Lawsuit: In Session Monzter9697 v. misterY3597 [2026] DCR 65

[budgetmich1]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Monzter9697
Plaintiff

v.

misterY3597
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 27 May 2026, at 6:00 PM Redmont Time, plaintiff was standing on the sidewalk outside a player chestshop. Defendant was standing across from plaintiff armed with an assault. Unprovoked by plaintiff, defendant took aim at plaintiff and fired the assault weapon towards plaintiff. This placed plaintiff in a position of danger, and the assault is documented through the chat messages at the end of this thread (labeled P-001 and P-002).

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Monzter9697 is a resident of Redmont
2. Defendant misterY3597 is also a resident of Redmont.

II. FACTS
1. On 27 May 2026 at 6:00 PM, plaintiff was standing on the public sidewalk in Reveille (P-001).
2. Defendant stood across the sidewalk from plaintiff armed with an assault rifle (P-001).
3. Defendant aimed the rifle at plaintiff and fired.
4. This triggered an in-game notification that defendant had initiated a fight (P-002).
5. Plaintiff did fear for their own safety because of defendant's actions.
6. Plaintiff lost 5 hearts after being shot at.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Assault. Defendant placed plaintiff in a position of danger by pointing a weapon at plaintiff and firing.
2. Attempted Murder. Defendant intentionally shot at plaintiff, causing a loss of 5 hearts.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Punitive Damages in the amount of $10,000. Defendant's conduct was outrageous; firing at plaintiff reflected a willful disregard of plaintiff's safety. Defendant clearly intended to cause harm to plaintiff.
2. Nominal damages in the amount of $7,500. The defendant violated plaintiff's rights. In the absence of other damages, plaintiff is entitled to damages as recognition that defendant violated plaintiff's rights and safety.
3. Legal fees. $3,000.

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 30 day of May 2026

Consent to Representation:

P-001

P-002

 

[Dogeington]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Monzter9697
Plaintiff

v.

misterY3597
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Monzter9697 is a resident of Redmont
2. Defendant misterY3597 is also a resident of Redmont.

II. FACTS
1. On 27 May 2026 at 6:00 PM, plaintiff was standing on the public sidewalk in Reveille (P-001).
2. Defendant stood across the sidewalk from plaintiff armed with an assault rifle (P-001).
3. Defendant aimed the rifle at plaintiff and fired.
4. This triggered an in-game notification that defendant had initiated a fight (P-002).
5. Plaintiff did fear for their own safety because of defendant's actions.
6. Plaintiff lost 5 hearts after being shot at.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Assault. Defendant placed plaintiff in a position of danger by pointing a weapon at plaintiff and firing.
2. Attempted Murder. Defendant intentionally shot at plaintiff, causing a loss of 5 hearts.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Punitive Damages in the amount of $10,000. Defendant's conduct was outrageous; firing at plaintiff reflected a willful disregard of plaintiff's safety. Defendant clearly intended to cause harm to plaintiff.
2. Nominal damages in the amount of $7,500. The defendant violated plaintiff's rights. In the absence of other damages, plaintiff is entitled to damages as recognition that defendant violated plaintiff's rights and safety.
3. Legal fees. $3,000.

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 30 day of May 2026

Consent to Representation:
View attachment 84131

P-001

View attachment 84137

P-002
View attachment 84136

Please provide adequate proof of representation, preferably in the form of a Discord screenshot, within 72 hours.

 

[budgetmich1]

Your honor, please find the attached Discord screenshot corroborating Monzter's acceptance of my representation.

 

[Dogeington]

Writ of Summons

@misterY3597 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Monzter9697 v. misterY3597 [2026] DCR 65.

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.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Writ of Summons

@misterY3597 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Monzter9697 v. misterY3597 [2026] DCR 65.

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.

The Defendant's representation is present.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Please allow the defense some time to write an answer to this complaint.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Monzter9697
Plaintiff

v.

misterY3597
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. The Defendant denies the allegation of Assault.
2. The Defendant denies the allegation of Attempted Murder
3. The Defendant affirms standing on the public sidewalk in Reveille, although the Defendant is unsure of the date and time that has been listed in the complaint.
4. The Defendant affirms standing across the sidewalk from the plaintiff armed with an assault rifle.
5. The Defendant affirms eventually aiming the rifle at the plaintiff at firing. However, the defendant asserts that this was out of self-defense and that the Plaintiff attacked the Defendant first.
6. The Defendant has pleaded no-contest as to the Plaintiff receiving an in-game notification that the defendant initiated the fight. The Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiff may have gotten this notification, but it is a commonly known fact that this plugin tends to expire after a certain period of time and thus not being completely reliable.
7. The defendant has pleaded no-contest as to whether or not the Plaintiff feared for their safety. The feelings of the Plaintiff can not be known by the Defendant.
8. The Defendant has pleaded no-contest as to whether or not the Plaintiff lost 5 hears after being shot at. The Defendant does not know this.

---

II. DEFENCES​

1. It is commonly known that the in-game combat plugin message stating, "X has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!" is not always reliable, as the combat tag expires after a certain period of time. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation by attacking the Defendant first, after which the Defendant acted solely in lawful self-defence.
2. The Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence demonstrating that any hearts were lost as a result of the alleged attack. As both Assault and Attempted Murder require proof of damage, the absence of evidence showing any loss of health is fatal to both claims.
3. Exhibit P-002 is a cropped screenshot that omits the surrounding chat. As a result, it fails to establish the events leading up to the encounter and does not exclude the reasonable possibility that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation. Accordingly, it cannot rebut the Defendant's claim of self-defence.
4. Exhibit P-001 is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. The image does not identify the Defendant, nor does it demonstrate that the Defendant committed any unlawful act.
5. The burden of proof rests with the Plaintiff. A finding of liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the lack of reliable and complete evidence, that standard has not been met.
6. The Plaintiff's claims are internally inconsistent. Assault requires proof of damage amounting to no more than three (3) hearts, whereas Attempted Murder requires proof of damage exceeding three (3) hearts. As both claims arise from the same alleged incident, the Plaintiff cannot simultaneously maintain both causes of action based on the same set of facts.

