Lawsuit: Pending SimplifiedMax v. L4ndaakk [2026] DCR 28

Capt11543

Capt11543

Citizen
Joined
May 16, 2025
Messages
12

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


SimplifiedMax
Plaintiff

v.

L4ndaakk
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This is a straightforward breach of contract case. My client, SimplifiedMax, entered into a contract with the defendant wherein he agreed $10,000 for a gold drill that he never received. We are seeking damages and a specific performance order.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
  1. SimplifiedMax, Plaintiff
  2. L4ndaakk, Defendant

II. FACTS
  1. On February 24, 2026, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant $10,000 in exchange for a gold drill. See P-001.
  2. During their conversation, Plaintiff sent Defendant the promised $10,000 payment. See P-002.
  3. Defendant then sent Plaintiff a package through the in-game parcel service, leading Plaintiff to believe he had sent the drill as promised. See P-003.
  4. The parcel Defendant sent actually contained a single potato.
  5. To date, Plaintiff has not received a gold drill from Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant to exchange $10,000 for a gold drill constitutes a contract. See Contracts Act §4.
  2. Plaintiff upheld their obligation by paying the $10,000. Defendant failed to uphold their obligation by delivering a potato instead of a gold drill. Therefore, Defendant breached the contract. See Contracts Act §7.
  3. Plaintiff suffered direct financial losses because Defendant failed to deliver the product as promised, even after Plaintiff sent the $10,000 payment. Plaintiff did not receive the item they agreed to purchase for that price.
  4. Because the contract involved the sale of a good, Defendant committed the specific civil violation of Failure to Deliver Goods. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VI, §4.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Pursuant to Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VI, §4, Plaintiff is seeking the following relief from Defendant:
  1. Monetary damages of $20,000 (200 Civil Penalty Units).
  2. A specific performance order to uphold their obligation and deliver the gold drill. If Defendant does not have a gold drill, Plaintiff seeks a written apology from Defendant instead.

V. EVIDENCE
P-001-1.png

P-001-2.png

P-001-3.png
P-002.png
P-003.png

VI. OATH
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 6th day of March 2026

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@L4ndaakk, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of SimplifiedMax v. L4ndaakk [2026] DCR 28

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.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor, it has been over 72 hours since the Defendant was summoned to this case. Since the Defendant has not appeared, this Court should grant default judgement in this case.

DATED: This 19th day of March, 2026

 
Hopping in here as new presiding officer.

Capt11543 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor, it has been over 72 hours since the Defendant was summoned to this case. Since the Defendant has not appeared, this Court should grant default judgement in this case.

DATED: This 19th day of March, 2026

Click to expand...
Denied. A public defender will be appointed. (CC: @Smallfries )
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Your Honor, the Defense counsel has reached out to us to begin settlement talks, which we have been happy to oblige. However, my client's involvement in these negotiations is directly required at this point, and my client happens to be on vacation and completely unreachable at this time.

Plaintiff's Counsel would hate to see otherwise productive settlement talks scuttled by hard procedural deadlines, nor do we want the Defense Counsel to be punished for a late filing when they reached out in good faith to negotiate a settlement and the delay is on our side.

My client is scheduled to return on April 1 and would then be available to participate in the settlement negotiations.

We therefore respectfully move that this Court:

  • Stay the proceedings until the Plaintiff returns from vacation, and can participate in settlement negotiations; and
  • Grant the Defense a 31-hour extension on any filing deadlines they are facing in this case.

 
Capt11543 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Your Honor, the Defense counsel has reached out to us to begin settlement talks, which we have been happy to oblige. However, my client's involvement in these negotiations is directly required at this point, and my client happens to be on vacation and completely unreachable at this time.

Plaintiff's Counsel would hate to see otherwise productive settlement talks scuttled by hard procedural deadlines, nor do we want the Defense Counsel to be punished for a late filing when they reached out in good faith to negotiate a settlement and the delay is on our side.

My client is scheduled to return on April 1 and would then be available to participate in the settlement negotiations.

We therefore respectfully move that this Court:

  • Stay the proceedings until the Plaintiff returns from vacation, and can participate in settlement negotiations; and
  • Grant the Defense a 31-hour extension on any filing deadlines they are facing in this case.

Click to expand...
Motions for continuance aren’t really a thing in Redmont; you can just ask respectfully for an extension. The Court therefore just will treat this as an extension request rather than a formal motion.

On the extension request; the extension would be to a deadline of the defense, so I don’t see any reason to approve unless the Defense were to ask for one/confirm that they want this—plaintiff is not prejudiced by defendant timely providing an answer to complaint.

