Lawsuit: Dismissed I__4N v. cash2tuff [2026] DCR 51

[3mkTalal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

I__4N
Plaintiff

v.

cash2tuff
Defendant

COMPLAINT



​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in-game time, the Defendant, cash2tuff, aimed and/or attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff, I__4N, near the airport. The Plaintiff was under new-player protection at the time, which prevented the Defendant’s conduct from causing actual physical damage. However, the Defendant still placed the Plaintiff in a position of danger by using a firearm against them.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES

1. I__4N, Plaintiff.
2. cash2tuff, Defendant.
3. 3mkTalal, legal representative for the Plaintiff.

II. FACTS

1. On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in-game time, the Plaintiff was near the airport.
2. The Defendant, cash2tuff, aimed and/or attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff was under new-player protection at the time of the incident.
4. Because of the Plaintiff’s new-player protection, the Plaintiff did not suffer actual health loss.
5. But for the Plaintiff’s new-player protection, the Defendant’s firearm conduct created a serious risk of death or substantial harm.
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to being threatened, aimed at, or fired upon.
7. The Defendant’s conduct placed the Plaintiff in a position of danger.
8. The incident caused the Plaintiff fear, distress, disruption, and loss of enjoyment while playing.
9. The Plaintiff has video evidence and supporting screenshots showing the Defendant’s conduct.
10. The Plaintiff has formally retained 3mkTalal / 3MK & Associates as legal counsel in this matter.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM ASSAULT UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT

1. The Plaintiff brings this claim for civil damages arising from Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

2. Relevant Law: Criminal Code Act, Part IV, Section 1 - Assault:

“A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) intentionally hits another player, causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts; or
(b) places another player in a position of danger, including but not limited to pointing a weapon at them.”

3. The Defendant’s conduct satisfies subsection (b) because the Defendant aimed and/or attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff does not need to prove actual health loss under subsection (b), because subsection (b) is based on placing another player in a position of danger, including pointing a weapon at them.

5. Although new-player protection prevented actual physical damage, the Defendant’s conduct still created the danger contemplated by the Criminal Code Act.

CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

6. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 1 - Applicability:

“The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.”

7. The Plaintiff is not asking this Court to criminally punish the Defendant. The Plaintiff is asking for civil damages based on the Defendant’s criminal conduct toward the Plaintiff.

CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

8. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages.

9. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Nominal Damages:

“Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages.”

10. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Award:

“Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500.”

11. The Plaintiff has established a legal cause of action because the Defendant’s conduct constituted Assault by placing the Plaintiff in a position of danger.

12. Because the Plaintiff did not suffer a specific calculable financial loss, nominal damages are appropriate to recognize the legal harm caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

13. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

14. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Punitive Damages:

“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.”

15. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Award:

“Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.”

16. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Outrageous Conduct:

“Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.”

17. The Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because the Defendant aimed and/or attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff, creating a serious risk of death or substantial harm.

18. The only reason physical damage did not occur was the Plaintiff’s new-player protection.

19. The Defendant’s conduct therefore demonstrates reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s safety and justifies punitive damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

1. $1,000 in nominal damages for the Defendant placing the Plaintiff in danger through Assault.
2. $1,500 in punitive damages for the Defendant’s reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s safety.
3. Total damages of $2,500.
4. Any applicable legal fees awarded to the prevailing party.
5. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001: Video evidence showing the Defendant aiming and/or attempting to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff near the airport.

Untitled - Clipped Minecraft with Medal.tv
P-002: Screenshot(s) from the video showing the Defendant with the handgun and the Plaintiff near the airport.

Spoiler: P-002: Screenshot(s) from the video showing the Defendant with the handgun and the Plaintiff near the airport.

Spoiler: P-003: Screenshot or statement showing that the Plaintiff was under new-player protection.

VI. WITNESSES

1. I__4N
Expected testimony: The Plaintiff may testify about the Defendant aiming and/or firing a handgun, the Plaintiff’s new-player protection, the location near the airport, and the fear, distress, disruption, and loss of enjoyment caused by the incident.

