Lawsuit: Dismissed Bardiya_King JustA_Dumpling Vs. CrackedAmoeba1 [2024] FCR 60

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bardiya_King
JustA_Dumpling
Plaintiff


V


CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant


COMPLAINT
On the 3rd of April, 2024, The Daily Chuckle, owned by CrackedAmoeba1, launched a defaming/false article about plaintiff Bardiya_King (P-001). It claimed that Bardiya_King, “was fired by then Mayor CrackedAmoeba1 after the Council voted to remove Bardiya for repeated toxicity and constant verbal abuse towards the Council. . .making repeated attempts to destroy the Town of Oakridge.” The two claims quoted are both false and this libel severely damaged the reputation of Bardiya_King, as well as JustA_Dumpling (Bardiya_King endorsed JustA_Dumpling, and the fact that “the evil Bardiya_King endorsed JustA_Dumpling” was used in CrackedAmoeba’s campaign). This defamation/the loss of potential electoral positions was already enough for the defendants, but then the defendant proceeded to make slanderous and emotionally damaging remarks, such as, “Dumpling can't build so idk how yall r gonna get anything done,” @Bardiya_King u really are not smart,” “@Bardiya_King don't forget I have a can of Woopass ready to go,” “Dumpling believes whatever Bardiya says and even u know Bardiya is a crook.” These slanderous and libelist remarks damaged the reputation of both Bardiya_King and JustA_Dumpling, emotionally damaged them, and caused a loss of enjoyment.


I.PARTIES
(1) Bardiya_King (Plaintiff)
(2) JustA_Dumpling (Plaintiff)
(3) CrackedAmoeba1 (Defendant)


II.FACTS
(1) The Daily Chuckle, owned by CrackedAmoeba1, made libelist remarks toward the defendants
(2) CrackedAmoeba1 made slanderous remarks toward the defendants
(3) CrackedAmoeba1 has emotionally damaged the defendants
(4) The defendants have suffered loss of enjoyment due to CrackedAmoeba1’s actions

III.CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
(1) The Daily Chuckle has made libelist remarks towards the defendants, and as per The Defamation Act, this is the act of publishing a “false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation.” The claim that Bardiya_King “was fired by then Mayor CrackedAmoeba1 after the Council voted to remove Bardiya for repeated toxicity and constant verbal abuse towards the Council,” is false, as Bardiya_King quit, and was not fired. In the same news article, it is claimed that Bardiya_King was “making repeated attempts to destroy the Town of Oakridge,” but this is also not true. Bardiya_King made no attempt whatsoever to “destroy the Town of Oakridge.”
(2) The definition of slander as per the Defamation Act is “Slander is a false statement which defames another person.” CrackedAmoeba1 has made slanderous remarks toward the defendants, such as “Dumpling can't build so idk how yall r gonna get anything done,” which is not only false but also emotionally damaging. Another example of this slander is “Bardiya is a crook,” which again, is not only false but also emotionally damaging.
(3) Due to this slander and libel, the defendants have incurred loss of enjoyment. As per the Legal Damages Act, the definition of Loss of Enjoyment is “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.” The slander/libel restricts the ability to be elected as before, as the reputation of the defendants has been irreparably damaged.


IV.PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
(1) $100,000 in libel
(2) $100,000 in slander
(3) $50,000 in emotional damages
(4) $50,000 in loss of enjoyment
(5) $90,000 in legal fees


V.ATTACHMENTS

P-001:

P-002:

P-003:

P-004:

P-005:

P-006:

 

[SumoMC]

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

@CrackedAmoeba1 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bardiya_King and JustA_Dumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1.

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.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I request a 24 hour extension to allow time to review the case as I was just hired. I have work soon too.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, I request a 24 hour extension to allow time to review the case as I was just hired. I have work soon too.

Granted 24 Hours from the original deadline

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I motion to dismiss under rule 5.7, as the lawsuit fails to include The Daily Chuckle as the defendant (the declarant of the statements in this case). CrackedAmoeba1 is not directly liable for the actions of the company as legally the company and the owner are legally separate entities per the Commercial Standards Act, section 19.

 

[SumoMC]

Plaintiff has 48 Hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, the plaintiff named the owner and sole shareholder of the company. We understand that this is failure under the Commercial Standards Act, however, we ask that we just amend it instead of dismissing without prejudice and refiling, as it will only save the court's time.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Answer to Complaint
T (yes this is intentional, and before anyone calls me crazy, just wait).

 

[Alexander P. Love]

P-003:

Objection your honor, relevance and prejudicial over probative.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

P-002:

Objection, your honor. Relevance. This shows no alleged defamatory remarks and personal fights between the two parties have no place in this court.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

P-006:

Objection your honor, relevance. This statement shows no defamatory remarks, as it’s simply the opinion of the defendant.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I motion to dismiss under rule 5.5 lack of claim. All the statements in the complaint are mostly opinion, and those that may not be opinion statements cannot be attributed to provable damages. There are no claims or evidence to substantiate that the remarks more likely than not (the standard of proof in civil cases) impacted election results. It sounds like the plaintiffs are offended about the public opinions of the defendant, and the plaintiff doesn’t want to accept his role in the situation, particularly where termination of his position was mutual (both fired and quit). Finally, this case serves only to suppress the political speech freedoms of the defendant in an unceremonious fashion. Defamation requires provable damages and requires the statements to be false. Opinions cannot inherently be true nor false. Thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection, your honor. Relevance. This shows no alleged defamatory remarks and personal fights between the two parties have no place in this court.

Objection sustained, evidence is struck from the record.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, I motion to dismiss under rule 5.5 lack of claim. All the statements in the complaint are mostly opinion, and those that may not be opinion statements cannot be attributed to provable damages. There are no claims or evidence to substantiate that the remarks more likely than not (the standard of proof in civil cases) impacted election results. It sounds like the plaintiffs are offended about the public opinions of the defendant, and the plaintiff doesn’t want to accept his role in the situation, particularly where termination of his position was mutual (both fired and quit). Finally, this case serves only to suppress the political speech freedoms of the defendant in an unceremonious fashion. Defamation requires provable damages and requires the statements to be false. Opinions cannot inherently be true nor false. Thank you.

Motion to Dismiss is hereby Granted, this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. This case is not one of substance and its just two people who very much dislike each other trying a new avenue of their squabble. This case is neither slander nor of substance, it lacks the key components to be brought before the court.

The Federal Court of Redmont thanks everyone for their time.