---

III. COUNTERCLAIM​

The Defendant brings the following counterclaims against the Plaintiff:

1. Defamation – $5,000 for the reputational harm caused by the Plaintiff's false and unsupported allegations.
2. Malicious Allegation – $5,000 for knowingly bringing unsupported claims in an attempt to obtain monetary compensation without sufficient evidence.
3. Legal Fees – $3,000 for the reasonable legal costs incurred in defending against this action.

---

By making this submission, I acknowledge that I understand the penalties for making false statements before the Court and that I may be subject to prosecution for perjury should I knowingly submit any false statement.

DATED: This 14th day of June 2026.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS P-001 AND P-002

The Defense moves this Court to strike Plaintiff's Exhibits P-001 and P-002 from this case for the following reasons:

1. Exhibit P-001 is irrelevant and lacks probative value. The exhibit does not identify the Defendant, depict the alleged incident, or otherwise establish any fact to the claims before the Court. As such, it has no capacity to prove or disprove any fact of this case and should be excluded from evidence.
2. Exhibit P-002 is incomplete and misleading. The exhibit consists of a cropped screenshot that fails to show the surrounding chat and circumstances prior to the alleged incident. Because the left out context may demonstrate that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation, the exhibit is incapable of portraying the events in question. Its incomplete nature diminishes its credibility and creates a risk of misleading the Court. Accordingly, Exhibit P-002 should be stricken from this case.

Thus, the Defense requests that the Court strike Exhibits P-001 and P-002 from the record. And additionally, charge the defense with Contempt of Court for manipulating Exhibit P-002.

 

[Dogeington]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Monzter9697
Plaintiff

v.

misterY3597
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. The Defendant denies the allegation of Assault.
2. The Defendant denies the allegation of Attempted Murder.

---

II. DEFENCES​

1. It is commonly known that the in-game combat plugin message stating, "X has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!" is not always reliable, as the combat tag expires after a certain period of time. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation by attacking the Defendant first, after which the Defendant acted solely in lawful self-defence.
2. The Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence demonstrating that any hearts were lost as a result of the alleged attack. As both Assault and Attempted Murder require proof of damage, the absence of evidence showing any loss of health is fatal to both claims.
3. Exhibit P-002 is a cropped screenshot that omits the surrounding chat. As a result, it fails to establish the events leading up to the encounter and does not exclude the reasonable possibility that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation. Accordingly, it cannot rebut the Defendant's claim of self-defence.
4. Exhibit P-001 is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. The image does not identify the Defendant, nor does it demonstrate that the Defendant committed any unlawful act.
5. The burden of proof rests with the Plaintiff. A finding of liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the lack of reliable and complete evidence, that standard has not been met.
6. The Plaintiff's claims are internally inconsistent. Assault requires proof of damage amounting to no more than three (3) hearts, whereas Attempted Murder requires proof of damage exceeding three (3) hearts. As both claims arise from the same alleged incident, the Plaintiff cannot simultaneously maintain both causes of action based on the same set of facts.

---

III. COUNTERCLAIM​

The Defendant brings the following counterclaims against the Plaintiff:

1. Defamation – $5,000 for the reputational harm caused by the Plaintiff's false and unsupported allegations.
2. Malicious Allegation – $5,000 for knowingly bringing unsupported claims in an attempt to obtain monetary compensation without sufficient evidence.
3. Legal Fees – $3,000 for the reasonable legal costs incurred in defending against this action.

---

By making this submission, I acknowledge that I understand the penalties for making false statements before the Court and that I may be subject to prosecution for perjury should I knowingly submit any false statement.

DATED: This 14th day of June 2026.

Please amend your answer to complaint in line with Court Rules and Procedures 3.2, specifically as they relate to the affirmation or denial of the facts of the case.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Please amend your answer to complaint in line with Court Rules and Procedures 3.2, specifically as they relate to the affirmation or denial of the facts of the case.

I will contact my client about this, Your Honor, how long do we have for this?

 

[Dogeington]

I will contact my client about this, Your Honor, how long do we have for this?

Seeing as you were so quick with the initial filing, I will allow the original allotted time for filing an answer to complaint. You have 48 hours.

 

[Dogeington]

I will contact my client about this, Your Honor, how long do we have for this?

For further formatting reference, please refer to the Templates guide.

 

[Ebborsnam]

For further formatting reference, please refer to the Templates guide.

Your Honor, the answer to complaint has been amended. We will now be properly filing the counterclaim.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

COUNTERCLAIM

misterY3597
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

Monzter9697
Counter-Defendant

---

COMPLAINT

The Counter-Plaintiff complains against the Counter-Defendant as follows:

Case Filing

The Counter-Defendant commenced legal proceedings alleging Assault and Attempted Murder against the Counter-Plaintiff. These allegations are unsupported by sufficient evidence and are contradicted by the available facts.

The Counter-Defendant submitted evidence that fails to identify the Counter-Plaintiff and a cropped screenshot that omits material context surrounding the incident. The incomplete nature of the evidence creates a misleading impression of the events and fails to establish liability.

As a direct result of these false and unsupported allegations, the Counter-Plaintiff has suffered reputational harm, has incurred legal expenses defending this action, and has been forced to expend substantial time and effort responding to claims that lack sufficient evidentiary support.