VII. APPENDIX

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Assault as placing another player in a position of danger, including but not limited to pointing a weapon at them.
2. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows civil damages arising from criminal conduct.
3. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows nominal damages where a legal cause of action is established even without substantial loss.
4. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows punitive damages where the Defendant’s conduct is outrageous, including reckless disregard for the safety of others.
5. The District Court guide requires a lawyer representing a client to provide evidence that the client officially retained them.
6. The Court template requires parties, facts, claims for relief, prayer for relief, evidence, witnesses if applicable, and the perjury statement.

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.

The Plaintiff is represented by 3mkTalal of 3MK & Associates. Proof of representation is attached as evidence.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

DATED: This 25th day of May 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

Cash2tuff is ordered to appear before the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of I__4N v. cash2tuff [2026] DCR 51.

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.

 

[Smallfries]

All deadlines tolled from this moment pending reassignment.

 

[3mkTalal]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully notes that the Defendant failed to appear within the 72 hours provided in the Writ of Summons.

The Plaintiff understands that all deadlines are currently tolled pending reassignment and will await further direction from the Court. However, the Plaintiff preserves his position that default judgment is appropriate once the matter is reassigned, because the Defendant failed to appear within the summons deadline.

 

[aubunny]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER.

As the Defendant has not shown up after 72 hours, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the Defendant, as available through the Public Defense Policy, in order to preserve the Defendant's right to representation. (Const. Part V Section 35.9)

The Public Defender assigned to this case shall make themself known within 72 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I have assigned @gribble19 as the Public Defender for this case.

 

[aubunny]

Wonderful! The public defender has 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

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

I__4N
Plaintiff

v.

cash2tuff

Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in-game time, the Plaintiff was near the airport.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Defendant, cash2tuff, aimed and/or attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was under new-player protection at the time of the incident.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff did not suffer actual health loss but DENIES that this was because of the Plaintiff’s new-player protection.
5. The Defendant DENIES that but for the Plaintiff’s new-player protection, the Defendant’s firearm conduct created a serious risk of death or substantial harm.
6. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff did not consent to being threatened, aimed at, or fired upon.
7. The Defendant DENIES that Defendant’s conduct placed the Plaintiff in a position of danger.
8. The Defendant DENIES that the incident caused the Plaintiff fear, distress, disruption, and loss of enjoyment while playing.
9. The Defendant DOES NOT CONTEST that Plaintiff has video evidence and supporting screenshots showing the Defendant’s conduct.
10. The Defendant DOES NOT CONTEST that Plaintiff has formally retained 3mkTalal / 3MK & Associates as legal counsel in this matter.

II. DEFENCES
1. It is clear from the video evidence shown in P-001 that the Defendant never hit the Plaintiff and as such the Plaintiff would not have suffered actual health loss, even without new-player protection. Following from this, the Defendant's firearm conduct thus did also not create a serious risk of death or substantial harm, regardless of Plaintiffs new-player protection.
2. Due to Plaintiff's new player protection, it was impossible for Plaintiff to ever be brought into a position of danger, as they could not possibly get hurt and thus were not in danger.
3. Plaintiff has not proven on the balance of probabilities that they did not consent to being threathened, aimed at or fired upon or that the incident caused the Plaintiff fear, distress, disruption and loss of enjoyment while playing.
4. Nominal damages do not apply as Plaintiff is requesting other relief.

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 second day of June 2026.

Motion

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first prayer for relief under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5. A motion to dismiss may be submitted against a single prayer for relief. See id. at Rule 5.3. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

Nominal damages are only granted in the instance that a party is not entitled to any other damages. See RCCA Part 3 Section 4. However, Plaintiff has requested other damages, namely punitive damages, and has provided reasoning supporting why those other damages should be granted by the court, which shows potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case. Dismissal due to this would be in line with the horizontal precedent set previously by this court. See 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52 at #17.

Thank you.

 

[aubunny]

Motion

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first prayer for relief under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5. A motion to dismiss may be submitted against a single prayer for relief. See id. at Rule 5.3. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

Nominal damages are only granted in the instance that a party is not entitled to any other damages. See RCCA Part 3 Section 4. However, Plaintiff has requested other damages, namely punitive damages, and has provided reasoning supporting why those other damages should be granted by the court, which shows potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case. Dismissal due to this would be in line with the horizontal precedent set previously by this court. See 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52 at #17.

Thank you.

I will give the Plaintiff 24 hours to respond to this motion to dismiss; additionally, discovery will be open for 5 days starting now.

