Lawsuit: Adjourned xEndeavour v. Unitymaster [2025] FCR 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
End

End

Owner
Owner
Senator
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
President Order of Redmont Trifecta
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
Senator
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
2,406

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

UnityMaster
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Unitymaster filed a case against me which was frivolous in nature. It's a waste of my own time and effort to be litigating a case which has absolutely no standing, purpose, or value, and which I assess was filed vexatiously.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour (Plaintiff)
2. UnityMaster (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. UnityMaster filed a case (P-001) which has established no breach of law, nor established any value. Frivolous litigation is proven in that the case not only lacks any legal standing or merit, but also represents a deliberate abuse of the legal process. The Defendant's action is vexatious, purposefully wasteful of the Plaintiff's time, and has no legitimate foundation in fact or law. The case constitutes an egregious misuse of judicial resources and must be dismissed.
2. The judge failed to consider my counter claims in dismissing the case for lack of claim from the Defendant (then plaintiff).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant, UnityMaster, has initiated a claim against the Plaintiff that is utterly devoid of any legal grounds. The claim is frivolous, with no factual or legal basis supporting the allegations. The Defendant's pursuit of this action reflects a clear disregard for the legal process and an intention to harass and vex the Plaintiff.

2. Frivolous litigation is characterized by the pursuit of claims that are not grounded in law, facts, or evidence. In this case, the Defendant has failed to substantiate any of their claims with verifiable evidence. Moreover, they have refused to provide evidence during the discovery process, thus confirming that their actions are not motivated by a genuine dispute but rather by an intent to waste the Plaintiff's resources and time.

If a vexatious case lacks value and purpose - in a case where nothing is supported by evidence - is not frivolous, then what is?

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 30% of $260,000 is $78,000, so the counterplaintiff seeks $12,000 in legal fees, or compensatory damages if legal fees are not accepted by this Court.
2. Order the Defendant to issue a public apology, to be approved by the Court, and published in a reputable news outlet to mitigate the reputational harm caused by the Defendant’s meritless and baseless claims.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26th day of February 2025.

 
Due to having a conversation about this in #legal with the Plaintiff, I will be voluntarily recusing.
 
End said:
I request summary judgement noting this is a countersuit
Click to expand...
Can the movant please demonstrate their legal foundation for their motion of summary judgement on the basis of this being a countersuit?
 
Then a summons will be issued as appropriate.

Writ of Summons



@Unitymaster is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. UnityMaster.

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.

 
I would also like the parties to know that I did have in the past a close relationship with the defendant both as his legal counsel and political ally. If either party wishes me to recuse, I will voluntarily do so.
 
The court hereby charges the defendant @Unitymaster with contempt of court for failure to appear. The punishment will be in discretion of the DHS.

That being said, the court will go into recess pending a public defender.
 
Good Morning your Honor,

I have been assigned this case by the public defenders office.
 
Nacho said:
Good Morning your Honor,

I have been assigned this case by the public defenders office.
Click to expand...
Very well, you have 48 hours for a response to complaint.
 
ColonelKai said:
Very well, you have 48 hours for a response to complaint.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

The defense is happy with a summary judgment in this matter. There is not really much for us to argue to mitigate.
 
Very well, the court will go into recess pending a verdict.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
xEndeavour v. UnityMaster [2025] FCR 25

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff claims that the original case is frivolous as it "not only lacks any legal standing or merit, but also represents a deliberate abuse of the legal process." The plaintiff claims that the intent of the suit was to vex and harass the then-defendant.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defense has agreed to a summary judgement.

III. THE COURT OPINION
Apologies for the lateness.

I would like to start this verdict off by drawing attention to the usage of the "Claims for Relief", and more specifically the lack of any clear references to codified acts of law or previous court decisions to support the plaintiff's position. However, given that the charge at hand is simple, I will begrudgingly accept it, and continue by using the Misc. Offenses Act's Frivilous Lawsuit definition as the building block; "Lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value."

This definition requires that the plaintiff have no serious intent to pursue a legal argument, and the lawsuit was filed for comedic or similar purposes. Unfortunately, such a narrow definition as prescribed by the law creates a circumstance where actually malicious lawsuits can not be considered as "frivilous". The court urges the legislature to update the definitions as provided in law.

However, looking at the size of the representation which was representing the then-plaintiff now-defendant, it should be reasonably assumed that the crucial mistake that invalidates the entire case should have been caught by the firm. Therefore, as this is a civil case operating under preponderance of the evidence, it is more likely than not that the firm has filed this lawsuit despite their knowledge of the crucial mistakes.

Consequently, the court is inclined to award the plaintiff (then-defendant) their compensatory damages for the time the lawsuit has wasted them.

IV. DECISION
1. The compensatory damage of 12,000$ is awarded to the plaintiff, to be fined from the defendant.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top