Lawsuit: Adjourned Steveshat v. supersuperking [2024] FCR 63

Status
Not open for further replies.

Unseatedduke1

Redmont School of Law
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls
Unseatedduke1
Unseatedduke1
constructor
Joined
Jan 7, 2024
Messages
757
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

supersuperking (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

steveshat is a man who was having a good time, and tried his luck at several casino games within Keystone Holdings. He deposited over $900k, and when making his last bet before running out of gambling money, he won big: winner winner chicken dinner. To be exact, he won over 1.8 million dollars, doubling what he invested. The casino didn't like this, however, and flat-out refused to award this payout when the plaintiff requested a withdrawal. The reason? Betting limits that should have been there but weren't as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant offered the plaintiff a disgusting $265k, a total insult considering this results in a huge net loss. It is time to teach businesses accountability. It is time to get justice for a wronged victim of contract breach.


I. PARTIES
1. steveshat (Plaintiff)
2. Keystone Holdings (Tortfeasor)
3. supersuperking (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)


II. FACTS
1. On February 15th, 2024, steveshat deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).

2. On the same day, this money was gambled extensively with onlookers commenting on the gambling. To their shock, steveshat won $1,800,000.00 in a game of roulette (Exhibit B).

3. Keystone Holdings refused to pay out the winnings, offering to resolve the matter for a mere $265,000 under the reasoning that there was a max bet of $5,000 in place (Exhibits C and D).

4. Keystone Holdings had no posted policy of a max bet posted as of the 15th of February, 2024. Their gambling bot also did not have the feature of max betting properly configured, leading it to accept a higher bet (Exhibit E).

5. The plaintiff offered for the defendant to pay the 1.8 million dollars (and less in some offers) out overtime in a payment plan to protect their interests, but the defendant denied this request multiple times.

6. Keystone Holdings subsequently dissolved to avoid liability and distributed assets to its former shareholders (Exhibit F).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The casino receives actual monetary bets in return for the expectation of that money returned on a win. This constitutes a contract under the Foundation of Contract Law as it satisfies all the necessary elements, while maybe not as explicitly as other contracts. Whether or not this legally stands, that expectation still exists and is represented by the casino's posting of odds on specific games. Representing those odds is also backing the outcome of the bet, whether a win or loss. To misrepresent these facts constitutes gambling fraud under the Commercial Standards Act. These odds were misrepresented when the casino refused to compensate the plaintiff his winnings, and thus is grounds for damages under the Legal Damages Act.

2. The two factors described in fact four combine sum up to negligence on Keystone Holdings and no reasonable assumption of any risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his full earnings, and the excuse of a max bet holds no legal water.

3. Keystone Holdings dissolved, leaving liability for its actions to its shareholders. The plaintiff will be using discovery to find out how much liability is attributed to each shareholder and how much money should be clawed back from each. For now, the prayer for relief comprises a total amount of money owed collectively by all of the shareholders.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,800,000 in compensatory damages - the duty to mitigate was satisfied as described in fact five of this filing.

2. $50,000 in punitive damages for grossly and outrageously denying the plaintiff his winnings and having the audacity to strongarm and lowball him to a tremendous degree.

3. 5% of $1,800,000 is $90,000 and this would be the monthly interest steveshat would earn if he stored his winnings in banks that offer 5% interest such as Atreides, S-Capital, etc... Therefore, each day of not having this money loses the plaintiff $3,000 in opportunity costs. The plaintiff therefore requests $3,000 each day starting from the 16th of February 2024 until the 1.8 million dollars is finally paid to the plaintiff. At the time of this posting, that total is 51 days = $153,000.

4. $50,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont as $1,800,000 can buy a lot of things, things that the plaintiff cannot enjoy for as long as he is denied his winnings.

5. $50,000 in punitive damages for attempting to launder this money by dissolving and distributing it to shareholders / other parties.

6. $585,000 + 30% of the award of prayer for relief 3 in legal fees, awarded to Dragon Law Firm (a recent amendment to the Legal Damages Act increases legal fees to 30%).

