Lawsuit: Adjourned Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17

[Olisaurus123]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Olisaurus123
Plaintiff

v.

GoldenDiamonds4
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The defendant has written an untrue statement in a review on the official department of education and commerce business portal causing damage to the reputation of the Lemonade company and giving false impressions about the way Lemonade pay their employees. First impressions are everything, and given a first impression of a company is a review from somebody about how bad Lemonades prices are, it can poorly effect their reputation. Considering the statement is completely false I see no reason to why this shouldn't be considered slander. Regardless of whether this has effected the Lemonade company reputation in the past there is no doubt that it will in the future if this slanderous review stays up which is why I am seeking that the court requests the DEC to remove the review immediately.

I. PARTIES
1. Olisaurus123
2. GoldenDiamonds4

II. FACTS
1. on April 11th 2022, GoldenDiamonds4 posted a review on the Lemonade Business Portal saying "Being an 'employee' isn't bad but it could surely be better. One of the bad things is supplying them, they give you like 20 bucks for like almost an inventory full of logs. This may be a lot but I can feel they could do better."

2. On the same day, the Plaintiff replied to this review explaining the mis understanding, correcting his information and requested that defendant change the review.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The statement that was made, can and will negatively effect whether or not players would even consider becoming an employee of the company Lemonade.
2. Slander is a false statement which defames another person. This statement in the review is false and damages the reputation of the company Lemonade.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $500 for damage to the companies reputation given the false statement
2. $100 for legal fees
3. The review taken down immediately by the DEC.

EVIDENCE:
Exhibit A

Witness list:
1. Gaven26
2. GoldenDiamonds4

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: 12/05/2022

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Olisaurus123 v. GoldDiamonds4. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Olisaurus123]

I wish to invoke my right to request a recusal based on prior confrontations between myself and the judge,

 

[Nacho]

I wish to invoke my right to request a recusal based on prior confrontations between myself and the judge,

I will be rejecting the motion to recuse as I don't see the connections needed for grounds of recusal. The defendant still has roughly 3.5 hours left to appear before the court.

 

[Nacho]

Due to the Defendant failing to appear before the court I will be requesting a public defender to represent them in this case.

 

[Milqy]

Given that the Public Defender program is being restructured and all of the Public Defenders have been fired, there are no public defenders that are able to take this case at the moment. Thank you for considering the Public Defender Program before a default judgement.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Plaintiff v. Defence [2022] DCR 17


I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

1. The plaintiff argues that a review left on the Lemonade Business Portal page has caused damages to the potential to hire new employees for Lemonade.
2. The plaintiff further argues that the statement made by the defendant is slanderous in nature and wishes to see the review removed or changed.
3. The remarks have caused $500 in damages to the company's reputation directly from the statement.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant did not appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION

1. The plaintiff argues that the defendant actioned a slanderous remark in regards to a review left within the Business Portal. Slander per the defamation act is defined as a remark that occurs over Minecraft text chat and Discord chat as spoken communication. Slander is that of spoken defamatory comments towards another individual. In this context, the proper reference, in this case, would be the grounds for libel which is a written testimony from another individual in an attempt to cause harm.

2. In order for an individual to properly be charged with issuing a defamatory comment the burden of proof falls upon the Plaintiff to prove that damages were caused. Within this case, the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence to show damages directly relating to the hiring of new suppliers have been met.

3. As a business owner it is assumed that there will be critiques of a company. By creating a business on the Business Portal, you open yourself up to honest feedback in the form of reviews. In this case, based on the evidence that Plaintiff has provided the court it is apparent that this was merely the honest thoughts of a former employee of the company.

IV. DECISION

In the case of Olisaurus123 v. GoldDiamonds4 I will be adjourning in favor of Defendant. It is important to define that by a company using the business portal you consent to feedback on your company by the public. While libel and slander are 2 different perspectives of defamation and the wrong terminology was used within the case none of the required points were met within the initial filings of the case to fulfill a defamation charge as damages were not proved. I will also note that the review posted on the page doesn't have to be removed as this court does not find it in the wrong.


The District Court thanks all involved.

​