Lawsuit: Pending Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42

B

BlestSnow636130

Citizen
.BlestSnow636130
.BlestSnow636130
Joined
Sep 27, 2024
Messages
6
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT





CIVIL ACTION





Marissa4,


Plaintiff


v.


SplashyBoi74,


Defendant





COMPLAINT





On October 15, 2024, the Defendant unlawfully killed 15 of the Plaintiff’s animals. This act inflicted both emotional and financial harm upon the Plaintiff by depriving her of valuable property and companionship,





WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF





I. PARTIES





1. Plaintiff: Marissa4


2. Defendant: SplashyBoi74





II. FACTS





1. The Plaintiff was the caretaker and owner of multiple animals at the time of the incident.


2. On October 15, 2024, the Defendant intentionally killed 15 of the Plaintiff’s animals, as documented in evidence exhibits P-001, P-002, P-003, and P-004.





III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF





  1. The act committed by the defendant resulted in emotional distress and financial loss to the Plaintiff, depriving her of her property and the companionship of her animals.




IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF





The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:


.


• Punitive Damages: $10,000 to deter similar conduct in the future.


• Legal Fees: $5,000 under the Legal Damages Act.


• Additional Relief: Any further relief the court may deem appropriate.





By submitting this complaint, I acknowledge and understand the penalties of perjury for any knowingly false statements.





DATED: This 7th day of November, 2024





Exhibits:


P-001
Schermafbeelding_2024-10-23_090420.png

P-002
Schermafbeelding_2024-10-23_090447.png

P-003
Schermafbeelding_2024-10-23_090433.png

P-004
Schermafbeelding_2024-10-23_090426.png
 

Writ of Summons


@splashyboi74 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

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.

 
Your Honour,
The time period of 72 hours for defendant to appear has expired
Requesting you to move to default judgement
ko531 said:

Writ of Summons


@splashyboi74 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

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.

Click to expand...
 
BlestSnow636130 said:
Your Honour,
The time period of 72 hours for defendant to appear has expired
Requesting you to move to default judgement
Click to expand...
I am completely sorry for the delay in this case, but this case is currently in need of a public defender. Until we can assign a public defender this case is frozen.
 
Your Honor,
Soild Law Firm Will Be Defending the Defendant
Screen Shot 2024-11-15 at 3.53.11 PM.png
 
Your Honor,
I am sorry i accidently posted wrong un edited version
 

Motion


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

The defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, under the following rules:

  1. Rule 5.12 (lack of personal jurisdiction). The plaintiff is trying to prosecute the defendant again for violating the Animal & Pet Offences Act as they tried in Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 filed on Nov 6th, 2024 (no case number). A citizen cannot prosecute another citizen, this power is reserved for the DOJ as decided in that case. This is illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff only asks for punitive damages, and no compensatory damages.
  2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). The plaintiff has not shown the court any evidence of extreme financial loss or any emotional harm. They have only shown that the animals were killed on a farm plot. Farms are places where animals get bred and killed regularly, it’s part of the business model.

The defence moves to have this case dismissed with prejudice so that the defendant won’t have to respond to this matter in court over and over again. If this motion to dismiss is granted then this matter will have been litigated twice. Allowing the plaintiff to refile yet again would be a waste of time and resources of the court and the parties.

The defence would like to hold off on posting the answer to complaint until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If this is not an option the defence will post the answer to complaint within 24 hours of notification.

 
KingBOB99878 said:

Motion


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

The defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, under the following rules:

  1. Rule 5.12 (lack of personal jurisdiction). The plaintiff is trying to prosecute the defendant again for violating the Animal & Pet Offences Act as they tried in Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 filed on Nov 6th, 2024 (no case number). A citizen cannot prosecute another citizen, this power is reserved for the DOJ as decided in that case. This is illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff only asks for punitive damages, and no compensatory damages.
  2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). The plaintiff has not shown the court any evidence of extreme financial loss or any emotional harm. They have only shown that the animals were killed on a farm plot. Farms are places where animals get bred and killed regularly, it’s part of the business model.

The defence moves to have this case dismissed with prejudice so that the defendant won’t have to respond to this matter in court over and over again. If this motion to dismiss is granted then this matter will have been litigated twice. Allowing the plaintiff to refile yet again would be a waste of time and resources of the court and the parties.

The defence would like to hold off on posting the answer to complaint until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If this is not an option the defence will post the answer to complaint within 24 hours of notification.

Click to expand...

Denied


They are no longer trying to charge the defendant with a crime as they were doing in the original filling of this case. They are now only going for civil damages which is not prosecution.

Even though they did not provide evidence for their financial loss, emotional damage claims have a different burden of proof, the reasonable persons test. Would a reasonable person have emotional damage from the facts in this case? I believe so and therefore do have a claim

 

​

Answer to Complaint


​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Marissa4,
Plaintiff
v.
SplashyBoi74,
Defendant




I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defence AFFIRMS that SplashyBoi74 killed those animals.
The defence AFFIRMS Marissa4 lost money but DISPUTES that it is a big financial loss.
The defence DISPUTES Marrisa4 had significant emotional harm
The defence DISPUTES that punitive damages are warranted.




II. Defences
Animal life on farms:
As shown by the plaintiff, SplashyBoi74 is responsible for the deaths of 15 of the Plaintiffs' animals. This is undeniably wrong behaviour, and the defence regrets this incident.

These animals were located in a barn on the plaintiffs’ farm as shown by D-001, D-002 and D-003. The defence, however, argues that the death of animals on farms is a common and expected part of agricultural life—whether they are bred, raised for sale, or ultimately slaughtered for meat and other items. It is well understood that animals on farms are killed as part of normal operations. Therefore, the defence believes that the Plaintiff did not experience significant emotional distress over the loss, as these animals were not kept as "pets", but were primarily used for farming and breeding purposes. To conclude the defence believes that the animals dying did not cause significant emotional harm, certainly not to the level that punitive damages are needed.

Financial loss:
On the financial side, the loss sustained is minimal, and does not rise to a level that could be considered outrageous or deserving of punitive damages. Exhibits D-004 and D-005 show that spawn eggs are available in chestshops at 60$ apiece.

Evidence
D-001.png
D-002.png
D-003.png
D-004.png
D-005.png

 
Ok time for opening statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement
 
Your honor the period of discovery was skipped. We have several requests and interrogatories we would like to make.

(CEO of Solid Law, temporarily filling in for KingBOB to clear up this issue)
 
Superbiebel said:
Your honor the period of discovery was skipped. We have several requests and interrogatories we would like to make.

(CEO of Solid Law, temporarily filling in for KingBOB to clear up this issue)
Click to expand...
My bad, with the defendant not showing up I thought discovery already happened

Discovery starts now and will last the next 72 hours
 
The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:
  • Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
  • Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top