Lawsuit: Dismissed Dearev & jb4bass v. Plura72 [2025] FCR 67

[dearev]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dearev
Jb4bass (Represented by dearev)
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On may 31th the defandant Plura72 attempted to marry various individuals without their consent using his attorneys license, including the plaintiffs which he attemped to marry twice both of which were refused, the plaintiff (dearev) attempted to tell plura to stop trying to marry them as he didnt consent but plura didnt listen. Plura72 then after being told by dearev he didnt consent to be married tried marrying dearev once again with technofied.

I. PARTIES
1. Dearev (Plaintiff)
2. jb4bass (plaintiff)
3. Plura72 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Plura72 has an attorneys license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent
2. Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass
3. Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied
4. Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with TheRandomTechGuy
5. Plura72 was told by the plaintiff that they did not consent to being married and told plura to stop
6. Plura72 did not comply with the plaintiff's request for the defendant to stop

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Harassment
2. Marriage attempts without consent of both parties

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $25.000 for each plaintiff in damages
2. $5.000 in legal fees

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 31st day of May 2025

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: Proof of representation Jb4bass

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dearev & jb4bass v. plura72 [2025] FCR 67

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.

 

[Patototongo1]

May it please the Court,

The defendant is present and will be represented by Mezimori Law, with myself appearing as primary counsel on their behalf for the duration of these proceedings.

Spoiler: Representation

 

[ko531]

May it please the Court,

The defendant is present and will be represented by Mezimori Law, with myself appearing as primary counsel on their behalf for the duration of these proceedings.

Spoiler: Representation

View attachment 56669

You have 48 hours to provide your answer to complaint.

 

[Patototongo1]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dearev
Jb4bass

v.

Plura72 (Represented by Mezimori Law)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that “Plura72 has an attorney's license and with it tried marrying various players without their consent“.
2. The Defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Jb4bass”
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that “Plura72 attempted to marry Dearev with Technofied”.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that “Plura72 as told by the Plaintiffs that they did not consent to being married and told Plura to stop.”
5. The Defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that “Plura72 did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the defendant to stop”.

II. DEFENCES

1. The Plaintiffs present no evidence that the Defendant’s actions caused them any damages, harm, or legal injury. No measurable or compensable loss has been pleaded beyond speculative or exaggerated claims.
2. The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” but fail to demonstrate any violation of law. As held in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, harassment under Violent Offenses Act § 5.5 applies in contexts of violent or aggressive behavior. The District Court ruled that even if the facts alleged were true, no violation of this law occurred because:
   The Violent Offenses Act addresses conduct violent or aggressive in nature.
   Common law precedent limits harassment claims under this law to violent or aggressive conduct as seen in:
   Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89
   snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33
   JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29
3. There exists no legal basis, statutory or common law, for the Plaintiffs’ claim that “marriage attempts without consent” is illegal or actionable. As the District Court stated in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40:

there is simply no legal basis for claiming that marriage attempts without consent is illegal.

1. This case is a repackaging of the same claims already dismissed by the District Court in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to artificially elevate the matter to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
2. The Plaintiffs’ demand for damages and legal fees is without merit. The Plaintiffs have not shown how the Defendant’s actions were “outrageous” or deserving of punitive damages under the Legal Damages Act § 5(1a), nor have they shown any actual injury. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Defendant’s actions were at most playful or sarcastic, and not intended to cause harm.

⸻

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 7th day of July 2025

 

[Patototongo1]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5 — Lack of Claim: The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” as a claim for relief but have provided no evidence of any actual injury, harm, or damage caused by the Defendant’s actions.

No reasonable person could conclude that the Defendant’s actions, which were neither violent nor aggressive in nature, would cause harassment, alarm, or distress. This position is supported by the precedent set in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where the District Court found:

The Court finds that, even if the Plaintiff's facts are all found to be true, the Defendant did not violate this law. This decision is based in two reasons:

The law’s context is violent or aggressive in nature, being found in the “Violent Offenses Act.” (Emphasis added.)