@gribble19 Has the defense agreed to seek this extension, or does the Defense prefer the original deadline?
 
Your Honor, the Defendant would like to thank the Plaintiff for their concern and appreciates their filing, however we do not require an extension at this time.
 

Motion


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

SimplifiedMax
Plaintiff

v.

L4ndaakk
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on February 24, 2026, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant $10,000 in exchange for a gold drill.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that during their conversation, Plaintiff sent Defendant the promised $10,000 payment.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that defendant then sent Plaintiff a package through the in-game parcel service. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES whether this led Plaintiff to believe he had sent the drill as promised.
4. The Defendant DENIES that the parcel Defendant sent actually contained a single potato.
5. The Defendant DENIES that to date, Plaintiff has not received a gold drill from Defendant.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Judicial Standards Act in Part II, §3.1.a states that the Balance of Probabilities is the standard of proof that is required in civil proceedings.
2. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that the Defendant sent a potato instead of a gold drill on a balance of probabilities.
3. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that the Defendant has not received a gold drill from the Defendant on a balance of probabilities.

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 twenty-ninth day of March 2026.

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Your Honor, the Plaintiff submits evidence of his last login time.

1774827794790.png

Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Plaintiff's Counsel
 
I am currently in Mexico and have no access to any device, I am currently using my dad’s phone. I will retry in 2 days.
 
SimplifiedMax said:
I am currently in Mexico and have no access to any device, I am currently using my dad’s phone. I will retry in 2 days.
Click to expand...
Is there anything you’d like to ask of the Court in this filing? (CC: @Capt11543 )
 
I am now back home and can now answer and participate in this lawsuit activly.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY EXTENSION

Your Honor, as you can see from the court record, my client has returned and we have been in contact.

We are still gathering information which is necessary for the case. I had hoped that despite my client being unreachable until partway through discovery, we would be able to get everything we needed, but it now looks like we will certainly need more time.

Plaintiff's Counsel humbly requests an extension of Discovery of 24 to 48 hours.

Respectfully Submitted,
Capt11543
Plaintiff's Counsel
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY EXTENSION

Your Honor, as you can see from the court record, my client has returned and we have been in contact.

We are still gathering information which is necessary for the case. I had hoped that despite my client being unreachable until partway through discovery, we would be able to get everything we needed, but it now looks like we will certainly need more time.

Plaintiff's Counsel humbly requests an extension of Discovery of 24 to 48 hours.

Respectfully Submitted,
Capt11543
Plaintiff's Counsel
Click to expand...
Granted. Discovery shall be extended by 24 hours from its previous deadline.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY

With gratitude to the Court for the extension, the Plaintiff submits the following evidence to the record:

P-005-1.png

P-005-2.png

P-005-3.png

P-005-4.png

P-005-5.png


The contents of the Plaintiff's inventory, and all of their regularly used storage containers (four shulker boxes).
P-006-1.png

P-006-2.png

P-006-3.png

P-006-4.png

P-006-5.png
P-006-6.png

P-006-7.png
P-006-8.png

P-006-9.png

P-006-10.png

P-006-11.png

P-006-12.png

P-006-13.png

P-006-14.png

P-006-15.png

P-006-16.png

P-006-17.png

P-006-18.png

P-006-19.png

P-006-20.png

P-006-21.png

P-006-22.png

P-006-23.png


The transaction history of the Plaintiff going back to the purchase of the golden drill.
P-007.png


A valuable weapon which was purchased by the Plaintiff for $6,600 from a third party.
P-008.png


The output of the command /firm list SimplifiedMax, showing that the Plaintiff has no business balances.
 

Attachments

  • P-005-3.png
    P-005-3.png
    52.3 KB · Views: 9
Capt11543 said:

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


SimplifiedMax
Plaintiff

v.

