Lawsuit: Pending Bob596 v. NiceGuysNice [2026] DCR 120

J0kesOnU

Citizen
Supporter
J0kesOnU
J0kesOnU
Barrister
Joined
May 24, 2026
Messages
17

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bob596, Represented by J0kesOnU of Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Plaintiff

v.

NiceGuysNice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

"On June 7th, 2026, NiceGuysNice opened a ticket in my Discord, MABO Loans, to take out a loan of 5,000DC$. He agreed to the MABO Loans terms and conditions, took the 5,000DC$ loan, and then did not pay back his loan or otherwise fulfill his obligations by the deadline we provided. He has since left the MABO Loans Discord and ceased all communications with me. I attempted to reach out to NiceGuysNice to get him to repay his loan, and he never responded. Thus, I was forced to bring this case to the court for remedy."

I. PARTIES
1. Bob596, Plaintiff
2. NiceGuysNice, Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:21pm EST, the Defendant opened a ticket in the Plaintiff’s Discord server, named “MABO Loans”, to apply for a loan. (P-01)
2. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:42pm EST, the Defendant requested, and was approved for a loan of 5,000DC$ by the Defendant. (P-01, P-02)
3. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:44pm, the Defendant agreed to the “MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement”. (P-02, P-05, P-08)
4. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:44pm, the Defendant agreed to pay back his loan of 5,000DC$ within no more than 15 days. (P-02)
5. On June 7th, 2026 at 7:57pm, the Plaintiff used the in-game /pay command to pay the Defendant 5,000DC$ pursuant to the loan agreement. (P-03, P-06)
5. The 15 day time limit for loan repayment passed on June 22nd, 2026.
6. At the time of filing, the Defendant has not paid back his loan in full or in part, nor made any contact with the Plaintiff since June 7th. (P-04, P-07)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 6, §1(a)
In having no contact and providing no payment to the Plaintiff, despite being 9 days past due to repay his loan, the Defendant has woefully failed to perform any of his obligations under the valid and enforceable MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement.

Given that Breach of Contract requires only Strict Liability under RCCA Part VI §1, the Defendant's intent is not required to establish liability; the breach occurred and the harm followed.

2. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 6, §4(a)
In having no contact and providing no payment to the Plaintiff, despite being 9 days past due to repay his loan, the Defendant has woefully failed, with no lawful excuse, to deliver the goods that they had agreed to supply: 5,000DC$ in repayment, 150$ as 3% interest, and 5% of the loan amount per day late to repay under the valid and enforceable MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement.

The Plaintiff seeks Specific Performance in the form of the 5,000DC$ repayment owed, 150DC$ in interest owed, and 2,250DC$ as 9 days of 5% late fees, as well as 200 Civil Penalty Units.

3. Unjust Enrichment
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 10, §1(a), §1(b)
Upon acceptance of the MABO Loans Terms and Conditions Agreement, the Defendant obtained 5,000DC$ from the Plaintiff, and having failed to repay the loan as agreed, the Defendant now retains those funds at the expense of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has failed to partake in any communications with the Plaintiff, and thus, being bound to the original terms of the Agreement, has no legal justification for retaining these funds.

The Plaintiff seeks Restitution in the form of the 5,000DC$ loaned to the Defendant.

4. Negligence (General)
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 12, §3(a), §3(b), §3(c), §3(d)
By taking a loan out with the Plaintiff, the Defendant accepted a duty of care to fulfill the contract. In having no contact with the Plaintiff, the Defendant has acted carelessly and caused harm to the Plaintiff, a foreseeable consequence of failing to fulfill the contract or contact the Plaintiff.

5. Punitive Damages
Redmont Civil Code Act Part 3
The Defendant’s conduct satisfies the grounds set forth by the RCCA Part 3, §3(vi).

Under the RCCA Part 3, §2(b)(vi), the Defendant acted with gross negligence as to the damage his inaction would cause, both not fulfilling the conditions of his contract and not making any contact with the Plaintiff.

Taken together, this conduct represents a substantial departure from acceptable commercial standards and warrants punishment beyond compensation alone.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Specific Performance in the form of the 5,000DC$ repayment owed, 150DC$ in interest owed, and 2,250DC$ as 9 days of 5% late fees.
2. In the event that Specific Performance is unreasonable or unattainable, Restitution in the form of the 5,000DC$ loaned to the Defendant.
3. 5,000DC$ in punitive damages for outrageous conduct, pursuant to RCCA Part III §3.
4. 200 Civil Penalty Units (20,000DC$ at 100DC$ per civil penalty unit).
5. Legal fees at 30% of the total case value of 32,400DC$ (comprising 12,400DC$ in monetary damages and 20,000DC$ in Civil Penalty Units), amounting to 9,720DC$, pursuant to RCCA Part III §7(2)(a), subject to the Federal Court minimum of 6,000DC$ under RCCA Part III §7(2)(c).

