Lawsuit: Pending 00f3 v. NoMoreUno [2026] DCR 192

[00f3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


00f3
Plaintiff

v.

NoMoreUno
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

NoMoreUno agreed to pay 00f3 $102.93 in exchange for 00f3 creating an online tier list. Upon completing this service, NoMoreUno then acknowledged the service's completion. However, NoMoreUno failed to pay the agreed upon compensation, and deliberately came up one cent short. NoMoreUno followed up this conduct by stating "go ahead. Sue me ..."

I. PARTIES
1. 00f3, Plaintiff
2. NoMoreUno, Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On September 24th, 2026, NoMoreUno offered _GreyMC $103.13 to make an online tier list. (P-001)
2. Upon seeing this 00f3 offered to perform this service for $102.93. (P-001)
3. NoMoreUno responded "sold", indicating an acceptance of this offer. (P-001)
4. Approximately ten minutes after NoMoreUno accepting the offer, 00f3 sent a link to the tier list. (P-002)
5. NoMoreUno then promptly sent a payment of $102.92 to 00f3. (P-002)
6. This payment was exactly $0.01 less than the agreed upon payment. (P-002)
7. Without any further prompting, NoMoreUno then responded "go ahead. Sue me. ..." (P-002)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Conversion (RCCA Part VII Section 7)
Part VII Section 7 of the RCCA sets out the definition of Conversion. In this instance, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of their property, intended to appropriate it for themselves, and obtained the property through deception. The property, being the additional $0.01, was withheld from the Plaintiff by the Defendant. This effectively constitutes depriving the Plaintiff of their property. In addition, since the Defendant maintained possession of the property that rightfully belonged to the Plaintiff, they blatantly intended to appropriate the property to themselves. Finally, because the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would receive a set compensation for their service, while having the intent to avoid providing said compensation to its full extent, the Defendant obtained the property through deception.
2. Breach of Contract (RCCA Part VI Section 1)
Part VI Section 1 defines Breach of Contract as requiring a valid and enforceable contract, a failure to perform obligations set out under said contract, and the absence of a lawful excuse. All of these elements are present. A valid and enforceable contract had been established. The necessary elements of a contract, sets out in the Contracts Act, are the following: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intent, and Capacity. The Plaintiff set forth an offer by saying "I'll do it for $102.93". The Defendant's response to the offer, which consisted of simply the word "sold", clearly communicates an unambiguous acceptance. Consideration, while small, is present. The Plaintiff would provide a custom made online tier list, and the Defendant would provide $102.93 in compensation. The Defendant's intent is demonstrated in his fulfillment of the majority of the promised payment. Finally, there is insufficient cause to doubt the Defendant's capacity by virtue of the Defendant being a licensed Attorney on the BAR Council.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $0.03 in Treble Damages, as outlined in Part III Section 8 of the RCCA. This remedy, equivalent to three times the actual damages suffered, is applicable to the first Claim for Relief, Conversion. The RCCA explicitly establishes Treble Damages as a remedy for this tort.
2. In the alternative, should Treble Damages fail to be granted by this Court, the Plaintiff requests $0.01 in Compensatory Damages, pursuant to the second Claim for Relief.
3. $5 in Punitive Damages, as outlined in Part III Section 3 of the RCCA. Punitive damages, which are intended to deter outrageous conduct, are applicable in this instance. Part III Section 3 Subsection (2)(b)(iv) expressly identifies behavior that involves "... dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;" as outrageous. The bad faith nature of the Defendant's conduct is evident. Additionally, the Defendant's comment following the payment indicates that the behavior was likely deliberate. As such,
these Punitive Damages are warranted to deter similar behavior in the future.
4. In the alternative, should none of the above damages be granted, the Plaintiff requests $1 in Nominal Damages.
5. Finally, the Plaintiff explicitly does not seek Legal Fees.
V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

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 28th day of October 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

I recuse from this case as 00f3 is employed by TT&P, the law firm that I operate.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff seeks relief over an alleged shortfall of $0.01. The Criminal Code Act makes it an offence to lodge “a legal case that has no serious purpose or value,” and the common law does not concern itself with petty disputes.

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within 72 hours, as to why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous and a waste of judicial resources, and why the Plaintiff should not be penalised; the response should explain the serious purpose of this action and state whether it was brought by arrangement with the Defendant.

