Lawsuit: Dismissed csimiami14 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont Dept. of Health [2024] FCR 95

[The_MarxSisters]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

csimiami14
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont Department of Health (DoH)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On June 8, 2024, the Department of Health Secretary Adam_the_warrior terminated the employment of csimiami14, who was employed as a doctor for the Department of Health. No notification or explanation was given till the following day, csimiami14 discovered that his roles, on the discord server for the Department of Health and on the DC Minecraft server, were removed. He found a /mail from the DoH that he had been terminated for allegedly attending zero patients for the month of May, despite having attended four. Despite admitting his mistake, Secretary Adam_the_warrior refused to reinstate the employment of csimiami14 and continued wrongfully terminated his employment, which caused economic damages and emotional damage to csimiami14.

I. PARTIES

1. csimiami14 (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Health (Defendant)
3. Adam_the_warrior (Dept. of Health Secretary, witness)
4. crytiee (Witness)
5. lcn (Witness)
6. LieutenantDerp99 (Witness)

II. FACTS

1. On June 8, 2024, csimiami14 was terminated without warning nor notification. On June 8, 2024, csimiami14 noticed when logging online to the Department of Health discord server that his role from the Department of Health as a doctor had been removed. He then logged onto the server and noticed that his role was removed and received notice in the mail that he was terminated for allegedly doing no work.
2. On June 8, 2024, csimiami14 opened a ticket with the Department of Health to obtain an explanation for his termination, he then found out from crytriee that the claim that csimiami14 only attended zero (0) patients was wrong and that he attended to four (4) people. The person who recorded the "dotm doc" for the Secretary of Health had made a mistake.
3. On the following day, Secretary Adam_the_warrior informed csimiami14 that "as stated above you only did four attends in the month of May... when we action DoTM we also use it as an activity check. This time we set the minimum attend count at 5 [people]".
4. The Department of Health has no clear or written policy on fulfilling a minimum "attends" requirement.
5. Secretary Adam_the_warrior stated in the same ticket that "...it changes based on Department of Leadership. No the attend count isn't posted, as it's decided after viewing the attends...".
6. There is no job requirements or expectations publicly posted that outline the mandatory minimum of times a doctor must attend.
7. csimiami14 was wrongfully terminated from their position based on the whim of the Secretary of Health, Adam_the_warrior.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Secretary Adam_the warrior wrongly terminated csimiami14's employment as a doctor for the Department of Health, based on his own whim and ever changing expectations, this is in violation of the Commercial Standards Act which prohibits unfair dismissal. The ever changing whims of the Secretary is in spite of when csimiami14 was hired, there were no public or even privately posted expectations and responsibilities that held employees to a mandatory minimum number of attendances. Never should csimiami14 or any other reasonable person be held to just a standard that is based on a whim of an employer; csimiami14 deserves relief.

2. Because of Secretary Adam_the_warrior's actions in wrongfuly terminating the employment of csimiami14, he thereby caused economic loss that csimiami14 could've gained had he still held employment in the Department of Health. Given that the plaintiff had gained a substantial part of his income from his employment with the Department of Health, the plaintiff must receive relief from the economic losses caused.

3. The stresses of getting his job terminated and having his name unfairly judged by potential employers because of his termination, this has all caused considerable emotional pain and damages to the plaintiff. No reasonable person should have to deal with the reputational damage that has been unfairly brought upon the plaintiff, he must have relief.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The defendant shall offer the plaintiff with job reinstatement.
2. The defendant shall give the plaintiff a written non-confidential apology for wrongful termination.
3. $20,000 for wrongful termination.
4. $72,000 for one month's worth of potential wage earnings.
5. $10,000.00 for emotional damages.
6. Attorney's fees up to 30% of the case's value or $5,000, whichever is more appropriate.

