Lawsuit: Dismissed ZxRiptide v. EddieGonza420 [2025] DCR 105

[Aboundedcomet]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ZxRiptide (Represented by Aboundedcomet)
Plaintiff

v.

EddieGonza420
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant contracted the Plaintiff to demolish walls in c130 and Design single floor interior that is copy and pasteable for the already existing c114. The Defendant had agreed to pay $2,500 before and $2,500 after the work was done, the Defendant had paid the $2,500 before but has refused to pay the remaining $2,500 after the Plaintiff completed their work.

I. PARTIES
1. ZxRiptide
2. EddieGonza420

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant contracted the Plaintiff to demolish the walls at c130 and make a copy and pasteable design for c114.
2. The Defendant had agreed to pay a total of $5,000 to the Plaintiff ($2,500 at the before and $2,500 after the work was done.)
3. The Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff the remaining $2,500 after the Plaintiff completed the job.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant refused to pay the agreed upon amount of $2,500 to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s work, which constitutes a breach of contract under §7 of the Contracts Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $2,500 in compensatory damages for the outstanding amount that the Defendant is yet to pay.
2. $15,000 in punitive damages to discourage the Plaintiff from repeating their actions.
3. $5,250 in legal fees totaling 30% of the case value.


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: Agreement of representation

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

 

[Vennefly]

Writ of Summons

@eddiegonza420, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ZxRiptide v. EddieGonza420 [2025] DCR 105.

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for such responses shall be 48 hours after the motion was filed.

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.

 

[eddiegonza420]

Present

 

[Vennefly]

Present

You have 48 hours to present an Answer to Complaint.

As an aside, I would highly recommend you obtain qualified legal counsel to represent you in this case.

 

[Franciscus]

You have 48 hours to present an Answer to Complaint.

As an aside, I would highly recommend you obtain qualified legal counsel to represent you in this case.

Your Honor,

Respectfully requesting a 48-hour extension on the answer to complaint; I have fallen ill.

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honor,

Respectfully requesting a 48-hour extension on the answer to complaint; I have fallen ill.

GRANTED. Please include Proof of Representation in your filing.

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

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

ZxRiptide
Plaintiff

v.

EddieGonza420
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. DENY that work was "contracted", NOTING that the presence of a valid contract ("contracted") is legal conclusion. AFFIRM that the Defendant requested work relating to demo at c130 and interior/design work for c114.
2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that "[t]he Defendant had agreed to pay a total of $5,000 to the Plaintiff ($2,500 at the before and $2,500 after the work was done."
3. DENY that "[t]he Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff the remaining $2,500 after the Plaintiff completed the job", NOTING that the job was not completed to the Defendant's satisfaction.

