Lawsuit: Pending 420mss v. Sockful [2026] DCR 103

[lao19]

Case Filing

CIVIL ACTION


420mss
Plaintiff

v.

Sockful
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 12 June 2026, the Defendant repeatedly trespassed, killed me, and refused to leave the me and the my plot alone after being asked. The issue began when the Defendant came onto the my plot and proceeded to shoot me in the face point blank with no warning or reason. After this I made it clear that the Defendant was not welcome onto my plot in the chat and via making a ban list seen in the evidence. Despite this, the Defendant kept returning to my plot and trying to kill me. I retaliated multiple times by warning the Defendant and if the Defendant did not comply I shot the Defendant only if the Defendant was on my plot, but even that was not effective as the Defendant would just fly around in the bat morph and un-morph to shoot and kill me as seen in the evidence. I did not want to chase after the Defendant as I just wanted to chill at my plot. I even checked if the Defendant was on my plot when the Defendant was close by, as I had no wish to kill the Defendant, but instead keep the Defendant off my property. The whole situation lasted around 20 whole minutes while I just tried to socialize with my friends but the Defendant disrupted this and as such I could not enjoy my time on the server.

I. PARTIES
1. 420mss, Plaintiff
2. Sockful, Defendant

II. FACTS



1. On 12 June 2026 at approximately 2:40 Redmont time, the plaintiff was inside the Casino plot of which he was the landlord. (P-001),
2. The defendant then entered the room via the elevator while morphed into a bat. (P-001)
3. The defendant proceeded to fly towards the plaintiff and unmorph revealing a Spas-12 in their hands. (P-001)
4. The defendant proceeded to fire multiple shots at the plaintiff, killing them instantly (P-001)
5. The plaintiff, after respawning, watched the player cr1msnx add the defendant's name to list of banned players. (P-001)
6. The plaintiff then saw Sockful inside of the room once again, and proceeded to defend themselves from another oncoming attack with a Spas-12. (P-001)
7. Under the Criminal Code Act Act, a person may use force proportionate to the threat imposed by an unlawful intruder.

(9) Castle Law
(a) A person is permitted to use reasonable force, including lethal force, to defend themselves, their property, or others within their owned residence or plot against an unlawful intruder.
(b) The use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed by the intruder.
(c) This law does not justify pre-emptive or retaliatory attacks once the threat has ceased.

8. The plaintiff considered Sockful an unlawful intruder, due to the newly made ban.
9. The plaintiff used force proportionate to the threat caused by Sockful, considering they had recently been murdered by them.
10. The plaintiff and defendant then proceeded to engage in a gunfight with multiple kills being exchanged throughout. (P-001)
11. During this time, the defendant was still trespassing onto the plaintiff's property. (P-001)
12. The defendant continued to walk into the building in which they were clearly banned. This went on for many minutes. (P-001)
13. The defendant continued to kill the plaintiff multiple times after the original gunfight. (P-001)
14. Many days later, the defendant returned to the plaintiff's building (C457) and walked around making threats against the plaintiff's life (P-002)



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs private property, violating the Criminal Code Act Act Part VIII, Section 1

1 - Trespass
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty:
(a) First offence - 3 Penalty Units
(b) Second offence - 5 Penalty Units; 5 minutes imprisonment
(c) Third offence - 7 Penalty Units; 10 minutes imprisonment
(d) Subsequent offences - 10 Penalty Units; 10 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) enters an area that has been restricted to public access via a no trespassing sign, book, or another form of communication visible from every entrance.
(i) to have this offence be proven, a government employee must use the /inspect command to ensure no edits had occurred afterwards.
Relevant Law:

2. The defendant violated the Criminal Code Act Part V, Section 1 by disturbing the peace of the casino by firing several shots and murdering the plaintiff multiple times.

