Lawsuit: Dismissed CrackedAmoeba1 V. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 83

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


CIVIL ACTION


CrackedAmoeba1
Plaintiff

V.

The Town of Oakridge
Defendant


COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The Town of Oakridge has set up stores that are only allowed to sell one specific type of product (Exhibit A). The Town of Oakridge sold the stores making them businesses - “Commercial Activity” as defined in the Oxford English dictionary. By limiting what can be sold in the stores the Town of Oakridge is committing market allocation defined by Redmont laws as “Any sort of deal wherein two or more businesses agree to allocate 'territory' to one another to prevent regional competition.” In this situation territory is the product that can be sold in the stores by limiting this Oakridge is allocating “territory” to prevent regional competition. “two or more businesses” refers to the fact that there are multiple stores that the Town of Oakridge is selling. This reduction in competition negatively Impacts the plaintiff as they own a banner store within the Town Of Oakridge and cannot competitively price their products.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. the Town of Oakridge - Defendant
2. CrackedAmoeba1 - Plaintiff

II. FACTS
1. Oakridge set up action to purchase shops that can only sell a limited type of items (Exhibit A)
2. The Commercial Standards Act States that Market Allocation is “Any deal wherein two or more businesses agree to allocate 'territory' to one another to prevent regional competition.”
3. The Plaintiffs Store suffers from the Market Allocation of Oakridge Town.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Town of Oakridge should have followed the laws of Redmont with their newest rentals on the market. The Town of Oakridge sold the stores making them businesses - “Commercial Activity” as defined in the Oxford English dictionary. By limiting what can be sold in the stores the Town of Oakridge is committing market allocation defined by Redmont laws as “Any sort of deal wherein two or more businesses agree to allocate 'territory' to one another to prevent regional competition.” In this situation territory is the product that can be sold in the stores by limiting this Oakridge is allocating “territory” to prevent regional competition. “two or more businesses” refers to the fact that there are multiple stores that the Town of Oakridge is selling

2. The Town of Oakridge committing Market Allocation has resulted in the plaintiff's Store Losing revenue. This is due to the fact that Oakridge has implemented Anti-competitive practices meaning that the price that the plaintiff can sell their product at is reduced resulting in a lower profit margin and less income.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15,000 In compensatory damages for loss of income of the Plaintiff store
2. $1,500 For every week that passes in which the Plaintiff will incur a loss in revenue
3. $10,000 In Loss of Enjoyment due to the Acts committed by the town of Oakridge
4. $35,000 In punitive Damages for the outrageous acts of the Town of Oakridge
5. $ 18,000 In Legal Fees + 30% of however much is awarded in section 2 of the Prayer for Relief
6. The Town of Oakridge Remove all the restrictions on the properties

(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 5 day of 6 2024

Exhibit A

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@YeetBoy1872325 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of CrackedAmoeba1 V. The Town of Oakridge. 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.​

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

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

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)

The Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief that can be legally supported. The Plaintiff alleges that the Town of Oakridge’s actions constitute Market Allocation under Redmont law. However, the Plaintiff has misinterpreted the concept of Market Allocation, which requires an agreement between two or more independent businesses to divide markets and prevent competition. In this case, the Town of Oakridge, acting as a single entity, implemented a zoning policy that does not involve any agreement between independent businesses and does not meet the legal definition of market allocation. Additionally, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the zoning policy directly caused a significant, unreasonable restriction on competition that specifically harmed the Plaintiff's business.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Defense has failed to properly format their motion to dismiss. Specifically, the motion lacks a date and does not include the required statement: "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." These omissions are a clear breach of procedural requirements.

I respectfully request that this motion be stricken from the record. Furthermore, I move that the court require the Defense to have legal representation present, as they have demonstrated an inability to adhere to proper court procedures.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Defense has failed to properly format their motion to dismiss. Specifically, the motion lacks a date and does not include the required statement: "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." These omissions are a clear breach of procedural requirements.

