Lawsuit: Dismissed UnderRatedXD v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 48

[fish70000000000]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

UnderRatedXD (represented by fish70000000000)
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_Bro_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I am filing this complaint regarding the actions of the defendant, who assaulted me without justification and attempted to seriously harm me. The defendant attacked me without provocation, placing my safety and life at risk. I believe these actions were intentional and reckless, and I am requesting that the court take appropriate legal action against the defendant for attempted murder and related offenses.

I. PARTIES
1. UnderRatedXD (Plaintiff, represented by fish70000000000)
2. Zombie_Bro_ (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On May 25, 2026, the Defendant initiated a physical altercation with the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff did not retaliate in response to the attack received from the Defendant.
3. During the confrontation, the Defendant inflicted an amount of damage exceeding three (3) hearts to the Plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Attempted Murder

The Defendant intentionally used force against the Plaintiff with the intent to cause harm, inflicting damage exceeding three (3) hearts as defined under the server’s standard for Attempted Murder.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Award compensatory damages in the amount of $500 for physical injury, pain and suffering, and related inconvenience;
2. Grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001: In-game screenshot showcasing the Defendant attacking the Plaintiff, unprovoked.



P-002: In-game screenshot demonstrating the damage inflicted upon the Plaintiff exceeded three (3) hearts.

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 25th day of May 2026

Proof of Representation

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

Zombie_Bro_ (@Zombie_Bro_) is ordered to appear before the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of UnderRatedXD v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 48.

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.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - STANDING

To have standing to pursue a case, a plaintiff is required to show all of the following:

1. [The plaintiff s]uffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

(Rule 2.1).

The District Court, upon examination of the Complaint, is concerned that the Plaintiff may lack standing to pursue this case. In particular, the Court is concerned as to the third prong of standing. In particular, the Court is concerned that (1) the prayer for compensatory damages for "physical injury, pain and suffering, and related inconvenience" (Compl., Section IV.1) may be unavailable even should the Plaintiff prove all claims; and (2) that the remaining prayer that the Court "[g]rant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper" (Compl., Section IV.2) may not be sufficient to demonstrate the third prong of standing.

The Court may issue a sua sponte dismissal for failure to demonstrate standing (Rule 2.2). The Supreme Court has held that a "non-moving party must be allowed to respond to a movant’s dispositive motion, unless the presiding judge plans to dispose of the motion without response" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). While the Court may take action of its own hand to dismiss cases, the Court finds it just and proper to permit Plaintiff to respond to the Court's concerns prior to a final order being entered.

Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause, within 48 hours of the time of this post, as to whether the pleaded two prayers for relief are (1) available under the law; and (2) sufficient to meet the third element of standing.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[fish70000000000]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - STANDING

To have standing to pursue a case, a plaintiff is required to show all of the following:

(Rule 2.1).

The District Court, upon examination of the Complaint, is concerned that the Plaintiff may lack standing to pursue this case. In particular, the Court is concerned as to the third prong of standing. In particular, the Court is concerned that (1) the prayer for compensatory damages for "physical injury, pain and suffering, and related inconvenience" (Compl., Section IV.1) may be unavailable even should the Plaintiff prove all claims; and (2) that the remaining prayer that the Court "[g]rant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper" (Compl., Section IV.2) may not be sufficient to demonstrate the third prong of standing.

The Court may issue a sua sponte dismissal for failure to demonstrate standing (Rule 2.2). The Supreme Court has held that a "non-moving party must be allowed to respond to a movant’s dispositive motion, unless the presiding judge plans to dispose of the motion without response" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). While the Court may take action of its own hand to dismiss cases, the Court finds it just and proper to permit Plaintiff to respond to the Court's concerns prior to a final order being entered.

Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause, within 48 hours of the time of this post, as to whether the pleaded two prayers for relief are (1) available under the law; and (2) sufficient to meet the third element of standing.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. The Plaintiff has suffered a clear injury (damage exceeding 3 hearts) caused by the Defendant’s intentional and unlawful actions, satisfying the first two prongs of standing.

2. Compensatory damages for physical injury, pain, and suffering are available under Redmont law. Section 6(1) of the Legal Principles in the Standardized Criminal Code explicitly states that “In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages.” The Plaintiff was the victim of an Attempted Murder (as defined in the Criminal Code), which caused direct physical harm. Courts have historically awarded compensatory damages in similar violent crime cases.

3. The requested $500 in compensatory damages is reasonable and directly related to the harm suffered. In the alternative, the second prayer for relief ("any additional relief the Court deems just and proper") is sufficient to satisfy the third prong of standing, as it allows the Court to award nominal damages or other appropriate remedies.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court allow this case to proceed.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISMISSAL OF UnderRatedXD v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 48​

The District Court may issue a sua sponte dismissal for failure to demonstrate standing (Rule 2.2).

To have standing to pursue a case, a plaintiff is required to show all of the following:

1. [The plaintiff s]uffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

(Rule 2.1).

Plaintiff pleads two prayers for relief: (1) "compensatory damages in the amount of $500 for physical injury, pain and suffering, and related inconvenience" and (2) "any additional relief the Court deems just and proper" (Compl., Section IV). The Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff regarding potential defect in these prayers' potential to met the third criterion required for standing (Post No. 3).

Intentional affliction of emotional distress is not cognizable in Redmont and the Court cannot grant emotional damages (see: BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23, Post No. 30; see also: JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62, Post No. 7.). Additionally, "[c]ompensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss" (RCCA, Part III, Section 2(2)(a)); Plaintiff fails to plead pecuniary loss, but instead pleads abstract harms for which Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. Abstract harms are not awarded compensatory damages in Redmont.

The "any additional relief the Court deems just and proper" does not save the complaint as-is; while complaints do not need to be perfect (see: Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19, Section III.2; Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18, Section III.II), they need to be plainly cognizable to the Court (see: In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8, "it is on the litigants to explain their case properly"). Alternative remedies that permit the Court to more broadly use our equitable powers in providing relief are welcome, but complaints must demonstrate a specific prayer for relief that could lawfully be granted to meet the threshold for standing articulated in Rule 2.1.3.

As such, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice. This dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits and Plaintiff may re-file in a manner that resolves the standing issue. Until then, the Court dismisses this action sua sponte.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155