Lawsuit: Pending Bob596 v. NiceGuysNice [2026] DCR 120

J0kesOnU

J0kesOnU

Citizen
Supporter
J0kesOnU
J0kesOnU
Barrister
Joined
May 24, 2026
Messages
18

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bob596, Represented by J0kesOnU of Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Plaintiff

v.

NiceGuysNice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

"On June 7th, 2026, NiceGuysNice opened a ticket in my Discord, MABO Loans, to take out a loan of 5,000DC$. He agreed to the MABO Loans terms and conditions, took the 5,000DC$ loan, and then did not pay back his loan or otherwise fulfill his obligations by the deadline we provided. He has since left the MABO Loans Discord and ceased all communications with me. I attempted to reach out to NiceGuysNice to get him to repay his loan, and he never responded. Thus, I was forced to bring this case to the court for remedy."
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Bob596, Plaintiff
2. NiceGuysNice, Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:21pm EST, the Defendant opened a ticket in the Plaintiff’s Discord server, named “MABO Loans”, to apply for a loan. (P-01)
2. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:42pm EST, the Defendant requested, and was approved for a loan of 5,000DC$ by the Defendant. (P-01, P-02)
3. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:44pm, the Defendant agreed to the “MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement”. (P-02, P-05, P-08)
4. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:44pm, the Defendant agreed to pay back his loan of 5,000DC$ within no more than 15 days. (P-02)
5. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:57pm, the Plaintiff used the in-game /pay command to pay the Defendant 5,000DC$ pursuant to the loan agreement. (P-03, P-06)
5. The 15 day time limit for loan repayment passed on June 22nd, 2026.
6. At the time of filing, the Defendant has not paid back his loan in full or in part, nor made any contact with the Plaintiff since June 7th. (P-04, P-07)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 6, §1(a)
In having no contact and providing no payment to the Plaintiff, despite being 9 days past due to repay his loan, the Defendant has woefully failed to perform any of his obligations under the valid and enforceable MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement.

Given that Breach of Contract requires only Strict Liability under RCCA Part VI §1, the Defendant's intent is not required to establish liability; the breach occurred and the harm followed.

2. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 6, §4(a)
In having no contact and providing no payment to the Plaintiff, despite being 9 days past due to repay his loan, the Defendant has woefully failed, with no lawful excuse, to deliver the goods that they had agreed to supply: 5,000DC$ in repayment, 150$ as 3% interest, and 5% of the loan amount per day late to repay under the valid and enforceable MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement.

The Plaintiff seeks Specific Performance in the form of the 5,000DC$ repayment owed, 150DC$ in interest owed, and 2,250DC$ as 9 days of 5% late fees, as well as 200 Civil Penalty Units.

3. Unjust Enrichment
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 10, §1(a), §1(b)
Upon acceptance of the MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement, the Defendant obtained 5,000DC$ from the Plaintiff, and having failed to repay the loan as agreed, the Defendant now retains those funds at the expense of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has failed to partake in any communications with the Plaintiff, and thus, being bound to the original terms of the Agreement, has no legal justification for retaining these funds.

The Plaintiff seeks Restitution in the form of the 5,000DC$ loaned to the Defendant.

4. Negligence (General)
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 12, §3(a), §3(b), §3(c), §3(d)
By taking a loan out with the Plaintiff, the Defendant accepted a duty of care to fulfill the contract. In having no contact with the Plaintiff, the Defendant has acted carelessly and caused harm to the Plaintiff, a foreseeable consequence of failing to fulfill the contract or contact the Plaintiff.

5. Punitive Damages
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 3
The Defendant’s conduct satisfies the grounds set forth by the RCCA Part 3, §3(vi).

Under the RCCA Part 3, §2(b)(vi), the Defendant acted with gross negligence as to the damage his inaction would cause, both not fulfilling the conditions of his contract and not making any contact with the Plaintiff.

Taken together, this conduct represents a substantial departure from acceptable commercial standards and warrants punishment beyond compensation alone.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Specific Performance in the form of the 5,000DC$ repayment owed, 150DC$ in interest owed, and 2,250DC$ as 9 days of 5% late fees.
2. In the event that Specific Performance is unreasonable or unattainable, Restitution in the form of the 5,000DC$ loaned to the Defendant.
3. 5,000DC$ in punitive damages for outrageous conduct, pursuant to RCCA Part III §3.
4. 200 Civil Penalty Units (20,000DC$ at 100DC$ per civil penalty unit).
5. Legal fees at 30% of the total case value of 32,400DC$ (comprising 12,400DC$ in monetary damages and 20,000DC$ in Civil Penalty Units), amounting to 9,720DC$, pursuant to RCCA Part III §7(2)(a), subject to the Federal Court minimum of 6,000DC$ under RCCA Part III §7(2)(c).