1 - Disturbing the Peace
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; Up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
Relevant Law:

3. The defendant caused the plaintiff to lose enjoyment in the game as seen by the plaintiff's clear annoyance in P-001 as well as the repeated murders ruining his experience and entire session.
4. The defendant threatened the plaintiff's life saying "420mss ima kill u", clearly violating the Criminal Code Act Part V, Section 4

4 - Threats
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 1 Penalty Unit
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) verbally threatens another player with communication to cause fear or force action.
Relevant Law:

5. The defendant's outrageous conduct caused people to leave the plaintiff's casino, causing a loss of profits to the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1000 of compensatory damages for the lost customers caused by the defendants outrageous conduct.
2. $10000 of punitive damages for Trespass and disturbing the peace on the plaintiff's property.
3. $25000 of consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment of the plaintiff caused directly by the defendant's conduct.
4. Any other restitution that the court sees as right and just.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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 21st day of June 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

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

Mmiqa v. Zachofpotatoes10 [2026] DCR 57

Please read the above decision by Justice Matthew100x in this Court. You have 48 hours to explain why this action is permitted.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[lao19]

Response

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

I. CLAIRIFICATION OF COURT ORDER

My understanding of the Court Order to Show Cause is as follows:

1. In the case, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, a Motion to Dismiss is granted by the judge under rule 5.5 and 5.12
2. The motion to dismiss is granted under the reasoning that the tort used by the Plaintiff is not common law nor a valid tort under the RCCA.
3. Wrongful death has no precedent within the Redmont courts as being a valid common law tort.

II. DEFENSE OF THE TRESPASS TORT

While the CCA's list of crimes may not be quoted as valid torts, Trespass is still a valid tort under the RCCA. While I still admit some fault for the incorrect quoting, the RCCA's list of torts does not claim to be complete. This is also said by Judge Matthew100x in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, the very same one you quoted in the Order to Show Cause. In his verdict he says.

"The Redmont Civil Code Act provides that the Code is a non-exhaustive listing of civil violations and does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking a remedy for harm not explicitly codified where common law principles or judicial precedent support such a claim."

While he does go on to dismiss the tort of Wrongful Death, this was only due to the fact that Wrongful Death was not a common law tort. Trespass, on the other hand, has plenty of precedence where Trespass was cited as a tort under the CCA and a writ of summons was issued with no objections raised to the matter. One example is corstkiller00 v. DeltaruneTMRW [2025] DCR 79 in which the Plaintiff proposes a novel tort action providing Trespass under the CCA. While the Answer to Complaint tries to belittle this claim as "ridiculous" the presiding judge provides no insight into whether this view of the tort is correct. Although this case was dismissed due to it being settled, it still shows that Trespass is a valid tort proved in precedent. Please find below multiple examples of Trespass being used as a valid civil tort.
1. MikeOxlonger1 and Soeboekaas v. VortexX_X [2025] DCR 13
2. YourLocalDiabeto v. gsse [2024] FCR 61
3. MrFluffy2U94 v. zLost [2023] FCR 105

III. DEFENSE OF THE DISTURBING THE PEACE TORT

Disturbing the Peace is not a valid tort under the RCCA but that does not make it invalid. Once again, unlike Wrongful Death, Disturbing the Peace is a common law tort and has precedent within Redmont Courts. In ThePufferOffical V. brett_miller [2026] DCR 35 the use of Disturbing the Peace was quite similar to that of the use in this case, that being repeated murder. The judge decided in their verdict that the Defendant's actions had constituted all the requirements for Disturbing the Peace as described in the CCA and clearly constituted outrageous conduct. This shows precedent for the use of Disturbing the Peace as a valid tort.

IV. DEFENSE OF THE THREATS TORT

Threats is also not a valid tort under the RCCA and just like Disturbing the Peace, has plenty of precedent and is a common law tort. As shown once again within ThePufferOffical V. brett_miller [2026] DCR 35, threats are considered a common law tort and thus do not need the RCCA to validate them.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF NUMBERS 3 AND 5

The order to show cause seems to dismiss the claims that are not based in the CCA. While claim number 5 is not as impactful as the other four claims, it still shows cause for the complaint. Claim number 3 is still an important claim to the case, showing the main cause for the complaint while still being a valid civil tort without needing precedent.