---

I. PARTIES
1. Counter-Plaintiff: misterY3597
2. Counter-Defendant: Monzter9697

II. FACTS

1. The Counter-Defendant filed a civil action alleging Assault and Attempted Murder against the Counter-Plaintiff.

2. The Counter-Defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing the essential elements of either claim.

3. Exhibit P-001 does not identify the Counter-Plaintiff and is therefore irrelevant to the allegations.

4. Exhibit P-002 is a cropped screenshot that omits the surrounding chat and fails to present the complete circumstances of the incident, including evidence potentially supporting self-defence.

5. The Counter-Plaintiff has incurred legal expenses and suffered reputational damage as a direct result of defending against these unsupported allegations.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defamation. The Counter-Defendant published serious allegations accusing the Counter-Plaintiff of criminal conduct without sufficient factual support, causing reputational harm.

2. Malicious Allegation. The Counter-Defendant initiated legal proceedings despite failing to possess sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, causing unnecessary legal costs and damages to the Counter-Plaintiff.

3. Costs and Legal Fees. As a direct consequence of the Counter-Defendant's actions, the Counter-Plaintiff has incurred legal expenses that should be recoverable.

4. (If supported by the evidence) Should the Court determine that the Counter-Defendant knowingly submitted incomplete or misleading evidence with the intent to influence these proceedings, the Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court refer the matter to the appropriate authority for investigation into any applicable offences relating to the administration of justice.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Counter-Plaintiff requests that the Court:

1. Award **$5,000** in damages for Defamation.

2. Award **$5,000** in damages for Malicious Allegation.

3. Award **$3,000** for reasonable legal fees.
4. Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

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 June 2026.

 

[Ebborsnam]

For further formatting reference, please refer to the Templates guide.

This should be all, Your Honor.

 

[Dogeington]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

COUNTERCLAIM

misterY3597
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

Monzter9697
Counter-Defendant

---

COMPLAINT

The Counter-Plaintiff complains against the Counter-Defendant as follows:



---

I. PARTIES
1. Counter-Plaintiff: misterY3597
2. Counter-Defendant: Monzter9697

II. FACTS

1. The Counter-Defendant filed a civil action alleging Assault and Attempted Murder against the Counter-Plaintiff.

2. The Counter-Defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing the essential elements of either claim.

3. Exhibit P-001 does not identify the Counter-Plaintiff and is therefore irrelevant to the allegations.

4. Exhibit P-002 is a cropped screenshot that omits the surrounding chat and fails to present the complete circumstances of the incident, including evidence potentially supporting self-defence.

5. The Counter-Plaintiff has incurred legal expenses and suffered reputational damage as a direct result of defending against these unsupported allegations.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defamation. The Counter-Defendant published serious allegations accusing the Counter-Plaintiff of criminal conduct without sufficient factual support, causing reputational harm.

2. Malicious Allegation. The Counter-Defendant initiated legal proceedings despite failing to possess sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, causing unnecessary legal costs and damages to the Counter-Plaintiff.

3. Costs and Legal Fees. As a direct consequence of the Counter-Defendant's actions, the Counter-Plaintiff has incurred legal expenses that should be recoverable.

4. (If supported by the evidence) Should the Court determine that the Counter-Defendant knowingly submitted incomplete or misleading evidence with the intent to influence these proceedings, the Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court refer the matter to the appropriate authority for investigation into any applicable offences relating to the administration of justice.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Counter-Plaintiff requests that the Court:

1. Award **$5,000** in damages for Defamation.

2. Award **$5,000** in damages for Malicious Allegation.

3. Award **$3,000** for reasonable legal fees.
4. Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

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 June 2026.

The counterclaim filed in your initial answer to the complaint is sufficient; this filing shall be struck.

 

[Ebborsnam]

The counterclaim filed in your initial answer to the complaint is sufficient; this filing shall be struck.

Ah, alright.

 

[budgetmich1]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS P-001 AND P-002

The Defense moves this Court to strike Plaintiff's Exhibits P-001 and P-002 from this case for the following reasons:

1. Exhibit P-001 is irrelevant and lacks probative value. The exhibit does not identify the Defendant, depict the alleged incident, or otherwise establish any fact to the claims before the Court. As such, it has no capacity to prove or disprove any fact of this case and should be excluded from evidence.
2. Exhibit P-002 is incomplete and misleading. The exhibit consists of a cropped screenshot that fails to show the surrounding chat and circumstances prior to the alleged incident. Because the left out context may demonstrate that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation, the exhibit is incapable of portraying the events in question. Its incomplete nature diminishes its credibility and creates a risk of misleading the Court. Accordingly, Exhibit P-002 should be stricken from this case.

Thus, the Defense requests that the Court strike Exhibits P-001 and P-002 from the record. And additionally, charge the defense with Contempt of Court for manipulating Exhibit P-002.

Motion

In the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Strike Exhibits P-001 and P-002
​

Your Honor, defendants are abusing the motion to strike at this stage. Defendant admitted to standing across from my client. P-001 shows the person standing across from my client holding an assault rifle, as we allege defendant did in our complaint. If defendant wants to dispute what is depicted (including that it is in fact defendant wearing the crime mask across the street), they are welcome to do so at trial, but a factual dispute over what is depicted does not make evidence irrelevant or immaterial. The same argument applies to P-002. My learned colleague alleges that Exhibit P-002 is "cropped," "incomplete," "manipulated," and "misleading." My client and I object strenuously to this borderline defamatory description of the exhibit. As with P-001, this Court is more than capable of identifying what weight to give to the evidence we provide throughout discovery. If the defense wishes to introduce evidence showing more of the chat logs, we would welcome better evidence in the case. If the defense wishes to cast aspersions on the chat log's accuracy, as their answer does, we would be more than happy to litigate the issue at trial. And if the defense wants to argue that my client or I maliciously manipulated the chat log to misrepresent the events at issue, then the defense should produce evidence to that effect. But to strike the exhibit at this stage based on nothing but the imperfect nature of the exhibit denies the court probative evidence.