Spoiler: Witnesses

1. Adam_the_warrior (Dept. of Health Secretary, witness)
2. crytiee (Witness)
3. lcn (Witness)
4. LieutenantDerp99 (Witness)

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Confirmation of representation

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 16th day of June 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@MrFluffy2U94 (AG) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of csimiami14 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont Dept. of Health. 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.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

csimiami14
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We affirm that the Plaintiff was fired from the Department of Health.
2. We dispute that the Plaintiff was fired unfairly.

II. DEFENCES
1. Your Honor, to put this plainly, all the Plaintiff has stated was that the reasoning was changed as the only reason for unfair firing. Changing a reason is not a reason to sue the Commonwealth for unfair firing. While changing the reason could be suspicious however that is again not a reason to sure over.

2. The Plaintiff argues that because no reason is given, the firing is unjust however nowhere within the Commercial Standards Act does it state that a reason must be provided. While not providing one will be interesting or be suspicious, that is yet again, not a reason to sue the Commonwealth for, there is not a valid claim to support the justification of this lawsuit beyond that the activity requirement is stated within the view of the employees.

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 5th day of June 2024.

Proof of Representation is attached given I do not have the role on the forums.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Under Court Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim

While the Plaintiff does bring up some interesting arguments that are well worded the underlying tone is this, the Plaintiff failed to fulfill the quota set for that month. Why is this quota not posted anywhere? The quota changes per month based on number of patients and the amount of doctors currently employed. Why should this number be plastered everywhere when the number is subject to change and is decided by the DOH leadership.

While the Plaintiff does provide evidence stating lcn (a Medical Specialist) that the firing should not have occurred, ultimately the Secretary is to decide who is hired and fired and it is only mere tradition that Secretaries seek the opinion of their leadership on an employee or application. If lcn also had such a major issue with the firing, why not work to change the quota number to where the Plaintiff would have met the requirements?

The Plaintiff was only 1 patient away from the quota which although you can argue they were so close to the quota that they should remain, that same argument can be used for someone who only had 3 attends, 2 attends, 1 attend, or even no attends. If we make an excuse for one, why not make an excuse for all?

Going beyond this, the DOH has stated a remedy the Plaintiff is able to take through retaking the exam and being retrained, this is provided within the changelog channel of the DOH discord which the Plaintiff has of course, failed to use as a remedy.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Within the claim of the filing the Plaintiff's attorney states that the Plaintiff was told they attended 0 patients by the Secretary however as we see in the evidence they have provided, this is proven false. The Plaintiff was told they attended 0 patients by crytiee who is not the Secretary as even the Plaintiff acknowledges within their list of Witnesses stating that Adam_the_warrior os the Secretary of Health.

The number of patients that is stated to have been attended by the Secretary is 4 and while the Plaintiff's attorney may attempt to hide behind the alleged pledge, this is clearly an attempt to be able to state one claim while evidence contradicts the statement. Going beyond that, in the tone the Plaintiff's attorney uses for the alleged wording is saying that the Plaintiff is being accused of attending 0 patients by the Secretary, not that the Plaintiff was accused of attending 0 patients by crytiee who stated they believe they attended 0.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[The_MarxSisters]

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

Your Honor,

1) Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures state, "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge". It is clear from the evidence, witnesses, and even almost by the admission of the defense in saying, "While changing the reason could be suspicious however that is again not a reason to sure over" (Defense's Answer to Complaint, emphasis added). The defense fails to properly respond to the valid claims submitted by the plaintiff and simply claims that "there is no claim, because we say so". This is not a valid reason for dismissal. Furthermore, the defense does not cite any cases, laws, or any other policies that demonstrate a reason why this case should be dismissed, it solely bases itself on discussing the quota. That is also not a valid reason for dismissal.

2) The plaintiff has submitted three claims against the defense, we allege and intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that csimiami14 was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Department of Health. The Department of Health is an institution of our government, it is not a social club that can dismiss employees without cause. A random quota that is determined at the whim of whoever happens to be in power, without any prior announcement or even as apart of the job responsibilities and expectations, is no basis for a government institution nor would it be held reasonable in any private sector business. The plaintiff deserves to have his day in court.

