Lawsuit: Adjourned BubblyBo Vs. MysticPhunky [2023] FCR 111

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

BubblyBo (dodrio3 Representing)
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On the 23/12/2023, The Defendant entered a contract with the Plaintiff where they were set the role of selling properties. Three properties were bought by to Defendant using company funds- r-066, r-099, and r-075. The Defendant then quit and never transferred the properties back.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. BubblyBo - Plaintiff
2. MysticPhunky - Defendant
3. Constellation Co. - Company

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023.
2. The Defendant bought properties of r-066, r-099, and r-075 with company funds to sell for the company
3. On the 24/12/2023, the Defendant quit their job at Constellation Co.
4. The Defendant never gave the residential plots back to Constellation Co. after leaving the position.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant bought properties on the Plaintiff to sell them on their behalf and then took them and left.
2. The Defendant tricked the Plaintiff into giving them properties and then left the next day.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. r-066, r-099, r-075 to be returned to BubblyBo.
2. $45,000 in punitive damages for the theft of the plots ($15,000 per plot).
3. $15,000 in loss of profits due to the plots not being able to be sold as soon as possible ($5,000 per property).
4. $10,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont due to being embezzled by the Defendant.
5. $14,000 in legal fees paid to dodrio3 (20% of the overall case value).

(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 29 day of 12 2023

 

[dodrio3]

Emergency Injunction

To prevent the Defendant from transferring the properties to another individual or selling the properties, I ask that the court places the plots in the care of the Department of Construction and Transport for the duration of the trial.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Emergency Injunction is hereby granted, plots r066, r099, and r075 are to be transferred from MysticPhunky to DCGovernment for the duration of this case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I issue summons, can you provide proof of Representation?

 

[dodrio3]

This image shows the Plaintiff agreeing for me to post this into court

 

[dodrio3]

I also just received this message from the Plaintiff

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@MysticPhunky is required to appear before the court in the case of the BubblyBo v. MysticPhunky. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Emergency Injunction is hereby granted, plots r066, r099, and r075 are to be transferred from MysticPhunky to DCGovernment for the duration of this case.

Motion to Reconsider
This injunction serves to harass and do irreparable harm to my client. My client is prevented from enjoying the use of his properties. I request this injunction be overturned and that the injunction is simply modified to prevent the sale of the properties; not preventing the ownership or use of them. The Court must be reasonable, your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Do you have proof of Representation?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Do you have proof of Representation?

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, I hereby grant the Motion to Reconsider. After rethinking with the remarks made by the Defendant's Council, I agree that it would be more of a hassle to move the property over to the DCT just to move the property either to stay with the Defendant or move to the Plaintiff. Thus, the properties are only to not be sold off by MysticPhunky. Should they be evicted, then the properties are to be placed into a holding by the DCT temporarily for the remainder of the case.

The Defense has about 63 hours remaining.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant does not dispute this claim.
2. The Defendant disputes this claim.
3. The Defendant does not dispute this claim.
4. The Defendant disputes this claim.

II. DEFENSES

1. The Plaintiff has furnished no evidence that Constellation Co. funds were used in the purchase of r-066, r-099, and r-075. The Defendant asserts that their own funds were used to purchase these properties.
2. The Defendant does not need to give any properties to the Plaintiff as the properties were not the Plaintiff’s property to begin with.

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 31st day of December, 2023.

 

[MysticPhunky]

.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of Procedure​

The defence failed to properly write the first section of their answer to complaint only stating that they do and don't dispute a claim but failing to say what claim it is.

 

[dodrio3]

OBJECTION
Perjury ​

As show in the picture that I have attached down bellow it does in fact show that the defence lied in their answer to complaint and that MysticPhunky did in fact purchase the property for the plaintiff. their for the properties were the plaintiffs property's.

 

[Admin23]

Response to Objection​

These screenshots that the Plaintiff has attached still do not show that, “The Defendant bought properties of r-066, r-099, and r-075 with company funds to sell for the company,” as claimed by the Plaintiff in paragraph 2 of Facts in the original filing.

