Lawsuit: Pending Dearev & jb4bass v. Plura72 [2025] FCR 67

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dearev & jb4bass v. plura72 [2025] FCR 67

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.

Answer to Complaint

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

Dearev
Jb4bass

v.

Plura72 (Represented by Mezimori Law)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that “Plura72 has an attorney's license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent“.
2. The Defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass”
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied”.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that “Plura72 as told by the Plaintiffs that they did not consent to being married and told Plura to stop.”
5. The Defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that “Plura72 did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the defendant to stop”.

II. DEFENCES

1. The Plaintiffs present no evidence that the Defendant’s actions caused them any damages, harm, or legal injury. No measurable or compensable loss has been pleaded beyond speculative or exaggerated claims.
2. The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” but fail to demonstrate any violation of law. As held in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, harassment under Violent Offenses Act § 5.5 applies in contexts of violent or aggressive behavior. The District Court ruled that even if the facts alleged were true, no violation of this law occurred because:
   The Violent Offenses Act addresses conduct violent or aggressive in nature.
   Common law precedent limits harassment claims under this law to violent or aggressive conduct as seen in:
   Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89
   snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33
   JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29
3. There exists no legal basis, statutory or common law, for the Plaintiffs’ claim that “marriage attempts without consent” is illegal or actionable. As the District Court stated in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40:

there is simply no legal basis for claiming that marriage attempts without consent is illegal.

Click to expand...

1. This case is a repackaging of the same claims already dismissed by the District Court in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to artificially elevate the matter to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
2. The Plaintiffs’ demand for damages and legal fees is without merit. The Plaintiffs have not shown how the Defendant’s actions were “outrageous” or deserving of punitive damages under the Legal Damages Act § 5(1a), nor have they shown any actual injury. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Defendant’s actions were at most playful or sarcastic, and not intended to cause harm.

⸻

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of July 2025

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5 — Lack of Claim: The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” as a claim for relief but have provided no evidence of any actual injury, harm, or damage caused by the Defendant’s actions.

No reasonable person could conclude that the Defendant’s actions, which were neither violent nor aggressive in nature, would cause harassment, alarm, or distress. This position is supported by the precedent set in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where the District Court found:

The Court finds that, even if the Plaintiff's facts are all found to be true, the Defendant did not violate this law. This decision is based in two reasons:

The law’s context is violent or aggressive in nature, being found in the “Violent Offenses Act.” (Emphasis added.)

Click to expand...

The District Court further noted that common law has applied the Violent Offenses Act only to violent or aggressive conduct, citing Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, and JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29.

Rule 5.12 — Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: As per Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1, a Plaintiff must show:

• Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party;
• The cause of injury was against the law;
• Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

In this case:

(a) The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any tangible injury caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

(b) As confirmed in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, there is no legal basis or precedent in Redmont law making “marriage attempts without consent” illegal.

(c) The relief sought has no basis in law, as no violation occurred.

Rule 5.9 — Collateral Estoppel: This case is identical to Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where these claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to bring the matter before this Court, but the legal deficiencies remain unchanged. The re-litigation of claims already adjudicated wastes judicial resources and should be barred.

For the reasons provided, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and dismiss the complaint.


Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Defendant "Plura72"
Dated: 7 July 2025.