V. EVIDENCE
P-01:
1783175454905.png
P-02:
1783175454912.png
P-03:
1783175454919.png
P-04:
1783175454927.png
P-05:
1783175454934.png
P-06:
1783175454940.png
P-07:
1783175454953.png
P-08 is linked below as a PDF file

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 3rd day of July 2026

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to include the following written statement:
"On June 7th, 2026, NiceGuysNice opened a ticket in my Discord, MABO Loans, to take out a loan of 5,000DC$. He agreed to the MABO Loans terms and conditions, took the 5,000DC$ loan, and then did not pay back his loan or otherwise fulfill his obligations by the deadline we provided. He has since left the MABO Loans Discord and ceased all communications with me. I attempted to reach out to NiceGuysNice to get him to repay his loan, and he never responded. Thus, I was forced to bring this case to the court for remedy."

 
J0kesOnU said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to include the following written statement:
"On June 7th, 2026, NiceGuysNice opened a ticket in my Discord, MABO Loans, to take out a loan of 5,000DC$. He agreed to the MABO Loans terms and conditions, took the 5,000DC$ loan, and then did not pay back his loan or otherwise fulfill his obligations by the deadline we provided. He has since left the MABO Loans Discord and ceased all communications with me. I attempted to reach out to NiceGuysNice to get him to repay his loan, and he never responded. Thus, I was forced to bring this case to the court for remedy."

Click to expand...
Granted. Please make the amendment.
 

Writ of Summons



@NiceGuysNice is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Bob596 v. NiceGuysNice.

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 DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Under the Court Rules and Procedures Part 3.6.1, the Plaintiff moves for a Default Judgement, considering the following factors:
1. The Defendant has failed to respond
2. While the court intends to assign a Public Defender, at this time no Public Defender has been assigned or named.
3. The Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant does not plan to respond at any point. The Defendant has logged no playtime in the past week and less than 3 hours in the past month (Motion-1), and has not communicated in the DemocracyCraft server in 22 days (Motion-2).

Considering all of the above factors, the Plaintiff believes it would be in the best interest of all present parties to move into Inquest proceedings per Court Rule 3.6.1.

Motion-1:
1000009797.png

Motion-2:
1000009802.jpg

 
J0kesOnU said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Under the Court Rules and Procedures Part 3.6.1, the Plaintiff moves for a Default Judgement, considering the following factors:
1. The Defendant has failed to respond
2. While the court intends to assign a Public Defender, at this time no Public Defender has been assigned or named.
3. The Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant does not plan to respond at any point. The Defendant has logged no playtime in the past week and less than 3 hours in the past month (Motion-1), and has not communicated in the DemocracyCraft server in 22 days (Motion-2).

Considering all of the above factors, the Plaintiff believes it would be in the best interest of all present parties to move into Inquest proceedings per Court Rule 3.6.1.

Motion-1:View attachment 90418

Motion-2:View attachment 90419

Click to expand...
An edit was made to this motion to correct a formatting error for the image spoilers. No additional edits have been made at this time.
 
Dartanboy said:
The Constitution grants a positive right for legal counsel.

Only a long-deported player (or a non-player, such as a company or Government)  may not qualify for a Public Defender.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

The Plaintiff requests the Honorable court reconsidering their decision to deny a Default Judgement. The Plaintiff argues as such:

1. The Plaintiff agrees that Defendant has a right to legal representation. However, the Plaintiff argues that a right requires an action to exercise. All Citizens of Redmont are due the right to free speech; However, this does not extend to an obligation to exercise that right. A Citizen of Redmont is not required to speak freely at all times, nor is the Government of Redmont required to force citizens to speak freely. Thus, while the Defendant has the right to legal representation, the court is not obligated to provide it sua sponte.

2. In previous cases presented to the Supreme Court of Redmont, Default Judgements were granted when the Defendant for a case failed to respond. In Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved into a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. Additionally, in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved to a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. In both cases, the Defendant failed to appear and the Supreme Court moved forward into a Default Judgement.

