Lawsuit: In Session BananaNova v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 44

Banana

Banana

The one and only
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
Joined
Apr 18, 2021
Messages
669
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


BananaNova
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On March 17, 2024, I returned to DemocracyCraft after a long break for personal reasons. I saw that my plots had eviction notices against them and opened a Department of Construction and Transportation (hereafter DCT) ticket to request an extension, as I wanted to get my playtime back up before I got removed from all of my property. The plot, av-r016, was then put up for auction and sold, without my knowledge. I tried to see if there was anything I could do to get my house back, but a DCT official informed me that it was an error and there was nothing I could do.


I. PARTIES
1. BananaNova (Plaintiff)
2. ko531 (DCT official)

II. FACTS
1. On March 17, Plaintiff returned to DemocracyCraft and saw that eviction reports had been filed against all of his properties.
2. Plaintiff then opened a DCT ticket on Discord to request extensions on the eviction reports (Exhibit A).
3. Plaintiff was granted an extension until March 24, by ko531.
4. ko531 put av-r016 up for auction on March 20, three days after the extension was granted (Exhibit B).
5. During the period of the extension, on March 21, Stoppers was declared by ko531 to be the winner of the auction (Exhibit C).
6. On March 22, still within the period of the extension, Plaintiff declared that the playtime requirement had been met, as confirmed shortly thereafter by ko531 (Exhibit D).
7. Plaintiff received a message that he had been unfined $50,000 and checked the ownership of av-r016, thus discovering that the property had been auctioned without his knowledge.
8. Plaintiff opened another DCT ticket, distraught that his house was going to be sold, and ko531 again responded. This time, ko531 claimed that the second eviction report should not have been made, as the property had “already been evicted”.
9. ko531 admitted that the double report, and the extension that had been granted, should not have been made (Exhibit E).
10. As all reports are available on forums, this means that the Defendant made another report against the Plaintiff, even with a report on the same property already in the records.
11. The Plaintiff then became increasingly distraught in trying anything to be allowed to keep his house, until finally giving up.
11. Thus, through several instances of negligence in the DCT, the Plaintiff was falsely led to believe that he was going to be allowed to keep his house, and then later told that it was too late. This caused intense mental distress on the behalf of the Plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Emotional Damages are defined as “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.”
2. The Plaintiff was just returning from an extended mental health break due to severe stress, sustained from negative interactions with Redmont’s government.
3. This event occurred as the Plaintiff was seeking to return to a peaceful server and re-integrate into the community.
4. The timing of this negligent act on the behalf of the Defendant compounds the negative feelings the Plaintiff has experienced involving the Commonwealth, and has caused severe distress.
5. The Expanding of Legal Damages Act allows for several tests, such as the reasonable person test, in considering emotional damages. For this, I would like Your Honor to consider how a reasonable person would react to rejoining Redmont after months, and beginning to be settled in again in the familiar setting, only to discover that their main residence, and the site of so much effort and time, is being taken away. The Plaintiff will expand upon these claims through the course of this case, but this is already obvious as a source of intense mental distress to any reasonable person.
6. Loss of enjoyment in Redmont is defined as “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.”
7. Losing one’s only residence is clearly a source of loss of enjoyment. The Plaintiff can no longer be a part of a town community as a result of the Defendant’s negligence and failure to do due diligence. Again, the Plaintiff is prepared to expand upon these claims through the case of the course, but it is the hope of the Plaintiff that Your Honor will see the damage done by the lack of care of the Defendant.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $50,000 in damages for emotional damages;
2. $50,000 in damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont; and
3. $5,000 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE
1711229168428.png


1711229201061.png


1711229228401.png


1711229311565.png


1711229424809.png

1711229449683.png



Potential Witnesses:
1. AlexanderLove

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 23rd day of March, 2024.
 
May it please the Court,
I would like to edit for clarity. In referring to the property av-r016 as the Plaintiff's "only residence", or other similar terms, I am referring to it as the sole personal home of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is technically in possession of another residential plot, r141, however this is not the home of the Plaintiff. It is rather the home of dygyee, a friend of the Plaintiff, in which the Plaintiff does not live. I respectfully make this request for the benefit of the Court to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. I have attached screenshots in support of my request.