V. EVIDENCE
724QzS33eE9VYvdiThm32lEmykf1aoU3QIRpTSs50N-wvWdPHLmRxMrEmMXzUJBk1cUI3F9QToFmEUWmmk5XqfMeoXiLZuUyMdM_R4IXgGvfzVOphYxRnx8A82ItwjQgIDPv0cJsUFVEgkeLK_BXjJQ
U51R7FmSSHLTRx0znOz7JyjEBJJ9Pp5ICXdDR4reh28lUHqu9hq0RAvcWShF_Zt-I50XbKsW8UxCDkyy3RCgcY1X07yv-xAd9Z_nfyJGCl-_wqpGKWggzgPkfXez_CPFc_dCWFFl3_irqWHOB1ztM5s
kJ7wOLjv10X6v_8VpvYaMT5c-ov_9bnrs24d2GHQGQk9KHlW-xnILCDuqgD_c-yZYEYhUqEH6GrerzwTCK48K9qO2O5H59k-01_u-MZfRlx_cHaeiOK8AAICzNr38HKoCXjEjE7OHOgXURCVQqUXKeU
uHIEB-bxTW50ZEluIOzqLbRb_2koHBg1RLb-5ShJyND4y78HZXIR-lJj7INs-y1Aoj98-PziHplmkSr4-x1q-41y2kGCZQu-rG2RjCp9mYXAVPNJKCyRjRsNrLNjvv6l8mKulGGl830jCqQSr7Av8FQ
0oDSC8jbOVzMYQOXVWr1_0smhI4xNaZ4EQ0tWyPp5vCzkMg9gOy4yth06AOiO-E54W8feL4bFzZY6vOt_MJvV85cay91WW4WvlbKamAGOF47flc4H1ablVgeLyv-Eb7Iy1ONNANye51TW9sNa-C39TQ
jUB6Ax4t38gKb7CEjkHqcA6VwFaOqxjXOCNYnT7TzyA_OXEvpKQlpljJmlfy_th9mCMvhk0-SvZHt-oLKbRaCTJxCHIa0b17zb9pVf5uRBhf5d5u83LP7lJUPhg_x3bRulE9jnWBa_q8LlZenA9VilQ


VI. PRELIMINARY WITNESSES
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

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 25th day of April 2024
 
FedCourtLogo.png

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

@supersuperking is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Steveshat v. supersuperking.

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 Honor,

The Defendant has recently retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

1714456310783.png
 
Your Honor,

The Defendant has recently retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

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



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

Within the Commercial Standards Act, it is stated as following;

19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company.

Therefore, as a distinct legal entity from the one in a business relationship with the plaintiff, the case has no standing. Even if this case can be argued to incurred damages, the defendant had not occupied a management position in the company, and was simply a shareholder.

DATED: This Second day of May, 2024.
 
Your Honor,
This case revolves around fraud. The individual in question served on the Board of Directors, which opted not to compensate my client, thus holding a managerial position. The BOD's decision to withhold payment upon the victory led to the fraudulent dissolution of the company to evade payment.

The defense neglected to specify the rule under which they seek dismissal. Per Rule 5.1, a Motion to Dismiss must clearly indicate the Discovery Rule the counsel intends to rely upon. Their failure to adhere to this requirement warrants denial of their motion to dismiss, in addition to the aforementioned grounds.

Thank You
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


I apologise for my mistake in the Motion to dismiss (failure to adhere to Rule 5.1), and due to the mistake, I do withdraw it. My apologies to the plaintiff, their legal counsel, and the honourable court.

Steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

supersuperking
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We affirm the deposit was placed. We neither affirm or deny the balance could be withdrawn at any time.
2. We affirm the plaintiff's victory. We neither affirm or deny the details stated.
3. We affirm that the full winnings was refused due to the cap.
4. We dispute the configuration of the bot not being proper.
5. We dispute the offers, there is no evidence submitted of such, nor details.
6. We dispute that the company was dissolved in order to avoid liability.

II. DEFENCES
1. While it is true that this may constitute an implicit contract, the contract was a business relationship between the company and the plaintiff. Shareholders are protected from such situations, by the fact that they are a distinct legal entity. There is no reason why the dissolution of the company would remove such a protection.
2. Additionally, it is not the casino's fault that the bet limit did not work on the bot. Both the fact that the bet limit did exist on the bot, and that it was not the fault of the Casino was previously proven in a Federal Court of Law. (Link to case)


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 Second day of May, 2024.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


I would like to retract and request the strike of the second part of the defence, as mentioned below, off of the Answer to Complaint. It has come to my knowledge that the lawsuit had indeed been appealed and declared a mistrial. I apologise and recognise this to be an unprofessional conduct, but there has been some in real life circumstances that caused the situation to spiral into a rushed defense. It is no excuse, but a reason. I apologise again to the plaintiff, their legal counsel, and the honourable court.

