Lawsuit: Adjourned Drippzy_Tox v. ToasterwithADHD [2022] DCR 56

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drippzy_Tox

Drippzy_Tox

Citizen
Homeland Security Department
Grave Digger
InkyTX
InkyTX
Recruit
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
6
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Drippzy_Tox
Plaintiff

v.

ToasterwithADHD
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
ToasterwithADHD Slandered me which damages my reputation and ruins my company which is tied to my name.

I. PARTIES
1. Drippzy_Tox
2.ToasterwithADHD

II. FACTS
1. Continues slander against me. this is repetitive and they were really rude to me and by doing this is ruining my reputation and my company by doing so
toaster being rude af.jpg

toaster being rude af.jpg



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. 17.8 - Slander
A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,000 from the Defendant in damages to the Plaintiff's reputation
2. $1,500 from the Defendant in damages to the reputation of the Plaintiff's company, Dripp & Co. Lawfirm

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
Rurge

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: 23/11/2022
 

Attachments

  • evidence for lawsuit against toaster.jpg
    evidence for lawsuit against toaster.jpg
    66.2 KB · Views: 102
  • more ev against toaster.jpg
    more ev against toaster.jpg
    71.1 KB · Views: 109
district-court-png.12083

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

@ToasterwithADHD is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Dripppy_Tox V. ToasterwithADHD [2022] DCR 56. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff failed to name a necessary party in the complaint. The second Prayer for Relief seeks damages for the Plaintiff’s company, Dripp & Co. Lawfirm, which was not listed as a Party in Section I of the filing.

DATED: This 23rd day of November 2022
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-11-24 at 8.14.26 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-11-24 at 8.14.26 AM.png
    84 KB · Views: 115
I will be denying this motion to dismiss as failing to name a company in the parties section of the case filing is not a reason to dismiss the case. We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
Greetings, your honour.

I will now be representing Drippzy_Tox.
1669588512847.png


I would like to request an additional 24 hours to complete our opening statement due to me being newly appointed as Drippzy_Tox's lawyer.

Thank you.
 
Because you were appointed as his lawyer a little bit more than 12 hours after the time started, I will give you a 12 hour extension to post the opening statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


Drippyz_Tox
Plaintiff



v.


ToasterwithADHD
Defendant

1. Sector 17.8 states Slander as the following: "A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation."
2. The defendant repeatedly states as fact that the Plaintiff is a "bad lawyer" in hopes of impairing his reputation, which includes the reputation of his law firm.
3. The defendant continues to do so even after multiple warnings from the Plaintiff.
4. The defendant did not once deny slandering Drippzy_Tox.
5. The statements were solely said out of opinion; therefore debating whether what he said was true would be irrelevant.

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: 11/29/22
 
Thank you to the plaintiff for their opening statement, the Defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Drippzy_Tox
Plaintiff

v.

ToasterWithADHD
Defendant

Your honor, today we will show that the statements ToasterWithADHD made against Drippzy_Tox does not constitute slander.

As the Plaintiff addressed, the definition of Slander according to the laws of Redmont is “A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.”

However, as the Plaintiff admitted, the statements, “ur still shit at lawyering” and the subsequent “your still bad at lawyering” may be unprofessional and rude, but are still opinions.

Should this court uphold that opinions may still be slanderous in nature, we would like to argue that the Plaintiff did not prove the second part of the statement, that the statements caused damage to the player’s reputation, and, in this case, the Plaintiff’s company’s reputation. There was no proof that Drippzy’s reputation was harmed nor was there any proof of damages done by these statements to the Plaintiff's company in the form of lost income, clients, or reputation.

As can be seen from the evidence posted in the original filing, the other players online were agreeing with staff Rurge and Drippzy that ToasterWithADHD needed to be nice. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the reputation of Drippzy in the eyes of the other players online was not damaged.

DATED: This 29th day of November 2022
 
Thank you to the Defendant for their opening statement. We will now move onto witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to list their witnesses or state that they have none.
 
We do not have any witnesses, your honor.
 
district-court-png.12083

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

@Rurge is hereby summoned to the District Court in the case of Drippy_Tox v. ToasterwithADHD [2022] DCR 56 as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Plaintiff, and may also be cross-examined by the Defendant.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. The Plaintiff will have 48 hours to question the witness once they declare themselves present.

I am hereby informing the witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.​
 
I am present and have familiarized myself with the case.
 
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post all of their questions for the witness.
 
I deeply apologize for being late. These are my questions for the witness, Rurge.

1. Did ToasterwithADHD's statements alter your view of Drippzy_Tox or his abilities in any way?
2. Did ToasterwithADHD's statements alter your view of Dripp & Co. Law Firm in any way?
 