3) The defense speaks most intently on the quota system, though presents arguments that demonstrate the unreasonableness of this unknowable quota number and an insufficient and unjustifiable, so-called 'remedy'. No employee who has been unfairly terminated from their job should have to deal with the pain and humiliation of taking another exam and having to be "retrained" for something that they have already done and done well. By the Secretary of the Department of Health's own admission, the original reason for the plaintiff's dismissal was wrong, but the Secretary did not bother correcting a bad decision, but instead doubled down. The plaintiff has cause and has clearly stated three claims that we seek to have the court to redress.

We ask to the Court to please deny the motion to dismiss for these reasons.

Additionally, Your Honor, the plaintiff would like the court's leave to respond to the objection submitted by the defense. Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Motion to Dismiss is denied. The original complaint presents sufficient evidence to support the claims for relief, warranting that this case proceeds to trial. During discovery, additional evidence may emerge, allowing the court to thoroughly assess the actions of both the department and the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the perjury objection.


We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

 

[itsBlazeX]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Under Court Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim

While the Plaintiff does bring up some interesting arguments that are well worded the underlying tone is this, the Plaintiff failed to fulfill the quota set for that month. Why is this quota not posted anywhere? The quota changes per month based on number of patients and the amount of doctors currently employed. Why should this number be plastered everywhere when the number is subject to change and is decided by the DOH leadership.

While the Plaintiff does provide evidence stating lcn (a Medical Specialist) that the firing should not have occurred, ultimately the Secretary is to decide who is hired and fired and it is only mere tradition that Secretaries seek the opinion of their leadership on an employee or application. If lcn also had such a major issue with the firing, why not work to change the quota number to where the Plaintiff would have met the requirements?

The Plaintiff was only 1 patient away from the quota which although you can argue they were so close to the quota that they should remain, that same argument can be used for someone who only had 3 attends, 2 attends, 1 attend, or even no attends. If we make an excuse for one, why not make an excuse for all?

Going beyond this, the DOH has stated a remedy the Plaintiff is able to take through retaking the exam and being retrained, this is provided within the changelog channel of the DOH discord which the Plaintiff has of course, failed to use as a remedy.
View attachment 44659

OBJECTION
Perjury

Within the claim of the filing the Plaintiff's attorney states that the Plaintiff was told they attended 0 patients by the Secretary however as we see in the evidence they have provided, this is proven false. The Plaintiff was told they attended 0 patients by crytiee who is not the Secretary as even the Plaintiff acknowledges within their list of Witnesses stating that Adam_the_warrior os the Secretary of Health.

The number of patients that is stated to have been attended by the Secretary is 4 and while the Plaintiff's attorney may attempt to hide behind the alleged pledge, this is clearly an attempt to be able to state one claim while evidence contradicts the statement. Going beyond that, in the tone the Plaintiff's attorney uses for the alleged wording is saying that the Plaintiff is being accused of attending 0 patients by the Secretary, not that the Plaintiff was accused of attending 0 patients by crytiee who stated they believe they attended 0.

Your honor, if I am not mistaken, crytiee is the current DOH secretary. I am not sure what the issue is here.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Adam_the_warrior, is the DOH secretary. I am overruling the objection for perjury. In the original complaint, the filer states, "he then found out from Crytiee that the claim that csimiami14 only attended zero (0)."

If I have missed where this perjury occurred, please let me know.

 

[The_MarxSisters]

Your Honor, I wish to extend my deepest apologies to the Court and to the defense for my tardy reply. I was having trouble accessing this account and finally was able to get onto it now.

Your Honor, the plaintiff moves, if the exhibits have not been approved already, the attached exhibits A through D.

Additionally, we submit the following list of witnesses:

• Adam_the_warrior (Dept. of Health Secretary, witness)
• crytiee (Witness)
• lcn (Witness)
• LieutenantDerp99 (Witness)

Could the Court please confirm which side may ask its interrogatories, first?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Each party has the right to ask interrogatories at any point during discovery proceedings, without specific order requirements. Please consult Rule 4.8 for further details.