2. Additionally, it is not the casino's fault that the bet limit did not work on the bot. Both the fact that the bet limit did exist on the bot, and that it was not the fault of the Casino was previously proven in a Federal Court of Law. (Link to case)
 
We will now move into the 7 day discovery period.
 
Discovery has now ended, plaintiff has 72 hours to deliver opining statements
 
Opening Statement

Your Honor, members of the court, the defendant, acting in a managerial capacity, made the decision to withhold payment from the plaintiff and subsequently voted to dissolve the company in an apparent effort to evade liability and shirk responsibility for compensating the plaintiff rightfully. Throughout this proceeding, the defense may argue that as a shareholder, they bear no liability. However, it is crucial to recognize that the defendant, in their managerial role, made a deliberate decision that now demands accountability.

The defense may attempt to deflect blame by alleging that a malfunctioning bot absolves them of responsibility. Yet, this claim is easily refuted, as the evidence initially presented in the case was falsified, leading to charges of perjury against the individual who submitted it. The bot in question, purportedly non-functional according to the defense, is a standard tool utilized by numerous casinos and cannot be manipulated in the manner suggested by the defense.

This case is straightforward: the defendant, acting in a managerial capacity, sought to evade liability, and they must now face the consequences for engaging in fraudulent activities and breaching the contractual obligations inherent in their business dealings as a casino.

Thank You
 
Defense has 72 Hours to submit their Closing Statement
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The Prosecution's entire argument hinges on speculation. Their claims can be refuted easily in quick succession:

A) The bot did not have a limit in place. While it can be said that the Defendant may have falsified evidence proving this in a previous trial, the Prosecution has failed to prove that the bot limit did not malfunction or that it wasn't in place. As burden of proof is upon the Prosecution, this entails that the bot limit may have been in place and malfunctioned.

B) As the bot limit was in place, the Plaintiff did not have the legal right to the money they won, and thus the Defendant did not intentionally shortchange the Plaintiff as they were informed that the bot limit had functioned improperly to allow an invalid bet. In this scenario, the winnings would have been entirely invalidated, however the Defendant was willing to pay some reparations due to the purported loss the Plaintiff suffered.

C) Suggesting that the Defendant voted to dissolve the company to evade liability without proving any evidence whatsoever is a gross exaggeration and speculation that the Prosecution has undertaken. Having failed to provide any evidence supporting this blatant lie, the claim is entirely invalid.

As such, the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant hold no water whatsoever, as they have failed to provide any evidence to back up the claims that the bot did not have a limit, and that the Defendant intentionally voted to dissolve the company in an attempt to dissolve the company. Burden of Proof is upon the Prosecution, and they have failed to submit any evidence to substantiate these claims.

While this case cannot be dismissed as it was appealed, the Defense strongly recommends the court to dismiss all claims for relief that the Plaintiff has levied against the Defendant as they are little more than substantiation and assumption. All this case does is waste the time of the court and the Defendant while seeking to besmirch their name.

Thank you for your time.
 
Seeing as now witnesses were given, we will be moving into closing statements plaintiff has 72 hours
 
Your Honor,

We apologize for all the inconvenience we have caused the court due to our unresponsiveness. We request a 24 hour extension as I have important exam tomorrow and would like to prepare for it
 
Your Honor,

When Steveshat gambled at Keystone's casino, he made an implied contract with the company to honor any winnings he might earn from gambling with the company. There was no public statement of a maximum bid and while the defendant claims that the bot has malfunctioned, they have provided no evidence of such activity that the bot may have done so. It is not the plaintiff's job to produce the evidence of malfunctioning as it is the burden of proof of the defendant. As all the evidence provided in this case or in the previous case either did not show the bot as malfunctioned or was found to be fraudulently created, the plaintiff failed to prove that this is the case.

This implied contract that Steveshat created with Keystone Holdings guarantees him the winnings of the bet. The only restriction posted on the information page from the evidence shown is that Keystone Holdings would not pay for bot malfunctions. As the defendant failed to provide proof of such, the contract was breached by Keystone when they failed to pay the winnings of the bid to the plaintiff.