L4ndaakk
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES

  1. SimplifiedMax, Plaintiff
  2. L4ndaakk, Defendant

II. FACTS
  1. On February 24, 2026, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant $10,000 in exchange for a gold drill. See P-001.
  2. During their conversation, Plaintiff sent Defendant the promised $10,000 payment. See P-002.
  3. Defendant then sent Plaintiff a package through the in-game parcel service, leading Plaintiff to believe he had sent the drill as promised. See P-003.
  4. The parcel Defendant sent actually contained a single potato.
  5. To date, Plaintiff has not received a gold drill from Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant to exchange $10,000 for a gold drill constitutes a contract. See Contracts Act §4.
  2. Plaintiff upheld their obligation by paying the $10,000. Defendant failed to uphold their obligation by delivering a potato instead of a gold drill. Therefore, Defendant breached the contract. See Contracts Act §7.
  3. Plaintiff suffered direct financial losses because Defendant failed to deliver the product as promised, even after Plaintiff sent the $10,000 payment. Plaintiff did not receive the item they agreed to purchase for that price.
  4. Because the contract involved the sale of a good, Defendant committed the specific civil violation of Failure to Deliver Goods. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VI, §4.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Pursuant to Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VI, §4, Plaintiff is seeking the following relief from Defendant:
  1. Monetary damages of $20,000 (200 Civil Penalty Units).
  2. A specific performance order to uphold their obligation and deliver the gold drill. If Defendant does not have a gold drill, Plaintiff seeks a written apology from Defendant instead.

V. EVIDENCE
View attachment 76394
View attachment 76395
View attachment 76396
View attachment 76397
View attachment 76398

VI. OATH
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 6th day of March 2026

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I. REQUESTED CHANGES
To amend §II(4) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing (#1) to read the following:

4. The parcel sent by the Plaintiff did not contain a golden drill.
Click to expand...

II. REASONING
Plaintiff's Counsel attempted to verify the contents of the package sent to the Plaintiff. Based on the ticket, the contents of the package appear to be impossible to verify. It cannot be proven that it was or was not a potato. (See P-009.)

Furthermore, the only material question in this case regarding the contents of the package is whether or not the contents were a golden drill. The delivery of a package containing any item other than the item Plaintiff agreed to purchase for $10,000 constitutes Breach of Contract and Failure to Deliver Goods, regardless of what that other item is. It can be proven on the balance of the probabilities that the Plaintiff did not take possession of a golden drill after paying $10,000 to the Defendant.

Plaintiff's Counsel submitted the set of Facts including the specific contents of the package sent to the Plaintiff in good faith based on the Plaintiff's own account of the events.

III. EVIDENCE
P-009.png


Transcript of a staff ticket seeking to verify the contents of the parcel sent to the Plaintiff. The second screenshot sent by Plaintiff's Counsel in the ticket is P-003.

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LIST

The Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to summon the following players as witnesses for the Plaintiff in this case:
  1. SimplifiedMax
 
Capt11543 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I. REQUESTED CHANGES
To amend §II(4) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing (#1) to read the following:


II. REASONING
Plaintiff's Counsel attempted to verify the contents of the package sent to the Plaintiff. Based on the ticket, the contents of the package appear to be impossible to verify. It cannot be proven that it was or was not a potato. (See P-009.)

Furthermore, the only material question in this case regarding the contents of the package is whether or not the contents were a golden drill. The delivery of a package containing any item other than the item Plaintiff agreed to purchase for $10,000 constitutes Breach of Contract and Failure to Deliver Goods, regardless of what that other item is. It can be proven on the balance of the probabilities that the Plaintiff did not take possession of a golden drill after paying $10,000 to the Defendant.

Plaintiff's Counsel submitted the set of Facts including the specific contents of the package sent to the Plaintiff in good faith based on the Plaintiff's own account of the events.

III. EVIDENCE

View attachment 78420

Transcript of a staff ticket seeking to verify the contents of the parcel sent to the Plaintiff. The second screenshot sent by Plaintiff's Counsel in the ticket is P-003.

Click to expand...
Consistent with Rule 3.3, granted. Feel free to strike the old text and insert the new text.

In line with rule 3.7, and noting that discovery will close in less than 72 hours, the Defendant ( @gribble19 ) shall have 72 hours after the close of discovery to file their amended answer.
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LIST

The Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to summon the following players as witnesses for the Plaintiff in this case:
  1. SimplifiedMax
Click to expand...
Noted.
 
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery. The Discovery submissions made by Plaintiff have prompted Defendant to wish to make further submissions of their own, for which they require more time.
 
Franciscus said:
Consistent with Rule 3.3, granted. Feel free to strike the old text and insert the new text.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

Your Honour,

The amendment that the court has allowed here is expressly prohibited by our Court Rules and Procedures, which states that amendments to a Complaint cannot change information that was already submitted (See: Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 3.5 - Amendment Exception).

This has been previously held both in cases in both the District Court as the Federal Court. (See: Maxib02 v. Omegabiebel [2026] DCR 8 and xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10).

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court overturn their decision to grant this motion to amend as it changes information that was already submitted to the Court and is therefore not in line with this Court's rules and procedures.

