Lawsuit: In Session ZxRiptide v. EddieGonza420 [2025] DCR 105

Aboundedcomet

Aboundedcomet

CEO of Fish's Corporation
Homeland Security Department
Commerce Department
Supporter
Change Maker
AboundedComet
AboundedComet
Police Officer
Joined
Jul 23, 2025
Messages
155

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ZxRiptide (Represented by Aboundedcomet)
Plaintiff

v.

EddieGonza420
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant contracted the Plaintiff to demolish walls in c130 and Design single floor interior that is copy and pasteable for the already existing c114. The Defendant had agreed to pay $2,500 before and $2,500 after the work was done, the Defendant had paid the $2,500 before but has refused to pay the remaining $2,500 after the Plaintiff completed their work.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. ZxRiptide
2. EddieGonza420

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant contracted the Plaintiff to demolish the walls at c130 and make a copy and pasteable design for c114.
2. The Defendant had agreed to pay a total of $5,000 to the Plaintiff ($2,500 at the before and $2,500 after the work was done.)
3. The Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff the remaining $2,500 after the Plaintiff completed the job.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant refused to pay the agreed upon amount of $2,500 to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s work, which constitutes a breach of contract under §7 of the Contracts Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $2,500 in compensatory damages for the outstanding amount that the Defendant is yet to pay.
2. $15,000 in punitive damages to discourage the Plaintiff from repeating their actions.
3. $5,250 in legal fees totaling 30% of the case value.


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 December 2025





Screenshot 2025-12-14 131839.png
Schermafbeelding_2025-12-13_om_21.11.33.webp
Schermafbeelding_2025-12-13_om_21.12.43.webp
Schermafbeelding_2025-12-13_om_21.28.23.webp
Schermafbeelding_2025-12-14_om_14.03.53.webp
Schermafbeelding_2025-12-14_om_14.18.20.webp
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons

@eddiegonza420, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ZxRiptide v. EddieGonza420 [2025] DCR 105.

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

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.

 
eddiegonza420 said:
Present
Click to expand...

You have 48 hours to present an Answer to Complaint.

As an aside, I would highly recommend you obtain qualified legal counsel to represent you in this case.
 
Vennefly said:
You have 48 hours to present an Answer to Complaint.

As an aside, I would highly recommend you obtain qualified legal counsel to represent you in this case.
Click to expand...

Your Honor,

Respectfully requesting a 48-hour extension on the answer to complaint; I have fallen ill.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

Respectfully requesting a 48-hour extension on the answer to complaint; I have fallen ill.
Click to expand...
GRANTED. Please include Proof of Representation in your filing.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

ZxRiptide
Plaintiff

v.

EddieGonza420
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. DENY that work was "contracted", NOTING that the presence of a valid contract ("contracted") is legal conclusion. AFFIRM that the Defendant requested work relating to demo at c130 and interior/design work for c114.
  2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that "[t]he Defendant had agreed to pay a total of $5,000 to the Plaintiff ($2,500 at the before and $2,500 after the work was done."
  3. DENY that "[t]he Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff the remaining $2,500 after the Plaintiff completed the job", NOTING that the job was not completed to the Defendant's satisfaction.

II. DEFENSES​

  1. Failure of condition precedent: The complaint alleges the final $2,500 is due “after the work was done.” Defendant did not accept the interior/design work as delivered, so the alleged “after completion” payment would not have been triggered even on the Plaintiff's own terms.
  2. Material breach: Under Contracts Act Section 12(1), a contract may be terminated "due to a material breach". Under Contracts Act 16(I), a Material Breach is "a significant failure to fulfil contractual obligations".

    If a contract were to be found to exist, Plaintiff would be in material breach due to the low quality of the allegedly delivered remodel and design; Plaintiff is not entitled to full contract damages for nonconforming performance.
  3. Punitive damages unsupported: Plaintiff seeks $15,000 punitive damages on a routine contract/nonpayment dispute with no showing of fraud, malice, or similar aggravating conduct. As noted in Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71, there is "no basis to conclude that a simple breach of contract would warrant punitive damages".

1766186836288.png

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 21 day of December 2025

 
We will now enter Discovery, which shall last until December 28th 2025 at 00:00 UTC.

Discovery may be ended early upon joint request of the Parties. Parties are also asked to inform the Court prior to the end of Discovery about whether or not they wish to have an in-game trial.

@Aboundedcomet @Franciscus
 

Objection


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

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, evidence must follow certain naming conventions "(plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)" and "[e]vidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting".

While textually the rule applies to evidence submitted in discovery, the defense argues that the constructive purpose of discovery would expand the text's meaning to cover all evidence submissions. This is because under Rule 4.1, "The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness." As the evidence is being entered into the court at the time of the initial filing, the clear purpose of rules around evidence written for discovery would likewise apply to evidence submitted in an initial complaint. And there's precedent for broadening the application of evidence rules to include evidence submitted outside of the discovery time; in at least one previous case, this contributed towards a Court's decision to strike evidence in an opening statement (see Roryyy___ v. ISweatDuels [2025] DCR 7, Judge's ruling at Post No. 25).

As such, we ask the exhibits titled "Evidence 1", "Evidence 2", "Evidence 3", "Evidence 4", and "Evidence 5" be stricken and that the Plaintiff be ordered to re-submit them with titles that follow the proper naming conventions if they wish to include them in evidence (c.f. smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, Posts No. 34-35, requiring re-submission of improper evidence for use in a case).

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, evidence must follow certain naming conventions "(plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)" and "[e]vidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting".

While textually the rule applies to evidence submitted in discovery, the defense argues that the constructive purpose of discovery would expand the text's meaning to cover all evidence submissions. This is because under Rule 4.1, "The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness." As the evidence is being entered into the court at the time of the initial filing, the clear purpose of rules around evidence written for discovery would likewise apply to evidence submitted in an initial complaint. And there's precedent for broadening the application of evidence rules to include evidence submitted outside of the discovery time; in at least one previous case, this contributed towards a Court's decision to strike evidence in an opening statement (see Roryyy___ v. ISweatDuels [2025] DCR 7, Judge's ruling at Post No. 25).

As such, we ask the exhibits titled "Evidence 1", "Evidence 2", "Evidence 3", "Evidence 4", and "Evidence 5" be stricken and that the Plaintiff be ordered to re-submit them with titles that follow the proper naming conventions if they wish to include them in evidence (c.f. smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, Posts No. 34-35, requiring re-submission of improper evidence for use in a case).

Click to expand...

OVERRULED. The Court will rename the incorrectly named evidence to P-001 - P-005.
 

Motion


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

Your Honor,

In order to interrogate whether and what payment was received, we ask that the Plaintiff provide all financial transactions available through the /treasury transactions log that involve either EddieGonza420 or Postman Pat and were made between September 12, 2025 (see: Exhibit P-001) until the time of the filing of this case.

 

Brief



Consistent with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defense submits the following interrogatories of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability.

  1. How much money have you received via Postman Pat since the time of the first electronic communication depicted within discovery?
  2. Did you ever use the terms “contract” or “legally binding” when communicating your proposal to the Plaintiff?
  3. Did you clarify the exact time and date at which payment would be due within conversation the Plaintiff before you began working?
  4. How competent in English did you assess the Plaintiff to be, based on English language spelling and grammar command, before you began work and during your work?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top