Lawsuit: Dismissed Argen_Lee v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 20

[Angryhamdog]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Argen_Lee (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

V.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Plura72 deliberately interrupted the Plaintiff's auction, belittling the property and drawing users away with the promise of his own, ‘way better’ auction, which lowered the overall bid amount of the property.

I. PARTIES
1. Argen_Lee (Plaintiff)

2. Plura72 (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On January 22nd, 2025, the Plaintiff posted an auction titled “Rental Rights - wl-f030’, with the end time being 24 hours after the last bid.
2. After approximately two days of bidding, a bid of $7000 was reached.
3. Two hours after the bid of 7000 Redmont dollars was reached, the Defendant deliberately and maliciously interrupted the auction, saying “Guys, do you know here has an offer of Wl-f093 and its way better than this Wl-f030”.
4. Plura72 broke DCT policy, which states ‘Neither auctioneers nor bidders may engage in acts which serve to direct attention away from the bid,’ which specifically includes ‘advertising one’s own bid or business on another’s channel’.
5. Plura72 caused the bidders to stop bidding as a result of his disruptive outburst advertising his own property.
6. Plura72 has consistently disrupted auctions with negative comments, such as in the forum posts for wl-f050, wl-f039, and rh-044.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant deliberately broke the DCT policy by engaging in acts which serve to direct attention away from the bid, which includes ‘commenting negatively on the utilitarian value or lack thereof’ and ‘advertising one’s own bid or business on another’s channel’, in order to gain bids on his own, separate auction. He devalued the property by stating that there were plots ‘way better’ than the plot the Plaintiff was attempting to sell the rental rights to.
2. The Defendant has consistently attempted to disrupt auctions, including those not from the Plaintiff, saying things such as “Just give up bro”, “there is better plots” “and cheaper”, “your yacht is not the best one. looks like it was made in only 15 minutes”.
3. According to the Legal Damages Act, Punitive Damages are to punish a player for their outrageous conduct and to deter them from similar conduct in the future. The Defendant has shown reckless abandon in interrupting auctions with out-of-line comments, with more than just Argen_Lee being affected, and a slight penalty is extremely important in order to provide a firm but fair warning.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory Damages
   1. $6,000 for the potential loss of money that would have been gained without the Defendants actions.
2. Punitive Damages
   1. $10,000 for the outrageous, and hardly uncommon, acts of the Defendant deliberately attempting to lower auction bids of sellers.
3. Legal Fees
   1. $4,800 for legal fees equaling 30% of this case’s value to cover the costs the Plaintiff incurred by hiring Dragon Law Firm as legal representation.

V. Evidence

Spoiler: ”P-001”

Spoiler: ”P-002”

Spoiler: ”P-003”

Spoiler: ”P-004”

P-002 to P-004 is proof that the compensatory damages are reasonable, as 3 other bids on rental rights for Willow farming plots within weeks of Argen_Lee's auction have often gone up to $12,000-$14,000.

Spoiler: ”P-005”

Plura72 telling someone to stop bidding in an auction.

Spoiler: ”P-006”

Plura72 telling people to avoid the bid through advertising other plots.

Spoiler: ”P-007”

Plura72 belittling a Yacht on a rental-rights plot.

PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Argen_lee v Plura71 [2025] DCR 20

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.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi

The Plaintiff has not responded to any of our urgent attempts to contact him since the 2nd of March, and has an irregularly low playtime over the last few weeks. As such, we wish to drop charges until such time that our client is able to respond. We thank the court for their time.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi

The Plaintiff has not responded to any of our urgent attempts to contact him since the 2nd of March, and has an irregularly low playtime over the last few weeks. As such, we wish to drop charges until such time that our client is able to respond. We thank the court for their time.

Granted. Case Dismissed