Lawsuit: Dismissed AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85

[AvatarNate7983]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AvatarNate7983, Unitedboss
Plaintiff

v.

Hincho_
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I was in the hall of my apartment building walking towards my apartment, which I use as a brewery for my company. I noticed a player by the name of Hincho_ following me. I assumed he was going to his apartment further down the hall, but when I got to my apartment — which is locked with two doors, the first unlocked one open at all times to display the second door with the sign for my company — he followed me inside before I could close the door. I attempted to defend my apartment by hitting him with my axe; however, him being in diamond armor, the diamond axe did not succeed in killing him. He then proceeded to go through every barrel, which were all locked, as I had checked that morning when I had first logged onto the server. He threw every item on the ground from every barrel. Too busy trying to get him out of my apartment, I hadn't realized that they were all going to despawn after two minutes. At this point I kept trying to kill him, and he kept killing me multiple times. He eventually left my apartment but kept coming back after around a minute each time he left. Eventually, I had covered both the door and the area surrounding the barrels with dark oak planks to try and barricade him in the area while waiting for the police to arrive; however, they never did. All the items despawned before I had a chance to pick them up. There were about $2,500 worth of assets in all those barrels, belonging to my company, myself, and both plaintiffs, who are both officers in my company.

I. PARTIES​

1. 1. AvatarNate7983
2. 2. UnitedBoss
3. 3. Hincho_

II. FACTS​

1. 1. Hincho_ Followed me into my apartment
2. 2. I attempted to defend my property with a diamond axe
3. 3. Hincho_ broke into the barrels and dropped all the items on the ground
4. 4. I called the police
5. 5. I barricaded Hincho_ In the area with the barrels while I waited for the police to arrive
6. 6. The police never arrived

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

CLAIM I: WRONGFUL DEATH - Criminal Code Act

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as the unlawful killing of another player.
2. PVP is not allowed in the city of Reveille.
3. The Defendant caused the Wrongful Death of the Plaintiff multiple times in Reveille without provocation of any sort.
4. Each individual instance of Wrongful Death creates a separate civil claim according to the Criminal Code Act.
5. The Plaintiff hereby brings three counts of Wrongful Death against the Defendant.

CLAIM II: THEFT FROM CONTAINERS - Criminal Code Act

1. Part VIII, Section 12 of the Criminal Code Act defines Theft from Containers as taking an item directly from a container one does not own or control, without the owner's consent.
2. The Defendant entered the Plaintiffs' apartment and proceeded to access every barrel contained within.
3. The barrels were owned and controlled by the Plaintiffs and A&W Brewing Company LLC.
4. The Defendant had no consent from any Plaintiff to access said barrels.
5. The Defendant accessed each barrel individually, constituting a separate count of Theft from Containers per barrel accessed.
6. The Plaintiff hereby brings multiple counts of Theft from Containers against the Defendant.

CLAIM III: AGGRAVATED THEFT - Criminal Code Act

1. Part VIII, Section 10 of the Criminal Code Act defines Aggravated Theft as committing Theft or Theft from Containers where the value of the property exceeds 50 Penalty Units, or where the theft targets a business inventory or causes substantial economic disruption.
2. The total value of assets destroyed as a result of the Defendant's actions is approximately $2,500, exceeding the 50 Penalty Unit threshold.
3. The assets contained within the barrels constituted the business inventory of A&W Brewing Company LLC.
4. The Defendant's actions caused substantial economic disruption to A&W Brewing Company LLC and its officers.
5. The Plaintiff hereby brings one count of Aggravated Theft against the Defendant.

CLAIM IV: DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY - Criminal Code Act

1. Part IV, Section 5 of the Criminal Code Act defines Deprivation of Liberty as unlawfully confining a player without consent or means of exit, or holding another player against their will.
2. The Defendant repeatedly killed the Plaintiffs within their own apartment, preventing them from freely moving about their property and attending to their possessions.
3. The Defendant continued to return to the apartment after being killed, trapping the Plaintiffs in a cycle of repeated death and respawn within a confined space.
4. The Plaintiffs had no meaningful means of removing the Defendant or escaping the situation, effectively being held against their will within their own residence.
5. The Plaintiff hereby brings one count of Deprivation of Liberty against the Defendant.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $2,500 in restitution for the destruction of the Plaintiffs' personal assets.
2. Nominal damages per proven count of Wrongful Death, at the Court's discretion.
3. Punitive damages for the Defendant's repeated, habitual, and outrageous criminal conduct.
4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

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 June 2026

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@hincho_ , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Avatarnate7983 v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85

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.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of Hincho_, who does not possess a forums account, nor are they on discord.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

Screenshot

 

[AvatarNate7983]

Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of the Plaintiffs, AvatarNate7983 and UnitedBoss, in my capacity as Barrister.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense moves that the court dismissed 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 (such as in 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 I, II, III, and IV should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

The Plaintiff has failed to provide a claim or reasoning to support its Prayers for Relief asking for Punitive and Nominal damages, and has failed to properly cite from what authority they are demanding Restitution for the destruction of the Plaintiff’s assets.

II. LACK OF STANDING
Standing under Rule 2.1 requires the Plaintiff to prove that the following has occurred:

1. 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 has only cited the Criminal Code Act in its Initial Complaint, and has made no reference to the RCCA. As supported by both the law and case precedent (CCA Part I §7(4); DCR 67; DCR 59), a civil Plaintiff has no legal authority to prosecute another citizen for a criminal offense. Criminal prosecution is undertaken by the state alone. The Plaintiff has failed to establish a civil injury that occurred as a result of the alleged criminal actions of the defendant. Where no cause of action exists and no civil injury has occurred, no remedy is available at law. The Plaintiff fails the third element of standing independently. The complaint should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.