There is still yet no evidence of company funds being given from Constellation Co. to the Defendant for the purchase of these properties. Furthermore, within one of the screenshots posted in the Plaintiff’s objection (attached below for convinence), it shows that the Defendant owned at least one of the properties before there was any agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

That directly contrasts with the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant bought these properties with company funds. Due to the fact that the Plaintiff had access to these chats, that means that the Plaintiff knowingly lied in the original filing when the Plaintiff claimed that company funds were used. That, my friends, is perjury.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

The prosecution responded to my objection without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

 

[Admin23]

Objections Guide

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

The prosecution posted images and text outside of being requested to thus I motion to strike this from the record.

 

[Admin23]

Response to Objection​

The screenshot I posted was of the Plaintiff’s own attachment in the first objection. No new evidence or information has been added with my attachment. Your Honor, it was attached for your convenience as to show which screenshot I was referring to so you did not waste time searching for it. Not to add anything new to the case.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

The prosecution responded to my objection without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

 

[Admin23]

Response to Objection​

Your Honor, this is getting silly. I have already previously posted the grounds for a response without prompt by the presiding judge. Opposing counsel obviously has not read that response.

Opposing counsel is simply wasting the court’s time.

In addition to that, we have been called the “prosecution” at least four times when we are the Defendant’s side. It seems opposing counsel does not know that he is in a civil proceeding or that he is the initiating party.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I rule on any of these objections, I am disappointed in both parties by there constant objection and response before waiting for me to even rule on the first objection. Should the first be overruled then the rest would not be as required. With that, I will now respond to each objection.

Objection, Breach of Procedure is overruled you are typically objection to the Claims of Relief which thus you don't have to list out the Claim. It is just common practice and makes it easier when reading.

Objection, Perjury is hereby overruled there is clear contradiction between the objection and the evidence provided. We know at least one property was owned before being hired at Constellation which given the fact that the rest of the funds came from their own pocket with no evidence provided they were compensated, the properties would be the Defendants until transferred into another's name. No where in the contract does it state either that the properties are the Plaintiff's once bought by the Defense.

The rest of the Objections for Breach, are all overruled this isn't a breach of procedure. Plain and simple. The Presiding Officer does not have to state that they are allowed to respond and the opposing party can simply respond. The Presiding Officer will state that they have 24 hours however that starts once the objection is posted and can be extended should the Presiding Officer state 24 hours left within a new message.

In response to the posted images part, the Plaintiff themselves posted images within an objection that were not originally filed within the case. Thus contradicting oneself.

With that over, we will now move onto Discovery. This will last 7 days unless both sides agree to end it sooner.

 

[RelaxedGV]

After rereading the answer I would also like to ask the Defense if they have proof of Representation?

 

[Admin23]

We do, your Honor. It was posted before the answer.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Apologies, I did not know you were apart of Dragon Law Firm.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff has not proven that they have been at all harmed by the Defendant and thus have no standing to file a case against the Defendant.
2. Per Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), the Plaintiff has made a factual error in their filing, claiming that all three of the mentioned properties were bought with Constellation Co. funds. It has been proven that that is not the case as one of the properties was purchased before there was any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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 1st day of January, 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide a response to the Motion.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff has not proven that they have been at all harmed by the Defendant and thus have no standing to file a case against the Defendant.
2. Per Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), the Plaintiff has made a factual error in their filing, claiming that all three of the mentioned properties were bought with Constellation Co. funds. It has been proven that that is not the case as one of the properties was purchased before there was any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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 1st day of January, 2024.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Addendum to Motion to Dismiss

The Defense would like to request the Court to award the Defendant with the cost of legal fees in the amount of $5,000.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff may respond if they wish. They of course have 24 hours to do so.