 

[The_MarxSisters]

INTERROGATORY TO THE DEFENSE​

Does the defense have any documentation or chat logs regarding Sec. Adam_the_warrior discussing csimiami14's firing?

 

[RelaxedGV]

INTERROGATORY TO THE DEFENSE​

Does the defense have any documentation or chat logs regarding Sec. Adam_the_warrior discussing csimiami14's firing?

The only documentation is in the screenshots provided by the Plaintiff. Beyond that, there is also the screenshot provided below of the changelog within the Department of Health Discord.

INTERROGATORY
1. How many attends did the Plaintiff have?
2. Did the Plaintiff reach the quota of 5?

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,
LieutenantDerp99 serves no relevance in this case, the only relevance would be they are a Medical Specialist however have been on a Leave of Absence during the time of the activity check and firing of the Plaintiff (LOA screenshot provided below).

lcn, although listed in the screenshots provided by the Plaintiff, I see no reason as to why you need 3 members of leadership within the Department of Health to ask if a firing was fair given the Secretary has the only power to fire people.

Crytiee, although again listed within the screenshots, they yet again, are not needed given the Plaintiff has the very Secretary as a witness (who is Adam) who ultimately decides who and who not to fire. The act of going to leadership is only a tradition and is not marked within law anywhere.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, apologies for posting this separately, I sent the message above on accident without the screenshots given I was providing them after writing this up.
The screenshots are provided below however.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The only documentation is in the screenshots provided by the Plaintiff. Beyond that, there is also the screenshot provided below of the changelog within the Department of Health Discord.
View attachment 44741

INTERROGATORY
1. How many attends did the Plaintiff have?
2. Did the Plaintiff reach the quota of 5?

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,
LieutenantDerp99 serves no relevance in this case, the only relevance would be they are a Medical Specialist however have been on a Leave of Absence during the time of the activity check and firing of the Plaintiff (LOA screenshot provided below).

lcn, although listed in the screenshots provided by the Plaintiff, I see no reason as to why you need 3 members of leadership within the Department of Health to ask if a firing was fair given the Secretary has the only power to fire people.

Crytiee, although again listed within the screenshots, they yet again, are not needed given the Plaintiff has the very Secretary as a witness (who is Adam) who ultimately decides who and who not to fire. The act of going to leadership is only a tradition and is not marked within law anywhere.

Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to objection.

 

[The_MarxSisters]

Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to objection.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO RELEVANCY OBJECTION
Your Honor and Counsel,

It is inappropriate and highly unusual for witnesses to not be allowed to be called, simply because the defense believes they are somehow "not relevant" to the case at hand. That is not for the defense to decide. It's for the plaintiff's burden to prove their testimony is relevant and for the judge to weigh the testimony presented.
However, if the plaintiff must be bogged down with the distraction of the defense counsel, we shall repudiate the objection:

1. LieutenantDerp99 trained csimiami14 as a doctor and is relevant to case because LieutenantDerp99 is an example of the Department of Health's inconsistent and ever-changing midnight policies. We believe that if LieutenantDerp99 can be successfully brought to give testimony, his answers will prove that the plaintiff was unfairly dismissed by the defense. Therefore, he is very much relevant to the case.

2. lcn was on the DoH ticket and is a key observer of what not only occurred before and after csimiami14's unfair firing, but also could give insight into the inner workings of the Department of Health. His testimony would be valuable to the plaintiff in proving the claims presented against the defense. Just because the defense would prefer not having any members of DoH leadership to not testify, because they couldn't legally control what they could say, doesn't mean that they can say that this witness is somehow irrelevant to this case when they are, in fact, a witness as provided by evidence.

3. As aforementioned, Crytiee is again one of the primary witnesses to what occurred to the plaintiff. Crytiee's testimony could provide invaluable insights and be potentially helpful to providing the plaintiff's burden. The defense's attempt to force a he said vs. he said fight is not only discriminatory against the plaintiff's ability to argue their case, it also deprives the Court of all available information in determining a fair and impartial verdict. The witness is therefore critically important and relevant to this case.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO DEFENSE'S INTERROGATORIES

1. 4, as stated both by potential witness testimony and available exhibits.

