Appeal: Denied FCR 26 - Appeal Request

[Freeze_Line]

- Client Name: Lynx

- Counsel Name: Freeze_Line

- Were you initially the Plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff

- Reason for the Appeal: The judge in the case of Lynx v. Aryabroz decided to decrease the charges for a contract breach that the defendant made due to "an underage rumor." The judge said that the minimal charges would take place due to the "toxic environment". The judge also mentioned that the defendant should go to the staff and let them handle the underage rumor. The defendant created such big trouble when breaking the contract that the company Lynx had no choice but to sue him for the maximal charges stated in the contract. As the judge mentioned, rumors about one's age are in the "Staff" category, not the "Law" category. The charges shouldn't be decreased because of something staff can handle since it has nothing to do with the law. On the other hand, the problems caused by the defendant could extend the minimum amount that the judge issued and ruin the company's reputation. Therefore the charges should remain as they were from the beginning and not be minimized for something that isn't in the "Law" category. I'd also like to point out that the contract gives discretion concerning charges to the Plaintiff.

- Additional Information: Link to the case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Lynx v. AryaBroz [2022] FCR 26

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO APPEAL REQUEST

The Supreme Court has voted to reject this appeal request in a vote of 2-0, Justice Wuutie recusing himself.

The Supreme Court holds that the Federal Court is given discretionary power when determining civil damages. This power was originally upheld in Olisaurus123 v. Walmart Co. [2022] SCR 3 where the Supreme Court determined that the original ruling by Judge nnmc was considered fair and within a reasonable limit. While there is a time and place for excessive punitive damages, the Supreme Court does not believe this to be one of those times. The contract allowed for a minimum of $5,000 which Judge Wuutie granted. The reason for granting less than originally requested the Supreme Court holds to be fair. While the circumstances may call for staff assistance under toxicity, that does not mean that Court cannot rule on the situation as a whole. In a civil case, a judge is to look at the entire situation when granting punitive damages and this may include areas in which staff assistance is needed. So while the plaintiff in the original case may disagree with the decision by Judge Wuutie, the Supreme Court holds in to be a fair decision.

It should be noted that Acting Chief Justice Wuutie is referred to as a Judge given the role he was playing while presiding over a Federal Court proceeding. We believe that since he was acting as a Judge and not a Justice during these proceedings, the term Judge would be a more accurate depiction of Justice Wuutie.

The Supreme Court thanks you for your time and your patience.​