So ordered,
Justice Mug in the District Court

 

[00f3]

Your Honor, I humbly request a 72 hour extension of this deadline. I have been quite busy with both IRL work and school, and thus have not had the time to write up a sufficient response to this Order to Show Cause.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor, I humbly request a 72 hour extension of this deadline. I have been quite busy with both IRL work and school, and thus have not had the time to write up a sufficient response to this Order to Show Cause.

So granted, 11/8/26 at 9pm EDT

 

[00f3]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Order to Show Cause

I. THE CASE SERVES A SERIOUS PURPOSE​

Part III of the Criminal Code Act defines the crime of Frivolous Court Case as “lodg[ing] a legal case that has no serious purpose or value”. This is a fairly simple, though broad, definition of a crime. From the definition of this crime, it follows that proving that a legal case has a serious purpose is a sufficient defense to this crime. This Court has ordered an explanation of the serious purpose of this case. This shall follow.

I.A. ESTABLISHING A LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION​

A primary purpose of this case is not necessarily the recovery of substantial financial relief, but rather the enforcement of legal obligations. Substantial compensatory damages are not a requirement for a legal action. 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.” In this instance, the Plaintiff is requesting compensatory damages, with nominal damages as an expressly acceptable alternative. Dismissing a case outright over its small requested relief would hamper the very basis of nominal damages as a “trivial sum of money”. The Plaintiff submits that the explicit definition of nominal damages demonstrates that the vindication of legal rights is a valid purpose for pursuing a civil action, even in the absence of substantial damages within the other categories.

I.B. DETERRENCE​

This case is not simply a petty dispute over a single cent. While a slight unintentional underpayment may not be sufficient cause for legal action, this is simply not the case here. The Defendant deliberately underpaid the Plaintiff. Even though this underpayment was trivial, it still occurred. The Defendant’s comment following this underpayment, which explicitly enticed the Plaintiff to seek relief from the court over the Defendant’s conduct, strongly supports the claim that the Defendant intentionally underpaid the Plaintiff for their service. Conduct such as this should not be tolerated within Redmont, regardless of the severity of the breach. A contract, as defined in the Contracts Act, carries with it a Duty of Good Faith—which is foundational for the integrity of contractual exchanges. This duty was violated in this instance. The deliberate breach of a contract directly fails the statutory definition, requiring that parties “ … perform their respective duties … in good faith …” A deliberate breach of a contract, followed up by an invitation to sue, is a violation of this duty. The court refusing to entertain an action arising from conduct which breaches this duty, provided that the contract is valid and enforceable, may degrade the enforceability of this duty as a whole.

I.C. ENFORCING A VALID CONTRACT​

A contract was formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The entire system of contracts between multiple parties requires the courts to be in place to uphold them; without judicial enforcement, contracts become no different than an informal promise with no economic viability. A valid contract should be enforced to its fullest extent whenever a party fails to fulfill their obligations. If minor contractual disputes are made to be effectively unenforceable through judicial relief, then the ramifications may be disastrous. As there is no statutory minimum sum of damages for an action, the Plaintiff requests that the small amount of the relief requested not be used as the primary measure of its seriousness. Additionally, the Plaintiff submits that the nature of this dispute, a deliberate breach of contract, makes this case worthy of judicial resources, despite the small nature of the discrepancy.

II. ALLEGATIONS OF ARRANGEMENT​

Neither this case, its preferred outcome, nor the Defendant’s underlying conduct were arranged in cooperation with the Defendant. The Defendant’s comment inviting the Plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings was a unilateral statement by the Defendant, not a coordinated arrangement between both parties.

Prior to initiating legal action, the Plaintiff did inform the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s intent to pursue judicial relief and asked the Defendant if they would prefer to avoid this. Rather than attempting to avoid the litigation of this matter, the Defendant made no objections and encouraged this lawsuit to proceed. This communication does not establish collusion, nor does it suggest that any of the underlying dispute was manufactured in any way.

III. REQUESTED RELIEF​

The Plaintiff hereby requests this Court to discharge the Order to Show Cause in its entirety and to permit the case to continue.

In the alternative, should the Court find that the case still warrants dismissal, the Plaintiff requests that the Court decline to impose penalties for the filing of this action. Additionally, in this instance, the Plaintiff requests the Court to hold that the dismissal of a case sua sponte does not necessarily establish its frivolousness.