III. CONCLUSION
As has been previously mentioned, there exists ample case law to dismiss the entirety of the Plaintiff's complaint, as it not only lacks any cognizable legal claim, but the Plaintiff also lacks any legal standing to pursue the claims they have set out. There is no remedy under the law that the court can provide for the Plaintiff's claims, and therefore this case should be dismissed.

 

[AvatarNate7983]

Your Honor, I’d like to respectfully request permission to file a response to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss.
Id also like to request an extension of time to do this.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, I’d like to respectfully request permission to file a response to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss.
Id also like to request an extension of time to do this.

Granted. You have 48 hours

 

[AvatarNate7983]

Granted. You have 48 hours

Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[AvatarNate7983]

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss and submits the following in response:

I. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A COGNIZABLE CIVIL CLAIM

The Defense argues that merely citing the Criminal Code Act does not establish a civil claim. The Plaintiff does not dispute this principle. However, RCCA Part III Section 1(1) explicitly states that its damages framework applies to “all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.” The Plaintiff’s complaint establishes a clear civil injury — the Plaintiff was unlawfully killed on four separate occasions in a no-PVP zone — and seeks civil damages arising from that conduct. This is precisely the framework contemplated by the RCCA.

Furthermore, the Defense’s reliance on DCR 67 is misplaced. In MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, the facts are nearly identical to the present case — a Plaintiff was unlawfully killed multiple times in Aventura while fishing, in a no-PVP zone, without provocation. That case was not dismissed on the grounds the Defense now asserts. The existence of DCR 67 as an active case actually supports the Plaintiff’s position that such civil claims are cognizable before this Court.

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING

The Defense argues the Plaintiff has failed to establish a civil injury. This is incorrect. Under Rule 2.1, standing requires:

1. Suffering some injury caused by a clear second party — The Plaintiff was killed four times by the Defendant.
2. The cause of injury was against the law — PVP is not permitted in Reveille, making each killing unlawful.
3. A remedy is applicable under relevant law — The RCCA Part III provides for nominal, punitive, and consequential damages for civil injuries of exactly this nature.

All three elements are satisfied. The Plaintiff suffered a direct, quantifiable injury caused by the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, and a remedy is available under the RCCA.

III. CONCLUSION

The Defense has failed to demonstrate that the Plaintiff lacks either a cognizable claim or standing. The Plaintiff has properly established civil damages arising from criminal conduct under the RCCA, and all three elements of standing are satisfied. The Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

The defense respectfully inquires if response to the complaint must be filed, and if so what the deadline for that response will be.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

The defense respectfully inquires if response to the complaint must be filed, and if so what the deadline for that response will be.

The deadline for the answer to complaint will be tolled until a ruling on the motion to dismiss is issued

 

[ko531]

Court Order

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

I will be granting the defense's motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5 for the following reasons.

The Plaintiff brings forth 4 claims of relief. The first is for wrongful death, which is the easiest of the 4 claims to dismiss. There has been an onslaught of precedents set in the District Court establishing that "wrongful death" is not a valid civil tort. The main cases addressing this are the following:

Mmiqa v. Zachofpotatoes [2026] DCR 67
Le9endz_ v. Aussiebloke25 [2026] DCR 59
Mmiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72

The next two involve theft. When looking for civil torts that might support the second and third claims of relief, there are two places to check. First is the Redmont Civil Code Act, which does not include civil torts titled with the word 'theft'. This is expected as the plaintiff is ripping these claims from the RCCA's sister law, the Criminal Code Act. The second place is common law. The court's search for any common law tort came up empty. The court was about to find property contention cases, but none that mapped well to this case. The cases found involved mostly fraud and breach of contract.

What was said for claims two and three can be said for claim four. No civil tort in the RCCA exists for deprivation of liberty, and no common law tort exists. This is expected as the plaintiff is ripping this again from the CCA.

The main issue with all four of these claims is the fact that they are being ripped from the CCA. The power to do this is cited from Part III, Section 1(1) of the RCCA. This interpretation of this section of the RCCA is absurd. What this section does not do is make every crime in the CCA also a civil tort. Many civil torts in the RCCA describe conduct that overlaps with crimes in the CCA. Interpreting Part III, Section 1(1) in this manner would make a large portion of the RCCA redundant. This section does not allow people to ignore the RCCA by just claiming that a crime occurred. Congress under no circumstances would ever intentionally write this section for this purpose. The RCCA and CCA work together; criminal conduct should be paired with civil torts when one seeks civil damages.

Claims two and three have another issue. Even if common law torts existed, they would be of zero use. The RCCA makes it clear that common law torts are only to fill gaps, not to override. To quote Part I, Section 3(1)(c), "Where this Code addresses the same subject matter as a common law tort, the provisions of this Code shall take precedence to the extent of any inconsistency."

The conduct being described in these two claims has civil torts in the RCCA to address it. Even though there are torts for the conduct described, the court cannot make the plaintiff's case for them. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to include these as claims. It is not the court's responsibility to switch criminal action to parallel civil torts.

As the case stands, there are no valid claims in the complaint. This is not to say there is no civil recourse for the conduct being alleged. The plaintiff has only failed to file the case properly. For this reason, the dismissal will be without prejudice.


This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

So adjudicated,
Judge ko