Lawsuit: Dismissed Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40

[dearev]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Class Action Group (Represented by Dearev)
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On may 31th the defandant Plura72 attempted to marry various individuals without their consent using his attorneys license, including the plaintiffs which he attemped to marry twice both of which were refused, the plaintiff (dearev) attempted to tell plura to stop trying to marry them as he didnt consent but plura didnt listen. Plura72 then after being told by dearev he didnt consent to be married tried marrying dearev once again with technofied.

I. PARTIES
1. Dearev (Plaintiff)
2. jb4bass (plaintiff)
3. Plura72 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Plura72 has an attorneys license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent
2. Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass
3. Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied
4. Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with TheRandomTechGuy
5. Plura72 was told by the plaintiff that they did not consent to being married and told plura to stop
6. Plura72 did not comply with the plaintiff's request for the defendant to stop

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Harassment
2. Marriage attempts without consent of both parties

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15.000 for each plaintiff in punitive damages
2. $5.000 in legal fees

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 31st day of May 2025

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION (jb4bass)

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

May I file an amicus brief on the precedent regarding class action lawsuits, specifically applied to this?

 

[JunkCereal]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40. In compliance with the injunction against you, please ensure that you have a qualified lawyer represent you.

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.

 

[Imza]

Answer to Complaint

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

Class Action Group

v.

Plura72 (Represented by RealImza)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 has an attorney's license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent“.
2. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass”
3. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied”.
4. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 as told by the Plaintiffs that they did not consent to being married and told Plura to stop.”
5. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that “Plura72 did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the defendant to stop”.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant did not comply with their requests to stop marrying people, yet the Plaintiffs have shown no evidence of this.
2. As per the Violent Offences Act, §5(i) “Harassment” is an indictable offence. As per the Standardised Criminal Code Act, §3(c), all indictable offences must be proven in a trial: “Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.” The Plaintiffs are not representing the government, nor do they have the power to prosecute.
3. The Plaintiffs have also not provided any evidence or shown how “Harassment” would have caused the class action group any injury or damages.
4. As per the Violent Offences Act, §5(i), harassment is defined as “The act of

Answer to Complaint

disorderly behavior towards an individual or a group of individuals, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm, or distress.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines disorderly as “engaged in conduct offensive to public order.” Any reasonable person could conclude that the action the Defendant took was done in a sarcastic, joke-like manner, and that it would not be offensive to public order.
5. “Marriage attempts without consent of both parties” is not a law, nor does it show or explain how the Plaintiffs were injured or suffered any damages by it.
6. The Plaintiffs ask for $15,000 in Punitive Damages for both of them. The Legal Damages Act §5(1a) defines Punitive Damages as: “damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them.” Any reasonable person could conclude that the actions of the Defendant did not constitute “outrageous actions”, as they were done in a sarcastic, joke-like manner.

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

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 seventh day of June 2025

Spoiler: Proof of representation

Motion

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:

1. Rule 5.5, lack of claim: The Plaintiffs state “Harassment” as one of the claims for relief; this claim has insufficient evidence to support it. The Plaintiffs are required to provide evidence showcasing how “Harassment” could cause them any sort of damage or injury, per §5(i) of the Violent Offences Act. Harassment is defined as “The act of disorderly behavior towards an individual or a group of individuals, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm, or distress.” No reasonable person could conclude that the sarcastic, joke-like act of marrying someone without consent would cause harassment, alarm, or distress; the Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to show that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.
2. Rule 5.12, lack of personal jurisdiction: This rule is defined as “A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case.”, per rule 2.1, for someone to have sufficient standing, they should have:
“Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
The cause of injury was against the law.
Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.”
To determine whether the Plaintiffs have sufficient standing, we must go through each one of the above.
First, the Plaintiffs have not “suffered some injury caused by a clear second party”; no reasonable person could conclude that Defendant marrying people without consent in a sarcastic, joke-like manner would constitute an injury. The Plaintiffs have also not been affected by an application of law by the Defendant.
Second, the cause of the injury was not against the law; nowhere in any of the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont does it state that “Marriage attempts without consent of both parties” is illegal. In regards to “Harassment”, the Plaintiffs have not shown or provided evidence on how the Defendant committed “Harassment”.
Third, Remedy is not applicable in any relevant law of the Commonwealth of Redmont. No law of the Commonwealth of Redmont contains something called “Marriage attempts without consent”, and although §5(i) of the Violent Offences Act mentions “Harassment”, it is not applicable for this situation, as the Plaintiffs are not prosecuting or representing the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Due to the above provided reasons, the Defense respectfully requests that the court grant this motion to dismiss.