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

Your Honor, the plaintiff objects to question two of the interrogatory asked by the defense. The defense has provided no evidence of a "quota". There has been no written or publicly posted job responsibilities or expectations that says that there is a "quota of 5". It is prejudicial to the plaintiff's case to answer a misleading question that is based without any facts that have not been in evidence.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO RELEVANCY OBJECTION
Your Honor and Counsel,

It is inappropriate and highly unusual for witnesses to not be allowed to be called, simply because the defense believes they are somehow "not relevant" to the case at hand. That is not for the defense to decide. It's for the plaintiff's burden to prove their testimony is relevant and for the judge to weigh the testimony presented.
However, if the plaintiff must be bogged down with the distraction of the defense counsel, we shall repudiate the objection:

1. LieutenantDerp99 trained csimiami14 as a doctor and is relevant to case because LieutenantDerp99 is an example of the Department of Health's inconsistent and ever-changing midnight policies. We believe that if LieutenantDerp99 can be successfully brought to give testimony, his answers will prove that the plaintiff was unfairly dismissed by the defense. Therefore, he is very much relevant to the case.

2. lcn was on the DoH ticket and is a key observer of what not only occurred before and after csimiami14's unfair firing, but also could give insight into the inner workings of the Department of Health. His testimony would be valuable to the plaintiff in proving the claims presented against the defense. Just because the defense would prefer not having any members of DoH leadership to not testify, because they couldn't legally control what they could say, doesn't mean that they can say that this witness is somehow irrelevant to this case when they are, in fact, a witness as provided by evidence.

3. As aforementioned, Crytiee is again one of the primary witnesses to what occurred to the plaintiff. Crytiee's testimony could provide invaluable insights and be potentially helpful to providing the plaintiff's burden. The defense's attempt to force a he said vs. he said fight is not only discriminatory against the plaintiff's ability to argue their case, it also deprives the Court of all available information in determining a fair and impartial verdict. The witness is therefore critically important and relevant to this case.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO DEFENSE'S INTERROGATORIES

1. 4, as stated both by potential witness testimony and available exhibits.

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

Your Honor, the plaintiff objects to question two of the interrogatory asked by the defense. The defense has provided no evidence of a "quota". There has been no written or publicly posted job responsibilities or expectations that says that there is a "quota of 5". It is prejudicial to the plaintiff's case to answer a misleading question that is based without any facts that have not been in evidence.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor, this Objection is fruitless as stated within Exhibit D by Secretary Adam the quota was set to 5.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor, to put this as simplistic as it can be. The Plaintiff is stating that there is no evidence within this case regarding a quota of 5 attends meanwhile within Exhibit D there is clear evidence pertaining to this, the Plaintiff has not only failed to look at their own evidence but has also committed perjury by stating that there is no evidence of a quota while providing said evidence.

This is clear evidence of the Plaintiff stating something that is untrue to the Court in hopes of striking a question.
If we allow for clear perjury to stand, then why is the law there?
If the Plaintiff failed to examine their own evidence then why should this case continue?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The only documentation is in the screenshots provided by the Plaintiff. Beyond that, there is also the screenshot provided below of the changelog within the Department of Health Discord.
View attachment 44741

INTERROGATORY
1. How many attends did the Plaintiff have?
2. Did the Plaintiff reach the quota of 5?

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,
LieutenantDerp99 serves no relevance in this case, the only relevance would be they are a Medical Specialist however have been on a Leave of Absence during the time of the activity check and firing of the Plaintiff (LOA screenshot provided below).

lcn, although listed in the screenshots provided by the Plaintiff, I see no reason as to why you need 3 members of leadership within the Department of Health to ask if a firing was fair given the Secretary has the only power to fire people.

Crytiee, although again listed within the screenshots, they yet again, are not needed given the Plaintiff has the very Secretary as a witness (who is Adam) who ultimately decides who and who not to fire. The act of going to leadership is only a tradition and is not marked within law anywhere.