 
J0kesOnU said:

Motion


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

The Plaintiff requests the Honorable court reconsidering their decision to deny a Default Judgement. The Plaintiff argues as such:

1. The Plaintiff agrees that Defendant has a right to legal representation. However, the Plaintiff argues that a right requires an action to exercise. All Citizens of Redmont are due the right to free speech; However, this does not extend to an obligation to exercise that right. A Citizen of Redmont is not required to speak freely at all times, nor is the Government of Redmont required to force citizens to speak freely. Thus, while the Defendant has the right to legal representation, the court is not obligated to provide it sua sponte.

2. In previous cases presented to the Supreme Court of Redmont, Default Judgements were granted when the Defendant for a case failed to respond. In Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved into a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. Additionally, in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved to a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. In both cases, the Defendant failed to appear and the Supreme Court moved forward into a Default Judgement.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

You failed to hyperlink your sources. To save time on a follow-up motion, however, I will address the Motion as though you did hyperlink them.

More recently than the two cases you cited, the Supreme Court granted xLayzur a Public Defender when he failed to appear in [2024] SCR 1.

Additionally, the Constitution's right "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence" is a positive right rather than a negative right. This means a Citizen  must receive qualified counsel.
 
Poker said:
i'll be the new PO for this case. A public defender shall appear within 72 hours. Otherwise, this Court will seek for quotations from private law firms.
Click to expand...
I retract this order. Upon review, summons were issued jul 7 (I misread jun 7). Recent Court Rules applies, we will proceed into inquest per Rule 3.6.1. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. Post #5 order is also retracted.

In line with Rule 3.6.2, the court requires Plaintiff to develop and argue the case prior to adjudication.
The vacate deadline is 7/October/26. Discovery shall last until 2/October/26.

This Court asks the Plaintiff to provide further legal reasoning supporting the Negligence and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services claims.
 
Poker said:
I retract this order. Upon review, summons were issued jul 7 (I misread jun 7). Recent Court Rules applies, we will proceed into inquest per Rule 3.6.1. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. Post #5 order is also retracted.

In line with Rule 3.6.2, the court requires Plaintiff to develop and argue the case prior to adjudication.
The vacate deadline is 7/October/26. Discovery shall last until 2/October/26.

This Court asks the Plaintiff to provide further legal reasoning supporting the Negligence and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services claims.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

Firstly, I, _GreyMC, Senior Associate at TT&P, will be the lead counsel of this case.

Do you wish the Plaintiff to provide the further legal reasoning in the complaint, or just in the legal brief towards the end of the case?
 
greymc said:
Your Honor,

Firstly, I, _GreyMC, Senior Associate at TT&P, will be the lead counsel of this case.

Do you wish the Plaintiff to provide the further legal reasoning in the complaint, or just in the legal brief towards the end of the case?
Click to expand...
Providing the further legal reasoning in the legal brief will be sufficient
 
Poker said:
Providing the further legal reasoning in the legal brief will be sufficient
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has no other evidence to add, and no witnesses. Therefore, the Plaintiff requests to immediately move on with the legal brief.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF - Bob596 v. NiceGuysNice [2026] DCR 120

Your Honor,

This case is a simple one. Yet, one that the Defendant didn't even show up for. The Defendant who broke a contract with the Plaintiff, doesn't see the value in showing up.

I. BREACH OF CONTRACT

Contracts Act §4 sets 6 requirements for a a contract to be valid. The Plaintiff has shown each of these requirements.
1. Offer. The Plaintiff gave a clear offer to the Defendant when they set the Google Forums link to accept the contract. This offer was also shown in messages to the Defendant saying "up to 7k," "ofc," and "with a 3% interest rate" (P-01, P-02).
2. Acceptance. The Defendant accepted the offer by clearly filing the Google Forum with their username, and replying "Done! My user is NiceGuysNice" (P-05, P-02). They also showed their acceptance by saying "mhm," "right," "k," and reacting with a fire emoji to the Plaintiff's message about sending the Defendant the money.
3. Consideration. The Plaintiff gave up $5,000 to the Defendant as a loan, and the Plaintiff established that they would pay it back with a 3% interest rate. They also agreed to the 5% late fee in physical contract (P-02, P-03, P-08).
4. Intent. The Plaintiff gave clear intent that they wanted to enter into a contract by sending the Defendant the contract acceptance form, and by sending the Defendant the money (P-02, P-03). The Defendant showed their intent by asking about taking out a loan, and signing the contract (P-01, P-02, P-05).
5. Capacity. No evidence has been submitted into this Court about the individuals playtime, but there is no need for it anyways. Contracts Act §4(1)(e) says a player "with low playtime may lack the capacity," but does not require it. Both parties agreed to fair terms and knew what they were getting in to.

