Lawsuit: Dismissed _lucaaa_ and lukeyyy11 v. BrustkleFurry [2024] DCR 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zLost

Citizen
Representative
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls
zLost
zLost
Representative
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
603

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


_lucaaa_ and lukeyyy11
Plaintiff

v.

BrustkleFurry
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Defendant, BrustkleFurry, has trespassed and attempted to kill the Plaintiff multiple times in their own property. The Defendant had been asked multiple times to leave, yet refused to and kept trying to kill the Plaintiff and causing mayhem in their store. The Defendant has physically harmed the Plaintiff by causing them to bleed, has psychologically harmed the Plaintiff through harassment, and has repelled customers away from the Plaintiff's store due to the attempted murders.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. _lucaaa_
2. lukeyyy11
3. BrustkleFurry

II. FACTS
1. On November 9th 2024, the Defendant entered the Plaintiff's store despite there being a sign stating that they are banned from the shop. (Exhibit A)
2. When informed to leave, the Defendant refused to and stayed inside the store, while trying to shoot the Plaintiff and caused them to bleed. (Exhibit B)
3. The Defendant then attempted to murder the Plaintiff again, this time using a shovel and almost killing them. (Exhibit B)
4. The Defendant proceeded to hide on the 2nd floor, after a friend of the Plaintiff and one of the owners of the store, RoryyyMC started attacking them back in defense. (Exhibit B)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Punitive Damages, as stated in the Legal Damages Act (link), are:

“Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future

What the Defendant did is clearly outrageous. They trespassed, attempted murder, and caused chaos in the Plaintiff's store. This conduct is unacceptable, and should not be left without a large punishment.
2. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, as stated in the Legal Damages Act (link), is said to be:

situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.

The Plaintiff lost the ability to maintain their store and handle it's day-to-day operations. The Defendant caused chaos in their. Gunshots could be heard from outside the shop, deterring any potential customers that were around the store.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Plaintiff is seeking $15,000 in Punitive Damages due to the severity of the actions.
2. The Plaintiff is seeking $10,000 in Consequential Damages due to the loss of enjoyment in Redmont.
3. The Plaintiff seeks 20% of the case value ($5,000) in Legal Fees.

View attachment 49984
View attachment 49985
View attachment 49986


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 16th day of November 2024

 

Writ of Summons


@brustklefurry is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of _lucaaa_ and lukeyyy11 v. brustklefurry [2024] DCR 44

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.

 
The Defence is present and will be being represented by Titan Law.
 

Attachments

  • 1731969721847.png
    1731969721847.png
    55.8 KB · Views: 20
I apologize your honor, I forgot to attach proof of representation.

1731920974954.png

1731920994514.png
 
We will now be entering discovery, discovery will last 72 hours.
 
The Plaintiff wishes to call lukeyyy11, _lucaaa_, Jabolko, and BrustkleFurry as witnesses.
 
Your Honour may we proceed?
 
The defense has 72 hours to submit their answer to complaint.
 
ko531 said:
The defense has 72 hours to submit their answer to complaint.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, will our request for witnesses be accepted?
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, will our request for witnesses be accepted?
Click to expand...
As no objections was made against it, yes it is accepted
 
ko531 said:
The defense has 72 hours to submit their answer to complaint.
Click to expand...
I wish to request a 72h extensions as I am attending today.
 
Your Honor, I would like to inform the courts that my client's username has changed to lucaaasserole.
 
zLost said:

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


_lucaaa_ and lukeyyy11
Plaintiff

v.

BrustkleFurry
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:



I. PARTIES
1. _lucaaa_
2. lukeyyy11
3. BrustkleFurry

II. FACTS
1. On November 9th 2024, the Defendant entered the Plaintiff's store despite there being a sign stating that they are banned from the shop. (Exhibit A)
2. When informed to leave, the Defendant refused to and stayed inside the store, while trying to shoot the Plaintiff and caused them to bleed. (Exhibit B)
3. The Defendant then attempted to murder the Plaintiff again, this time using a shovel and almost killing them. (Exhibit B)
4. The Defendant proceeded to hide on the 2nd floor, after a friend of the Plaintiff and one of the owners of the store, RoryyyMC started attacking them back in defense. (Exhibit B)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Punitive Damages, as stated in the Legal Damages Act (link), are:

“Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future

What the Defendant did is clearly outrageous. They trespassed, attempted murder, and caused chaos in the Plaintiff's store. This conduct is unacceptable, and should not be left without a large punishment.
2. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, as stated in the Legal Damages Act (link), is said to be:

situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.

The Plaintiff lost the ability to maintain their store and handle it's day-to-day operations. The Defendant caused chaos in their. Gunshots could be heard from outside the shop, deterring any potential customers that were around the store.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Plaintiff is seeking $15,000 in Punitive Damages due to the severity of the actions.
2. The Plaintiff is seeking $10,000 in Consequential Damages due to the loss of enjoyment in Redmont.
3. The Plaintiff seeks 20% of the case value ($5,000) in Legal Fees.

