Lawsuit: Dismissed CraftyIso v Chase Bank [2023] FCR 73

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

CraftyIso (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v

Chase Bank
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Your Honor, Chase Bank's interest rate is a 0.01% per month of money in the account. If you have $100 within the bank you earn 1 penny of interest every month. CraftyIso was a former banker at Chase Bank and thus can confirm in a Witness Testimony that Chase Bank had this amount of interest within their savings accounts. To withdraw your money from Chase Bank you have to pay a $50 fee on top of the withdrawal. So if you were to withdraw lets say $100 you will have to pay $50 on top of that. So in reality you would only be withdrawing $50 given the fee. In the Foundation of Contract Law (CLF and listed in Evidence A) it states that your contract must not "cause significant imbalance between the contractee's rights and obligations and those of the contractor". Given that Chase Bank was charging $50 per withdrawal at 0.01% interest per month this shows a clear disbalance which will be explored further in Claims for Relief.

I. PARTIES
1. CraftyIso (Plaintiff)
2. Chase Bank (Defendent)

II. FACTS
1. CraftyIso wanted to have a Savings Account to earn interest along with storing their money.
2. Chase Bank was the only option at the time of looking that did Savings Accounts for 0.1% a month.
3. CraftyIso signs an illegal contract with Chase Bank.
4. Megacorp opens their own bank at 5% interest a month Savings Account.
5. CraftyIso switches to Megacorp Banking for better interest.
6. CraftyIso states that the amount of interest at Chase Bank is "ass".
7. Chase Bank sues CraftyIso.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant violated the CLF. The Defendant charged $50 per withdrawal with a limit of 2 withdrawals per week. Given they interest you would earn back was 0.01% this shows that even if you leave $300 inside the bank and withdraw $100 over 2 separate withdrawals you will have earned a penny whereas Chase Bank would earn $99.99. This shows heavy imbalance between the Signatory and the Contractor.
2. The Defendant violated the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act (CLSP and listed in Evidence B). The Act states that you must not "intentionally engages in activity that undermines their duty or the integrity of the company". Given that the Defendant violated the CLSP this shows that they did not act with integrity and instead undermined the very company they were meant to keep the integrity of.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 (10k) in Compensation due to the violations of both laws.
2. $10,000 (10k) for legal fees.

Evidence A

Act of Congress - The Foundation of Contract Law (CLF)

A BILL To _____________ Establish the foundation of Contract Law The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1...

www.democracycraft.net

Evidence B

Repealed - Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act

Repealed by The Business Structuring Act. A BILL TO Establish Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact...

www.democracycraft.net

Proof of Representation.

 

[Milkcrack]

Due to a potential Conflict of Interest with the originally assigned judge, I will be handling this case going forward. Apologies for any tardiness.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

Chase Bank is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of CraftyIso v Chase Bank [2023] FCR 73.
Due to the fact no person has been listed as the legal representative, I will be summoning @steveshat as they are the person listed on the business on the forums.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[IncompleteRiver]

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

CraftyIso (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

V

Chase Bank (Prodigium | Attorneys at Law representing, lead counsel IncompleteRiver)
Defendant

I. FACTS

1. CraftyIso wanted to have a Savings Account to earn interest along with storing their money.

The defendant affirms this fact.

2. Chase Bank was the only option at the time of looking that did Savings Accounts for 0.1% a month.

The defendant affirms this fact.

3. CraftyIso signs an illegal contract with Chase Bank.

The defendant disputes this fact.

4. Megacorp opens their own bank at 5% interest a month Savings Account.

The defendant affirms this fact.

5. CraftyIso switches to Megacorp Banking for better interest.

The defendant disputes this fact.

6. CraftyIso states that the amount of interest at Chase Bank is "ass".

The defendant affirms this fact.

7. Chase Bank sues CraftyIso.

The defendant affirms this fact.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS

Compensatory Damages: Under Section 4 of the 'Legal Damages Act', compensatory damages must be limited to the actual amount of damages or the authorized statute’s limit, whichever is lower. The Plaintiff's alleged loss is only related to the withdrawal fee, amounting to $50 per withdrawal. The real compensatory damage loss is thus $100 (two withdrawals). The Plaintiff's claim of $10,000 in compensatory damages is unsubstantiated and wildly out of proportion.

Legal Fees: According to Section 9 of the 'Legal Damages Act', legal fees are capped at 20% of the overall case's value. In this case, 20% of $100 is $20. The Plaintiff's claim of $10,000 for legal fees is therefore excessive and unfounded.

Your Honor, at $120 for compensatory damages and legal fees, this case is not valuable enough for Federal Court. If the Plaintiff truly wants to pursue compensation, this case should be dismissed and the Plaintiff should reopen in District Court.

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 12th day of August 2023

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, may we respond to this Motion to Dismiss?