VI. OFFER TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

While I do believe that my claims for relief are valid, I will offer to amend my quoting of the crime of Trespass to reattribute it to the RCCA, Part 7, Section 3. The other claims for relief I have provided have little to no RCCA equivalents, so I intend to keep their quoting as is, under the reasoning that they are common law torts with precedent in Redmont courts.

 

[HyperSonicZAK]

I was apart of the MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Sockful is commanded to appear before the District Court in the case of 420mss v. Sockful [2026] DCR 103

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.

 

[greymc]

Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of the Defendant as their legal representative.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[greymc]

Answer to Complaint

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

420mss
Plaintiff

v.

Sockful, Represented by _GreyMC
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS that on 12 June 2026 the Plaintiff was inside the Casino plot of which the Plaintiff was the landlord.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant then entered the room via the elevator while morphed as a bat.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant proceeded to fly towards the Plaintiff and unmorph revealing a Spas-12 in their hands.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant proceeded to fire multiple shots at and kill the Plaintiff.
5. The Defense DENIES that the Plaintiff, after respawning, watched the player cr1msnx add the Defendant's name to a list of banned players.
6. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff then saw the Defendant inside of the room once again, and proceeded to defend themselves from another oncoming attack with a Spas-12.
7. The Defense AFFIRMS that under the Criminal Code Act, a person may use force proportionate to the threat imposed by an unlawful intruder.
8. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff considered the Defendant an unlawful intruder.
9. The Defense DENIES that the Plaintiff used force proportionate to the threat caused by the Defendant. .
10. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff and Defendant then proceeded to engage in a gunfight with multiple kills being exchanged throughout, and NOTES that in a majority of the cases the Defendant acted in self-Defense.
11. The Defense DENIES that during this time, the Defendant was still trespassing onto the Plaintiff's property.
12. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant continued to walk into the building, but DENIES that the Defendant was banned from the building.
13. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant continued to kill the Plaintiff multiple times after the original gunfight, and NOTES that the Defendant killed in self-Defense for a majority of the deaths.
14. The Defense AFFIRMS that many days later, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff's building (C457) but DENIES that the Defendant made threats against the Plaintiff's life at that time.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff does not have the authority to trespass a player from the property, as they are the landlord and do not have the ownership rights.

The Tenant Vibes Act Part III §2, which was the law at the time of the incident, notes that the tenant of the property is effectively the owner of that property when they are renting it.

2. The tenant of an apartment building is afforded the same rights as the Landlord.
(a) When renting an apartment region, or an entire plot, the person is subsequently owning that area of the plot.
(b) This also means that the owner of the plot is not allowed to violate the tenant’s private section, and trespass without permission.

The Plaintiff in this case is the landlord of the C457, the property in question. Since their plot (Casino) was being rented by cr1msnx, cr1msnx would be the only individual allowed to declare a player trespassed on the region. The trespass declared by the Plaintiff was specifically for the plot “Casino” and not for the entire property, which under the Tenant Vibes Act, would be the duty and right of the tenant, not the landlord. There was also a sign put up in the “Casino” plot, but this was solely for the “Casino” plot, and not for the entire C457 property.

2. The Plaintiff has also failed to establish personal jurisdiction to pursue this case and lacks the legal standing to pursue. Rule 2.1 states that in order for a Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:

1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The Plaintiff fails to show cases one and three:
1. The Plaintiff is the landlord of the plot C179, which the Casino rental falls under. Since this plot was being rented at the time, the subsequent ownership rights fall to the tenant, not to the landlord. Due to this, there is no injury that the Plaintiff could have suffered with the alleged trespassing as the landlord of the “Casino” plot. The Plaintiff fails the first element.
3. Since the Plaintiff has not suffered any injuries or damages, there is no remedy available under law. The Plaintiff fails to show element three.