II. DEFENSES​

1. No Contract: The Plaintiff has failed to substantially plead and evidence the existence of a contract. Under the Contracts Act, Contracts must include an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. The Defense argues that the Plaintiff has not proven the existence of a contract, for reasons that include (but are not limited to) the following:
   1. No intent to Create Legal Relations. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid (Contracts Act). The Plaintiff has not demonstrated an intent of the Defendant to create legally binding obligations in this case. Plaintiff refused, or at least failed to, timely answer an interrogatory around this question (Post No. 12, question 2); if this case is to continue, the Court must draw negative inference towards Plaintiff's claims the failure to answer against the Plaintiff who violated Court Rule 4.8 in failing to provide an answer to interrogatory within 48 hours of it being asked.
   2. No capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so (Contracts Act). Plaintiff clearly struggles with the capacity to type coherent English (Exhibit P-002). The Defense asked the Plaintiff about their understanding of the Defense's English language capabilities (Post No. 12, Question 4), but Plaintiff failed to answer within 48 hours in violation of Court Rule 4.8. As such, if this case is to continue, the Court must draw negative inference towards Plaintiff's claims owing to the failure to answer basic questions under interrogatory.
   3. No offer has been established. Under the Contracts Act, “[a]n offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances”. If term are ambiguous or unclear, no offer exists under the Contracts Act. This is longstanding in Contract Law; in dygyee v. Credit Resource [2022] SCR 1, a separate binding Supreme Court precedent, when “attempt at contract formation is ambiguous and the terms are vague”, no contract exists; the offer (and acceptance, as discussed below) must both be clear and ambiguous. If term are ambiguous or unclear, no offer exists. The Defense sought to interrogate this through interrogatory (Post No. 12, Question 3), but Plaintiff did not respond in the time required under Court Rule 4.8. If this case is to continue, then the Court must draw negative inference towards Plaintiff's claims owing to the failure to answer basic questions under interrogatory
   4. No acceptance has been established. Under the Contracts Act, “[a]cceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means”. Acceptance of the Plaintiff’s alleged terms is not established; the Plaintiff has proffered insufficient evidence that the Defendant both mirrored the terms of the offer and offered a positive and ambiguous response.
2. Lack of Evidence. Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that owed payments were not made. The Defense sought to interrogate the Plaintiff's financial transactions through interrogatories (Post No. 12, Question 1 and 3), but Plaintiff did not respond. This lack of response violates within 48 hours in violation of Court Rule 4.8; if this case is to continue, then the Court must draw negative inference towards Plaintiff's claims owing to the failure to answer basic questions under interrogatory.
3. Failure of condition precedent: The complaint alleges the final $2,500 is due “after the work was done.” Defendant did not accept the interior/design work as delivered, so the alleged “after completion” payment would not have been triggered even on the Plaintiff's own terms.
4. Material breach: Under Contracts Act Section 12(1), a contract may be terminated "due to a material breach". Under Contracts Act 16(I), a Material Breach is "a significant failure to fulfill contractual obligations".
   
   If a contract were to be found to exist, Plaintiff may be in material breach due to the low quality of the allegedly delivered remodel and design; Plaintiff is not entitled to full contract damages for nonconforming performance.
5. Punitive damages unsupported: Plaintiff seeks $15,000 punitive damages on a routine contract/nonpayment dispute with no showing of fraud, malice, or similar aggravating conduct. As noted in Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71, there is "no basis to conclude that a simple breach of contract would warrant punitive damages".

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

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 21 day of December 2025

 

[Vennefly]

We will now enter Discovery, which shall last until December 28th 2025 at 00:00 UTC.

Discovery may be ended early upon joint request of the Parties. Parties are also asked to inform the Court prior to the end of Discovery about whether or not they wish to have an in-game trial.

@Aboundedcomet @Franciscus

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, evidence must follow certain naming conventions "(plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)" and "[e]vidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting".

While textually the rule applies to evidence submitted in discovery, the defense argues that the constructive purpose of discovery would expand the text's meaning to cover all evidence submissions. This is because under Rule 4.1, "The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness." As the evidence is being entered into the court at the time of the initial filing, the clear purpose of rules around evidence written for discovery would likewise apply to evidence submitted in an initial complaint. And there's precedent for broadening the application of evidence rules to include evidence submitted outside of the discovery time; in at least one previous case, this contributed towards a Court's decision to strike evidence in an opening statement (see Roryyy___ v. ISweatDuels [2025] DCR 7, Judge's ruling at Post No. 25).

As such, we ask the exhibits titled "Evidence 1", "Evidence 2", "Evidence 3", "Evidence 4", and "Evidence 5" be stricken and that the Plaintiff be ordered to re-submit them with titles that follow the proper naming conventions if they wish to include them in evidence (c.f. smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, Posts No. 34-35, requiring re-submission of improper evidence for use in a case).

 

[Vennefly]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, evidence must follow certain naming conventions "(plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)" and "[e]vidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting".

While textually the rule applies to evidence submitted in discovery, the defense argues that the constructive purpose of discovery would expand the text's meaning to cover all evidence submissions. This is because under Rule 4.1, "The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness." As the evidence is being entered into the court at the time of the initial filing, the clear purpose of rules around evidence written for discovery would likewise apply to evidence submitted in an initial complaint. And there's precedent for broadening the application of evidence rules to include evidence submitted outside of the discovery time; in at least one previous case, this contributed towards a Court's decision to strike evidence in an opening statement (see Roryyy___ v. ISweatDuels [2025] DCR 7, Judge's ruling at Post No. 25).