I respectfully request that this motion be stricken from the record. Furthermore, I move that the court require the Defense to have legal representation present, as they have demonstrated an inability to adhere to proper court procedures.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

This objection has not been made following the proper formatting as accessible in the Objections Guide.
I humbly request that this objection be stricken from the record.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Defense has failed to properly format their motion to dismiss. Specifically, the motion lacks a date and does not include the required statement: "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." These omissions are a clear breach of procedural requirements.

I respectfully request that this motion be stricken from the record. Furthermore, I move that the court require the Defense to have legal representation present, as they have demonstrated an inability to adhere to proper court procedures.

Overruled. While I require a neat and organized courtroom, I will not strike the motion as it is clear what the intent of the motion was. However, I expect both parties to proofread all submissions to this court and adhere to the procedural requirements moving forward.

@YeetBoy1872325, please respond to the request regarding the defense having legal representation.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

This objection has not been made following the proper formatting as accessible in the Objections Guide.
I humbly request that this objection be stricken from the record.

Overruled. For the same reason as above.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Overruled. While I require a neat and organized courtroom, I will not strike the motion as it is clear what the intent of the motion was. However, I expect both parties to proofread all submissions to this court and adhere to the procedural requirements moving forward.

@YeetBoy1872325, please respond to the request regarding the defense having legal representation.

Yeet_Boy is the legal representation of the Town of Oakridge.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)

The Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief that can be legally supported. The Plaintiff alleges that the Town of Oakridge’s actions constitute Market Allocation under Redmont law. However, the Plaintiff has misinterpreted the concept of Market Allocation, which requires an agreement between two or more independent businesses to divide markets and prevent competition. In this case, the Town of Oakridge, acting as a single entity, implemented a zoning policy that does not involve any agreement between independent businesses and does not meet the legal definition of market allocation. Additionally, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the zoning policy directly caused a significant, unreasonable restriction on competition that specifically harmed the Plaintiff's business.

@dodrio3 Your response deadline is still in effect.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Due to the forums being down, you have 24 hours from this post to submit a response.

 

[dodrio3]

You're Honour, I am taking a break from law work over pay disputes ItsBlazex should shortly reassign someone to this case

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Noted. I will be ruling on the motion to dismiss, as 48 hours have passed since it was filed.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The motion to dismiss is granted. The plaintiff's interpretation of market allocation does not align with the legal definition, which necessitates several elements: an agreement between two or more independent businesses to allocate 'territory'—typically referring to geographic or product market segments—to prevent competition. Market allocation necessitates a deliberate agreement in which businesses collude to divide markets and stifle competition. In this instance, the Town of Oakridge, acting as a singular entity, implemented a zoning policy without the requisite agreement between independent businesses. Therefore, the zoning policy does not meet the legal criteria for market allocation. The plaintiff has not substantiated with sufficient evidence that the zoning policy caused an unreasonable restriction on competition that specifically harmed their business. Since Claim 1 fails to establish market allocation, Claim 2, which hinges on the validity of Claim 1, is also invalid.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)

The Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief that can be legally supported. The Plaintiff alleges that the Town of Oakridge’s actions constitute Market Allocation under Redmont law. However, the Plaintiff has misinterpreted the concept of Market Allocation, which requires an agreement between two or more independent businesses to divide markets and prevent competition. In this case, the Town of Oakridge, acting as a single entity, implemented a zoning policy that does not involve any agreement between independent businesses and does not meet the legal definition of market allocation. Additionally, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the zoning policy directly caused a significant, unreasonable restriction on competition that specifically harmed the Plaintiff's business.

Do to this SCR Appeal. The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss. @dodrio3 @YeetBoy1872325

 

[dodrio3]

Response to Objection

The defense is filing the motion based on Rule 5.5, which states: "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." This rule does not encompass claims of "misinterpreted" laws, as evidence has been provided to support the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the motion to dismiss should be denied on these grounds.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Yes Rule 5.5 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." The claims filed indeed lack sufficient evidence. The original complaint's claims pertain to Market Allocation. The provided evidence and situation does not demonstrate a case of market allocation under the law. Therefore, the claim lacks the necessary evidence, and I will be granting the motion to dismiss.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

Edit: this is in addition to the previous motion to dismiss response.