3. The precedent set by ThePufferOffical v. brett_miller [2026] DCR 35 is directly contradicted by a similar ruling in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67:
1. [2026] DCR 35 only awarded punitive damages to the Plaintiff in the case, and failed to establish a legally cognizable civil tort that was required in [2026] DCR 67. The precedent established that the claims, trespass, disturbing the peace, and threats, were against the law, and awarded damages to the Plaintiff due to this fact. However, it never established a civil tort for either disturbance of peace nor threats.
2. Another case, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, decided that:

The Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA") does indeed allow for civil action regarding a criminal violation, but typically only supports that action where both the RCCA and the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") reference the underlying claim.

The RCCA does not support the claims of disturbance of peace nor threats, it is only established by the CCA. There is no civil tort in the RCCA, or any civil tort in the CCA that is supported by the RCCA, for disturbance of peace or threats.
3. [2026] DCR 35 was a one-off case that awarded damages for disturbance of peace and threats. However, [2026] DCR 67 clarified that there must be a “preserved common law tort.” [2026] DCR 35 was not a common law tort, and was contradicted and overturned in multiple cases, including [2026] DCR 67 and [2026] DCR 59.

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 12th day of July 2026

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense moves that the court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.12, as the Plaintiff lacks a cognizable civil claim and lacks standing to bring this case to court. In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges:
I. LACK OF CLAIM
As established previously before this court (MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67), a Plaintiff does not establish a Civil Claim merely by citing parts of the Criminal Code Act. Unless the Plaintiff can properly establish civil damages which resulted from criminal action, which is allowed under RCCA Part II §4(3), they have not stated a cognizable legal claim that can be pursued. Following that reasoning, claims II and IV should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

The Plaintiff has cited ThePufferOffical v. brett_miller [2026] DCR 35 as judicial precedent for a civil tort on disturbing the peace and threats. However, [2026] DCR 35 is contradicted by MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 and other cases:
1. [2026] DCR 35 only awarded punitive damages to the Plaintiff in the case, and failed to establish a legally cognizable civil tort that was required in [2026] DCR 67. The precedent that the claims, trespass, disturbing the peace, and threats, were against the law, and awarded damages to the Plaintiff due to this fact. However, it never established a civil tort for either disturbance of peace nor threats.
2. Another case, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, decided that:

The Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA") does indeed allow for civil action regarding a criminal violation, but typically only supports that action where both the RCCA and the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") reference the underlying claim.

The RCCA does not support the claims of disturbance of peace nor threats, it is only established by the CCA. There is no civil tort in the RCCA, or any civil tort in the CCA that is supported by the RCCA, for disturbance of peace or threats.
3. [2026] DCR 35 was a one-off case that awarded damages for disturbance of peace and threats. However, [2026] DCR 67 clarified that there must be a “preserved common law tort.” [2026] DCR 35 was not a common law tort, and was contradicted and overturned in multiple cases, including [2026] DCR 67 and [2026] DCR 59.

Claims I and IV should be dismissed.


II. LACK OF STANDING
The Plaintiff has also failed to establish personal jurisdiction to pursue this case and lacks the legal standing to pursue. Rule 2.1 states that in order for a Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show:

1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The Plaintiff fails to show cases one and three:
1. The Plaintiff is the landlord of the plot C179, which the Casino rental falls under. Since this plot was being rented at the time, the Tenant Vibes Act Part III §2(1) suggests that the subsequent ownership rights fall to the tenant, not to the landlord. Due to this, there is no injury that the Plaintiff could have suffered with the alleged trespassing as the landlord of the “Casino” plot. The Plaintiff fails the first element.
3. Since the Plaintiff has not suffered any injuries or damages, there is no remedy available under law. The Plaintiff fails to show element three.

The Defense requests that the case in its entirety be dismissed under Rule 5.12.

 

[greymc]

Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requests the Court for permission to amend the Motion to Dismiss to include legal fees. The Defense requests this as the Motion to Dismiss and Answer to Complaint is in the same post.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requests the Court for permission to amend the Motion to Dismiss to include legal fees. The Defense requests this as the Motion to Dismiss and Answer to Complaint is in the same post.

The law doesn't require that a prayer for legal fees be included in a complaint to be awarded. Furthermore, in line with precedence, if the motion is NOT with prejudice, then they won't be awarded.