As a final matter, the suggestion that plaintiff's conduct in this case merits a Contempt of Court citation is absurd. R.C.R.P 1.4 is clear that Contempt citations can only be issued without prior warning an attorney if: 1) engages in ex parte communications with a judge, R.C.R.P. 1.4.1, or 2) engages in misconduct that obstructs the administration of justice. Defendant has provided no evidence beyond a blanket assertion that the evidence was manipulated to substantiate any misconduct by plaintiff let alone misconduct that obstructs justice. Issuing a contempt citation based on such a naked averment would make a mockery of the judicial process and grant litigants across Redmont license to weaponize contempt charges. All lawyers in the Commonwealth must often work with evidence that is incomplete. Fundamentally, that is why we litigate; we want to find the truth and ensure the law is applied fairly. If the submission of incomplete evidence is made a crime, no potential plaintiff is safe÷.

Once this matter is properly resolved, plaintiff is ready to begin discovery.

Respectfully submitted,
budgetmich1
Counsel for Plaintiff
DATED: 14 June 2026

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

In the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Strike Exhibits P-001 and P-002
​

Your Honor, defendants are abusing the motion to strike at this stage. Defendant admitted to standing across from my client. P-001 shows the person standing across from my client holding an assault rifle, as we allege defendant did in our complaint. If defendant wants to dispute what is depicted (including that it is in fact defendant wearing the crime mask across the street), they are welcome to do so at trial, but a factual dispute over what is depicted does not make evidence irrelevant or immaterial. The same argument applies to P-002. My learned colleague alleges that Exhibit P-002 is "cropped," "incomplete," "manipulated," and "misleading." My client and I object strenuously to this borderline defamatory description of the exhibit. As with P-001, this Court is more than capable of identifying what weight to give to the evidence we provide throughout discovery. If the defense wishes to introduce evidence showing more of the chat logs, we would welcome better evidence in the case. If the defense wishes to cast aspersions on the chat log's accuracy, as their answer does, we would be more than happy to litigate the issue at trial. And if the defense wants to argue that my client or I maliciously manipulated the chat log to misrepresent the events at issue, then the defense should produce evidence to that effect. But to strike the exhibit at this stage based on nothing but the imperfect nature of the exhibit denies the court probative evidence.

As a final matter, the suggestion that plaintiff's conduct in this case merits a Contempt of Court citation is absurd. R.C.R.P 1.4 is clear that Contempt citations can only be issued without prior warning an attorney if: 1) engages in ex parte communications with a judge, R.C.R.P. 1.4.1, or 2) engages in misconduct that obstructs the administration of justice. Defendant has provided no evidence beyond a blanket assertion that the evidence was manipulated to substantiate any misconduct by plaintiff let alone misconduct that obstructs justice. Issuing a contempt citation based on such a naked averment would make a mockery of the judicial process and grant litigants across Redmont license to weaponize contempt charges. All lawyers in the Commonwealth must often work with evidence that is incomplete. Fundamentally, that is why we litigate; we want to find the truth and ensure the law is applied fairly. If the submission of incomplete evidence is made a crime, no potential plaintiff is safe÷.

Once this matter is properly resolved, plaintiff is ready to begin discovery.

Respectfully submitted,
budgetmich1
Counsel for Plaintiff
DATED: 14 June 2026

I acknowledge my mistake as to requesting a contempt of court charge, however the motion still stands.

 

[budgetmich1]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Monzter9697
Plaintiff

v.

misterY3597
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. The Defendant denies the allegation of Assault.
2. The Defendant denies the allegation of Attempted Murder
3. The Defendant affirms standing on the public sidewalk in Reveille, although the Defendant is unsure of the date and time that has been listed in the complaint.
4. The Defendant affirms standing across the sidewalk from the plaintiff armed with an assault rifle.
5. The Defendant affirms eventually aiming the rifle at the plaintiff at firing. However, the defendant asserts that this was out of self-defense and that the Plaintiff attacked the Defendant first.
6. The Defendant has pleaded no-contest as to the Plaintiff receiving an in-game notification that the defendant initiated the fight. The Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiff may have gotten this notification, but it is a commonly known fact that this plugin tends to expire after a certain period of time and thus not being completely reliable.
7. The defendant has pleaded no-contest as to whether or not the Plaintiff feared for their safety. The feelings of the Plaintiff can not be known by the Defendant.
8. The Defendant has pleaded no-contest as to whether or not the Plaintiff lost 5 hears after being shot at. The Defendant does not know this.

---

II. DEFENCES​

1. It is commonly known that the in-game combat plugin message stating, "X has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!" is not always reliable, as the combat tag expires after a certain period of time. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation by attacking the Defendant first, after which the Defendant acted solely in lawful self-defence.
2. The Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence demonstrating that any hearts were lost as a result of the alleged attack. As both Assault and Attempted Murder require proof of damage, the absence of evidence showing any loss of health is fatal to both claims.
3. Exhibit P-002 is a cropped screenshot that omits the surrounding chat. As a result, it fails to establish the events leading up to the encounter and does not exclude the reasonable possibility that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation. Accordingly, it cannot rebut the Defendant's claim of self-defence.
4. Exhibit P-001 is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. The image does not identify the Defendant, nor does it demonstrate that the Defendant committed any unlawful act.
5. The burden of proof rests with the Plaintiff. A finding of liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the lack of reliable and complete evidence, that standard has not been met.
6. The Plaintiff's claims are internally inconsistent. Assault requires proof of damage amounting to no more than three (3) hearts, whereas Attempted Murder requires proof of damage exceeding three (3) hearts. As both claims arise from the same alleged incident, the Plaintiff cannot simultaneously maintain both causes of action based on the same set of facts.

