Lawsuit: Dismissed MrEntomology v. DocTheory [2025] FCR 132

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MrEntomology (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

On or around 20 July 2025, the Defendant deliberately requested and completed a paste of plot c261 that destroyed Plaintiff's business operation and inventory he was renting on the plot, without providing any notice whatsoever. The Defendant knew the Plaintiff was operating a business on his property, yet he chose to proceed with a destructive paste that erased thousands of dollars worth of inventory. Plaintiff received no warning, no opportunity to remove items, and no compensation.

I. PARTIES​

1. MrEntomology
2. DocTheory

​

II. FACTS​

1. The Plaintiff owns and operates the business "Obesity." (P-001)
2. At the time of the incident, the Defendant owned plot c261 in Reveille.
3. The Plaintiff was granted permission by the previous owner of plot c261 to set up chestshops for Obesity, on the condition that the shops sold "RU" banners.
4. The plot was subsequently transferred to Defendant, but the rental rights were still maintained by the Plaintiff.
5. The Defendant became the new effective landlord of the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff stocked his chestshops at c261 with valuable and rare items, including but not limited to maces and sponges. (P-002)
7. The Plaintiff's chestshops at c261 contained the following inventory:
a. Four (4) maces valued at $2,999 each
b. Thirteen (13) sponges valued at $1,969.69 each
c. Seven hundred twenty-three (723) grass blocks valued at $2.69 each
8. On or around 12 July 2025, the Defendant submitted a Paste Request Application to the DCT for plot c261. (P-003)
9. In his Paste Request Application, the Defendant did not disclose the existence of the Plaintiff's chestshops or business operations on the plot. (P-003)
10. The Defendant did not provide any notice to the Plaintiff that he was requesting a paste of plot c261.
11. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff any opportunity to remove his inventory or business operations before the paste.
12. On or around 20 July 2025, the DCT completed the paste of plot c261, completely destroying the Plaintiff's chestshops and all inventory contained within them. (P-003)
13. The total value of the Plaintiff's destroyed inventory was approximately $39,546.84, calculated as follows:
a. Maces: 4 x $2,999 = $11,996.00
b. Sponges: 13 x $1,969.69 = $25,605.97
c. Grass blocks: 723 x $2.69 = $1,944.87
14. In a subsequent ticket with the DCT, the department confirmed that their policy is to "paste straight over the building, disregarding any chests & the like." (P-004)
15. The Defendant provided no warning to the Plaintiff before, during, or immediately after the paste was completed.
16. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with a refund for any pre-paid rent.
17. The Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff for the destruction of his business operations.
18. Plot c261 was the primary location for the Plaintiff's business operations for Obesity.
19. The Plaintiff lost not only his inventory but also his ability to continue operating his business at that location.
20. The Defendant's actions were deliberate and knowing, as he was aware of the Plaintiff's business operations on his property.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Violation of Duty of Disclosure​

The Property Standards Act, Section 15 states:

15 - Duty of Disclosure
(1) Failure to Disclose
A tort that occurs when a party fails to provide the other parties with all legally required information and or documents which are relevant to a property.
Per Tort: The tort may be liable for treble damages incurred by the recipient as a result of the failure to disclose.
(a) A plea of ignorance to a report is not an admissible defense to failure to disclose.

The Defendant had information that was absolutely relevant to the property - he was planning to request a paste that would destroy everything on plot c261, including the Plaintiff's entire business operation and inventory. As the Plaintiff's landlord, the Defendant had a legal duty to disclose this information to the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff could protect his property and business.

The Defendant's failure to disclose his paste plans directly caused the Plaintiff to lose $39,546.84 worth of inventory. The Defendant cannot claim ignorance - he knew the Plaintiff operated a business on his property, he knew the paste would destroy everything on the plot, and he deliberately chose not to inform the Plaintiff. This is a clear violation of the Duty of Disclosure.

​

2. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing​

The Contracts Act, Section 14 states:

14 - Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
(1) Parties to a contract shall perform their respective duties and exercise their rights under the contract in good faith and in a manner that is fair and just.
(2) There exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract covered by this Act, whether or not expressly stated. This covenant shall be read into contracts to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship.

The continued rental of the space by the Plaintiff for his business, created mutual obligations between the parties.

