Lawsuit: Dismissed Bubbarc v. The Department of Construction and Transport [2021] FCR 9

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


BubbaRC
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: I got evicted from a plot that had cost me 7.5k without a week notice, which goes against the protocol, and gotten 3k back from the base cost leaving me 4.5k in the negative for the purchase of the plot, then I had to buy another plot costing 8k from intercepticon, I harbor no ill will against the DCT for this case, it is just too much money lost to ignore

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. BubbaRC
2. Department of Construction and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. As shown here ( Solved - c-040 | Evict Immediately | DemocracyCraft, hyperlink, was unable to make it otherwise) I was evicted immediately for a lack of progress report
2. As attached bellow the proper lack of progress report delay
3. For a lack of progress report you are supposed to have 7 days notice before eviction
4. this has directly cost me 12.5k (4.5k from the original plot which was not refunded by the eviction and a further 8k for a plot on the other side of the capitol)
5. attached bellow is proof of purchase of c-040 and c-041 (which I recently sold) and the new plot (along with permission to use the screenshot)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. I was not given the proper 7 day warning
2. This goes against the proper format for the evictions

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $4,500 in compensation for lost funds from the original plot as not refunded by the DCT
2. a further $8,000 in compensation for the new plot I was forced to buy
3. $500 in legal fees
4. This total would be $13,000


DATED: This first day of Febuary 2021

 

[Matt]

Verdict

The report you have linked was a BI report regarding non-compliance, not lack of progress. As such, the facts of the case are incorrect. For this reason, this case is dismissed.

If you are to resubmit a claim, you may do so in this current thread in an effort to minimise duplicate threads in the forums.

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


BubbaRC
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: firstly I apologies to the court, I thought it was a lack of progress report, I had misread it, however non-compliance also doesn't apply in this instance due to the definition of it as attached bellow and I was supposed to get an extra week with that kind of report even if it was supposed to be that, however it still stands that I got evicted from a plot that had cost me 7.5k without a two week notice, which goes against the protocol, and gotten 3k back from the base cost leaving me 4.5k in the negative for the purchase of the plot, then I had to buy another plot costing 8k from intercepticon, I harbor no ill will against the DCT for this case, it is just too much money lost to ignore, not only that but the fact that they even used the wrong type of report further makes me believe that I was unjustly evicted due to not only did I get evicted for non-compliance for lack of progress, but I also should have had at least a week period to fix it

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. BubbaRC
2. Department of Construction and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. As shown here ( , hyperlink, was unable to make it otherwise) I was evicted immediately for a non-compliance report
2. The report type doesn't even apply due to it being lack of progress
3. As attached bellow the proper non-compliance and lack of progress report times to fix, both of which would have given me at least a week
4. For a lack of progress report you are supposed to have 14 days notice before eviction
5. this has directly cost me 12.5k (4.5k from the original plot which was not refunded by the eviction and a further 8k for a plot on the other side of the capitol)
6. attached bellow is proof of purchase of c-040 and c-041 (which I recently sold) and the new plot (along with permission to use the screenshot)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. I was not given the proper 14 day warning
2. The eviction report type does not even apply to the reasoning behind it
3. This goes against the proper format for the evictions

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $4,500 in compensation for lost funds from the original plot as not refunded by the DCT
2. a further $8,000 in compensation for the new plot I was forced to buy
3. $500 in legal fees
4. This total would be $13,000


DATED: This first day of Febuary 2021

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case BubbaRC v Department of Construction and Transport. Failure to appear within 24 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​

 

[Westray]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

BubbaRC
Plaintiff

v.
Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfuly alledges:
1. The Building Inspector acted lawfully within the process and laws outlined for evictions. It seems as though this eviction occurred over a month ago, however after looking over it, there still remains no issue with the report.
2. Noting under eviction reports:

Eviction Report ($200) - Immediate
Player has been inactive for one month; has been permanently banned; and or the plot has been empty for 2 or more weeks.

3. As noted in the report, the building inspector states "Empty for 40 days" which exceeds the 14 day period. This means an immediate eviction was proper.
4. The Plaintiff is asking for an excessive amount of funds, noting that when evicted you get the funds returned per the sellback. In addition, the Plaintiff is asking for an additional $8k which seems to be for a plot that was never evicted.

 

[Matt]

My response to the defendant's motion to dismiss is as follows:

1. As of present there is no limiting Act regarding civil matters, only criminal matters. As such, the temporal distance between the event and the case is immaterial.
2. The report made was not an Eviction Report, rather, a Non-compliance Report.
3. The plaintiff has presented that they have not received any sell-back monies.

For the reasons aforementioned, this motion has been dismissed. I will now ask the Plaintiff's representation to provide an opening statement to the matter at hand. I would kindly ask a response to be made within 24 hours in an effort to keep proceedings moving.

 

[bubbarc]

we have reached a settlement out of court

 

[Matt]

Verdict

This case has been dismissed due to an out-of-court settlement being reached. I'd like to thank both parties for their efforts in providing quick responses to this case.