---

III. COUNTERCLAIM​

The Defendant brings the following counterclaims against the Plaintiff:

1. Defamation – $5,000 for the reputational harm caused by the Plaintiff's false and unsupported allegations.
2. Malicious Allegation – $5,000 for knowingly bringing unsupported claims in an attempt to obtain monetary compensation without sufficient evidence.
3. Legal Fees – $3,000 for the reasonable legal costs incurred in defending against this action.

---

By making this submission, I acknowledge that I understand the penalties for making false statements before the Court and that I may be subject to prosecution for perjury should I knowingly submit any false statement.

DATED: This 14th day of June 2026.
[/answer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Leave to File an Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim​

Your honor, plaintiff requests leave to file the below answer to defendant's counterclaim. As the counterclaim hinges at least in part on the veracity of the allegations in the original claim, we request this Court conduct discovery and rule on both simultaneously.

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Proposed Answer to Counterclaim

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. Plaintiff denies causing reputation harm to defendant. Plaintiff further denies making false or unsupported allegations.
2. Plaintiff denies knowingly bringing unsupported claims before this court.

II. DEFENSES​

1. Discovery will show that plaintiff had sufficient evidence to support the claims of assault and attempted murder.
2. Plaintiffs need only plead a prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss. See R.C.R.P. 5 (laying out the only grounds for a motion to dismiss). Discovery exists for both parties to put forth evidence in support of their claims. If a defendant believes plaintiff's evidence is insufficient, they can argue that persuasively at trial. They cannot file a motion to dismiss based purely on a lack of evidence. And the bar for malicious prosecution and defamation must be higher than the motion to dismiss. Defendant chose to file an answer rather than a motion to dismiss, presumably because they understood that to be the proper vehicle for challenging facts. There is no universe in which a genuine dispute as to a material fact should give rise to counterclaims.
3. Plaintiff does not meet the mens rea requirement for defamation or malicious allegation.
4. Plaintiff made the allegedly defamatory statements in the course of legitimate political communication.
5. Plaintiff had reasonable grounds to believe the allegedly malicious allegations and made these allegations in good faith to an appropriate authority (this Court) for investigation and resolution.

 

[Dogeington]

I acknowledge my mistake as to requesting a contempt of court charge, however the motion still stands.

Please try to limit speaking out of turn, this is your first warning.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS P-001 AND P-002

The Defense moves this Court to strike Plaintiff's Exhibits P-001 and P-002 from this case for the following reasons:

1. Exhibit P-001 is irrelevant and lacks probative value. The exhibit does not identify the Defendant, depict the alleged incident, or otherwise establish any fact to the claims before the Court. As such, it has no capacity to prove or disprove any fact of this case and should be excluded from evidence.
2. Exhibit P-002 is incomplete and misleading. The exhibit consists of a cropped screenshot that fails to show the surrounding chat and circumstances prior to the alleged incident. Because the left out context may demonstrate that the Plaintiff initiated the confrontation, the exhibit is incapable of portraying the events in question. Its incomplete nature diminishes its credibility and creates a risk of misleading the Court. Accordingly, Exhibit P-002 should be stricken from this case.

Thus, the Defense requests that the Court strike Exhibits P-001 and P-002 from the record. And additionally, charge the defense with Contempt of Court for manipulating Exhibit P-002.

This motion to strike is denied.
Should the defense wish to cast doubt on these two pieces of evidence, they may do so through the course of discovery and argumentation. However, as the facts currently stand, neither P-001 nor P-002 contains content meriting such a motion.

 

[Dogeington]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO PRESENT COUNTERCLAIM

As no official protocol for bringing counterclaims exists within the Redmontian Judiciary, I will here establish a method to be used within this court room.


@Ebborsnam
Please provide the court with a brief within 48 hours containing the following:
- The revised facts of the case that your counterclaim presents
- The civil torts you are pursuing (reminiscent of a Claims for Relief Section)
- The damages you are pursuing, INCLUDING their types, as defined by the RCCA (please note that lawyer fees do not need to be included)
You do not need to provide any other aspects of a civil filing, unless they differ from this case

@budgetmich1
Following the defense's brief, provide a respondent brief within 48 hours containing the following:
- Your affirmation or denial of the facts presented
- any defenses against the torts presented
You do not need to provide any other aspects of a civil response


The court is aware that §IV.2.2 of the RCCA states that "compulsory counterclaims must be filed within the defendant’s initial response to the lawsuit, or they are waived." However, the court is also aware that §II.1.1 states, "Judicial reasoning and precedent may inform the interpretation and application of this Code where the law is silent or ambiguous." Seeing that the procedure for filing a counterclaim is ambiguous and that the defendant made a good faith effort to file said claim in their initial filing, the counterclaim brief filed now will not be waived.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM BRIEF

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff



COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the Court Order issued on June 17, 2026, the Defendant (Counter-Plaintiff) hereby submits this brief outlining the facts, civil torts, and damages requested regarding the counterclaims against the Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant).