Sustained. The plaintiff is permitted to call Crytiee and Adam_The_Warrior as witnesses. After reviewing the objection and response, I find that LieutenantDerp99 is not relevant to this case. lcn would not provide any better insight than the secretary, Adam.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO RELEVANCY OBJECTION
Your Honor and Counsel,

It is inappropriate and highly unusual for witnesses to not be allowed to be called, simply because the defense believes they are somehow "not relevant" to the case at hand. That is not for the defense to decide. It's for the plaintiff's burden to prove their testimony is relevant and for the judge to weigh the testimony presented.
However, if the plaintiff must be bogged down with the distraction of the defense counsel, we shall repudiate the objection:

1. LieutenantDerp99 trained csimiami14 as a doctor and is relevant to case because LieutenantDerp99 is an example of the Department of Health's inconsistent and ever-changing midnight policies. We believe that if LieutenantDerp99 can be successfully brought to give testimony, his answers will prove that the plaintiff was unfairly dismissed by the defense. Therefore, he is very much relevant to the case.

2. lcn was on the DoH ticket and is a key observer of what not only occurred before and after csimiami14's unfair firing, but also could give insight into the inner workings of the Department of Health. His testimony would be valuable to the plaintiff in proving the claims presented against the defense. Just because the defense would prefer not having any members of DoH leadership to not testify, because they couldn't legally control what they could say, doesn't mean that they can say that this witness is somehow irrelevant to this case when they are, in fact, a witness as provided by evidence.

3. As aforementioned, Crytiee is again one of the primary witnesses to what occurred to the plaintiff. Crytiee's testimony could provide invaluable insights and be potentially helpful to providing the plaintiff's burden. The defense's attempt to force a he said vs. he said fight is not only discriminatory against the plaintiff's ability to argue their case, it also deprives the Court of all available information in determining a fair and impartial verdict. The witness is therefore critically important and relevant to this case.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO DEFENSE'S INTERROGATORIES

1. 4, as stated both by potential witness testimony and available exhibits.

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

Your Honor, the plaintiff objects to question two of the interrogatory asked by the defense. The defense has provided no evidence of a "quota". There has been no written or publicly posted job responsibilities or expectations that says that there is a "quota of 5". It is prejudicial to the plaintiff's case to answer a misleading question that is based without any facts that have not been in evidence.

Overruled. Please answer the question. The DOH secretary stated in the Discord ticket provided by the plaintiff that the quote was set at 5, which serves as evidence of the quote established by the secretary.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor, this Objection is fruitless as stated within Exhibit D by Secretary Adam the quota was set to 5.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor, to put this as simplistic as it can be. The Plaintiff is stating that there is no evidence within this case regarding a quota of 5 attends meanwhile within Exhibit D there is clear evidence pertaining to this, the Plaintiff has not only failed to look at their own evidence but has also committed perjury by stating that there is no evidence of a quota while providing said evidence.

This is clear evidence of the Plaintiff stating something that is untrue to the Court in hopes of striking a question.
If we allow for clear perjury to stand, then why is the law there?
If the Plaintiff failed to examine their own evidence then why should this case continue?

Sustained. I order the DHS to charge the plaintiff's lawyer with perjury.

Both Parties should review their submissions to ensure they are not contradicting their previous statements or submitted documents.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Lack of Claim

Your Honor, we have seen through the entire Discovery process and the Plaintiff has provided no new information that would assist within their case and the Defense enters in our original Motion to Dismiss as still valid arguments and we would like to increase our arguments for this case.

1. For a lawsuit to be valid you must prove negligence and especially to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This is very easily provable if we follow the link provided within the Motions Guide on the forums.