 

[dearev]

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant did not comply with their requests to stop marrying people, yet the Plaintiffs have shown no evidence of this.

P-003 explicitly shows that the plaintiff "Dearev" said the following "Plura stop marrying me i don wan to" and yet in the same screenshot it shows the defandent attempting to marry Dearev with technofied right after.

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

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

Class Action Group

v.

Plura72 (Represented by RealImza)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 has an attorney's license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent“.
2. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass”
3. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied”.
4. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 as told by the Plaintiffs that they did not consent to being married and told Plura to stop.”
5. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that “Plura72 did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the defendant to stop”.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant did not comply with their requests to stop marrying people, yet the Plaintiffs have shown no evidence of this.
2. As per the Violent Offences Act, §5(i) “Harassment” is an indictable offence. As per the Standardised Criminal Code Act, §3(c), all indictable offences must be proven in a trial: “Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.” The Plaintiffs are not representing the government, nor do they have the power to prosecute.
3. The Plaintiffs have also not provided any evidence or shown how “Harassment” would have caused the class action group any injury or damages.
4. As per the Violent Offences Act, §5(i), harassment is defined as “The act of

Answer to Complaint

disorderly behavior towards an individual or a group of individuals, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm, or distress.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines disorderly as “engaged in conduct offensive to public order.” Any reasonable person could conclude that the action the Defendant took was done in a sarcastic, joke-like manner, and that it would not be offensive to public order.
5. “Marriage attempts without consent of both parties” is not a law, nor does it show or explain how the Plaintiffs were injured or suffered any damages by it.
6. The Plaintiffs ask for $15,000 in Punitive Damages for both of them. The Legal Damages Act §5(1a) defines Punitive Damages as: “damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them.” Any reasonable person could conclude that the actions of the Defendant did not constitute “outrageous actions”, as they were done in a sarcastic, joke-like manner.

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

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 seventh day of June 2025

Spoiler: Proof of representation

View attachment 55897

Motion

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:

1. Rule 5.5, lack of claim: The Plaintiffs state “Harassment” as one of the claims for relief; this claim has insufficient evidence to support it. The Plaintiffs are required to provide evidence showcasing how “Harassment” could cause them any sort of damage or injury, per §5(i) of the Violent Offences Act. Harassment is defined as “The act of disorderly behavior towards an individual or a group of individuals, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm, or distress.” No reasonable person could conclude that the sarcastic, joke-like act of marrying someone without consent would cause harassment, alarm, or distress; the Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to show that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.
2. Rule 5.12, lack of personal jurisdiction: This rule is defined as “A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case.”, per rule 2.1, for someone to have sufficient standing, they should have:
“Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
The cause of injury was against the law.
Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.”
To determine whether the Plaintiffs have sufficient standing, we must go through each one of the above.
First, the Plaintiffs have not “suffered some injury caused by a clear second party”; no reasonable person could conclude that Defendant marrying people without consent in a sarcastic, joke-like manner would constitute an injury. The Plaintiffs have also not been affected by an application of law by the Defendant.
Second, the cause of the injury was not against the law; nowhere in any of the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont does it state that “Marriage attempts without consent of both parties” is illegal. In regards to “Harassment”, the Plaintiffs have not shown or provided evidence on how the Defendant committed “Harassment”.
Third, Remedy is not applicable in any relevant law of the Commonwealth of Redmont. No law of the Commonwealth of Redmont contains something called “Marriage attempts without consent”, and although §5(i) of the Violent Offences Act mentions “Harassment”, it is not applicable for this situation, as the Plaintiffs are not prosecuting or representing the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Due to the above provided reasons, the Defense respectfully requests that the court grant this motion to dismiss.

your honor we request a response to the motion

 

[JunkCereal]

your honor we request a response to the motion

Granted.

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

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

Class Action Group

v.

Plura72 (Represented by RealImza)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 has an attorney's license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent“.
2. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass”
3. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied”.
4. The Defense affirms that “Plura72 as told by the Plaintiffs that they did not consent to being married and told Plura to stop.”
5. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that “Plura72 did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the defendant to stop”.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant did not comply with their requests to stop marrying people, yet the Plaintiffs have shown no evidence of this.
2. As per the Violent Offences Act, §5(i) “Harassment” is an indictable offence. As per the Standardised Criminal Code Act, §3(c), all indictable offences must be proven in a trial: “Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.” The Plaintiffs are not representing the government, nor do they have the power to prosecute.
3. The Plaintiffs have also not provided any evidence or shown how “Harassment” would have caused the class action group any injury or damages.
4. As per the Violent Offences Act, §5(i), harassment is defined as “The act of

Answer to Complaint

disorderly behavior towards an individual or a group of individuals, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm, or distress.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines disorderly as “engaged in conduct offensive to public order.” Any reasonable person could conclude that the action the Defendant took was done in a sarcastic, joke-like manner, and that it would not be offensive to public order.
5. “Marriage attempts without consent of both parties” is not a law, nor does it show or explain how the Plaintiffs were injured or suffered any damages by it.
6. The Plaintiffs ask for $15,000 in Punitive Damages for both of them. The Legal Damages Act §5(1a) defines Punitive Damages as: “damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them.” Any reasonable person could conclude that the actions of the Defendant did not constitute “outrageous actions”, as they were done in a sarcastic, joke-like manner.