1711232273274.png
1711232314938.png
 
I must inform the court that this situation happened because of a staff mistake.

The staff member who evicted the plot forgot to switch the ownership from BananaNova to DCGovernment which caused confusion resulting in a second report for the same plot being made.

If the plot ownership was correctly put to DCGovernment then the second report wouldnt have been made which wouldnt have caused the DCT to miss the first report until it was brought to our attention by Banana. By time it was brought to our attention the property was already sold via an eviction auction.

I must add that even though BananaNova was misinformed the outcome wouldnt have changed as Banana requested an extension a couple weeks after the plot was evicted and therefore couldnt be returned.

I know that this may be out of turn and unasked for but being that this was caused by a staff mistake I thought it be extremely necessary to inform the court.
 
May it please the Court,
Despite the potential contempt of court I may get for this, I believe that it is crucial that I get a chance to respond to the allegations that this is based on a staff matter. My claim of negligence does not have to do with the staff mistake in this case, and claiming this is just an attempt to get out of responsibility. I request the right to respond.
 
In the future, any information regarding a case should not be posted if you are not summoned to it. No contempt charges will be filed, but any future talking out of turn will result in a contempt of court charge. A response will not be necessary, as it will likely be addressed in the answer to complaint or a future filing.

Summons will be issued shortly.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the BananaNova v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​


Your Honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests the dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) for the following reasons:

The entirety of the plaintiff's case hinges upon a staff error, over which this court holds no jurisdiction. The plaintiff's case lacks merit as the plot in question was subject to eviction by the (DCT) prior to any extension being granted, as evidenced by the plaintiff's own initial complaint.

The plaintiff's claims center around emotional damages and loss of enjoyment, with repetitive assertions aimed at inflating potential damages. Despite referencing the purported "Expanding of Legal Damages Act," it must be noted that said act has not yet been enacted into law. Any reliance on its provisions is premature and irrelevant to this case. The notion of subjecting the court to hypothetical tests, such as envisioning the judge in the plaintiff's position, lacks legal basis as per existing legislation. We ask that you strike claim 5 from the record.

The plaintiff's definition of "loss of enjoyment in Redmont" as outlined in their complaint fails to account for the legal eviction of their plot by the DCT, thereby negating any harm suffered in this regard, as demonstrated by the correspondence provided by the plaintiff. Repeated accusations of "Defendant’s negligence" directed towards the DCT are unfounded, as the department acted in accordance with established laws and policies. Any purported negligence would fall outside the purview of this court, potentially implicating the staff team, an entity beyond its jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's characterization of emotional damages attributed to the DCT's actions lacks substance, given that only one plot was sold following proper procedures, and there is no evidence to suggest intentional harm on the part of the Commonwealth or the DCT. The plaintiff's assertion regarding returning from a mental health break and seeking to reintegrate into the community, while sympathetic, does not establish legal grounds for claims against the defendant. Such claims rely on speculative assertions of negligence, unsupported by applicable law or evidence.

The plaintiff's contention regarding the loss of their only residence fails to withstand scrutiny, as their departure from Redmont due to stress from governmental interactions undermines any claim of subsequent loss of enjoyment. The actions taken by the DCT were procedurally sound, following established policies.

Your Honor, the claims put forth by the plaintiff lack legal standing and fall outside the jurisdiction of this court. Allowing such claims to proceed would set a dangerous precedent wherein individuals could sue indiscriminately for subjective emotional grievances. If we let everyone sue for emotional damages with baseless claims, then I should sue the plaintiff for suing the commonwealth because it makes me stressed. I should also sue the courts every time they rule against me because it hurts my little feelings.

As such, this motion requests the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.


DATED: This 27th day of March, 2024.
 
Your Honor, may I respond to the motion to dismiss?
 
You may.
 
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor, the Defense has alleged that the claims of the Plaintiff are baseless and are outside of the jurisdiction of the court. In my rebuttal, I hope you will see that this is a mischaracterization. I will answer all of the Defense’s claims in the order that they were made, for clarity.