• Duty, this is very easy to disprove as although an argument can be made that you have the duty to disclose when someone is not fulfilling within their job, that can easily be refuted through the Secretary doing their duty to disclose that the Plaintiff failed to fulfill a quota and that they can redo the Doctor Exams to then be rehired, a solution was provided which fulfills the Duty segment of Negligence more.
• Breach, although not clear, we assume this means breach of a fair firing. This is already disproven through this trial this far thus we will not be restating our arguments.
• Causation and Damages, I have bundled these into one and this is incredibly easy to disprove. First off, no damages were shown to have had beyond an alleged unfair firing which is not a reason to sue especially if you wish to retain damages from the unfair firing. All the Plaintiff has provided are images stating why they were fired and that a Medical Specialist states they do not believe they should have been fired. Which yet again, a Medical Specialist is not able to decide alone who is to be hired or fired, that is the job of the Secretary and although common practice to go to their leadership on advice for hirings and firings, not required.

2. I want to go back to the Plaintiff's rebuttal to my previous Motion to Dismiss, they state that failing to fulfill a quota is not a reason for dismissal, if that is not a reason for dismissal then I can be inactive as I want as the quota is used as a source of activity, this argument is fruitless given that simple argument. The Plaintiff is attempting to manipulate our Court System to simply get a pay day which is proven through the $20,000 for wrongful termination, $72,000 for one month's worth of potential earnings (which is absurd and more than an attorney at the DOJ would make in a month), and $10,000 for emotional damages. NONE of which has be proven in this trial.

3. The Plaintiff's second rebuttal is purely used as a source to testify and is simply restating their claim which again, the Plaintiff has a lack thereof.

4. Now finally onto the final rebuttal. I want to start off by stating where did the Secretary restate the reasoning? The reasoning was for failure to fulfill a quota and although the number was off, that is not changing their reasoning, that is stating the true number that was found. The rest of this argument is simply used as a way to testify however I still want to comment on this rebuttal, the quota system is there to determine inactivity and nowhere in any job description does it state that you need to keep playtime up however that is automatically assumed and proven within plenty of cases in Court showing that if you fail to uphold activity, you are subject to being fired.

Why does the quota change per month? Not only have we already gone over this but beyond that, the quota changes per month to accomendate the number of doctors, patients, if the plugin was down, etc. The Plaintiff has failed to prove that this is beyond a reasonable doubt (which although this is a civil case and is not needed) that the Defense acted in wrongdoing by having a quota system that changes dependent on availability of Redmont.

5. To sum everything up, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defense acted through a breach of duty, a breach of law, any damages, that the quota system is unfair or disallowed within Redmont, and that you cannot fire for lack of activity. All of these are the main arguments to the Plaintiff's case which the Plaintiff has (and I understand I am repeating myself) failed to prove within their claim or evidence.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[The_MarxSisters]

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

Your Honor,

There is no criteria that states that Plaintiff counsel must somehow find "new evidence" from the defense, when much of the witnesses and evidence provided would've been sufficient in proving the plaintiff's claims that the defense violated the law by unfairly firing the Plaintiff. Once again, the defense tries to obstruct the judicial process through needless motions to dismiss the case, when the Court has already ruled in overruling defense's last motion to defense, that there is merit to the Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff will now try and provide a strong rebuttal to the Defense's MTD, though the overwhelming and unclear text written will be hard to decipher, in full. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff shall answer:

1. Plaintiff has sufficiently proven its claims and merits to the case. Nonetheless, the plaintiff shall refute the defense's points:

• Duty: The Secretary fired the Plaintiff without cause, until after the Plaintiff had to initiate a ticket process with the Department of Health to get a sufficient answer, an answer that changed twice. First, with a medical specialist who was empowered in leadership by the Secretary who stated and acknowledged was false later, that the Plaintiff allegedly only did zero attending visits, despite the fact that the Plaintiff did four. The Plaintiff then asked the Secretary for an answer, in which, the Secretary said that because of a "quota" which was never told to the Plaintiff, that is the reason for his dismissal. There was no solution or other avenue to pursue after this, because it was never stated to the Plaintiff when he was hired or posted in any public place. Any announcement of a quota was done after the May attending visits, not for June. No reasonable expectation can be placed on an employee, whether in the Department of Health or in any other private corporation, to meet such a quota, ex-post facto. Plaintiff has a claim.
• Breach: Plaintiff has already been ruled that they have merit and a claim in contesting the firing of the Plaintiff. Defense fails to contest this particular point.
• Causation and Damages: Damages were caused by the Defense's actions, which the Plaintiff intends to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These damages cannot be determined or fairly ruled in a motion to dismiss. If this was the case, then the Commonwealth could throw out any case that they deem as "having no damages". The Commonwealth does not get a say in what are damages, the Courts do.