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

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 seventh day of June 2025

Spoiler: Proof of representation

View attachment 55897

Motion

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:

1. Rule 5.5, lack of claim: The Plaintiffs state “Harassment” as one of the claims for relief; this claim has insufficient evidence to support it. The Plaintiffs are required to provide evidence showcasing how “Harassment” could cause them any sort of damage or injury, per §5(i) of the Violent Offences Act. Harassment is defined as “The act of disorderly behavior towards an individual or a group of individuals, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm, or distress.” No reasonable person could conclude that the sarcastic, joke-like act of marrying someone without consent would cause harassment, alarm, or distress; the Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to show that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.
2. Rule 5.12, lack of personal jurisdiction: This rule is defined as “A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case.”, per rule 2.1, for someone to have sufficient standing, they should have:
“Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
The cause of injury was against the law.
Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.”
To determine whether the Plaintiffs have sufficient standing, we must go through each one of the above.
First, the Plaintiffs have not “suffered some injury caused by a clear second party”; no reasonable person could conclude that Defendant marrying people without consent in a sarcastic, joke-like manner would constitute an injury. The Plaintiffs have also not been affected by an application of law by the Defendant.
Second, the cause of the injury was not against the law; nowhere in any of the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont does it state that “Marriage attempts without consent of both parties” is illegal. In regards to “Harassment”, the Plaintiffs have not shown or provided evidence on how the Defendant committed “Harassment”.
Third, Remedy is not applicable in any relevant law of the Commonwealth of Redmont. No law of the Commonwealth of Redmont contains something called “Marriage attempts without consent”, and although §5(i) of the Violent Offences Act mentions “Harassment”, it is not applicable for this situation, as the Plaintiffs are not prosecuting or representing the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Due to the above provided reasons, the Defense respectfully requests that the court grant this motion to dismiss.

Response

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, the defense claims that the defendant's acts were "sarcastic, joke-like" yet nobody found it funny, to rule in favor of this motion would would set a dangerous precedent where it would imply that individuals can escape accountability for disorderly or harassing behavior simply by labeling it as humor to make this clearer no party consented to being subjected to repeated, public acts of mock marriage and at least one Plaintiff explicitly asked for it to stop yet its concerns were ignored by the defendant (P-003).

The defendant's actions were to publicly mock the plaintiffs and those involved, the plaintiffs felt deeply harmed by their behaviour. We belive that we have provided sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's actions constitute harrasment and belives that a verdict would be in the best interest of the court and those involved.

 

[dearev]

Motion

MOTION TO AMMEND

The plaintiff respectfully requests to amend the claims for relief and add “loss of enjoyment” to it.

 

[Imza]

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

P-003 explicitly shows that the plaintiff "Dearev" said the following "Plura stop marrying me i don wan to" and yet in the same screenshot it shows the defandent attempting to marry Dearev with technofied right after.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Objection

Your Honor,
After carefully re-reading P-003, I have come to the realization that the Plaintiff was correct in asserting that the Defendant had indeed not stopped even after being requested so, I apologize for this.

However, §3 of the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act defines perjury as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court." I did not "knowingly" give incorrect testimony in Court, as I did not at the time see the specific section of P-003 where the Defendant was warned, and yet still attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied.

Due to the above reasons, I respectfully ask that the court deny this Objection.

Thank you.

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

A requirement for a Plaintiff to have standing is, “the cause of injury was against the law.” Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant’s actions were “harassment,” presumably as described in the Violent Offenses Act § 5.5. The Court finds that, even if the Plaintiff's facts are all found to be true, the Defendant did not violate this law. This decision is based in two reasons:

1. The law’s context is violent or aggressive in nature, being found in the “Violent Offenses Act.” (Emphasis added.)
2. Common law has only applied the law to violent or aggressive circumstances. See Smokeyybunnyyy V. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89; snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33; JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29.

Further, there is simply no legal basis for claiming that marriage attempts without consent is illegal.

Since the Plaintiff lacks standing required by Rule 2.1, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.12 of Courts Rules and Procedures. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

The District Court thanks all those involved.