 

[Bubblybo]

Your honour. Due to irl circumstances I need a 48 Hour Extension.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You may have a 48 hour extension to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff may respond if they wish. They of course have 24 hours to do so.

I will not be ruling on this until I decide whether to grant the Dismissal or not. The ruling on this will be answered within the ruling.

 

[Admin23]

You may have a 48 hour extension to the Motion to Dismiss.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the Plaintiff has hired an attorney to represent him. The Plaintiff does not need an extension due to their real life issues when they have legal counsel to appear in court on their behalf.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Can the Plaintiff confirm whether they currently have counsel?

 

[Bubblybo]

Currently my counsel has just gone back to school and lacks the time to respond. I’m actively seeking a nee lawyer but cannot, due to my unexpected irl situation.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, then the Motion to Reconsider will be overruled however I will amend the time slightly. The Plaintiff has 48 hours from that message but if they cannot find counsel I will be dismissing this case given the magnitude of the case (how much is being asked for in damages)

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

The plaintiff has agreed to terms with MrFluffy and Associates Law Firm and I will be taking over on this case.

As a side bar, the defendant would like to sincerely apologize for their previous counsels actions, and I can assure you this case will be run much more smoothly from this point onward.

I have attached proof of the agreement and will be responding to the motion to dismiss immediately.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff has not proven that they have been at all harmed by the Defendant and thus have no standing to file a case against the Defendant.
2. Per Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), the Plaintiff has made a factual error in their filing, claiming that all three of the mentioned properties were bought with Constellation Co. funds. It has been proven that that is not the case as one of the properties was purchased before there was any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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 1st day of January, 2024.

Your honor,

In response to this motion, we argue the following:

1. The defense has made an argument that the plaintiff has not proven that there has been harm by the defendant in this case, yet in the evidence provided by the plaintiffs previous counsel, there was a legally binding employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant. In this contract in section 8, it states “Upon signing the contract, Both MysticPhunky and BaroqueGem65762 may not leave for 2 months. If either does so anyways, they are required to pay a sum of $15,000 to Constellation Co. for lost profit.”

In the defense response to complaint, they affirmed items 1 and 3, in which the plaintiffs previous counsel clearly stated “The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023.” And “On the 24/12/2023, the Defendant quit their job at Constellation Co.” respectively.

Essentially, the defendants own counsel has already AFFIRMED that the defendant committed a breach of contract. In that same contract, breach of contract is addressed in section 10. This states “In the event of a breach of this contract, each Co (shorthand for Constellation) CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this contract”.

Clearly based on the defendants counsels’ own affirmation of this breach of contract, the plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant.

2) The defense has claimed that the plaintiffs previous counsel has made a factual error in this regard, and the plaintiff somewhat affirms, but also disputes this point. In doing my due diligence before taking this case, the plaintiff stated the following :
(I apologize in advance for the language)

As we have already proven in point one, the defense has affirmed that a breach of contract did take place, and the contract does spell out those consequences clearly and the defendant should be held liable for those actions.

I would request that the court reject the motion to dismiss, based on the previous counsels affirmation of the damages and crimes and allow me to amend the prayers for relief to drop any prayers/claims relating to the properties that were aforementioned, and focus solely on the breach of contract, which was the plaintiffs original intent prior to the poor representation from the previous counsel.

The amended claims and prayers for relief would be as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant willfully entered into a legally binding contract on 23/12/2023 and broke that contract on 24/12/2023 meaning that the defendant is in violation of section 8 of the contract.

2. The Defendants breach of contract also puts them in violation of section 10 of the contract.

3. Due to the defendants actions, section 3 was also violated.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant pay the plaintiff $15,000 for lost profit that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 8.
2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.
3. The defendant pay the plaintiff $3,000 for the breach of section 5.
4. 20% of the total judgment paid to the plaintiffs counsel (MrFluffy and Associates) due to the defendants breach of contract.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter your honor.

