Lawsuit: In Session 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52

[3mkTalal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

3mkTalal
Plaintiff

v.

legoear
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-game time, the Defendant, legoear, entered the Plaintiff’s apartment without permission and killed the Plaintiff inside the apartment. The incident occurred inside Eapt-2 (Plot C231) and did not occur in the wilderness.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from Murder under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES

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

II. FACTS

1. On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in-game time, the Plaintiff was inside his own apartment, Eapt-2 (Plot C231).
2. The Defendant, legoear, entered the Plaintiff’s apartment without the Plaintiff’s permission.
3. The Defendant attacked and killed the Plaintiff inside the apartment.
4. The incident did not occur in the wilderness.
5. The Plaintiff did not consent to being attacked, killed, or having the Defendant enter his apartment.
6. The Plaintiff has screenshots showing the Defendant inside the apartment, the Plaintiff’s death screen, and the location as Apt-2.
7. The killing caused the Plaintiff disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of his apartment.
8. The Defendant’s conduct was especially serious because the Plaintiff was killed inside his own private apartment rather than in a public area or wilderness.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM MURDER UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT

1. The Plaintiff brings this claim for civil damages arising from Murder under the Criminal Code Act.

2. Relevant Law: Criminal Code Act, Murder:

“A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) unlawfully kills another player.”

3. The Defendant’s conduct satisfies this definition because the Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff.

4. The killing occurred inside the Plaintiff’s apartment and did not occur in the wilderness.

5. The Plaintiff is not asking this Court to criminally punish the Defendant. The Plaintiff is asking for civil damages based on the Defendant’s criminal conduct toward the Plaintiff.

CLAIM II: UNLAWFUL KILLING UNDER THE CRIMINAL TERMINOLOGY ACT

6. Relevant Law: Criminal Terminology Act, Unlawful Killing:

“For purposes of Part IV of the Criminal Code Act, ‘unlawful killing’ means causing the death of another player when:
(a) the killed player did not have /police consent enabled at the time of death; and
(b) the killing was not justified under any of the following:
(i) lawful self-defence as defined in Section 6(11) of Part I of the Criminal Code Act;
(ii) defence of property under Castle Law as defined in Section 6(10) of Part I of the Criminal Code Act; or”

7. The Plaintiff did not have /police consent enabled.

8. The Defendant’s killing was not justified by lawful self-defense because the Plaintiff did not attack or threaten the Defendant first.

9. The Defendant’s killing was not justified by Castle Law or defense of property because the incident occurred inside the Plaintiff’s own apartment, not the Defendant’s property.

CLAIM III: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

10. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 1 - Applicability:

“The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.”

11. The Plaintiff may therefore seek civil damages arising from the Defendant’s Murder of the Plaintiff.

CLAIM IV: NOMINAL DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

12. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages.

13. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Nominal Damages:

“Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages.”

14. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Award:

“Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500.”

15. The Plaintiff has established a legal cause of action because the Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff.

16. Nominal damages are appropriate to recognize the legal harm caused by the Defendant’s unlawful killing of the Plaintiff.

CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR DISRUPTION, LOST TIME, AND LOSS OF ENJOYMENT

17. The Plaintiff suffered non-pecuniary harm, including disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of his apartment.

18. The Plaintiff does not plead “emotional damages” as a standalone category. Instead, the Plaintiff pleads these harms as civil harm caused by the Defendant’s conduct and as support for the damages requested.

19. The Defendant’s conduct interrupted the Plaintiff’s lawful gameplay and forced the Plaintiff to deal with the consequences of being killed inside his own apartment.

CLAIM VI: PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

20. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

21. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Punitive Damages:

“Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.”

22. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Award:

“Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.”

23. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Outrageous Conduct:

“Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.”

24. The Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s apartment without permission and killed the Plaintiff inside that private apartment.

25. Killing another player inside their own apartment demonstrates reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights, interests, and safety.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

1. $1,000 in nominal damages for the Defendant’s unlawful killing of the Plaintiff.
2. $3,000 in consequential damages for disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of his apartment.
3. $500 in punitive damages for the Defendant’s outrageous conduct and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and safety.
4. Total damages of $4,500.
5. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001: Screenshot showing the Plaintiff’s death screen after being killed by the Defendant.

Spoiler: P-002: Screenshot showing the Defendant, legoear, inside the Plaintiff’s apartment.

Spoiler: P-003: Screenshot showing the location as Eapt-2(Plot C231).

Spoiler: P-004: Screenshot showing the interior of the apartment and surrounding scene.

Spoiler: P-005: Screenshot or statement showing that the Defendant did not have permission to enter the apartment.

VI. WITNESSES

1. 3mkTalal
Expected testimony: The Plaintiff may testify that he was inside his own apartment, that the Defendant entered without permission, that the Defendant killed him, and that the incident caused disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of the apartment.

VII. APPENDIX

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as unlawfully killing another player.
2. The Criminal Terminology Act defines unlawful killing for purposes of the Criminal Code Act.
3. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows civil damages arising from criminal conduct.
4. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows nominal damages where a legal cause of action is established even without substantial loss.
5. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows punitive damages where the Defendant’s conduct is outrageous, including reckless disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.
6. The Court template requires parties, facts, claims for relief, prayer for relief, evidence, witnesses if applicable, and the perjury statement.

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

 

[aubunny]

Writ of Summons

@legoear is ordered to appear before the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of 3mkTalal v legoear [2026] DCR 52

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.