Lawsuit: Dismissed Bardiya_King v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 118

[Freeze_Line]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff was unjustly terminated from the Department of Commerce (DOC) due to alleged inactivity purportedly exhibited by his coworkers. Despite consistently demonstrating active participation and dedication in their role within the DOC, the Plaintiff was subject to an indiscriminate decision by the DOC to terminate all employees without individual performance evaluations, resulting in an unjust firing.

This mass termination was a broad, sweeping decision applied uniformly to all employees, without evaluating each individual's performance or contributions, thereby failing to recognize the Plaintiff’s active contributions and commitment to their responsibilities. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered significant harm, including loss of employment, professional reputation, and income.


I. PARTIES
1. Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
2. Department of Commerce (DOC)

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff received a communication from Drew_Hall (DOC’s Secretary) on 23 May 2024, stating that all department employees were being terminated immediately. As shown in Exhibit A.

1. The reason for this mass termination was to address inefficiencies within the department, which the DOC attributed to alleged inactivity among employees. As also shown in Exhibit A.

1. Despite the general claim of inactivity, the Plaintiff had consistently demonstrated active participation and dedication in their role within the DOC, as was confirmed by Drew_Hall (DOC’s Secretary) in Exhibit B.

1. The DOC’s decision to terminate all employees was a broad, sweeping action that did not consider individual performance evaluations.

1. As a result of this indiscriminate termination, the Plaintiff, along with all other employees, was unjustly fired without consideration of their active contributions and commitment to their responsibilities.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The facts presented give rise to a claim under the Commercial Standards Act. The Plaintiff’s unjust termination without individual performance evaluations violates Section 13(1) of the Commercial Standards Act, which defines "unfair dismissal" as the unjust termination of an employee.

1. The Defendant’s actions also contravene the principles outlined in the Commercial Standards Act, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining fair and just employment practices. The broad, sweeping decision to terminate all employees, including the Plaintiff who was actively contributing to the department, failed to uphold these standards.

1. As defined under Section 7 - Consequential Damages of the Legal Damages Act, "Emotional Damages" refers to situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. The Plaintiff suffered psychological harm due to the Defendant's neglectful actions. The abrupt and unjust termination has caused the Plaintiff significant emotional distress.

1. Also, following Section 7 - Consequential Damages of the Legal Damages Act, "Loss of Enjoyment" is defined as 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 has lost the ability to engage in certain activities as they did before the termination.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in damages to cover financial losses incurred as a result of the unjust termination.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 as compensation for emotional damage.
3. The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 for loss of enjoyment.
4. The Plaintiff seeks $20,000 for reputational damage.
5. The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in legal fees to cover the costs associated with pursuing this legal action.
6. The Plaintiff seeks reinstatement to their former position within the Department of Commerce.

V. Evidence

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Representational Agreement

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 15 day of august 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Aladeen (AG) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bardiya_King v. Commonwealth of Redmont. 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.
​

 

[Aladeen]

Your honor, I would like to request an additional 24 hour extension. I have not been given access yet to my AG role and cannot access any information within the department nor contact my employees through official channels.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted

 

[ko531]

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


Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense Affirms that the Plaintiff received a communication from Drew_Hall (DOC’s Secretary) on 23 May 2024, stating that all department employees were being terminated immediately. As shown in Exhibit A.

2. The Defense Affirms That the reason for this mass termination was to address inefficiencies within the department, which the DOC attributed to alleged inactivity among employees. As also shown in Exhibit A.

3. The Defense Denies that despite the general claim of inactivity, the Plaintiff had consistently demonstrated active participation and dedication in their role within the DOC, as was confirmed by Drew_Hall (DOC’s Secretary) in Exhibit B.

4. The Defense Denies that the DOC’s decision to terminate all employees was a broad, sweeping action that did not consider individual performance evaluations.

5. The Defense Denies that as a result of this indiscriminate termination, the Plaintiff, along with all other employees, was unjustly fired without consideration of their active contributions and commitment to their responsibilities.


II. MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)​

The Plaintiff's case rest solely on the idea that their dismissal was unfair. Good thing for the court there is precedent already set about what is an unfair dismissal. Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96 elaborates that providing a reason does not rise to the level of unfair dismissal. Drew did provide Bardiya a reason for their dismissal. In both cases the reason for the dismissal is questionable but that doesnt matter, A reason was given and therefore the dismissal is not unfair.

With the dismissal being fair shown by already set precedent means that the defense no longer has a claim or damages to sue on. For this reason this case should be dismissed for lack of claim.


Edit: Formating mistakes

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now begin a three-day Discovery Period. At the end of this period, the Plaintiff will have 72 hours to post their opening statement. Immediately after the Plaintiff’s opening, the Defendant will have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[ko531]

We will now begin a three-day Discovery Period. At the end of this period, the Plaintiff will have 72 hours to post their opening statement. Immediately after the Plaintiff’s opening, the Defendant will have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

Your Honor, I would like a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, I request permission to submit a late response to the motion to dismiss if the motion has not already been denied since the discovery period started.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

I apologize I overlooked it. The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion then I will rule. Discovery will continue.

 

[Freeze_Line]

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense argues that the reason for the dismissal in the present case was questionable, as was the case in the cited precedent. However, I strongly disagree with this comparison. In this case, the reason provided for the plaintiff’s dismissal was not merely questionable; it was entirely false. The plaintiff was terminated based on alleged inactivity, a claim that was proven false. The dismissal was not only unjust but also based on a false accusation.

It is important to acknowledge that nearly every case is different and should be treated as such. Rather than relying on an approximation to the precedent, this court should focus on pursuing what is just and fair. This is not a lack of claim. The plaintiff was wrongfully terminated based on false allegations, and therefore, the defense’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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


Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense Affirms that the Plaintiff received a communication from Drew_Hall (DOC’s Secretary) on 23 May 2024, stating that all department employees were being terminated immediately. As shown in Exhibit A.

2. The Defense Affirms That the reason for this mass termination was to address inefficiencies within the department, which the DOC attributed to alleged inactivity among employees. As also shown in Exhibit A.

3. The Defense Denies that despite the general claim of inactivity, the Plaintiff had consistently demonstrated active participation and dedication in their role within the DOC, as was confirmed by Drew_Hall (DOC’s Secretary) in Exhibit B.

4. The Defense Denies that the DOC’s decision to terminate all employees was a broad, sweeping action that did not consider individual performance evaluations.

5. The Defense Denies that as a result of this indiscriminate termination, the Plaintiff, along with all other employees, was unjustly fired without consideration of their active contributions and commitment to their responsibilities.


II. MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)​

The Plaintiff's case rest solely on the idea that their dismissal was unfair. Good thing for the court there is precedent already set about what is an unfair dismissal. Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96 elaborates that providing a reason does not rise to the level of unfair dismissal. Drew did provide Bardiya a reason for their dismissal. In both cases the reason for the dismissal is questionable but that doesnt matter, A reason was given and therefore the dismissal is not unfair.

With the dismissal being fair shown by already set precedent means that the defense no longer has a claim or damages to sue on. For this reason this case should be dismissed for lack of claim.


Edit: Formating mistakes

Motion to dismiss granted. The case is dismissed with prejudice. This case lacks merit, as a valid reason was clearly provided. The evidence presented through filings and discovery clearly shows that the entire department was let go, making the claim of unfairness unfounded.