UnluckyCookie27 said:
I deeply apologize for being late. These are my questions for the witness, Rurge.

1. Did ToasterwithADHD's statements alter your view of Drippzy_Tox or his abilities in any way?
2. Did ToasterwithADHD's statements alter your view of Dripp & Co. Law Firm in any way?
Click to expand...

1. After seeing ToasterwithADHD saying bad things about Drippzy_Tox in global chat, it most definitely made me think lesser of Drippzy's skills in the law, especially as I had not seen them in practice before.

2. When ToasterwithADHD was speaking about Drippzy_Tox's law skills in chat, I came to remember that he owned a law firm. This not only affected my view on his skills more, but also made me question why he owns a firm and the quality of his firm's employees as well.
 
The Defendant now has 48 hours to cross-examine the witness. (All questions must be posted in a singular post unless a question depends on the answer to a previous question.)

I am also hereby warning the Plaintiff to be aware of the time in the future.
 
These are my questions to the witness, Rurge:

1. Were you planning to hire Drippzy for any legal services before this alleged act of slander?

2. Will you hire Drippzy for legal services anytime in the near future?
 
The witness has 48 hours to answer the questions from the Defendant.
 
RandomIntruder said:
These are my questions to the witness, Rurge:

1. Were you planning to hire Drippzy for any legal services before this alleged act of slander?

2. Will you hire Drippzy for legal services anytime in the near future?
Click to expand...
1. No, I was not

2. Probably not, no
 
Your honor am I allowed to ask a follow up question to these answers?
 
Yes you may, as long as the follow-up questions are related to the answers that the witness gave. You have 48 hours to do so.
 
Thank you your honor,

Follow up questions for Rurge regarding question 2:

Would you have hired Drippzy for legal services in the near future had this alleged act of slander not occurred?
 
@Rurge has 48 hours from when the question was asked to provide a sufficient answer.
 
RandomIntruder said:
Thank you your honor,

Follow up questions for Rurge regarding question 2:

Would you have hired Drippzy for legal services in the near future had this alleged act of slander not occurred?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, yes
 
Thank you that concludes my questions.
 
We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
Your honor may I request a 48 hour extension as I have two exams tomorrow?
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Drippzy_Tox
Plaintiff

v.

ToasterwithADHD
Defendant

Revisiting the previous points and getting affirmation from a witness, Drippzy_Tox and his company were wrongfully slandered. Rurge has affirmed that ToasterwithADHD caused at least one count of damage.

1.ToasterwithADHD evidently had slanderous intent.
2.A witness has affirmed damage of reputation, justifying pleas for relief.
3.The damage includes Drippzy_Tox’s reputation as well as his law firm’s, Dripp & Co.

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: 12/09/22
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff for their closing statement, the Defendant has 48 hours from now to post their closing statement.

The extension has not been granted due to the fact that it has already been almost 36 hours since you requested the 48 hours.
 
N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Drippzy_Tox
Plaintiff

v.

ToasterwithADHD
Defendant

The defendant admits that there may have been damage to the reputation, but the Plaintiff has failed to prove loss. Furthermore, there was no explanation of how the damages listed in the Prayers for Relief were calculated.

Additionally, the reputation damage caused to the Plaintiff would only affect his performance as a lawyer, but there is an additional Prayer for Relief for his law-firm. This would effectively double the compensation that would be due for any loss of business.

Finally, the numbers here are quite high. There is only proof of losing one possible client, which wasn't even definite. The legal fees, especially for new lawyers, are rarely if ever equivalent to $3,000. Therefore, I ask, your honor, if you find my client guilty of Slander, to adjust the prayers for relief before sentencing.

DATED: 12/11/22
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Drippzy_Tox v. ToasterwithADHD [2022] DCR 56

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant called the Plaintiff a bad lawyer multiple times which is a purposefully false statement which is slander.
2. This slanderous statement hurt the Plaintiff's reputation, and caused him to lose future clients.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. What the Defendant said was an opinion not a fact. Therefore it was not slander.
2. The Plaintiff failed to prove any losses, and the witness that they called wasn't going to hire the Plaintiff before the alleged slanderous statement in the first place.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. While the Defendants statements may have been rude and possibly a little bit toxic, they were opinions and not facts.
2. Even though these statements may have been toxic, the courts do not deal with toxicity as this is a staff issue.
3. Lastly the Plaintiff didn't prove any loss of business because of this statement. However this doesn't matter because even if there was a loss of business the Defendant still stated an opinion rather than a fact. It is like leaving a bad review for a business, it may not be nice and it may hurt the business, but after all it is an opinion so it's not slander.

IV. DECISION
1. This court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant. This case is now adjourned.
2. If any toxicity continues from either party, I recommend contacting staff as they handle toxic players, not the court.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top