 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Your Honor, the Plaintiff submits evidence of his last login time.

View attachment 78028

Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Plaintiff's Counsel
Click to expand...

Capt11543 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY

With gratitude to the Court for the extension, the Plaintiff submits the following evidence to the record:

View attachment 78379
View attachment 78380
View attachment 78381
View attachment 78383
View attachment 78384

The contents of the Plaintiff's inventory, and all of their regularly used storage containers (four shulker boxes).
View attachment 78395
View attachment 78396
View attachment 78397
View attachment 78398
View attachment 78399View attachment 78400
View attachment 78401View attachment 78402
View attachment 78403
View attachment 78404
View attachment 78405
View attachment 78406
View attachment 78407
View attachment 78408
View attachment 78409
View attachment 78410
View attachment 78411
View attachment 78412
View attachment 78413
View attachment 78414
View attachment 78415
View attachment 78416
View attachment 78417

The transaction history of the Plaintiff going back to the purchase of the golden drill.
View attachment 78418

A valuable weapon which was purchased by the Plaintiff for $6,600 from a third party.
View attachment 78419

The output of the command /firm list SimplifiedMax, showing that the Plaintiff has no business balances.
Click to expand...

Capt11543 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I. REQUESTED CHANGES
To amend §II(4) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing (#1) to read the following:


II. REASONING
Plaintiff's Counsel attempted to verify the contents of the package sent to the Plaintiff. Based on the ticket, the contents of the package appear to be impossible to verify. It cannot be proven that it was or was not a potato. (See P-009.)

Furthermore, the only material question in this case regarding the contents of the package is whether or not the contents were a golden drill. The delivery of a package containing any item other than the item Plaintiff agreed to purchase for $10,000 constitutes Breach of Contract and Failure to Deliver Goods, regardless of what that other item is. It can be proven on the balance of the probabilities that the Plaintiff did not take possession of a golden drill after paying $10,000 to the Defendant.

Plaintiff's Counsel submitted the set of Facts including the specific contents of the package sent to the Plaintiff in good faith based on the Plaintiff's own account of the events.

III. EVIDENCE

View attachment 78420

Transcript of a staff ticket seeking to verify the contents of the parcel sent to the Plaintiff. The second screenshot sent by Plaintiff's Counsel in the ticket is P-003.

Click to expand...


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, Defendant hereby objects to evidence submissions P-004, P-005, P-006, P-007, P-008 and P-009.
All of these pieces of evidence are not relevant to this case, as they do not pertain to any contested material facts of this case.

 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery. The Discovery submissions made by Plaintiff have prompted Defendant to wish to make further submissions of their own, for which they require more time.
Click to expand...

Plaintiff's Counsel does not object to this.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, Defendant hereby objects to evidence submissions P-004, P-005, P-006, P-007, P-008 and P-009.
All of these pieces of evidence are not relevant to this case, as they do not pertain to any contested material facts of this case.

Click to expand...

Your Honor,

Plaintiff's Counsel intends to use P-004 through P-008 at trial to demonstrate that it is unlikely that the Plaintiff received a golden drill from the Defendant. That is the contested fact of the case. Your Honor will see that the Plaintiff does not currently have a golden drill, and that it is unlikely that the Plaintiff sold off a valuable item before Discovery.

Plaintiff's Counsel does not intend to use P-009 at trial. It is solely meant to support our previous Motion to Amend.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Plaintiff's Counsel
 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery. The Discovery submissions made by Plaintiff have prompted Defendant to wish to make further submissions of their own, for which they require more time.
Click to expand...
Capt11543 said:
Plaintiff's Counsel does not object to this.
Click to expand...
Seeing mutual consent, granted. I will give an extension until 11:59 PM EDT on Sunday, April 5. I will be largely unavailable tomorrow until the late afternoon/evening, and I don’t think the extra time is prejudicial to either party.
 
The Defendant submits the following into evidence:
D-001.webp
D-002.webp
D-003.webp
D-004.webp
D-005.webp
D-006.webp
D-007.webp
D-008.webp
D-009.webp
D-010.webp
D-011.webp
D-012.webp
 

Motion


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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff moves for this Court to compel the production of evidence which shows the contents of the containers present on the plots r050 and tnt-tower-shop.

Noting that D-004 appears to show that some of the containers in question are owned by Maxib02, an individual not currently party to this case, the Plaintiff respectfully moves for the Court to include Maxib02 as a party to the order to compel the production of this evidence.