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE COUNTERPLAINTIFF

The Defendant/Counterplaintiff continues to assert that the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant is the one that started the fight, and that the Defendant acted in self-defense. It is a commonly known fact that the plugin that handles the notifications of who started the fight, times out after a certain amount of time and thus can even give a person the message that someone else started the fight, while they were actually defending themself. The defense claims that the Plaintiff has knowledge of this and has carefully selected the evidence that supports their false claim. This has caused reputation loss to the Defendant.

I. PARTIES
1. Counter-Plaintiff: misterY3597
2. Counter-Defendant: Monzter9697

II. FACTS
1. On May 31, 2026, the Counter-Defendant initiated civil action, publicly accusing the Counter-Plaintiff of Assault and Attempted Murder.
2. The Counter-Defendant published these severe criminal allegations in a public, judicial forum without a baseline of conclusive physical evidence.
3. The Counter-Defendant submitted Exhibit P-002 as a severely cropped screenshot, intentionally omitting the surrounding chat logs, timestamps, and context that would expose the true timeline of events.
4. The defendant claims that the Counter-Defendant actively initiated the confrontation by attacking the Counter-Plaintiff first. The Counter-Plaintiff’s subsequent discharge of their rifle was a direct, proportional response in lawful self-defense.

III. CIVIL TORTS PURSUED
1. Defamation: The Counter-Defendant made, published false, unproven allegations of criminal conduct (Assault and Attempted Murder) against the Counter-Plaintiff. By filing these groundless accusations in a public judicial forum without adequate proof, the Counter-Defendant committed defamation, directly damaging the Counter-Plaintiff’s reputation within the community.

2. Malicious Allegation: The Counter-Defendant initiated legal proceedings with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth, utilizing intentionally incomplete and misleading evidence (Exhibit P-002) to attempt to receive monetary compensation ($17,500) through the court system without a valid baseline of fact.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counterplaintiff seeks the following from the Counterdefendant:

1. 15000 dollars in total for punitive/compensatory damages. The Counterdefendant's conduct was outrageous and thus fulfills the requirements for punitive damages. The Counterdefendant intended to cause harm or loss to the Counterplaintiff by submitting these false allegations and half-truths, the Counterdefendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience the CounterPlaintiff.

V. EVIDENCE
1. Exhibit P-003: The Counter-Plaintiff’s unedited, continuous chat and server logs from May 27, 2026. The logs do not demonstrate any fight/notifications that the Defendant normally should have received if they initiated the fact, clearly demonstrating that the DHS plugin was faulty at the moment of the incident.

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 18th day of June 2026

 

[budgetmich1]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Answer to Countercomplaint

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. Plaintiff admits the allegation.
2. Plaintiff denies the allegation.
3. Plaintiff denies that the screenshot is cropped, though it is evident that the context defendant wishes were included is absent.
4. Plaintiff admits that defendants claim what is listed in the countercomplaint. Plaintiff denies attacking defendant first.

II. DEFENSES​

1. Discovery will show that plaintiff had sufficient evidence to support the claims of assault and attempted murder.
2. Plaintiffs need only plead a prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss. See R.C.R.P. 5 (laying out the only grounds for a motion to dismiss). Discovery exists for both parties to put forth evidence in support of their claims. If a defendant believes plaintiff's evidence is insufficient, they can argue that persuasively at trial. They cannot file a motion to dismiss based purely on a lack of evidence. And the bar for malicious prosecution and defamation must be higher than the motion to dismiss. Defendant chose to file an answer rather than a motion to dismiss, presumably because they understood that to be the proper vehicle for challenging facts. There is no universe in which a genuine dispute as to a material fact should give rise to counterclaims.
3. Plaintiff does not meet the mens rea requirement for defamation or malicious allegation.
4. Plaintiff made the allegedly defamatory statements in the course of legitimate political communication.
5. Plaintiff had reasonable grounds to believe the allegedly malicious allegations and made these allegations in good faith to an appropriate authority (this Court) for investigation and resolution.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

Plaintiff moves to strike Section V. EVIDENCE in defendant's countercomplaint, as the referenced exhibit is: 1) improperly formatted and 2) not attached.

First, the exhibit must be labeled as a defendant's exhibit for clarity's sake. Second, the defendant's attachment is merely the transcripts of the proceedings that have taken place in this court thus far. The court therefore must strike the evidence section. If defendant wishes to file the evidence properly, discovery would be an appropriate time for that.

 

[Dogeington]

@budgetmich1 @Ebborsnam
Neither party followed the instructions in my court order. Both were explicitly ordered to not provide any other aspects of a civil response.

This is your first warning.

P-003 shall be struck, evidence must not be submitted outside of discovery, unless it was otherwise ordered to be produce, which in this case it was not.

 

[Dogeington]

Discovery shall be open for five days following this post.

 

[Ebborsnam]

The Defense submits the following evidence: D-001. This is the full chat logs of the Defendant of the day the alleged incident took place. After some research, it is clear that these logs do not include the messages that should normally have occurred when a fight happens. But it is not shown anywhere in these logs that the plaintiff attacked anyone nor that the defendant attacked anyone. Which clearly shows something amiss with the plugin.

For this reason, I am requesting the plaintiff to submit their chat logs as to possibly provide clarity on this matter.

 

[Ebborsnam]

The Defense submits the following evidence: D-001. This is the full chat logs of the Defendant of the day the incident took place. After some research, it is clear that these logs do not include the messages that should normally have occurred when a fight happens. But it is not shown anywhere in these logs that the plaintiff attacked anyone nor that the defendant attacked anyone. Which clearly shows something amiss with the plugin.

For this reason, I am requesting the plaintiff to submit their chat logs as to possibly provide clarity on this matter.