View attachment 49984
View attachment 49985
View attachment 49986


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 16th day of November 2024

Click to expand...

Answer to Complaint



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

_lucaaa_ and lukeyyy11
Plaintiff

v.

BrustkleFurry
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defence Affirms All facts.

II. DEFENCES

  1. The Defence contends that the Plaintiff is demanding an excessive amount of compensation for an incident that lasted just over one minute. The amount sought is disproportionately high and exceeds reasonable limits, given the circumstances of the case.
  2. According to the Legal Damages Act, "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." The Plaintiff has failed to comply with this requirement. Specifically, the Plaintiff is seeking 20% of the case value ($5,000) in legal fees without presenting the necessary fee structure documentation. This omission invalidates the claim for legal fees as it contravenes the requirements outlined in the Act.


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 30 day of 11 2024

 
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement
 
Apologies your honor, the Plaintiff requests a 24 hour extension due to IRL exams.
 
zLost said:
Apologies your honor, the Plaintiff requests a 24 hour extension due to IRL exams.
Click to expand...

Objection




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

You honour the defence was give a strict timeline of 72h to post their opening statement or request and extension and this timeframe has been breached. I wish for us to move on due to my clients right to a fair and speedy trial.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection




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

You honour the defence was give a strict timeline of 72h to post their opening statement or request and extension and this timeframe has been breached. I wish for us to move on due to my clients right to a fair and speedy trial.

Click to expand...
Overruled. It would be highly hypocritical to grant your 72 hour extension earlier in this trial and turn around and deny the Defense's extension. The extension is granted, and the defense has an extra 24 hours to provide their Opening Statements
 
ko531 said:
Overruled. It would be highly hypocritical to grant your 72 hour extension earlier in this trial and turn around and deny the Defense's extension. The extension is granted, and the defense has an extra 24 hours to provide their Opening Statements
Click to expand...

Motion



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

1. Your honour with respect you statement of "It would be highly hypocritical to grant your 72 hour extension earlier in this trial and turn around and deny the Defence's extension.". Is completely false my request for an extension was made within the timeframe of the original 72h I had to submit my statement. Where as the defence went ~12h over the deadline to post before sending the request.

2. I wish to highlight the predicant of Lawsuit: Adjourned - Jeygame7816 v. Destined7433 [2024] FCR 125. which states. "The deadline was breached by four minutes. The Defendant could have notified this court if an extension was necessary" thus reenforcing that an extension or a response must be done within the required timeframe.

 
dodrio3 said:

Motion



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

1. Your honour with respect you statement of "It would be highly hypocritical to grant your 72 hour extension earlier in this trial and turn around and deny the Defence's extension.". Is completely false my request for an extension was made within the timeframe of the original 72h I had to submit my statement. Where as the defence went ~12h over the deadline to post before sending the request.

2. I wish to highlight the predicant of Lawsuit: Adjourned - Jeygame7816 v. Destined7433 [2024] FCR 125. which states. "The deadline was breached by four minutes. The Defendant could have notified this court if an extension was necessary" thus reenforcing that an extension or a response must be done within the required timeframe.

Click to expand...
Overruled. Again, I still find it hypocritical. I understand your point about the request being slightly late, but people have lives outside DC, and I am going to respect them.

The Plaintiff has about 3 hours left to post their Opening Statement
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

1. While the encounter may have taken place in minutes, the effects from it are lasting. My client has had to barricade their store to prevent people like the Defendant from entering their store, and any potential customers may have been deterred due to the chaos.
2. I am asking my client $5,000 in legal fees for this case. I have disclosed my fee structure, therefore what the defendant has said does not matter anymore.

 
The Defense has 72 hours to post their opening statement
 

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


  1. The Defence contends that the Plaintiff is demanding an excessive amount of compensation for an incident that lasted just over one minute. The amount sought is disproportionately high and exceeds reasonable limits, given the circumstances of the case.
  2. According to the Legal Damages Act, "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." The Plaintiff has failed to comply with this requirement. Specifically, the Plaintiff is seeking 20% of the case value ($5,000) in legal fees without presenting the necessary fee structure documentation. This omission invalidates the claim for legal fees as it contravenes the requirements outlined in the Act.

 

Writ of Summons


@brustklefurry @lukeyyy11 @lucaaaaMC @Jabolko are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of _lucaaa_ and lukeyyy11 v. brustklefurry [2024] DCR 44

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.

 
Hi, I believe I am present
 
The Plaintiff can start questioning their witnesses
 
Apologies Your Honor, we have settled the case outside of court.
 
Lawsuit dismissed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top