Lawsuit: Pending 3mkTalal v. FamousWiseTiger [2026] DCR 47

[3mkTalal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

3mkTalal
Plaintiff

v.

FamousWiseTiger
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in Reveille, outside the police station, the Defendant, FamousWiseTiger, intentionally attacked the Plaintiff, 3mkTalal. The attack did not occur in the wilderness. The Defendant caused the Plaintiff to lose more than three hearts of damage and then fled the scene.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, specifically Attempted Murder under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES

1. 3mkTalal, Plaintiff.
2. FamousWiseTiger, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On May 25, 2026, the Plaintiff was outside the police station in Reveille.
2. This location is not in the wilderness.
3. The Defendant, FamousWiseTiger, intentionally attacked the Plaintiff.
4. The attack caused the Plaintiff to lose more than three hearts of damage.
5. After attacking the Plaintiff, the Defendant fled the scene.
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to being attacked.
7. BboyDoggoDino was present and is a witness to the incident.
8. The server combat message stated that FamousWiseTiger started the fight and that the Plaintiff could legally defend himself.
9. The Defendant’s conduct caused harm to the Plaintiff and created a valid basis for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Civil damages arising from Attempted Murder under the Criminal Code Act.
2. Under the Criminal Code Act, Attempted Murder occurs when a person intentionally hits another player and causes a loss of more than three hearts.
3. The Defendant’s conduct satisfies this definition because the Defendant intentionally hit the Plaintiff and caused more than three hearts of damage.
4. The wilderness exception does not apply because the attack occurred in Reveille, outside the police station.
5. Under Redmont law, crimes may be used to seek civil damages, and civil proceedings may proceed independently of any criminal prosecution.
6. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages because the Defendant’s unlawful conduct violated the Plaintiff’s rights, even if the Plaintiff does not claim a larger proven financial loss.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

1. $2,500 in civil damages arising from the Defendant’s Attempted Murder of the Plaintiff.
2. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001: Screenshot showing the server combat message stating that FamousWiseTiger started the fight.

P-002: Screenshot showing the Plaintiff’s health after the attack.

P-003: Screenshot showing the location as Reveille, outside the police station.

P-004: Witness testimony from BboyDoggoDino, who was present during the incident.

VI. APPENDIX

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Attempted Murder as intentionally hitting another player and causing a loss of more than three hearts.
2. The Criminal Code Act states that Attempted Murder does not apply in the wilderness, but this incident occurred in Reveille and not in the wilderness.
3. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows civil damages arising from criminal conduct.
4. The Court Rules and Procedures allow small civil claims in District Court where the requested remedy is no greater than $2,500.

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 25th day of May 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - 3mkTalal v. FamousWiseTiger [2026] DCR 48


The Court has reviewed the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff in the instant small-claims matter.


The Plaintiff requests $2,500 in "civil damages arising from the Defendant's Attempted Murder of the Plaintiff." However, a request for damages is not self-justifying. A plaintiff cannot recover a sum simply by attaching a dollar figure to alleged criminal conduct. The Plaintiff must identify the actual harm suffered and connect that harm to the amount claimed. (see Redmont Civil Code Act)




Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to the following:

1. What category of damages the Plaintiff is actually pursuing: nominal, compensatory, punitive, or some combination thereof.
2. How the requested sum of $2,500 is calculated. The Plaintiff must explain the basis for this figure rather than asserting it without support

So ordered,
Judge Mug in the District Court

 

[3mkTalal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

3mkTalal
Plaintiff

v.

FamousWiseTiger
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

I. CATEGORY OF DAMAGES

The Plaintiff is pursuing nominal damages only.

The Plaintiff is not currently pursuing compensatory damages because the Plaintiff is not claiming a specific pecuniary loss, such as lost items, property damage, lost income, or other calculable monetary loss.

The Plaintiff is not currently pursuing punitive damages because the requested $2,500 is intended to recognize the legal harm caused by the Defendant’s conduct, not to punish the Defendant beyond that recognition.

The Plaintiff also suffered non-pecuniary harm, including fear, distress, disruption, and loss of enjoyment from being intentionally attacked in Reveille outside the police station. The Plaintiff does not plead this as a separate category of emotional damages, but as part of the legal harm supporting nominal damages.

II. BASIS FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES

The Redmont Civil Code Act provides that nominal damages may be awarded where a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to other damages.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant intentionally attacked the Plaintiff outside the wilderness and caused more than three hearts of damage. The harm suffered was the unlawful physical attack itself, the loss of health caused by the attack, the fear and distress caused by being attacked in a city area, and the interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful safety and enjoyment while in Reveille.

Because the Plaintiff does not claim a precise monetary loss from items, property, or income, nominal damages are the proper category of damages.

III. CALCULATION OF $2,500

The requested $2,500 is calculated as a nominal damages award below the Redmont Civil Code Act’s maximum nominal damages cap of $7,500.

The Plaintiff chose $2,500 because it is one-third of the maximum available nominal damages award. This amount reflects that:

1. The incident was more serious than a minor contact because the Plaintiff alleges more than three hearts of damage;
2. The attack occurred in Reveille, outside the police station, and not in the wilderness;
3. The Defendant allegedly started the fight and then fled;
4. The attack caused non-pecuniary harm, including fear, distress, disruption, and loss of enjoyment;
5. The Plaintiff is not asking for the full $7,500 nominal damages cap because the Plaintiff is not claiming item loss, property loss, lost income, or other specific pecuniary harm.

In the alternative, if the Court finds that $2,500 is not the proper amount, the Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to award whatever amount of nominal damages it finds just and proper based on the evidence.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that the requested damages are nominal damages, that the requested amount is based on one-third of the statutory nominal damages cap, and that the amount is proportional to the alleged intentional attack, resulting health loss, fear, distress, disruption, and loss of enjoyment.

DATED: This 25th day of May 2026