Lawsuit: Pending Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377

[Boomsides]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

I. PARTIES​

Boomsides (Plaintiff 1) & Pepecuu (Plaintiff 2)
Plaintiffs

v.

Lucaa7377
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S

The Plaintiffs, Boomsides and Pepecuu, respectfully submit the following statement: On January 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs participated in an auction for a property hosted by the Defendant, lucaa7377, which started at $12,000. In order to secure the property, Plaintiff 1 paused their operations to set aside the necessary funds, as they could not risk not having enough money if they won. Despite their active participation with bids, the Defendant canceled the auction while it was ongoing and sold the property privately to Plura72 for $23,000, in clear violation of auction rules and the 24-hour bid window. This caused financial harm to the Plaintiffs as their resources were wasted, and their operations were disrupted. Furthermore, the Defendant mocked the Plaintiffs afterward, dismissively stating, among other smug and callous remarks, “who cares enough?”, demonstrating a disregard for the law and the harm caused. The Defendant’s actions were unlawful and intentional, resulting in both financial and emotional damage to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs request the Court consider these facts and award appropriate relief for the harm caused.

II. FACTS​

1. On January 17, 2025, the Defendant, lucaa7377, initiated an auction for a property located 824 blocks from spawn, with a starting price of $12,000. The auction was governed by the Real Estate Guidelines.
2. Plaintiff 1 participated in the auction, placing bids in good faith. Plaintiff 1 initially bid $12,000, followed by a bid of $14,000. Plaintiff 2 also expressed interest in the auction.
3. After a few bids, Plura72 asked the Defendant if he would sell the property for a direct price of $23,000, bypassing the bidding process. The Defendant then took such an offer.
4. Despite the auction still being active, the Defendant prematurely canceled the auction and engaged in a private sale with Plura72. The property was sold for $23,000, and this occurred while bids were still in progress.
5. Plaintiff 1 was forced to pause all operations to reserve the necessary funds in case they were the winning bidder. This was a necessary precaution to ensure they had enough funds if the auction reached their bid, disrupting their business activities.
6. The Defendant’s actions directly violated the Real Estate Guidelines, which prohibit canceling ongoing auctions and selling properties outside of the auction framework. The Defendant also disregarded the established process for conducting and concluding auctions.
7. The Defendant admitted to this breach of auction protocol in a conversation, where they casually mentioned selling the property outside of the auction and stated, “Who cares enough?”
8. The Defendant then was questioned on whether or not the property was still on auction, and lied about still having it within their possession, and even encouraged further bids quoted as saying “Yeah but people can still bid”.
9. The Defendant even further edits the post, so as to “invalidate” the auction as a means to avoid legal retribution.
10. The Defendant even further shows absolute contempt for his actions cited as saying “lets just let bygones be bygones and forget about my mistake th[at] couldnt have been prevented in any other way”
11. As there are an incredible amount of instances, I will now create a list of every mocking or facetious statement, or outright lies made by the defendant.
    1. I can just make the auction invalid - Ooooo look it happened to be edited - Coz the auction isn’t legal I guess that means its invalid
    2. I didnt sell it yet - Okay - so uhhh - the payment may have been done
    3. Oh well - who cares enough
    4. Brudda - oh well
    5. Yeah unfortunately not enough bids were made - so I had to cancell it
    6. Only HALF fault tho
    7. Coz in that case - this is my educated lawyer - so its not ma fauly
    8. Yeah but people can still bid
    9. What if I happened to have it now
    10. Says who? (In response to an accusation about taking an illegal bribe) - Oh yeah - true
    11. I was feeling threatened so I had to end the auction - I was defending myself
    12. Waita minute has this auction been invalid this entire time? - the last time i checked an edited auction post is invalid - all bids are invalid tho - no entiendo
    13. (in response for as to why he gave Plura72 his land) it was because he is my legal advisor and I gave him a gift - just a good spirited gift
    14. Yeah but a completely legal crime

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

The Defendant's actions breached the following provisions:

1. Auction Terms (Breach of Contract):
   • Under the Real Estate Guidelines and as supported by Section 14(1) of the Contracts Act, auctions must run to completion unless specific criteria are met. The Defendant unlawfully canceled the auction mid-process, violating the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. This improper termination constitutes a material breach under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, allowing Plaintiffs to seek appropriate remedies.
2. Unauthorized Sale (Breach of Contract):
   • The Real Estate Guidelines prohibit the direct sale of properties during an ongoing auction unless explicitly stated in the auction's terms. The Defendant’s sale of the property to Plura72 for $23,000 violated the express terms of the auction as outlined in Section 5(1) of the Act and undermined the fairness required by Section 14(1). This deliberate non-performance constitutes a breach under Section 7(1).
3. Failure to Follow Legal Auction Procedures (Misrepresentation):
   • The Defendant edited the post and deviated from standard auction procedures. He then lied about having the property still, and even encouraged more bids. This constitutes a false representation of adherence to legal processes, inducing Plaintiffs to participate under false pretenses. Such conduct meets the definition of misrepresentation under Section 8(1) of the Act, entitling Plaintiffs to remedies such as rescission or damages under Section 8(1)(a).
4. Damages Induced (Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing):
   • The Defendant mocked and insulted the Plaintiffs, providing fabricated excuses for canceling the auction. This behavior reflects a clear violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as stated in Section 14(2) of the Act. The Plaintiffs not only lost a property they were interested in but also suffered emotional distress and reputational harm due to the Defendant's actions.
5. Defendant’s Statements (Intent and Breach):
   • Statements such as “Who cares enough” demonstrate the Defendant’s blatant disregard for the intent to fulfill obligations required under Section 4(2)(d) of the Act. This reflects a failure to act with honesty, integrity, and fairness as outlined in Section 14(1).

The Defendant’s actions collectively demonstrate a disregard for contractual obligations, auction integrity, and the legal standards established under the Contracts Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory and Consequential Damages:
   • $15,000 per Plaintiff to compensate for both financial losses and emotional distress resulting from the Defendant’s wrongful cancellation of the auction and unauthorized sale.
   • The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.
2. Punitive Damages:
   • $25,000 to punish the Defendant for the egregious nature of their conduct and to deter similar future actions. The Defendant acted in callous disregard for the Plaintiffs’ rights and the established rules of the auction. Despite knowing that their actions violated the Real Estate Guidelines, the Defendant proceeded to cancel the auction and sell the property directly to Plura72 without any justification, knowing full well that this was a breach of the law.
   • The Defendant’s attitude, as expressed during the incident, was unapologetic and defiant, even saying, “Who cares enough?” This statement demonstrates a clear intent to disregard the auction rules and treat the established guidelines as inconsequential. Such conduct not only undermines the integrity of the auction process but also indicates an utter lack of regard for the fair treatment of others.
   • These punitive damages are necessary to send a strong message that such callous and unlawful behavior will not be tolerated and that the Defendant must be held accountable for their actions.
3. Legal Fees:
   • $16,500 to reimburse the Plaintiffs for the legal costs incurred in pursuing this lawsuit, ensuring they are not financially burdened by the need to take legal action.
4. Injunctive Relief:
   • A court order requiring the Defendant to comply with the Real Estate Guidelines in all future auctions to prevent similar breaches and protect the rights of all participants.

Witnesses -
Pepecuu
Boomsides
Real estate c344 chat

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 22nd day of January 2025

Boomsides
Representative of the Plaintiffs, Boomsides and Pepecuu
Proof of Representation -