 

[budgetmich1]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

Plaintiff moves to strike the exhibit labeled D-001. R.C.R.P. 4.6 provides that "[e]ditable text-logs are INADMISSABLE without corroboration from a secondary source." Defendant's submission is an editable text-log, and defendant has not provided corroboration from a secondary source. Accordingly, the exhibit should be struck.

 

[budgetmich1]

Plaintiff submits exhibit P-003, a video depicting the events of 27 May, including the chat log. This should satisfy defendant's request for plaintiff's chat log.

The recording can be found here: Proton Drive

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

Plaintiff moves to strike the exhibit labeled D-001. R.C.R.P. 4.6 provides that "[e]ditable text-logs are INADMISSABLE without corroboration from a secondary source." Defendant's submission is an editable text-log, and defendant has not provided corroboration from a secondary source. Accordingly, the exhibit should be struck.

@Ebborsnam you have 48 hours to respond to this motion

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

Plaintiff moves to strike the exhibit labeled D-001. R.C.R.P. 4.6 provides that "[e]ditable text-logs are INADMISSABLE without corroboration from a secondary source." Defendant's submission is an editable text-log, and defendant has not provided corroboration from a secondary source. Accordingly, the exhibit should be struck.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Defense's Response to Motion to Strike Exhibit D-001

While the Defense acknowledges that editable text logs are inadmissible without corroboration from a secondary source, the Defense believes the exhibit should not be struck. Along with the admissal of exhibit D-001 came a request to the plaintiff to provide their chat logs aswell, which would fulfill the corroboration from a secondary source that is required.

The Defense will however agree to strike both the Plaintiff's chat logs as the Defendant's chatlogs if they show conflicting facts of this case.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Monzter9697
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

v.

misterY3597
Defendant/Counterplaintiff

Plaintiff moves to strike the exhibit labeled D-001. R.C.R.P. 4.6 provides that "[e]ditable text-logs are INADMISSABLE without corroboration from a secondary source." Defendant's submission is an editable text-log, and defendant has not provided corroboration from a secondary source. Accordingly, the exhibit should be struck.

This motion to strike is denied. As the defendant points out, the text logs submitted by the plaintiff are an adequate secondary source supporting the defense's text log submission.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL

As requested above, the Defense request the Plaintiff's chatlogs in the hopes of creating clarity about the matter regarding the in-game message that usually appears when a fight happens.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL

As requested above, the Defense request the Plaintiff's chatlogs in the hopes of creating clarity about the matter regarding the in-game message that usually appears when a fight happens.

Were not the chat logs submited in #31?

 

[Ebborsnam]

Were not the chat logs submited in #31?

This only shows me a video, not the chat logs that I mean, Your Honor.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Plaintiff submits exhibit P-003, a video depicting the events of 27 May, including the chat log. This should satisfy defendant's request for plaintiff's chat log.

The recording can be found here: Proton Drive

Additionally, the defense also requests the full recording of this video if there is one. The video included is quite short, so it's not sure what happened before this video took place. The Defendant claims that he remembers the Plaintiff attacking/charging at him before this video took place.

 

[budgetmich1]

Your honor, the video includes all of the chats and all of the time at issue in the complaint. We suggest that is, in fact, better than the bare chat logs (which, in the event of a conflict with defendant’s, would be at least partially inadmissible). Any additional footage would be irrelevant.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Your honor, the video includes all of the chats and all of the time at issue in the complaint. We suggest that is, in fact, better than the bare chat logs (which, in the event of a conflict with defendant’s, would be at least partially inadmissible). Any additional footage would be irrelevant.

Objection

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

The Objections procedures allows an individual to object to "evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately". The Plaintiff's video does not show the events that took place before this event and thus is unable reflect the entire facts of this case. The Defendant asserts that the plaintiff may have charged at him/attacked him before this video was recorded. Thus, I have requested the chatlogs of the Plaintiff at that time that they have not yet provided.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Discovery shall be open for five days following this post.

Your Honor, seeing as this case has been moving quite slowly, the Defense respectfully requests an extension of discovery by preferably at least 3 days. This will give both parties and the court more time to work out the evidence.

 

[budgetmich1]

Your Honor, plaintiff’s video evidence is not improper and was presented during discovery. Defendants have presented evidence that but for our video would be inadmissible but continue to suggest it is somehow our burden to produce evidence that does not exist (or is worse than the evidence provided). We have been prompt in responding to every evidentiary request, and days remain in the period.

Defendant should not be able to use their repeated unreasonable requests as a reason to extend discovery. We therefore oppose both the motion to extend discovery and the motion to compel.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Your Honor, seeing as this case has been moving quite slowly, the Defense respectfully requests an extension of discovery by preferably at least 3 days. This will give both parties and the court more time to work out the evidence.

Your Honor, the defense has been waiting on the motion to Compel to be ruled on. The plaintiff did not comply exactly with our request for the plaintiff's chatlogs, instead submitting a video into evidence. Thus, the defense feels it is proper for the discovery to be extended.

Acknowledging that interrogatories must be submitted 72 hours prior to the end of discovery. The Defense respectfully submits these now. The Defense acknowledges that this is only a valid request if the court grants the Defense's request for an extension of discovery.

INTERROGATORIES TO THE PLAINTIFF
1. In the video P-003, the Plaintiff can be seen running towards the Defendant with a shovel in hand. Why was the Plaintiff doing so?
2. Did the Plaintiff only start recording from the start of the video shown in exhibit P-003? And if so, why did the Plaintiff only start recording then?

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's second prayer for relief "2. Nominal damages in the amount of $7,500. The defendant violated plaintiff's rights."

The Defense has requested 2 prayers for relief: 10.000 dollars worth of punitive damages and 7500 dollars worth of nominal damages.