1. The Defense’s primary claim is that this is all as a result of a staff mistake. While Plaintiff does not deny that a staff error occurred, it is on the behavior and carelessness of a DCT employee that this lawsuit focuses. A simple staff mistake somewhere cannot serve as a scapegoat for carelessness and negligence elsewhere. If Your Honor will note, Plaintiff does not make any claim to compensation as a result of the property being evicted and sold. It is just the lack of due diligence and excessive negligence on behalf of a representative of the Defendant that is being claimed as cause for relief. As the Plaintiff will demonstrate through the rest of this case, the events that led to the Plaintiff’s suffering could occur with or without the staff mistake. Any kind of clerical error, including that by non-staff employees of the DCT, would cause similar issues when combined with the failures of DCT employees. Respectfully, Your Honor, the Defense is attempting to point the finger at staff, when Plaintiff intends to prove that the Defendant was incredibly negligent, and bears sole responsibility. If this case is allowed to continue, as it should be, the Plaintiff’s claims will be supported independently of staff actions.

2. Defense claims that the Plaintiff’s use of the Expanding Legal Damages Act is irrelevant, as legislation has not passed yet. The Plaintiff recognizes that the Expanding Legal Damages Act has not yet been included into law, and would like to request that the reference to it be struck (“The Expanding of Legal Damages Act allows for several tests, such as the reasonable person test, in considering emotional damages.”) However, Plaintiff contests the notion that the entire claim containing the reasonable person test should be struck. The reasonable person test is a common legal test, and is being used as argumentation in this case, whether or not it is required. The argument itself should be allowed, but the reference to unpassed legislation should be struck.

3. The Defense claims that the Plaintiff’s claim to emotional damage is invalidated by the legal eviction. Your Honor, this is an invalid conclusion to reach, and essentially argues that the ends invalidate any undue harm done in the process. Whether or not the eviction was legal, the Plaintiff intends to prove that the Defendant’s multiple instances of negligence led to harm on the behalf of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also contends that Defense is making an argument here rather than claiming frivolity or impropriety. Again, the argument is not implicating that staff was negligent, Plaintiff intends to prove that a DCT employee was exceedingly and avoidably careless.

4. Defense alleges that only one plot was sold, following proper procedures, and no intentional harm was made. Your Honor, this is an argument, not a claim of frivolity or impropriety in this filing. Furthermore, the argument is outright incorrect. Emotional damages may be sought when negligence is present, per the original case filing quoting the Legal Damages Act. Defense also alleges that the claims are unsupported by evidence. Plaintiff contests this, as evidence was included, and witness testimony is incredibly important for a case like this. Your Honor, to see if the claims are supported or not, this case must be allowed to proceed.

5. Defense claims that leaving for a mental health break undermines claims for loss of enjoyment. Plaintiff is quite frankly confused about what Defense is alleging here. Leaving for a mental health break and then coming back does not mean that anything bad that happens in perpetuity thereafter is invalid. Again, Plaintiff believes this is a strangely-phrased defense rather than a claim of frivolity.

6. Defense alleges that suing for “subjective emotional damages” creates a “dangerous precedent”, and would allow for mass lawsuits. Plaintiff believes that this section, in which the Defense uses deliberately inflammatory language and fallacies to make an argument about allowing for emotional damage lawsuits. Plaintiff would like to contend that Defense is entirely correct that you should be able to sue the courts, or anyone else, for emotional damage, provided that you prove negligence, as Plaintiff intends to in this case. Your Honor, this is a deeply flawed argument that relies entirely upon the complex question fallacy. The Defense assumes that the answer to the question “Is this lawsuit supported by an occurrence of negligence?” is no, which has yet to be proven in this case, and bases the entire premise of their argument in this section on the flawed assumption.

In summary, the Plaintiff fully intends to show that the responsibility for the undue suffering endured by the Plaintiff due to negligence lies solely on the Defendant, not staff, thus ensuring that the case will remain squarely in the jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, the burden of proof will remain on the Plaintiff, and the Defense should not be allowed to claim that an incomplete case is not adequately supported. It is the job of the Plaintiff through the entirety of a case to support their claims, not just in the initial filing. The Plaintiff has not even had a chance to make an Opening Statement yet. Respectfully, Your Honor, this case should be argued before a conclusion on its validity is formed.
 
The Motion to Dismiss is denied, as there is still an argument that negligence outside of the staff mistake resulted in damages.

We will now move onto Discovery. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have 7 days to submit any evidence and witnesses.
 
Your honor, Discovery, ended yesterday.
 