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor, The Plaintiff wants to compel Chase Bank to show the entire channel surrounding CraftyIso's Savings Account.

 

[Milkcrack]

The motion to dismiss is based on the damages presented by the plaintiff. Unless the motion to compel is necessary to show that there were more actual damages. I will make a ruling on the motion to dismiss first. The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, the Motion to Compel is needed to show damages due to the enforcement of the illegal contract. Motion to Dismiss Response will be posted soon.

 

[IncompleteRiver]

Your Honor, the discord server in question is a private discord server. According to the judicial standards act, warrants must be used for in-game/official discord servers. If the plaintiff wanted to utilize the channels, they could have documented it accordingly.

Furthermore, the Chase Bank discord went through changes recently (Beginning of August). Various discord channels were reset and some channels were removed fully. Even if the court orders it, we will be unable to provide the information to the court.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Response to the Motion to Dismiss

Compensatory Damages: Under Section 4 of the 'Legal Damages Act', compensatory damages must be limited to the actual amount of damages or the authorized statute’s limit, whichever is lower. The Plaintiff's alleged loss is only related to the withdrawal fee, amounting to $50 per withdrawal. The real compensatory damage loss is thus $100 (two withdrawals). The Plaintiff's claim of $10,000 in compensatory damages is unsubstantiated and wildly out of proportion.

The compensatory damages were not only due to the withdrawal fee but also due to the illegal nature of the contract. The Defense was making away with far more than their customers due to the illegal contract. Both sides must be treated fairly in the contract.

The Contract states "Chase Banks reserves the right to terminate your account at any time for any reason. If your account is terminated you agree to pay any outstanding balance on your account." This gives the contractee too much power regarding how much money they can earn. If you were to put $20,000 ($20k) into Chase Bank and they were to terminate your account that would leave you stuck to pay the bill of $20k without being able to fight it. They can also terminate your contract if you say, go against them in Court for something unrelated. This gives the Contractee too much power and control over the Signatory.

The Contract also states that "Chase Bank reserves the right to change the terms of this contract at any time for any reason. You will be notified in the event that the terms are changed." Due to the nature that Chase Bank can change the terms for any reason this is a violation of the CLF as Chase Bank can choose to change the withdrawal fee to $1,000 if they wished or completely remove interest rates or lower them without any talks in good faith with the account holder.

Legal Fees: According to Section 9 of the 'Legal Damages Act', legal fees are capped at 20% of the overall case's value. In this case, 20% of $100 is $20. The Plaintiff's claim of $10,000 for legal fees is therefore excessive and unfounded.

This should not be in a Motion to Dismiss first off. Secondly it is 20% per the amount the Plaintiff would like in payment. We asked for $12,500 which yes in the original filing we did accidentally put the wrong amount which is on us. We instead ask for $2,500 (2.5k) in legal fees which is the correct amount of $12,500.

The math for why it is $12,500 is that not only do we have the Compensatory damages but, we have the legal fees. If we ask for $2,500 in legal fees this totals to $12,500. Given how much the Defense earns from Chase Bank this should not be much in terms of their net worth.

The Defense does not at all try to argue as to why the Case should be Dismissed and rather argues against the prayer for relief which should not be done in a motion to dismiss but, rather throughout the case. To put these in the Motion to Dismiss is showing they knowingly understand the illegal nature of said contract.

Proof of the contract itself and its illegal nature is shown below this response.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, the discord server in question is a private discord server. According to the judicial standards act, warrants must be used for in-game/official discord servers. If the plaintiff wanted to utilize the channels, they could have documented it accordingly.

Furthermore, the Chase Bank discord went through changes recently (Beginning of August). Various discord channels were reset and some channels were removed fully. Even if the court orders it, we will be unable to provide the information to the court.

Objection, breach of procedure.
The Defense did not ask to respond to the Motion to Compel.

 

[Milkcrack]

Objection, breach of procedure.
The Defense did not ask to respond to the Motion to Compel.

There is no requirement to ask to respond to a motion. You should be okay if you stick to 1-2 filings per response from the presiding judge. To limit the number of filings, parties are encouraged to join their filings. i.e. Combining an objection and a motion to compel.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

A motion to dismiss may be granted if the plaintiff fails to allege a proper course of action to justify the claim and prayer for relief.

The Plaintiff is claiming that they have lost $10.000 however this is not supported by their facts. The plaintiff's facts fail to establish a course of action to justify this prayer for relief. Note, in considering whether the case fails to establish a proper course of action and should therefore be dismissed, the correctness of the facts may not be considered.

Seeing as the adjusted prayer for relief would probably be lower and able to be filed in the district court, I am dismissing this case without prejudice. Meaning the plaintiff may refile the case with an adjusted prayer for relief, or a better-supported course of action.