Lawsuit: Adjourned Inalite v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 72

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Johnes

Citizen
Aventura Resident
Grave Digger
Johnes
Johnes
Attorney
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
7

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Inalite
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 5th of March, 2025, the Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to the Defendant (P-001), asking him to take down all campaign videos the defendant has made (P-002), which used a render of the Town of Aventura made by the Plaintiff (P-003). The cease and desist letter gave a reasonable time frame of 7 days in compliance with Section 7 of the Intellectual Property Act. The Defendant has complied with the request and has taken down the offending material posted before the cease and desist letter was sent.
On the 28th of September, 2025, the Defendant has posted the video in a DemocracyCraft Discord thread (P-004) and was warned by the Plaintiff of the cease and desist letter. The Defendant, instead of taking down the video, offered to buy the rights to the video (P-005) but was rejected. The video was not taken down and is still up, at the time of this filing.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Inalite - Plaintiff
2. Plura72 - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On the 5th of March, 2025, the Defendant received a cease and desist letter from the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant complied with the cease and desist letter and has taken down the offending videos, that were posted before the cease and desist letter was sent.
3. On the 28th of September, 2025, the Defendant posted the offending video into a DemocracyCraft Discord thread.
4. The Defendant was reminded of the cease and desist letter by the Plaintiff.
5. The Defendant offered to buy tge rights to the video, but the Plaintiff refused.
6. The Defendant has not removed the video at the time of this filing.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Copyright: The Defendant has knowingly used the Plaintiff's work for his campaign video without permission.
2. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: The Defendant, by his ignorant and domineering attitude, has caused the Plaintiff to lose enjoyment in playing on the server.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A public apology from the Defendant for his actions.
2. The offending video be taken down.
3. Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment: The Plaintiff seeks $7500 from the Defendant for causing a loss of enjoyment.
4. Punitive Damages for the Defendant's outrageous behavior: The Plaintiff seeks $7500 from the Defendant for his outrageous behavior

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 4th day of October 2025.

P-001
image.webp
P-002
https://imgur.com/a/kEvsW9G
P-003
P-004
1qxOZ2C.png
P-005
Screenshot_20251004-121355_Discord.jpg
Proof of Representation
Screenshot_20251004-111432_Discord.jpg

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251004-111432_Discord.jpg
    Screenshot_20251004-111432_Discord.jpg
    405.8 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 , is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Inalite v. Plura72

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.


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.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff moves to request an emergency injunction to require the Defendant to delete all campaign videos (P-002) he's posted on Discord and refrain from posting new ones during the period of this trial.

 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - [2025] DCR 72 (Inalite v. Plura72)

Granted, with modification.

  1. Defendant shall remove the video specifically mentioned in P-004, if it is in part inclusive of P-002.
  2. Defendant is enjoined from posting new iterations of works aforementioned in the Complaint until the end of the trial.

No part of this order will bar the Defendant from any campaigning, except for use of the material in controversy.


 
Muggy21 said:

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 , is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Inalite v. Plura72

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.


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.

Click to expand...
Present, I will be representing Plura72 in this case your honour.


Screenshot 2025-10-06 110555.png
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Inalite
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm
2. Affirm
3. Affirm
4. Affirm
5. Affirm
6. Affirm

II. DEFENCES
1. The defendant had not removed the video due to the fact that it had already been saved by other people, making it impossible for the defendant to fully remove the video.


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 9th day of October 2025

 
@Aboundedcomet

The Court ordered Defendant (#4) to "remove the video specifically mentioned in P-004, if it is in part inclusive of P-002." The Court expected Defendant to remove the video linked in the Peter Biffin Party post that was uploaded by Defendant on Sept 28th 2025, 23:19 (P-002).

Are you telling this Court that the Defense will not comply with the Court's order?
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Breach of procedure

Your honor,
the Defendant has not removed the offending material (P-002) from the Discord Thread (P-004) even after I informed opposing counsel of the emergency injunction (P-006).
We ask the Court to the Defandant to follow the injunction and to penalize the Defendant for his actions (the lack of).

P-006

Screenshot_20251010-122624_Discord.jpg

 
Muggy21 said:
@Aboundedcomet

The Court ordered Defendant (#4) to "remove the video specifically mentioned in P-004, if it is in part inclusive of P-002." The Court expected Defendant to remove the video linked in the Peter Biffin Party post that was uploaded by Defendant on Sept 28th 2025, 23:19 (P-002).

Are you telling this Court that the Defense will not comply with the Court's order?
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that
 
The Court doesn't see any factual disagreements nor any witnesses.

@Johnes @Aboundedcomet Would parties like to proceed to summary judgment or shall we commence with Discovery?
 
I'm in contact with the Defense regarding this issue. We're open to such a move.
 
The defence is willing to proceed with summary judgement.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT - Inalite v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 72


I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION


Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached his Copyright of visual works after submitting a cease and desist letter alleging the same.


II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION


No defense to claims levied.


III. OPINION OF THE COURT


In the analysis of the controversy, the Court primarily relies on the Intellectual Property Act. To do this, the Court proceeds with an analysis of the work at hand. At some point prior to March 5th, 2025, Plaintiff created a video that enjoyed copyright protections, where said protections were governed by the the IPA; Defendant complied with the cease and desist letter sent on March 5th, 2025. Further, on reviewing the youtube.com video (P-003), the video (“Democracycracycraft render of Aventura -- play.democracycraft.net”) was created 8 months ago as of October 14th, 2025; According to Plaintiff’s written statement, P-003 shows the video that was created. Under a plain reading of the IPA, the copyright of this video would last no longer than 6 months (see id. § 3 (1)). Since a date of creation is not explicitly available to the Court, the Court will assume that March 5th, 2025 is the date of creation (it would make the letter sent on that date impossible if made any later than that date.) Six months after March 5th, 2025 is September 5th, 2025, the copyright on P-003 has expired as of September 6th, 2025.


Plaintiff alleges that on September 28th, 2025, the Defendant violated his copyright by posting the offending video onto a public forum. The copyright on which Plaintiff relies on is void, all claims for relief on based on this void copyright. Considering that this analysis was very straight forward and that a reasonably astute attorney should be able to discern this, the Court finds this case to be absolutely frivolous and a waste of judicial resources. To prevent and discourage frivolous litigation, the Court, using its discretionary powers, does award Defendant legal fees and sanctions. For the purpose of this calculation, as permitted under the Legal Damages Act, the value of this case is $15,000.

Furthermore, the Court is reminded of its Emergency Injunction (#3). The basis of this injunction was based on a copyright that Plaintiff should’ve reasonably known was expired; the Court as a result needlessly interfered with Defendant’s public activities needlessly. The Court takes note of the Judicial Standards Act § 18 (2).


IV. DECISION


  1. The Court summarily finds Johnes guilty of Frivolous Court Case as defined under the Criminal Court Act. A fine of $100 is to be assessed.
  2. The Court awards Legal Fees payable by Plaintiff to Defendant in the amount of $3,000.00
  3. Under the Judicial Standards Act, sanctions in the amount of $18,000.00 are imposed for the abuse of the Emergency Injunction issued. This is payable by Plaintiff to Defendant.
The Court thanks all parties for their time.


So ordered,
Magistrate Mug


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top