Signed this 5th day of January 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The motion to dismiss is overruled although no proof has been provided that the properties were bought by with Constellation Co funds, with the Plaintiff deciding to drop that section of the Complaint then the remaining argument is no harm was done.

The argument that no harm was done can be removed by the fact that the contract states should the signatory leave the company within 2 months they are to pay $15k to the company. Given no evidence has been provided by the Defense showing this has been done there is definite harm that has been done.

In the terms of the legal fees for the Defense, I will be overruling it at this stage.

 

[RelaxedGV]

With that we will be moving onto Discovery, this will last a period of 7 days unless both sides agree to end Discovery early.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, the Defense would like to end Discovery early.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Would the Plaintiff also like to end Discovery Early?

 

[Admin23]

Your honor,

In response to this motion, we argue the following:

1. The defense has made an argument that the plaintiff has not proven that there has been harm by the defendant in this case, yet in the evidence provided by the plaintiffs previous counsel, there was a legally binding employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant. In this contract in section 8, it states “Upon signing the contract, Both MysticPhunky and BaroqueGem65762 may not leave for 2 months. If either does so anyways, they are required to pay a sum of $15,000 to Constellation Co. for lost profit.”

In the defense response to complaint, they affirmed items 1 and 3, in which the plaintiffs previous counsel clearly stated “The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023.” And “On the 24/12/2023, the Defendant quit their job at Constellation Co.” respectively.

Essentially, the defendants own counsel has already AFFIRMED that the defendant committed a breach of contract. In that same contract, breach of contract is addressed in section 10. This states “In the event of a breach of this contract, each Co (shorthand for Constellation) CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this contract”.

Clearly based on the defendants counsels’ own affirmation of this breach of contract, the plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant.

2) The defense has claimed that the plaintiffs previous counsel has made a factual error in this regard, and the plaintiff somewhat affirms, but also disputes this point. In doing my due diligence before taking this case, the plaintiff stated the following :
(I apologize in advance for the language)
View attachment 40314

As we have already proven in point one, the defense has affirmed that a breach of contract did take place, and the contract does spell out those consequences clearly and the defendant should be held liable for those actions.

I would request that the court reject the motion to dismiss, based on the previous counsels affirmation of the damages and crimes and allow me to amend the prayers for relief to drop any prayers/claims relating to the properties that were aforementioned, and focus solely on the breach of contract, which was the plaintiffs original intent prior to the poor representation from the previous counsel.

The amended claims and prayers for relief would be as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant willfully entered into a legally binding contract on 23/12/2023 and broke that contract on 24/12/2023 meaning that the defendant is in violation of section 8 of the contract.

2. The Defendants breach of contract also puts them in violation of section 10 of the contract.

3. Due to the defendants actions, section 3 was also violated.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant pay the plaintiff $15,000 for lost profit that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 8.
2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.
3. The defendant pay the plaintiff $3,000 for the breach of section 5.
4. 20% of the total judgment paid to the plaintiffs counsel (MrFluffy and Associates) due to the defendants breach of contract.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter your honor.

Signed this 5th day of January 2024.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), this case should not be heard as it has already been ruled in The Lovely Law Firm v. babysoga [2023] FCR 87, any clause in a contract that… “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily).” is not legal.

The ruling goes on to state: “Thus, the Federal Court declares that the provision of the non-compete clause saying that the Offeree cannot be employed by a competitor for two weeks thereafter, does not meet the standard of ‘Legality,’”

In that case, the non-compete clause did indeed stifle economic mobility and required someone to work involuntarily. This contract before us does the same and is thus illegal and not legally binding.

FCR 87 has already heard on the legality of contracts that limit an individual’s employment options, and thus the Defense moves that this case be dismissed.


DATED: This 5th day of January, 2023.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Would the Plaintiff also like to end Discovery Early?

We do NOT want to end discovery your honor. We would like to continue, as we are still gathering evidence and putting together our witness list.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), this case should not be heard as it has already been ruled in The Lovely Law Firm v. babysoga [2023] FCR 87, any clause in a contract that… “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily).” is not legal.