 

[3mkTalal]

Motion​

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first prayer for relief under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5. A motion to dismiss may be submitted against a single prayer for relief. See id. at Rule 5.3. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

Nominal damages are only granted in the instance that a party is not entitled to any other damages. See RCCA Part 3 Section 4. However, Plaintiff has requested other damages, namely punitive damages, and has provided reasoning supporting why those other damages should be granted by the court, which shows potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case. Dismissal due to this would be in line with the horizontal precedent set previously by this court. See 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52 at #17.

Thank you.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

I__4N v. cash2tuff [2026] DCR 51


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

Your Honor,


The Plaintiff responds to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the first prayer for relief and respectfully requests that the motion be denied as moot in light of the amendment set out below.


I. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT (RULE 3.3)


Discovery being open, and pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief to withdraw the request for punitive damages and to streamline this matter. The Plaintiff elects to proceed on nominal damages alone. The amended Prayer for Relief reads:

1. $1,000 in nominal damages for the Defendant placing the Plaintiff in a position of danger through Assault.
2. Any applicable legal fees awarded to the prevailing party.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

The Plaintiff will conform the Complaint accordingly upon the Court's acknowledgement.


II. THE MOTION IS MOOT


The Defendant's motion rests on a single premise: that nominal damages are unavailable because the Plaintiff also sought other damages, namely punitive damages. See RCCA Part III, Section 4. With the punitive request withdrawn, that premise no longer exists. The Plaintiff now seeks no other damages. The sole ground advanced in the motion has been removed, and the motion should be denied as moot.


III. NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE NOW PROPER UNDER THE COURT'S OWN REASONING


This Court has already drawn the controlling line. In 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52, the Court held that nominal damages are available where the party is not entitled to any other damages, and found nominal invalid there only because the plaintiff had pleaded other damages alongside it. The Plaintiff here now sits squarely within that condition. The Plaintiff seeks, and is entitled to, no other damages, so nominal damages are valid.


The underlying claim is not in dispute. In the Answer, the Defendant affirmed that he aimed and attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff. Assault under the Criminal Code Act includes placing another player in a position of danger, including pointing a weapon at them. The legal cause of action is therefore established. Because the Plaintiff was under new-player protection and suffered no substantial loss, nominal damages are the exact remedy Part III, Section 4 contemplates: recognition that a legal cause of action has been established even though the Plaintiff suffered no substantial loss.


IV. PRAYER


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Acknowledge the amendment to the Prayer for Relief withdrawing punitive damages;
2. Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as moot; and
3. Permit the matter to proceed on the Plaintiff's claim for nominal damages.

 

[aubunny]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

I__4N v. cash2tuff [2026] DCR 51


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

Your Honor,


The Plaintiff responds to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the first prayer for relief and respectfully requests that the motion be denied as moot in light of the amendment set out below.


I. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT (RULE 3.3)


Discovery being open, and pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief to withdraw the request for punitive damages and to streamline this matter. The Plaintiff elects to proceed on nominal damages alone. The amended Prayer for Relief reads:

1. $1,000 in nominal damages for the Defendant placing the Plaintiff in a position of danger through Assault.
2. Any applicable legal fees awarded to the prevailing party.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

The Plaintiff will conform the Complaint accordingly upon the Court's acknowledgement.


II. THE MOTION IS MOOT


The Defendant's motion rests on a single premise: that nominal damages are unavailable because the Plaintiff also sought other damages, namely punitive damages. See RCCA Part III, Section 4. With the punitive request withdrawn, that premise no longer exists. The Plaintiff now seeks no other damages. The sole ground advanced in the motion has been removed, and the motion should be denied as moot.


III. NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE NOW PROPER UNDER THE COURT'S OWN REASONING


This Court has already drawn the controlling line. In 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52, the Court held that nominal damages are available where the party is not entitled to any other damages, and found nominal invalid there only because the plaintiff had pleaded other damages alongside it. The Plaintiff here now sits squarely within that condition. The Plaintiff seeks, and is entitled to, no other damages, so nominal damages are valid.


The underlying claim is not in dispute. In the Answer, the Defendant affirmed that he aimed and attempted to fire a handgun at the Plaintiff. Assault under the Criminal Code Act includes placing another player in a position of danger, including pointing a weapon at them. The legal cause of action is therefore established. Because the Plaintiff was under new-player protection and suffered no substantial loss, nominal damages are the exact remedy Part III, Section 4 contemplates: recognition that a legal cause of action has been established even though the Plaintiff suffered no substantial loss.