The Defendant violated his duty of good faith and fair dealing by:

• Requesting a paste that would destroy the Plaintiff's property without any notice
• Failing to give the Plaintiff any opportunity to remove his inventory
• Prioritising his own interests (getting a new building pasted) over the Plaintiff's contractual rights
• Acting in a manner that was neither fair nor just toward his tenant

No reasonable person dealing in good faith would destroy their tenant's business and $39,546.84 worth of inventory without at least providing notice and an opportunity to protect that property. The Defendant's conduct violated the fundamental covenant of good faith that exists in every contract.

​

3. Violation of Tenant Rights Act​

The Tenant Rights Act, Section 3(1) states:

3 - Private Renting
When a player is renting from a private landlord, they are entitled to the rights listed in this section:
(1) Tenants must be given 24 hours notice from the landlord before they are evicted from a rental region, excluding a report made by a building inspector or if the tenant has been permanently banned/deported.

This requires landlords to give tenants 24 hours notice before eviction. The paste effectively evicted the Plaintiff by completely destroying his rental space and making it impossible for him to continue his business operations there.

The Tenant Rights Act, Section 3(2) states:

(2) Tenants must be given a full refund of the rent they have pre-paid if evicted. unless the tenant has been permanently banned/deported.

This requires landlords to give evicted tenants a full refund of any pre-paid rent. When the paste destroyed the Plaintiff's rental space and effectively evicted him, the Defendant was obligated to refund any rent the Plaintiff had paid, but failed to do so.

The Tenant Rights Act, Section 5 states:

5 - Business Establishments
(1) Landlords may be required to compensate the tenant for the cost of moving their operations, if the rented region was:
(a) The main operation of a registered business,
(b) The main operation of a group, party, or organization otherwise.

Plot c261 was the main location for the Plaintiff's business Obesity. The Defendant was required to compensate the Plaintiff for business relocation costs. However, the Defendant went far beyond merely requiring the Plaintiff to move - he completely destroyed the Plaintiff's entire business operation and inventory, causing damages that far exceed simple "moving costs."

​

4. Outrageous Conduct​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a) states:

5 - Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) “Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.

The Defendant's actions are outrageous because:

• He deliberately destroyed a tenant's entire business operation without any warning
• He knew the Plaintiff operated a business on his property and still chose to proceed without notice
• He violated multiple statutory protections designed to protect tenants
• He caused $39,546.84 in damages through his deliberate choice not to provide notice

Under Legal Damages Act, Section 5(3)(a), when assessing punitive damages, "the judicial officer can properly consider the character of the defendant's act." The character of the Defendant's act - knowingly destroying a business without warning while violating multiple laws - warrants substantial punitive damages to deter such conduct in the future.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $118,640.52 in Treble Damages under the Duty of Disclosure violation, Property Standards Act Section 15, representing three times the compensatory damages of $39,546.84

2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages due to the outrageous actions of the Defendant, pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 5

3. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 9(2)(c)

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/docstheory-paste-request-application.27054/

Spoiler: P-004

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 14th day of December 2025

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Statute of Limitations

The Court, on initial reading of the Complaint, is concerned that the Statute of Limitations has expired. As analyzed in Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 3, The statute of limitations for civil cases is four months. (see 4(7)(a), Standardized Criminal Code Act, later included in Criminal Code Act ).

Unless the Court has misread the Complaint, the latest harm to Plaintiff was on July 20th, 2025, which was more than 4 months ago. Outside of the statute of limitations, the Courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case.


Within 48 Hours, please clarify to the Court why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction for the above matter.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[ToadKing]

Response

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits this response to the conflicted judge's legally deficient "Order to Show Cause", which reflects a deliberate attempt to dismiss a meritorious case on spurious jurisdictional grounds.

The Criminal Code Act, Section 6(8)(a) states:

(8) Statute of Limitations
(a) Except for claims arising from High Crimes, all legal action must be commenced within four months of the date of the alleged offense OR within 2-months of becoming aware of the offence, if outside the Statute of Limitations 4-month timeframe.

While the paste occurred on 20 July, 2025, the Plaintiff did not become fully aware of the legal violations and available remedies until significantly later.

Specifically:

1. The Plaintiff did not become aware that DocTheory had violated the Duty of Disclosure until consulting with legal counsel in late October 2025.
2. The Plaintiff did not become aware that the Tenant Rights Act had been violated until legal consultation revealed these statutory protections.
3. The Plaintiff did not become aware of the treble damages remedy available under the Duty of Disclosure provision until legal research was conducted.

The "becoming aware of the offence" language contemplates not just awareness that property was destroyed, but awareness of the legal violations that occurred. A layperson witnessing a paste does not automatically know that multiple statutory violations have occurred or that legal remedies exist.