If the presence of these containers is material evidence that would prove certain contested facts to be more or less likely, then it follows that the contents of the containers are of even greater value in proving those contested facts to be more or less likely.

 
Capt11543 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff moves for this Court to compel the production of evidence which shows the contents of the containers present on the plots r050 and tnt-tower-shop.

Noting that D-004 appears to show that some of the containers in question are owned by Maxib02, an individual not currently party to this case, the Plaintiff respectfully moves for the Court to include Maxib02 as a party to the order to compel the production of this evidence.

If the presence of these containers is material evidence that would prove certain contested facts to be more or less likely, then it follows that the contents of the containers are of even greater value in proving those contested facts to be more or less likely.

Click to expand...
The Defendant ( @gribble19 ) shall have 48 hours to respond to this motion.
 
Capt11543 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff moves for this Court to compel the production of evidence which shows the contents of the containers present on the plots r050 and tnt-tower-shop.

Noting that D-004 appears to show that some of the containers in question are owned by Maxib02, an individual not currently party to this case, the Plaintiff respectfully moves for the Court to include Maxib02 as a party to the order to compel the production of this evidence.

If the presence of these containers is material evidence that would prove certain contested facts to be more or less likely, then it follows that the contents of the containers are of even greater value in proving those contested facts to be more or less likely.

Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO MOTION

Your Honor, the Defendant opposes this motion to compel. Evidence showing the contents of any containers on the plots in question to which Plaintiff has access do not require a motion to compel at all, as Plaintiff could have simply produced the evidence in question. Plaintiff requesting themselves to be compelled to produce certain evidence is simply nonsensical. For any containers on the plots in question to which Plaintiff does not have access, the Defendant does not see the relevancy of the contents of such containers to the case at hand.

Defendant would like to note that the exact intent of the motion is somewhat unclear to Defendant. It is clear what evidence the Plaintiff wishes the court compel production of, but it is not entirely clear who the Plaintiff wishes to be compelled. While the motion specifically mentions that the Plaintiff wishes the court compel Maxib02 to produce any such evidence, it is unclear whether they mean to only compel Maxib02 to produce such evidence, or to compel other parties to do so as well.

As no other parties are mentioned, and as Plaintiff themselves would be able to produce any relevant evidence that may be produced by this request, the Defendant does not see why any party would be compelled by the court to produce this evidence. If the Court however finds the content of those containers to which Plaintiff does not have access but Maxib02 does have access to be relevant, than the Defendant request that Maxib02 be compelled only to produce that particular evidence, as the contents of any other containers could simply have been produced by Plaintiff.
 
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests an extension to the deadline for amending their answer to complaint. Defendant has filed a motion to reconsider regarding Plaintiff's amendment to the complaint which is currently still pending and it would be difficult to amend the answer until this motion has been decided on. Defendant would request the deadline to be set 24 hours after the motion to reconsider filed in #24 is ruled on.
 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,

The amendment that the court has allowed here is expressly prohibited by our Court Rules and Procedures, which states that amendments to a Complaint cannot change information that was already submitted (See: Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 3.5 - Amendment Exception).

This has been previously held both in cases in both the District Court as the Federal Court. (See: Maxib02 v. Omegabiebel [2026] DCR 8 and xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10).

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court overturn their decision to grant this motion to amend as it changes information that was already submitted to the Court and is therefore not in line with this Court's rules and procedures.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION TO RECONSIDER (Post No. 24)

The Motion to Reconsider is denied as moot as, despite leave of the Court having been (unnecessarily) granted to do so, the Plaintiff failed to amend complaint prior to the close of discovery. As such, the Complaint will be construed as it presently is in Post No. 1.

Under Rule 3.3, "At anytime during the course of discovery, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may amend their Complaint... Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint."

All that is required is that the Plaintiff (1) declare and explain the amendment and then (2) actually execute the amendment during discovery. While (1) occurred, (2) did not, and thus the request to amend and leave of the Court to do so are of no effect; leave of the Court to make the amendment is neither required nor self-executing.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Capt11543 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff moves for this Court to compel the production of evidence which shows the contents of the containers present on the plots r050 and tnt-tower-shop.

Noting that D-004 appears to show that some of the containers in question are owned by Maxib02, an individual not currently party to this case, the Plaintiff respectfully moves for the Court to include Maxib02 as a party to the order to compel the production of this evidence.

If the presence of these containers is material evidence that would prove certain contested facts to be more or less likely, then it follows that the contents of the containers are of even greater value in proving those contested facts to be more or less likely.