Following the resignation of Justice Neemfy, i will be taking over this case as the Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff has 72 Hours to deliver their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

Your Honor, The plaintiff has failed to submit their opening statement within the 72-hour timeframe allotted to them. We respectfully request that you hold them in contempt and allow us to move on with this case.

Thank You.
 
BananaNova is hereby charged with Contempt of Court and i order to Department of Justice to Fine/Jail accordingly.

The Defense has 72 hours to present their Opening Statement
 
OPENING STATEMENT​

Your Honor,

Today, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Redmont, I stand before you to address the allegations brought forth by BananaNova. It is our contention that the plaintiff's claims lack merit and fail to establish a valid cause of action against the Commonwealth. The plaintiff's complaint revolves around the eviction and subsequent auction of a property, av-r016. It is crucial to clarify that the actions undertaken by the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT) were in accordance with established procedures and regulations governing property management.

The plaintiff's assertion that the DCT acted negligently or maliciously is unfounded. The eviction process, initiated prior to any extension being granted, followed the prescribed protocols set forth by the Commonwealth. Any errors or misunderstandings that occurred during this process because of staff do not constitute grounds for liability on the part of the Commonwealth. The plaintiff's claims of emotional distress and loss of enjoyment in Redmont lack substantive basis. While we sympathize with BananaNova's situation, it is essential to recognize that the DCT's actions were not undertaken with the intent to cause harm. Rather, they were part of routine administrative procedures. The Commonwealth has acted in good faith and in accordance with established regulations.




MOTION TO RECONSIDER​

Your Honor,

We respectfully request that the court reconsider our previous motion to dismiss, as it pertains to a significant lack of claim in this case. The essence of our argument rests upon the principle that the plaintiff's assertions fail to establish a valid cause of action against the Commonwealth. Despite the plaintiff's diligent efforts to present their grievances, a critical examination reveals a absence of legal merit.


Thank you
 
Unseatedduke1 said:


MOTION TO RECONSIDER​

Your Honor,

We respectfully request that the court reconsider our previous motion to dismiss, as it pertains to a significant lack of claim in this case. The essence of our argument rests upon the principle that the plaintiff's assertions fail to establish a valid cause of action against the Commonwealth. Despite the plaintiff's diligent efforts to present their grievances, a critical examination reveals a absence of legal merit.


Thank you
Click to expand...

Motion to Reconsider is hereby denied, as there is still an argument that negligence outside of the staff mistake resulted in damages.
 
With no witnesses being submitted during the discovery period of this case, the court now calls on @Banana to deliver their closing statement. They have 72 Hours to do so.
 
@Banana is here by held and contempt of court, I hear I ordered the Department of Justice fine/jail accordingly.

We will now move on to the defense closing statements they have 72 hours to submit
 
CLOSING STATEMENT​


Your Honor, esteemed Members of the Court,

Throughout this case, the plaintiff has consistently asserted claims of neglect upon their return to DC after a period of absence. It is crucial to note the absence of substantive evidence or additional testimony from the plaintiff to support these claims beyond their initial statement. The plaintiff's failure to engage further in this proceeding raises questions regarding the validity and strength of their assertions. The plaintiff's complaint, while outlining their grievances, lacks sufficient detail to establish a clear case for damages. Instead, it appears to primarily focus on inflating the potential damages sought from the Commonwealth. This tactic of requesting various forms of emotional damages without substantive evidence to support such claims is concerning and undermines the integrity of this legal process.

It is essential to recognize that the DCT operated within the established policies and procedures governing property management within Redmont. Any deviations from these procedures, as evidenced by the interference of a staff member, were promptly addressed. However, it is imperative to understand that such incidents do not automatically equate to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth. Despite the plaintiff's attempts to seek recourse through engagement with the DCT, the evictions of the plots proceeded as per established policy. The uniform application of these policies across all members of the community ensures fairness and equity within the system. Allowing exceptions or special treatment in this instance would set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining the effectiveness and integrity of our governing policies.

Your Honor, it is evident that the plaintiff's case lacks the substantive evidence necessary to prove negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the Commonwealth. The DCT operated within established guidelines, and any deviations were promptly addressed. Granting damages in this instance would set a troubling precedent, suggesting that adherence to established policies could be circumvented through legal action.

Thank You.
 
The Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top