Noting that in 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52 the court dismissed the prayer for relief because the court found that the use of nominal damages is only valid in the instance that the requesting party is not entitled to any tother damages.

Furthermore, Part III § 4(1)(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act defines nominal damages as "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."

The Plaintiff has claimed to be entitlled to Punitive Damages, thus their request for Nominal Damages is invalid.

 

[Ebborsnam]

The Defense/Counterplaintiff hereby moves to amend the counterclaim. It is only logical after submitting a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's nominal damages, the Defense does the same. The Defense also wishes to increase the prayer for relief because the Counterdefendant deliberately used false accusations and half-truths to hurt the Counter-Plaintiff's reputation during the course of this trial.

ORIGINAL
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counterplaintiff seeks the following from the Counterdefendant:
1. 5000 dollars in nominal damages for defamation.
2. 5000 dollars in punitive damages for malicious allegation.

AMENDED
The Counterplaintiff seeks the following from the Counterdefendant:
1. 15000 dollars in total for punitive damages. The Counterdefendant's conduct was outrageous and thus fulfills the requirements for punitive damages. The Counterdefendant intended to cause harm or loss to the Counterplaintiff by submitting these false allegations and half-truths, the Counterdefendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience the CounterPlaintiff.

 

[budgetmich1]

Plaintiff submits our witness list:

Monzter9697

Defendant will be able to ask plaintiff the questions in their interrogatories at trial, even if this Court does not extend discovery.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Plaintiff submits our witness list:

Monzter9697

Defendant will be able to ask plaintiff the questions in their interrogatories at trial, even if this Court does not extend discovery.

In that case, the defense revokes their request for an extension of discovery.

 

[budgetmich1]

Your Honor, I have become conflicted out of this matter and can no longer continue representing the plaintiff.

 

[Dogeington]

Your Honor, seeing as this case has been moving quite slowly, the Defense respectfully requests an extension of discovery by preferably at least 3 days. This will give both parties and the court more time to work out the evidence.

Granted.

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

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

The Objections procedures allows an individual to object to "evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately". The Plaintiff's video does not show the events that took place before this event and thus is unable reflect the entire facts of this case. The Defendant asserts that the plaintiff may have charged at him/attacked him before this video was recorded. Thus, I have requested the chatlogs of the Plaintiff at that time that they have not yet provided.

I do not see how the evidance in questions is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately. If there is a spesific time in which you belive the subbmitted chat logs exclude that are included in your submission, please inform the court in a motion to reconsider on this ruling.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's second prayer for relief "2. Nominal damages in the amount of $7,500. The defendant violated plaintiff's rights."

The Defense has requested 2 prayers for relief: 10.000 dollars worth of punitive damages and 7500 dollars worth of nominal damages.

Noting that in 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52 the court dismissed the prayer for relief because the court found that the use of nominal damages is only valid in the instance that the requesting party is not entitled to any tother damages.

Furthermore, Part III § 4(1)(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act defines nominal damages as "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."

The Plaintiff has claimed to be entitlled to Punitive Damages, thus their request for Nominal Damages is invalid.

Granted.

 

[Dogeington]

Your Honor, I have become conflicted out of this matter and can no longer continue representing the plaintiff.

@Monzter9697 you have 72 hours to find new representation, or else a public defender will be assigned to you.

 

[Ebborsnam]

The Defense/Counterplaintiff hereby moves to amend the counterclaim. It is only logical after submitting a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's nominal damages, the Defense does the same. The Defense also wishes to increase the prayer for relief because the Counterdefendant deliberately used false accusations and half-truths to hurt the Counter-Plaintiff's reputation during the course of this trial.

ORIGINAL
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counterplaintiff seeks the following from the Counterdefendant:
1. 5000 dollars in nominal damages for defamation.
2. 5000 dollars in punitive damages for malicious allegation.

AMENDED
The Counterplaintiff seeks the following from the Counterdefendant:
1. 15000 dollars in total for punitive damages. The Counterdefendant's conduct was outrageous and thus fulfills the requirements for punitive damages. The Counterdefendant intended to cause harm or loss to the Counterplaintiff by submitting these false allegations and half-truths, the Counterdefendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience the CounterPlaintiff.

@Dogeington Your Honor, has this amendment been acknowledged?

 

[Dogeington]

@Dogeington Your Honor, has this amendment been acknowledged?

Yes, acknowledged

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS



The Defense moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's first prayer for relief "Punitive Damages in the amount of $10,000. Defendant's conduct was outrageous; firing at plaintiff reflected a willful disregard of plaintiff's safety. Defendant clearly intended to cause harm to plaintiff." on basis of the listed guidelines on creating a lawsuit in the District Court. These guidelines explicitly state "If you have come to sue a player for murder, this is not the place to do it. You need to report this to the police in government support or in private. You can only sue on the basis of a personal loss."

Acknowledging that this case is about an alledged assault, and not a murder, the Defense believes that the intent of these guidelines is clear, the Plaintiff should not have sued for assault, if the defense truly believes an assault took place, they should have reported this to the proper authorities, not filed a lawsuit. There is no personal loss in this case.

 

[Ebborsnam]

@Monzter9697 you have 72 hours to find new representation, or else a public defender will be assigned to you.

Your Honor, the 72 hours have passed for a while now. The Defense respectfully requests the search of a public defender for the Plaintiff is started soon, to make sure this trial doesn't drag on for too long.

 

[Dogeington]

A public deffender is being assigned

 

[gribble19]

Present as a Public Defender to represent Monzter9697, your Honor. As there appear to be multiple claims being handled within this proceeding, I respectfully request clarification from the court as to whether I will be representing Monzter9697 in the original claim, counter-claim or in both.