For the breach, the Plaintiff payed the Defendant $5,000. The Defendant was expected to pay it back, with 3% interest. 2 weeks go by, nothing. The Defendant never paid back the loan, where they had 15 days to do so, and thereby breached the contract, a violation set in the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part VI §1.

II. FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS OR SERVICES

RCCA Part VI §4 notes that an individual commits Failure to Deliver Goods or Services when the individual "fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract." This violation can be sumarized down into 3 main requirements:
1. There must have been a valid transaction or contract.
2. The transaction or contract required good or services to be supplied.
3. The individual never supplied the good or service.

The Plaintiff already noted above how both parties made the contract, and how it was breached. The remaining question is what was the good or service provided? Simply put, money. The Defendant agreed to supply the Plaintiff with the $5,000 and 3% interest, fulfiling the second requirement (P-02, P-05, P-08). Finally, as noted before, the Defendant never delivered the money back (P-04). Therefore, the Defendant committed Failure to Deliver Goods or Services under RCCA Part VI §4.

III. UNJUST ENRICHMENT

RCCA Part X §1 notes that an individual commits Unjust Enrichment when the individual:

(a) obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and
(b) there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit.
Click to expand...

For the first requirement, the Defendant obtained and retained the $5,000 at the expense of the Plaintiff (P-03). The Plaintiff expected to gain the money back, with interest, but never did (P-03, P-04). The Defendant breached the contract between themselves and the Plaintiff, illegally retaining the $5,000 loaned (P-02, P-03, P-04).

Therefore, the Defendant committed Unjust Enrichment under RCCA Part X §1.

IV. NEGLIGENCE

RCCA Part XIII §3 notes that an individual commits Negligence (General) when the individual:
(a) owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; and
(b) breaches that duty through careless action or omission; and
(c) the breach causes harm to the plaintiff; and
(d) the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the breach.
Click to expand...

In this case, the Defendant checks all the requirements. A duty of care was established by the valid contract, where the Defendant was expected to pay the Plaintiff back the loan of $5,000 with 3% interest within 15 days (P-01, P-02, P-03, P-05, P-08). The Defendant breached their contract, their duty, by omission, as they never paid back their loan, and gave no updates on the loan. The breach caused a harm to the Plaintiff, specifically in the loss of the $5,000 and the interest the Plaintiff was expecting, and the loss of the $5,000 was a direct, and thereby forseeable, consequence of the breach.

Therefore, the Defendant committed Negligence (General) under RCCA Part XIII §3.

V. DAMAGES

The Plaintiff requests the following in damages:
1. Specific Performance. The Plaintiff requests the Court to order the Defendant to fulfil their contractual obligations, specifically by paying the Plaintiff the $5,000 owed, with $150 in interest, and $2,250 in late fees, calculated from 9 days of 5% late fees. This remedy comes from Failure to Deliver Goods or Services under RCCA Part VI §4. (P-01, P-02, P-03, P-05, P-08)
2. Restitution. If the Court does not award the Plaintiff relief in the form of Specific Performance, the Plaintiff requests Restitution in the form of the $5,000 paid to the Defendant. This remedy comes from Unjust Enrichment under RCCA Part X §1. (P-01, P-02, P-03, P-05, P-08)
3. Punitive Damages. The Plaintiff requests $5,000 Penalty Units in Punitive Damages, awarded from RCCA Part III §3. The RCCA allows punitive damages for outrageous conduct, specifically in offenses where the Defendant "acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur" or where the conduct "gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone." Failure to respond to any message by the Plaintiff shows the Defendant's indifference and departure from the standard of care. The Defendant did not seem to care at all about the loan, and completely ignored it, acting with reckless indifference, and with gross negligence. (P-05)
4. Penalty Units. The Plaintiff requests 200 Civil Penalty Units from Failure to Deliver Goods or Services under RCCA Part VI §4. The Plaintiff notes that at the time of case filing, a civil penalty unit was $100, not $120.
5. Legal Fees. Finally, the Plaintiff requests 30% of the case value determined by the Court. The Plaintiff requests this remedy under RCCA Part III §7.

VI. CONCLUSION

When looking at all the evidence, it becomes clear that the Defendant not only breached a lawful contract, but they also negligently did so, and failed to consider the harm they were commiting. The Defendant cared so little about the money they stole, they did not even bother to show up for Court. Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests judgement in their favor on all the claims.

Respectfully submitted,
_GreyMC
Theory, Talion & Partners​

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