a large-scale loss.

Emotionally, the harm cannot be overstated. The sudden and brutal killing of these animals caused deep distress to the Plaintiff, who had invested her time, care, and resources in raising and maintaining them.

This case is not only about compensation but also about accountability. The Defendant’s deliberate actions require this court to send a clear message: malicious destruction of property and harm to others will not be tolerated. The Plaintiff seeks appropriate compenatory damages as well as punitive damages, to deter such behavior in the future

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Denied

1. The plaintiff did provided the evidence requests in closed court. I am not going to hold the late filing against them as they had a real life to attend to.

2. The claim being made is Emotional Damage AND Financial Loss. Even without the emotional damage they would still have a claim. I do not buy this argument against emotional damages as they clearly were using the animals for financial gain due to claims of financial loss. Also a reasonable person does not only suffer emotional damages when emotionally attached to the animals, they may also suffer it when they suffer financial losses.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to post opening statements

Your Honour,
Can we proceed further

 

[ko531]

The defendant has 72 hours to post their opening statement

 

[Omegabiebel]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff suddenly asks for compensatory damages in their opening statement but this was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint. This basically an amendment to complaint, and since amendments cannot be made after discovery according to court rule 3.3, the Defense requests the parts mentioning compensation to be struck. We would additionally like to point out that we may have chosen another strategy or requested/submitted additional evidence if the compensation was mentioned in the complaint.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Emotional harm based on a strong emotional connection​

From exhibits D-022 until D-035, it is exceedingly clear that this is a commercial mass-producing farm. This implies that these animals are by definition replaceable. They only live for as long as needed, after that they are killed for their products. The defence would also like to point out that 27+ animals were killed by fire or entity cramming, which suggests that the Plaintiff neglected these animals by failing to provide a safe enclosure for these animals. The defence must therefore strongly urge the court to reject the notion of emotional harm based on a strong emotional bond since there is a plethora of evidence indicating otherwise.

Financial loss​

The plaintiff was mostly using the drops of animals. Since you can’t kill an animal multiple times, there is no long term economic potential the Defendant lost out on. The plaintiff used the animal products to craft several edible items. The defence has calculated the average price of the beef and chicken used in these recipes and it is clear from these calculations that the maximum financial loss is still minimal.
A financial loss of such little magnitude cannot reasonably cause emotional harm, let alone to the extent that punitive damages are warranted.

Conclusion​

As determined by the Legal Damages act paragraph (5)(1)(a), punitive damages are for deterring outrageous conduct. This means that even if there is emotional harm and/or financial loss this must raise to the level of being outrageous. The character of the defendant must also be taken into account, and on that point the defence would like to mention that the defendant had a clean criminal record before the killings as shown by D-020.

On the point of accountability, this has already happened. The defendant was fined by the DHS for the killings and the plaintiff was compensated with an unfine.

The plaintiff also suddenly asks for compensation even though this wasn’t mentioned in the complaint. The defence believes that the Court should reject this award as this is basically amending the complaint outside of the period where this is allowed.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

The defendant has 72 hours to post their opening statement

Your Honour may we move forward

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff suddenly asks for compensatory damages in their opening statement but this was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint. This basically an amendment to complaint, and since amendments cannot be made after discovery according to court rule 3.3, the Defense requests the parts mentioning compensation to be struck. We would additionally like to point out that we may have chosen another strategy or requested/submitted additional evidence if the compensation was mentioned in the complaint.

Overruled. Even though they said compensation damages they did not actually amend their complaint so I will not strike it. I will advise the plaintiff to talk about the damages in their complaint in their closing.


The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing statement

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Overruled. Even though they said compensation damages they did not actually amend their complaint so I will not strike it. I will advise the plaintiff to talk about the damages in their complaint in their closing.


The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing statement

Your Honour,
What about the witness testimony
as per court rules and procedures witness testimony and cross examination has to be done first

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,
What about the witness testimony
as per court rules and procedures witness testimony and cross examination has to be done first

I was just about to say something, but you beat me to it. I am sorry I just woke up and still a bit tired.

I will issue summons in a bit

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Marissa4 and @asexualdinosaur is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honour, I am Identifying myself as AsexualDinosaur, and I am present before the court.