It is therefore reasonable to say that the Defense is grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to dismiss a case that they know is their fault. Plaintiff has merited claims to prove the unfair dismissal.
2. As stated in the first point, the Plaintiff has proven that there is merited claims made in this case, as was ruled in the first motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff will not belabor the point. However, the Defense is prejudicially making false claims and acting slanderously to counsel. The Plaintiff hopes the Court will take note of that.

3. The Defense cannot simply relitigate the last motion to dismiss or give rebuttal to Plaintiff on the last motion to dismiss. The Defense has the burden of proving why this case must be dismissed, but they've failed in proving so, in both instances. Plaintiff has sufficient claims against the Defense for damages.

4. There was no quota system ever stated when the Plaintiff was hired, it was never posted in any of the job responsibilities or expectations to the Plaintiff in any public setting nor in any private setting by Plaintiff's DoH supervisors. Defense counsel wishes to make testimony and try to enter "new evidence' of a quota system before June 2024. This is either willful neglect to share such evidence or outright perjury by the Defense. Once again, no quota system for May 2024 was ever made and the Plaintiff was unfairly fired because the Department of Health did not want to play by the rules of the law, instead they made their own rules as if it was a social club not a place of employment and public service. The Plaintiff asks the Court to reject the second Motion to Dismiss.

5. For all other points above, the Plaintiff refers to the Court to them to address this point.

Your Honor, the Defense has failed to prove a burden that this Court should dismiss this case. It is wasting precious time and adding prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to speedy and fair justice. The Court has already determined, "[the] original complaint presents sufficient evidence to support the claims for relief, warranting that this case proceeds to trial" (MTD ruling). We ask the Court to reject this second motion to dismiss, because the Plaintiff has already made sufficient and merited claims.

Thank you, Your Honor and Counsel.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

After careful consideration, I have decided to grant this motion to dismiss with prejudice. Applying a standard of Factual Sufficiency to this case allows the court to assess whether there is a sufficient basis for the claim to proceed. Factual Sufficiency requires accepting all presented facts as true and evaluating whether the evidence supports those facts being true. In this instance, even assuming all facts presented by the plaintiff are true, there remains no valid claim for unfair dismissal. The legal definition of unfair dismissal pertains to the unjust termination of an employee. However, based on the evidence provided, the termination in question does not meet this criterion. The Department of Health's lack of a posted policy on attendance does not constitute a legally required obligation that would render the dismissal unfair. (Lack of claim = A Claim that isn't supported by law).

The denial of the original motion to dismiss was primarily to permit the presentation of evidence that could reveal new facts or establish a new claim. However, no such evidence emerged; instead, all evidence reiterated the original facts, which even if true, do not substantiate unfair dismissal. Therefore, the claim lacks a legal basis. (Summary: Assuming all the facts are true, there is no basis for an unfair dismissal claim.)

Considering the lack of a claim, the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the termination was unfair when compared to similar instances involving other doctors. For instance, if one doctor was terminated for four attends while another was not terminated for three, solely due to a personal relationship with the secretary, then a claim for unfair dismissal might be viable. However, such a differential treatment has not been sufficiently demonstrated in this case. (i.e., was the dismissal made with prejudice due to bias or discrimination, or was it based on other grounds?)

While I encourage governmental departments to adopt clear policies, their absence does not automatically render dismissals unfair (again multiple doctors were fired for the same reason). Therefore, based on the evidence provided and the legal standards applied, I find that the plaintiff has not established a valid legal claim that warrants proceeding with this case in court.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.