Lawsuit: Pending Maxib02 V. Beloitte [2026] DCR 34

[dodrio3]

​

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxib02 (Represented by Lex Titanum)
Plaintiff

v.

Beloitte
Defendant

---

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 23rd February 2026, the Plaintiff reached out to the defendant, requesting the production of Certificates of Formation (P-02, P-03). On the 5th of March 2026, the Defendant quoted a price of $5,000 for the two documents (P-04), the Plaintiff paid the fee of $5,000 on the 10th March, before the documents had begun to be worked on (P-05).

On the 18th of March, the plaintiff reached out to the Defendant after asking a question about the document and received no response (P-06). On the 20th of March, the plaintiff reached out to the two employees who had been primarily active in the tickets and received no response (P-07, P-08).

On the 31st of March, the plaintiff reached out to dodrio3 and commissioned the creation of a certificate of Incorporation for United Fruit and Beverages Company Incorporated (P-09). On the 5th of April, the Plaintiff paid $1,200 for the completed Certificate of Incorporation (P-10).

I. PARTIES

1. Maxib02 - Plaintiff
2. Beloitte - Defendant
3. Musa096 - Beloitte Managing Partner (P-01)
4. nick (XDBH)- Beloitte Managing Partner (P-01)
5. rayraywa - Beloitte Employee (P-01)
6. Lex Titanum - Certificate of Incorporation Creator

II. FACTS

1. On the 23rd of February, the Plaintiff reached out to the Defendant, requesting production of a Certificate of Incorporation. (P-02, P-03)
2. On the 5th of March, the Defendant offered to do the work for $5,000 for two documents (P-04)
3. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant $5,000 for the services on the 10th March (P-05)
4. On the 18th March, the Plaintiff contacted the defendant and got no response (P-06)
5. On the 20th March,h the Plaintiff reached out to the two employees who had been working on his contracts and got no response (P-07, P-08)
6. On the 31st of March, the Plaintiff commissions Dodrio3 and Lex Titanum to make a certificate of Incorporation (P-09)
7. On the 5th of April, the Plaintiff paid Dodrio3 and Lex Titanum $1,200 for the creation of a certificate of Incorporation (P-10)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. On March 5th 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a legally binding agreement, where the defendant agreed to produce two Certificates of Formation for $5,000. On March 10th 2026, the Plaintiff paid the full sum of $5,000 (P-05). The Defendant breached this contract by failing to create the documents
2. By failing to fulfil the agreement, the plaintiff was forced to seek services elsewhere at an additional cost to mitigate the harm they would otherwise have suffered. These services cost $1,200 and have been fulfilled by Lex Titanum as of the 5th May (P-10)
3. The Defendants' conduct demonstrates a “substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour" by accepting a large sum of money and not completing the work that they agreed upon. This qualified the plaintiff to punitive damages against the defendant.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $5,000 In Compensationary Damages for the Fee paid for unfulfilled services
2. $1,200 in Compensationary Damages for the Cost of getting one of the certificates of incorporation completed by Lex Titanum
3. $10,000 In Punitive Damages for the outrageous actions of the defendant
4. 30% of the cases value or $3,000 which ever is higher, in legal fees paid to Lex Titanium

(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 7th day of April 2026

P-01

P-02

P-03

P-04

P-05

P-06

P-07

P-08

P-09

P-10

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@xdbh is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 V. Beloitte [2026] DCR 34.

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.

Spoiler: Identification of Beloitte's summons person

 

[dodrio3]

Writ of Summons

@xdbh is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 V. Beloitte [2026] DCR 34.

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.

Spoiler: Identification of Beloitte's summons person

View attachment 79403

Your Honnor,

The Defendedant has failed to appear within 72 hours, Thus I request that we move to the next stage of this case.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Consistent with the Public Defense Policy, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the defendant.

The Public Defender program shall appear within 72 hours. In that appearance, the Public Defender program shall provide to this Court the name of the individual who will be defending the Defendant. If no individuals in the Public Defender program have reasonable availability to take on this case, a statement to that effect shall be provided instead.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Kaiserin_]

After conference with the Honourable Multiman155, I will be the new presiding officer on this case. Deadline for the appearance of a Public Defender remains in place.

 

[Dartanboy]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Consistent with the Public Defense Policy, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the defendant.

The Public Defender program shall appear within 72 hours. In that appearance, the Public Defender program shall provide to this Court the name of the individual who will be defending the Defendant. If no individuals in the Public Defender program have reasonable availability to take on this case, a statement to that effect shall be provided instead.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

After conference with the Honourable Multiman155, I will be the new presiding officer on this case. Deadline for the appearance of a Public Defender remains in place.

I currently am personally handling three cases. The other PDs are evidently unavailable or too busy. I regret to inform the court that they need to solicit private law firms for this case.

EDIT: Unless some bandwidth opens up within the PDP today.

 

[Kaiserin_]

I currently am personally handling three cases. The other PDs are evidently unavailable or too busy. I regret to inform the court that they need to solicit private law firms for this case.

EDIT: Unless some bandwidth opens up within the PDP today.

I'll grant an additional 24 hours for an update, seeing the PDD's edit to this post.

EDIT: Noting that the original deadline hasn't passed yet, I'll instead grant until the end of the original deadline for a second update, if needed.