This case was filed on 14 December, 2025, well within 2 months of the Plaintiff "becoming aware" of the full scope of legal violations through consultation with counsel.

 

[Muggy21]

Response

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits this response to the conflicted judge's legally deficient "Order to Show Cause", which reflects a deliberate attempt to dismiss a meritorious case on spurious jurisdictional grounds.

The Criminal Code Act, Section 6(8)(a) states:

While the paste occurred on 20 July, 2025, the Plaintiff did not become fully aware of the legal violations and available remedies until significantly later.

Specifically:

1. The Plaintiff did not become aware that DocTheory had violated the Duty of Disclosure until consulting with legal counsel in late October 2025.
2. The Plaintiff did not become aware that the Tenant Rights Act had been violated until legal consultation revealed these statutory protections.
3. The Plaintiff did not become aware of the treble damages remedy available under the Duty of Disclosure provision until legal research was conducted.

The "becoming aware of the offence" language contemplates not just awareness that property was destroyed, but awareness of the legal violations that occurred. A layperson witnessing a paste does not automatically know that multiple statutory violations have occurred or that legal remedies exist.

This case was filed on 14 December, 2025, well within 2 months of the Plaintiff "becoming aware" of the full scope of legal violations through consultation with counsel.

The Court admonishes @ToadKing. You will address me as Your Honour/Honor, or Judge Mug. If you call me "conflicted" or any other demeaning term, I will hold you in Contempt.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Partial Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice


Summary of Controversy

Plaintiff approaches the Court seeking redress for breach of duty and failures of disclosure requirements arising from the destruction of the entirety of his business at C261. The damage was allegedly intentionally caused as a result of a DCT paste, causing significant material damage to Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff was harmed by failure to refund rent and other statutory costs.

On initial reading of the Complaint, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff's counselor as a result of a potential breach of the civil statute of limitations as described in the Criminal Code Act. In response, Plaintiff's counselor proffers that the OSC should be tabled since the CCA allows actions within two months of awareness of an offense, if outside the usual four month window. The Court proceeds in analysis.

Opinion of the Court

Awareness of an action is not the same thing as apprehension of an action. Even if MrEntomology sought legal counsel in late October, as Counselor proffers and the Court accepts, the Criminal Code Act § 6(8)(a) states "2-months of becoming aware of the offense", not two months off apprehending an offense. Apprehension is understanding, while awareness is having knowledge of a thing; it is clear that Plaintiff was aware of the timing of the paste. The paste occurred on July 20th, 2025, thus the 4 month timer started and subsequently expired on or about November 20th, 2025. This case was filed on December 14th, 2025, thus this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. With regards to the unpaid rent and moving costs, Defendant's failure to refund monies owed to Plaintiff is a continuous violation( see Eddiegonza420 v. Home Investment, [2025] FCR 95). For this reason, these actions are not dismissed and are within the statute of limitations as the alleged violations persist.

All other arguments raised not considered, the merits of the case were not addressed beyond as required for the ascertainment of jurisdiction. Complaint partially dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as described.



Remarks on Orders to Show Cause
The authority to issue an Order to Show Cause arises from Section 13 of the Constitution, Rule 1.2 of the Court Rules and have been used in cases prior to this Judge's inclusion (see DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111 and Lex Titatnium v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 72). I've started issuing Orders to Show Cause because I believe sua sponte dismissals without any party inclusion or intervention are not ideal and should not be done within the Courts.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@DocTheory , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of MrEntomology v. DocTheory [2025] FCR 132

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Plaintiff has received adequate compensation for this matter, thus the lawsuit is now redundant.

The Court’s prior admonishment rests on a mischaracterisation. I did not employ a demeaning term or express personal disrespect. The presiding officer accepted a motion to recuse due to a conflict of interest. That is a procedural fact reflected in the record. Describing a judge as conflicted in the context of an accepted recusal motion is a factual description of status, not an insult, opinion, or contemptuous remark.

You cannot conflate feelings with facts.

Plaintiff thanks the court for its time.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Plaintiff has received adequate compensation for this matter, thus the lawsuit is now redundant.

The Court’s prior admonishment rests on a mischaracterisation. I did not employ a demeaning term or express personal disrespect. The presiding officer accepted a motion to recuse due to a conflict of interest. That is a procedural fact reflected in the record. Describing a judge as conflicted in the context of an accepted recusal motion is a factual description of status, not an insult, opinion, or contemptuous remark.

You cannot conflate feelings with facts.

Plaintiff thanks the court for its time.

Granted. Case dismissed with prejudice.