IV. PRAYER


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Acknowledge the amendment to the Prayer for Relief withdrawing punitive damages;
2. Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as moot; and
3. Permit the matter to proceed on the Plaintiff's claim for nominal damages.

Amendment acknowledged, as the motion to dismiss is moot, it is denied.

 

[Matthew100x]

Hello all, I will be taking over this case as the presiding judge.

To ensure the Court has an accurate understanding of the current procedural posture, each party is directed to submit a brief status filing.

The filing should be concise and should address the following:

1. A short summary of where the case currently stands;
2. Any motions, requests, deadlines, or other matters currently pending before the Court;
3. Any procedural issues, disputes, or objections that require attention;
4. If there are any oddities in this case, such as joinder or counterclaims;
5. Any other information the party believes is necessary or pertinent for the Court to be aware of at this stage.

The purpose of this filing is not to reargue the merits of the case, but to assist the Court in efficiently assuming management of the matter.

Each party shall submit their status brief within the next 72 hours. Please keep the filing focused and organized. All other outstanding issues are currently tolled.

Thank you,
Matthew100x
Associate Justice

 

[3mkTalal]

Hello all, I will be taking over this case as the presiding judge.

To ensure the Court has an accurate understanding of the current procedural posture, each party is directed to submit a brief status filing.

The filing should be concise and should address the following:

1. A short summary of where the case currently stands;
2. Any motions, requests, deadlines, or other matters currently pending before the Court;
3. Any procedural issues, disputes, or objections that require attention;
4. If there are any oddities in this case, such as joinder or counterclaims;
5. Any other information the party believes is necessary or pertinent for the Court to be aware of at this stage.

The purpose of this filing is not to reargue the merits of the case, but to assist the Court in efficiently assuming management of the matter.

Each party shall submit their status brief within the next 72 hours. Please keep the filing focused and organized. All other outstanding issues are currently tolled.

Thank you,
Matthew100x
Associate Justice

​

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

I__4N v. cash2tuff [2026] DCR 51

PLAINTIFF’S STATUS BRIEF​

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this status brief pursuant to the Court’s order.

I. CURRENT STATUS

This case concerns Plaintiff’s claim for civil damages arising from Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

The Defendant initially failed to appear within the summons period. A public defender was then appointed, and Defendant has since appeared through appointed counsel and filed an Answer to the Complaint.

The Plaintiff amended the Prayer for Relief during discovery to withdraw punitive damages and proceed on nominal damages only, plus any applicable legal fees/costs and any further relief the Court finds just and proper.

The prior Motion to Dismiss concerning nominal damages was denied as moot after the amendment was acknowledged by the Court.

II. PENDING MATTERS

To Plaintiff’s understanding, there are no motions currently pending before the Court.

Discovery was previously opened for five days. Because this Court has now stated that all other outstanding issues are tolled, Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification on whether discovery remains tolled, whether the previous discovery period will resume, and what deadline the parties should follow going forward.

III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES OR OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff is not presently aware of any procedural objections requiring immediate attention.

IV. JOINDER, COUNTERCLAIMS, OR ODDITIES

There are no joinder issues or counterclaims currently before the Court.

V. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Plaintiff is prepared to proceed according to whatever schedule the Court sets, including continuation of discovery, witness protocol, or the next appropriate stage of trial.

 

[Matthew100x]

This complaint only alleges a claim of relief using a crime as a tort for a civil suit. Where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under the Civil Code, the plaintiff may pursue civil remedies under the Civil Code, civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code, or both, so long as there is no double recovery (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 (citing Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 4(3)(a)–(c), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act); see also Lawsuit: Dismissed - Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59 ("The Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA") does indeed allow for civil action regarding a criminal violation, but typically only supports that action where both the RCCA and the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") reference the underlying claim")).

Here, the charge of assault is only in the Redmont Criminal Code, but not also under the Civil Code. As such, the Plaintiff cannot pursue damages. And as such, this Court applies Court Rule 2.2 and dismisses this case without prejudice as the Plaintiff presently lacks standing under Court Rule 2.1 because he cannot make out a civil claim for damages.