Lawsuit: Dismissed Bardiya_King v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 22

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On 2/3/24 at 3:59 PM EST, the Plaintiff was notified of their termination from the (Department of Commerce) DOC by Secretary CzarKovalev. The reason provided for the termination was cited as “Gross Negligence” without any accompanying details. Notably, this termination occurred subsequent to the Plaintiff's legal engagement of the "Dragon Law Firm" as a retainer law firm for the DOC. The Plaintiff contends that the termination, initiated under Secretary CzarKovalev's tenure, lacked proper justification and was executed without an adequate explanation of the alleged negligence. This dismissal is believed to be part of a series of politically motivated actions by the Defendant, who has similarly terminated other employees without sufficient cause. The Plaintiff seeks redress for the unjust termination, asserting that it is indicative of a pattern of arbitrary dismissals orchestrated by the Defendant, negatively impacting not only the Plaintiff but also other employees within the organization.

I. PARTIES
1. Bardiya_King
2. CzarKovalev (DOC Secretary)
3. DOC (Department of Commerce)

II. FACTS

1. On 02/03/2024, at 12:54 AM EST, Bardiya_King entered into a contractual agreement with Dragon Law, officially retaining the firm as legal counsel for the DOC.

2. On 02/03/2024, CzarKovalev assumed the position of DOC Secretary.

3. Subsequent to CzarKovalev's appointment, on 02/03/2024, Bardiya_King was terminated from their position within the DOC. The termination was attributed to "Gross Negligence" and occurred on the same day CzarKovalev assumed the role of DOC Secretary. The dismissal came without providing specific details regarding the alleged negligence, raising concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the termination. This action is perceived to be part of a broader trend of politically motivated firings orchestrated by the Defendant, as evidenced by similar dismissals of other employees within the organization.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the termination was a blatant political maneuver orchestrated by the Defendant. Within approximately 15 minutes of assuming the position, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff, providing a generic reason for termination. This action is deemed a clear violation of the Commercial Standards Act, Section 13 - Employee Protections, specifically (1) Unfair dismissal, which encompasses the unjust termination of an employee, leaving a position vacant without reason only to be immediately filled.

2. The Plaintiff experienced an abrupt severance from employment, devoid of prior notification or any indication of gross negligence within the DOC. This sudden termination inflicted severe emotional distress and profound anxiety upon the Plaintiff, who had consistently demonstrated dedication and commitment to their responsibilities within the DOC.

3. The Plaintiff continues to contend with ongoing anxiety and confusion from the lack of clarity regarding the reasons for termination from the DOC. The absence of transparent communication and a coherent justification exacerbates the Plaintiff's distress, leaving them in a state of uncertainty and disarray concerning their professional standing and future prospects within the government. This lingering uncertainty adds an additional layer of emotional and professional turmoil for the Plaintiff, who seeks resolution and clarity regarding the circumstances surrounding their dismissal.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Compensatory Damages: $45,000: The Plaintiff seeks $45,000 from the Department of Commerce (DOC) as compensatory damages. This amount is warranted to address the financial repercussions resulting from the unwarranted termination. It encompasses the loss of income suffered by the Plaintiff due to their abrupt dismissal from a governmental position, highlighting the economic hardships incurred. This sum includes the loss of in-game wages, future project wages, as well as potential investment opportunities tied to income.

2. Punitive Damages: $20,000: In response to the politically motivated terminations orchestrated by the DOC, the Plaintiff requests $20,000 from the department as punitive damages. This sum is intended to serve as a deterrent and punitive measure against the wrongful actions undertaken by governmental entities. It reflects the severity of the injustice endured by the Plaintiff due to political motivations in their termination.

3. Consequential Damages: $30,000: The Plaintiff seeks $30,000 from the DOC as consequential damages. This amount is justified to address the emotional humiliation and severe anxiety inflicted upon the Plaintiff as a direct consequence of the unjust termination. It accounts for the distress and confusion experienced by the Plaintiff, stemming from the lack of clarity surrounding the grounds for termination, as detailed in the earlier sections of this complaint.

4. Legal Fees: 20% of the awarded amount: The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for legal fees incurred during the pursuit of justice in this matter.


Witnesses:
AlexanderLove
Khan of Cockroaches
Steveshat

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 15th day of February 2024



Evidence attached:

Spoiler: Termination

Spoiler: Client

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Snowy_Heart (As the Attorney General) is required to appear before the court in the case of Bardiya_King v. 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.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

Given I don't wish to repeat myself the majority of my reasons can be found in Steveshat v. Commonwealth. Primarily reasons One and Two.

Those alone warrant a dismissal of this case. What changes here though are the arguments of whether there was gross negligence from the Plaintiff. That is up to Interpretation. Given there is no definition of what would warrant that within Redmont Law (There is the Oxford Dictionary though that will be too vague to justify using), the idea of an unjust firing is up to Interpretation and although I have yet to hear the Defense's arguments I feel as though they do not need to be made.

The argument for an unjust firing is vague and given the Plaintiff who was fired is now arguing as such, if I were to let this case continue I would be allowing anyone who believes they were unjustly fired to sue the Commonwealth over vague terms. Yes there is warrant to sue over unjust firing however not when the arguments are unfounded within law.

Whether political or not if a reason is given and unless the reasoning is not found to be legally just, a term like this is vague enough to not be able to be indicated for exactly what would be the Gross Negligence. While I could let the case continue and see what was the Gross Negligence, the rest of the terms would stay the same. The rest of the arguments are unfounded within law or are sob stories to get the case heard.

With that, this case is hereby dismissed with Prejudice and the Federal Court thanks all for their time.