The defendant owned 23% of the company as shown by Exhibit F. As the defendant was a board member of the company, they have managerial rights that was given to them as a Board Member. An example can be seen in Exhibit C and D, the board was able to tell Wetc, the CEO at the time, to invalidate the plaintiff's bid which ended up happening. This shows that the board was able to assume management positions which makes them liable under the commercial standards act.

In conclusion, the case rests upon the implied contract that was broken by Keystone Holdings and the management rights exercised by the defendant. We hope you can find in favor of the plaintiff in this case.
 
The Defense my now submit their Closing Statements, they have 72 Hours to do so.
 
Your Honor,

Apologies for the tardiness but I have taken extremely ill and my colleague is in the process of shifting apartments.

As such, I request a 24 hour extension to provide a proper closing statement

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
 
Your Honor,

Apologies for the tardiness but I have taken extremely ill and my colleague is in the process of shifting apartments.

As such, I request a 24 hour extension to provide a proper closing statement

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Granted
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff claims that the bot did not malfunction and has failed to prove it. wetc, the owner put it that the bot malfunctioned. In a previous case, it has been confirmed that this functionality is a feature of the bot. In failing to provide any evidence relating to the perported non-existence of the bot limit, the Plaintiff is simply making unfounded claims against the owner.

Furthermore, as my client recently brought to my attention, wetc falsely claimed he had acted with board approval, which can be proven with the image I requested to be submitted late as it was just revealed to me.

In failing to prove a significant breach of contract and falsely accusing my client of mismanagement the Plaintiff has sought to, as i reiterate, besmirch the name of my client while seeking money they are rightfully not owed.

Once again, a total lack of sufficient evidence leaves me requesting the court to once again reject all the plaintiff’s prayers for relief and close this frivolous prosecution once and for all.

Thank you for your time, and I pray the court and come to a sensible conclusion on the matter at hand.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

The Defense wishes to submit the following evidence, post discovery as it was only revealed after discovery had concluded, to aid the court in understanding the matter at hand.
 

Attachments

  • 253FB580-4B90-457E-ABF5-AEEA614CBFAA.jpeg
    253FB580-4B90-457E-ABF5-AEEA614CBFAA.jpeg
    214.4 KB · Views: 50
Last edited by a moderator:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

The Defense wishes to submit the following evidence, post discovery as it was only revealed after discovery had concluded, to aid the court in understanding the matter at hand.
Motion Denied we have already finished closing statements. Your client should have brought this forward sooner.

Court is in recess pending the verdict of this case.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honour, the evidence was submitted in conjunction with the Defense’s closing statement and the separation of the messages was to preserve proper formatting.

I request the courts to reconsider this denial as the evidence is important (even if my client failed to bring it up earlier) and was submitted in conjunction with the closing statements with a mere gap of 3 minutes.

Thank you.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honour, the evidence was submitted in conjunction with the Defense’s closing statement and the separation of the messages was to preserve proper formatting.

I request the courts to reconsider this denial as the evidence is important (even if my client failed to bring it up earlier) and was submitted in conjunction with the closing statements with a mere gap of 3 minutes.

Thank you.

Motion to Reconsider is Denied, we are in recess.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Steveshat v. supersuperking[2024] FCR 63

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Steveshat won $1,800,000 from a game of Roulette in the Keystone Holdings Casino,
2. Keystone Holdings refused to pay the full 1.8 Million because they claimed the max bet was $5,000.
3. Keystone Holdings Liquidated and divvied out assets to the Shareholders.
4. Liability falls to the shareholders after they company dissolved.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. There was a bot limit in place and the plaintiff had no legal right to the winnings.
2. As a shareholder, they did not hold a management position so they can not be held liable under the Commercial Standers Act.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Commercial Standards act says "
19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company."
This outlines that Shareholders of a public company do not liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company, even if they hold shares in the company unless they assume management positions within the company.
2. Now we need to define what a management position is. Well now we need to turn to the Oxford Dictionary which says "Organization, supervision, or direction; the application of skill or care in the manipulation, use, treatment, or control (of a thing or person)" Now when it comes to vanguard they made a management decision, but don't hold a position that makes them constantly running or controlling a business. So we have now established that they do not hold a management position and can not be Liable.
3. There was no evidence that there was a bot limit in place provided by the defense, therefore we can not reasonably assume that there was one in place.


IV. DECISION
1. The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defense.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top