Click to expand...
gribble19 said:
RESPONSE TO MOTION

Your Honor, the Defendant opposes this motion to compel. Evidence showing the contents of any containers on the plots in question to which Plaintiff has access do not require a motion to compel at all, as Plaintiff could have simply produced the evidence in question. Plaintiff requesting themselves to be compelled to produce certain evidence is simply nonsensical. For any containers on the plots in question to which Plaintiff does not have access, the Defendant does not see the relevancy of the contents of such containers to the case at hand.

Defendant would like to note that the exact intent of the motion is somewhat unclear to Defendant. It is clear what evidence the Plaintiff wishes the court compel production of, but it is not entirely clear who the Plaintiff wishes to be compelled. While the motion specifically mentions that the Plaintiff wishes the court compel Maxib02 to produce any such evidence, it is unclear whether they mean to only compel Maxib02 to produce such evidence, or to compel other parties to do so as well.

As no other parties are mentioned, and as Plaintiff themselves would be able to produce any relevant evidence that may be produced by this request, the Defendant does not see why any party would be compelled by the court to produce this evidence. If the Court however finds the content of those containers to which Plaintiff does not have access but Maxib02 does have access to be relevant, than the Defendant request that Maxib02 be compelled only to produce that particular evidence, as the contents of any other containers could simply have been produced by Plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION TO COMPEL (Post No. 30)

Plaintiff, as movant, seeks to compel the content of crates on plots r050 and tnt-tower-shop and to join Maxib02 as a party to this case so as to search Maxib02's locked containers. Defendant, as respondent, alleges that the Plaintiff could have produced the contents of the containers to which the Plaintiff had access and that containers locked by third parties are not of demonstrated relevance to the case.

First, as to joinder, the Court is permitted to issue joinder or consolidation as follows:

6. Joinder and Consolidation
(1) The court may order the joinder of additional parties where:
(a) Complete relief cannot be granted without the additional party; or
(b) The additional party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest.

(2) The court may consolidate multiple proceedings involving common questions of law or facts in the interest of judicial efficiency.
Click to expand...
(RCCA, Part IV, Section 6).

Movant has not asserted that relief cannot be granted without Maxib02 being joined to the case, and the Court does not see a plausible interest that Maxib02 would have in the case based on the record here. As such, joinder is not warranted.

That being said, the District Court has previously examined whether a Motion to Compel may result in a subpoena to third parties (see: Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102, Posts No. 30 and 38). The Court found that a Motion to Compel can compel a third party to produce information before the Court; an individual needn't be a named party to be subject to a motion to compel.

At the same time, when requiring third parties to produce information before the Court, we must be mindful that "[e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure" (Const. 35(15)). The Court will not order what constructively amounts to a search of a third party non-witness's locked container unless a specific compelling interest is alleged that would justify a search.

The Court notes that Exhibit D-004 appears to show a room on plot r050 that has several containers, that Exhibit D-003 appears to show a container in that room locked by Maxib02, and that Exhibit D-002 appears to show that the Plaintiff is listed as owner of plot r050. The Plaintiff argues that "if the presence of these containers is material evidence that would prove certain contested facts to be more or less likely, then it follows that the contents of the containers are of even greater value in proving those contested facts to be more or less likely".

The Plaintiff couches the claim that "the presence of these containers is material evidence that would prove certain contested facts to be more or less likely" in a conditional "if". The Plaintiff neither asserts in their own in their own voice nor explains why the exhibits would be material to the case. If the Plaintiff does not believe the exhibits to plausibly be material to the case, they could have addressed that by objecting to the relevance of the exhibit. If the Plaintiff does believe so, then the Plaintiff can assert so when asking the Court to search a third party's locked container. At present, however, this is far too speculative to search the locked containers of a third party.

As such, the Court rejects that the Plaintiff's statement constitutes a compelling interest justifying the search of a third party's locked containers; for the Court to order a third party non-witness to produce their private contents requires more than naked speculation as to relevance. The motion to compel is denied.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests an extension to the deadline for amending their answer to complaint. Defendant has filed a motion to reconsider regarding Plaintiff's amendment to the complaint which is currently still pending and it would be difficult to amend the answer until this motion has been decided on. Defendant would request the deadline to be set 24 hours after the motion to reconsider filed in #24 is ruled on.
Click to expand...
While the amendment was not actually made to the complaint after being declared, granted. The Defendant shall have until 24 hours after the publication of Post No. 34 to submit the amended answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top