Lawsuit: Dismissed TheLuckyBear, ClothingBrand v. Culls, Sam07x [2026] DCR 94

Case Filing​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

TheLuckybear and ClothingBrand (On behalf of JohnPorkSupplyCo, Represented by Impugnitive)

Plaintiff

v.

Culls and Sam07x

Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On June 17, 2026, my business partner and I rented the Usermart-1 storefront for $5,000 per 30 days to establish the corporate headquarters for JohnPorkSupplyCo. Less than a day into our lawful lease, the Defendant joined a staff support channel and aggressively demanded to know why we rented "our shop," claiming without prior warning or visible signage that the property was restricted "for executives only."

When my partner expressed rightful skepticism, the Defendant immediately threatened us by stating "I'm evicting you" and issuing an ultimatum to clear out our operations within 8 to 9 hours, while simultaneously threatening to sue us for damages. Fearing the immediate, permanent loss of our entire business inventory to the landlord under this sudden physical and textual duress, we were forced to unrent the storefront after only 15 to 18 hours of occupancy. During that brief window, our business was generating a high-volume baseline profit of $7,000DC. Because the Defendant bypassed the statutory 24-hour notice period and deployed bad-faith intimidation to force a commercial tenant out of a binding 30-day lease, we are bringing this matter to court to demand full compensation for lost statutory profits, severe business disruption, and punitive damages under the Property Standards Act.

-- ClothingBrand & TheLuckyBear

I. PARTIES

1. Theluckybear and Clothingbrand, operating as JohnPorkSupplyCo (Plaintiffs)
2. Cull (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On June 17, 2026, at 1:25 AM (EST), the Plaintiffs entered into a binding 30-day lease agreement by paying $5,000DC into the public rent sign at the Usermart-1 storefront, establishing it as the official headquarters for JohnPorkSupplyCo.
2. On June 17, 2026, at 12:25 AM (EST), the Defendant intervened in an active staff support ticket, aggressively stating, “WHY TF did you rent our shop”.
3. Upon questioning from the Plaintiffs, the Defendant asserted a unilateral mistake, claiming the public-facing storefront was unapproved and meant “for executives only”.
4. Following the Plaintiffs' skepticism, the Defendant immediately issued an unlawful private eviction threat, stating “I’m evicting you”.
5. The Defendant further escalated the situation by threatening to sue the Plaintiffs and giving them an arbitrary "8-9 hours" ultimatum to vacate the premises, explicitly defying the statutory notice minimums.
6. On June 17, 2026, at 1:47 PM (EST), under immediate duress and in reasonable fear of losing access to "literally ALL of our inventory," the Plaintiffs ceased to rent to rescue their stock, receiving a refund of $4837.67 (calculated as . (Evidence: image_fd6fdb.jpg, image_fd6f84.png)
7. During the brief 15 to 18-hour period of active operation, JohnPorkSupplyCo generated a verified net profit of $7,000DC, establishing a baseline hourly revenue of approximately $388.88DC.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract & Tenant Exclusivity Property Standards Act, Part IV, §21(2)

A public-facing sign reading "$5k/month rent" constitutes an objective, legally binding offer to the general public. By paying the system fee, the Plaintiffs accepted the offer, finalizing an ironclad 30-day lease contract. Under the Property Standards Act, Part IV, §21(2), a tenant is guaranteed strict Tenant Exclusivity: "Once a region is rented, the landlord may not enter, modify, or interfere with that region..." The Defendant's internal corporate miscommunications regarding executive-only access (which, as the counsel would like to point out, is grossly undefined) do not invalidate a contract made with an innocent third-party consumer. The Defendant committed a material breach of contract and statutory exclusivity by actively interfering with and repudiating the lease terms less than 24 hours into the contract.

1. Unlawful/Constructive Eviction Property Standards Act, Part IV, §21(3)

Under the Property Standards Act, Part IV, §21(3), an eviction notice must follow strict timelines: "A landlord must provide a tenant with at least 24 hours written notice before evicting them from a rented region." By issuing an ultimatum of "8-9 hours" under the explicit threat of forced administrative removal via the DCT, the Defendant directly violated the statutory notice minimum. This illegal ultimatum created a hostile environment that compelled the Plaintiffs to abandon the premises under extreme financial duress to safeguard their stock, executing an illegal constructive eviction.

1. Statutory Business Eviction Compensation Property Standards Act, Part IV, §21(7)

The Defendant intentionally and wrongfully interfered with an active, high-volume commercial operation. Pursuant to the Property Standards Act, Part IV, §21(7), the law explicitly provides that: "Where a rented region was the primary place of operations of a registered business, group, party, or organisation, the landlord may be required by a court to compensate the tenant for reasonable costs associated with relocating those operations." Because Usermart-1 was established as the corporate headquarters of JohnPorkSupplyCo, the Defendant's unlawful disruption directly stripped the company of its commercial storefront, extinguishing its proven income stream and triggering statutory entitlement to relocation and business disruption compensation.

1. Punitive Damages Criminal Code Act, Part I, §5(2) & Common Law

The Defendant’s conduct satisfies the requirements for punitive recovery due to its malicious execution in ultimate bad faith. Forcing a lawful tenant out using unauthorized, panicking ultimatums ("not my problem") and baselessly threatening to sue the victims for his own configuration errors represents an egregious departure from acceptable commercial standards on the server. Pursuant to the sentencing and damages evaluation standards in Part I, §5(2) of the Criminal Code Act, financial punishment is warranted to deter predatory, bad-faith landlord behavior.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:

1. $7760 in Direct Lost Profits, representing the remaining value of the mandatory 24-hour statutory notice period that the Plaintiffs were legally guaranteed to operate within before a lawful eviction could mature, minus 4 hours estimated for the plaintiffs to relocate their headquarters of business.
2. $4000 in Compensatory Damages, representing statutory business eviction compensation for the severe disruption, lost revenue momentum, and substantial operational costs incurred by JohnPorkSupplyCo while scrambling to relocate its corporate headquarters and inventory under the authority of §21(7) of the Property Standards Act, may be adjusted as the court finds just and proper.

Total Primary Claim: $11,760 in monetary damages.

Evidence:

• Chat log showing the Defendant's initial confrontation, the "executives only" claim, the explicit threat "im evicting you," and the Plaintiffs' notice regarding total inventory risk.
• Chat log capturing the Defendant's strict "8-9 hours" eviction ultimatum and the Plaintiffs' subsequent cessation of renting under duress.
• Chat log capturing the Defendant's baseline threat to sue the Plaintiffs for $16k in assets and moving the conversation out of public support.

Witnesses:

• Staff members with access to support ticket channels, log files, and transactional data for Usermart-1 on June 17, 2026, to verify the automated rental timestamps and financial transactions.

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

By data submitted,

Impugnitive, Counsel for the Plaintiff