V. EVIDENCE
P-01:
1783175454905.png
P-02:
1783175454912.png
P-03:
1783175454919.png
P-04:
1783175454927.png
P-05:
1783175454934.png
P-06:
1783175454940.png
P-07:
1783175454953.png
P-08 is linked below as a PDF file

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 3rd day of July 2026

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to include the following written statement:
"On June 7th, 2026, NiceGuysNice opened a ticket in my Discord, MABO Loans, to take out a loan of 5,000DC$. He agreed to the MABO Loans terms and conditions, took the 5,000DC$ loan, and then did not pay back his loan or otherwise fulfill his obligations by the deadline we provided. He has since left the MABO Loans Discord and ceased all communications with me. I attempted to reach out to NiceGuysNice to get him to repay his loan, and he never responded. Thus, I was forced to bring this case to the court for remedy."

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to include the following written statement:
"On June 7th, 2026, NiceGuysNice opened a ticket in my Discord, MABO Loans, to take out a loan of 5,000DC$. He agreed to the MABO Loans terms and conditions, took the 5,000DC$ loan, and then did not pay back his loan or otherwise fulfill his obligations by the deadline we provided. He has since left the MABO Loans Discord and ceased all communications with me. I attempted to reach out to NiceGuysNice to get him to repay his loan, and he never responded. Thus, I was forced to bring this case to the court for remedy."

Granted. Please make the amendment.
 

Writ of Summons



@NiceGuysNice is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Bob596 v. NiceGuysNice.

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.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Under the Court Rules and Procedures Part 3.6.1, the Plaintiff moves for a Default Judgement, considering the following factors:
1. The Defendant has failed to respond
2. While the court intends to assign a Public Defender, at this time no Public Defender has been assigned or named.
3. The Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant does not plan to respond at any point. The Defendant has logged no playtime in the past week and less than 3 hours in the past month (Motion-1), and has not communicated in the DemocracyCraft server in 22 days (Motion-2).

Considering all of the above factors, the Plaintiff believes it would be in the best interest of all present parties to move into Inquest proceedings per Court Rule 3.6.1.

Motion-1:
1000009797.png

Motion-2:
1000009802.jpg

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Under the Court Rules and Procedures Part 3.6.1, the Plaintiff moves for a Default Judgement, considering the following factors:
1. The Defendant has failed to respond
2. While the court intends to assign a Public Defender, at this time no Public Defender has been assigned or named.
3. The Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant does not plan to respond at any point. The Defendant has logged no playtime in the past week and less than 3 hours in the past month (Motion-1), and has not communicated in the DemocracyCraft server in 22 days (Motion-2).

Considering all of the above factors, the Plaintiff believes it would be in the best interest of all present parties to move into Inquest proceedings per Court Rule 3.6.1.


An edit was made to this motion to correct a formatting error for the image spoilers. No additional edits have been made at this time.
 
The Constitution grants a positive right for legal counsel.

Only a long-deported player (or a non-player, such as a company or Government)  may not qualify for a Public Defender.

Motion


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

The Plaintiff requests the Honorable court reconsidering their decision to deny a Default Judgement. The Plaintiff argues as such:

1. The Plaintiff agrees that Defendant has a right to legal representation. However, the Plaintiff argues that a right requires an action to exercise. All Citizens of Redmont are due the right to free speech; However, this does not extend to an obligation to exercise that right. A Citizen of Redmont is not required to speak freely at all times, nor is the Government of Redmont required to force citizens to speak freely. Thus, while the Defendant has the right to legal representation, the court is not obligated to provide it sua sponte.

2. In previous cases presented to the Supreme Court of Redmont, Default Judgements were granted when the Defendant for a case failed to respond. In Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved into a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. Additionally, in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved to a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. In both cases, the Defendant failed to appear and the Supreme Court moved forward into a Default Judgement.

 

Motion


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

The Plaintiff requests the Honorable court reconsidering their decision to deny a Default Judgement. The Plaintiff argues as such:

1. The Plaintiff agrees that Defendant has a right to legal representation. However, the Plaintiff argues that a right requires an action to exercise. All Citizens of Redmont are due the right to free speech; However, this does not extend to an obligation to exercise that right. A Citizen of Redmont is not required to speak freely at all times, nor is the Government of Redmont required to force citizens to speak freely. Thus, while the Defendant has the right to legal representation, the court is not obligated to provide it sua sponte.

2. In previous cases presented to the Supreme Court of Redmont, Default Judgements were granted when the Defendant for a case failed to respond. In Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved into a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. Additionally, in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, the Supreme Court moved to a Default Judgement following the Defendant's failure to appear. In both cases, the Defendant failed to appear and the Supreme Court moved forward into a Default Judgement.

Overruled.

You failed to hyperlink your sources. To save time on a follow-up motion, however, I will address the Motion as though you did hyperlink them.

More recently than the two cases you cited, the Supreme Court granted xLayzur a Public Defender when he failed to appear in [2024] SCR 1.

Additionally, the Constitution's right "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence" is a positive right rather than a negative right. This means a Citizen  must receive qualified counsel.
 
Back
Top