The ruling goes on to state: “Thus, the Federal Court declares that the provision of the non-compete clause saying that the Offeree cannot be employed by a competitor for two weeks thereafter, does not meet the standard of ‘Legality,’”

In that case, the non-compete clause did indeed stifle economic mobility and required someone to work involuntarily. This contract before us does the same and is thus illegal and not legally binding.

FCR 87 has already heard on the legality of contracts that limit an individual’s employment options, and thus the Defense moves that this case be dismissed.


DATED: This 5th day of January, 2023.

Your honor,

In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserts:

1. If we do a thorough analysis of the 2 separate cases, there are some distinct differences that makes this precedence not apply to the case at hand.

For one, in FCR87, the employment contract was a standard one, in which the employee was agreeing to work for the company while being paid a flat fee. In the case noted, that was a weekly salary of $1,000. This was in exchange for their services and performing the job duties that were prescribed. This case had a non-compete clause which nullified the contract, EXCEPT that there was a nullification clause.

In our case however, there is no such non-complete clause. In our case, the contract was simple. Instead of paying the employee with money, the plaintiff was paying the defendant with a 22.5% share of ownership, as well as a generous 75% share of profits on any sales that they can make.

This section 8 is incorrectly identified as a non-compete clause by the defense. This section 8 is actually seeking to do the exact opposite of what the defense is claiming. Instead of mandating that the defendant has to suffer 2 months of servitude upon signing this contract, this clause provides them with another option, to simply buy out the remainder of the contract IF they wish to no longer work at the company. Essentially, the contract serves to offer the defendant 22.5% ownership in the company along with a 75% commission, in exchange for 2 months of employment, with the option that if they wish to no longer be employed by the company, that they can simply pay a fair market price (in this case $15,000) for those shares. This can be exemplified by the fact that neither the breach of contract clause, nor the prayers for relief listed are requesting the ownership shares to be returned.

Additionally, the judge in that case ruled that what made the non-compete clause illegal was that it mandated where the employee was able to work after they quit the company. As you will see, this contract has no such clause and therefore does not prohibit the defendants economic mobility.

Furthermore, hypothetically, even if the courts somehow were to conclude that this generous clause that the plaintiff offers to protect his employees economic mobility were to be illegal, this case has a clause in it similar to the “modification and severability clause” provided in FCR87 in section 9 titled “no loopholes” that although clumsily worded, would serve the same intent as the clause included in the case provided as “precedent” to close any loopholes such as this one.

Thank you for your consideration your honor.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel was not prompted to respond. Unlike objections, motions do not allow the opposing party to respond without being asked to by the presiding judge.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel was not prompted to respond. Unlike objections, motions do not allow the opposing party to respond without being asked to by the presiding judge.

Response to Objection:

Your honor,

I believe every motion to dismiss in the history of this Federal Court has been given an opportunity for the opposing party to respond, I was merely responding while I was available in an effort to provide both parties with a fair and speedy trial.

If desired by the court we can draw out this motion, and I resubmit my response after it is officially requested, or we can move forward towards a verdict to this motion and continue progressing in this case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I am hereby ordering the Plaintiff to provide a complete screenshot of the entire contract. Given this is now arguing on the terms of the contract, a full contract submitted into evidence would be better than multiple clauses within the contract missing. They have 48 hours to do so.

 

[RelaxedGV]

​

OBJECTION

BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel was not prompted to respond. Unlike objections, motions do not allow the opposing party to respond without being asked to by the presiding judge.​

As to not keep the case hold up, I will be overruling the objection given if I were to grant it then put a deadline the same response would be put wasting everyone's time and resources just for what boils down to a copy paste. I know neither side would like to waste anyone's time thus we will be moving on.

From here on however, I do ask that both sides wait for me to put a deadline before responding to Motions. Objections are free game within 24 hours however Motions are not. ​