As such, we ask the exhibits titled "Evidence 1", "Evidence 2", "Evidence 3", "Evidence 4", and "Evidence 5" be stricken and that the Plaintiff be ordered to re-submit them with titles that follow the proper naming conventions if they wish to include them in evidence (c.f. smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, Posts No. 34-35, requiring re-submission of improper evidence for use in a case).

OVERRULED. The Court will rename the incorrectly named evidence to P-001 - P-005.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

In order to interrogate whether and what payment was received, we ask that the Plaintiff provide all financial transactions available through the /treasury transactions log that involve either EddieGonza420 or Postman Pat and were made between September 12, 2025 (see: Exhibit P-001) until the time of the filing of this case.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

Consistent with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defense submits the following interrogatories of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability.

1. How much money have you received via Postman Pat since the time of the first electronic communication depicted within discovery?
2. Did you ever use the terms “contract” or “legally binding” when communicating your proposal to the Plaintiff?
3. Did you clarify the exact time and date at which payment would be due within conversation the Plaintiff before you began working?
4. How competent in English did you assess the Plaintiff to be, based on English language spelling and grammar command, before you began work and during your work?

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 3.4, the defense has amended its answer to complaint prior to the closure of discovery.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense seeks dismissal under Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery). Under that rule "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with" (emphasis mine).

We submitted our interrogatories pursuant to Rule 4.8 nearly 72 hours ago (Post No. 12). Under Rule 4.8, "Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked". The Plaintiff has not answered the interrogatories, and discovery is minutes from closing.

The failure to provide discovery has prejudiced our ability to provide a full defense in this case by withholding information. As withholding exculpatory information violates the legal duty to disclose (c.f. CCA Part III, Section 14; Judicial Standards Act, Section 28), we ask for dismissal with prejudice in relation to the discovery failures here.

 

[Franciscus]

Spoiler: P-004

View attachment 69021

Spoiler: P-005

View attachment 69022

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far. The evidence should be stricken.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'

 

[Franciscus]

We will now enter Discovery, which shall last until December 28th 2025 at 00:00 UTC.

Discovery may be ended early upon joint request of the Parties. Parties are also asked to inform the Court prior to the end of Discovery about whether or not they wish to have an in-game trial.

@Aboundedcomet @Franciscus

Your Honor,

Apologies for the delay. The defense wishes against an in-game trial.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

The Plaintiff also wishes against an in-game trial,

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense seeks dismissal under Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery). Under that rule "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with" (emphasis mine).

We submitted our interrogatories pursuant to Rule 4.8 nearly 72 hours ago (Post No. 12). Under Rule 4.8, "Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked". The Plaintiff has not answered the interrogatories, and discovery is minutes from closing.

The failure to provide discovery has prejudiced our ability to provide a full defense in this case by withholding information. As withholding exculpatory information violates the legal duty to disclose (c.f. CCA Part III, Section 14; Judicial Standards Act, Section 28), we ask for dismissal with prejudice in relation to the discovery failures here.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISMISSAL

The Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond to Motions and Objections filed by the Defendant and has not participated in discovery. Even after belatedly informing the Court of the Plaintiff's wish against an in-game trial, Plaintiff still failed to respond to other outstanding Motions, Objections and Discovery Requests. These failures have occurred despite having ample opportunity to respond.

Based on the record before the Court, it appears that the Plaintiff, or their counsel, is no longer interested in actively pursuing this case. This lack of participation has unnecessarily consumed the time and resources of both the Court and the Defendant.

Under Rule 5.13 of the Court Rules and Procedures, dismissal with prejudice is a remedy available to the Court in response to failure to provide discovery. The Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted due to the Plaintiff's lack of participation in the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. Plaintiff must pay Defendant's counsel, Mezimoří Legal Department, legal fees in the amount of R$5,250 (30% of R$17,500).
4. All other pending Motions and Requests are denied as moot.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.