The District Court further noted that common law has applied the Violent Offenses Act only to violent or aggressive conduct, citing Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, and JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29.

Rule 5.12 — Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: As per Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1, a Plaintiff must show:

• Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party;
• The cause of injury was against the law;
• Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

In this case:

(a) The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any tangible injury caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

(b) As confirmed in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, there is no legal basis or precedent in Redmont law making “marriage attempts without consent” illegal.

(c) The relief sought has no basis in law, as no violation occurred.

Rule 5.9 — Collateral Estoppel: This case is identical to Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where these claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to bring the matter before this Court, but the legal deficiencies remain unchanged. The re-litigation of claims already adjudicated wastes judicial resources and should be barred.

For the reasons provided, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and dismiss the complaint.


Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Defendant "Plura72"
Dated: 7 July 2025.

 

[mew]

this is true

 

[dearev]

this is true

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

This citizen has not been sumonsed to speak in this case

 

[dearev]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5 — Lack of Claim: The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” as a claim for relief but have provided no evidence of any actual injury, harm, or damage caused by the Defendant’s actions.

No reasonable person could conclude that the Defendant’s actions, which were neither violent nor aggressive in nature, would cause harassment, alarm, or distress. This position is supported by the precedent set in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where the District Court found:



The District Court further noted that common law has applied the Violent Offenses Act only to violent or aggressive conduct, citing Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, and JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29.

Rule 5.12 — Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: As per Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1, a Plaintiff must show:

• Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party;
• The cause of injury was against the law;
• Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

In this case:

(a) The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any tangible injury caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

(b) As confirmed in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, there is no legal basis or precedent in Redmont law making “marriage attempts without consent” illegal.

(c) The relief sought has no basis in law, as no violation occurred.

Rule 5.9 — Collateral Estoppel: This case is identical to Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where these claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to bring the matter before this Court, but the legal deficiencies remain unchanged. The re-litigation of claims already adjudicated wastes judicial resources and should be barred.

For the reasons provided, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and dismiss the complaint.


Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Defendant "Plura72"
Dated: 7 July 2025.

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a response

 

[ko531]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a response

You have 24 hours to respond.

 

[dearev]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5 — Lack of Claim: The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” as a claim for relief but have provided no evidence of any actual injury, harm, or damage caused by the Defendant’s actions.

No reasonable person could conclude that the Defendant’s actions, which were neither violent nor aggressive in nature, would cause harassment, alarm, or distress. This position is supported by the precedent set in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where the District Court found:



The District Court further noted that common law has applied the Violent Offenses Act only to violent or aggressive conduct, citing Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, and JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29.

Rule 5.12 — Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: As per Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1, a Plaintiff must show:

• Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party;
• The cause of injury was against the law;
• Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

In this case:

(a) The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any tangible injury caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

(b) As confirmed in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, there is no legal basis or precedent in Redmont law making “marriage attempts without consent” illegal.

(c) The relief sought has no basis in law, as no violation occurred.

Rule 5.9 — Collateral Estoppel: This case is identical to Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where these claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to bring the matter before this Court, but the legal deficiencies remain unchanged. The re-litigation of claims already adjudicated wastes judicial resources and should be barred.

For the reasons provided, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and dismiss the complaint.


Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Defendant "Plura72"
Dated: 7 July 2025.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,
Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40 was appealed and had its decision was overruled in Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 40 - Appeal where the court found that

The Magistrate makes the connection that in order to commit harrassment, it must be a violent act as the crime is found in the "Violent" Offenses Act yet the court disagrees as there are additional crimes in this act that do not necessarily need violence to be committed such as Dispersal Order Breech and Falsely Claiming Self Defense.

The plaintiff respectfully requests that this motion to be Denied for that reason, The plaintiff has shown evidence of harassment in P-001, P-002, P-003 and P-004

 

[dearev]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a ruling on the motion

 

[ko531]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5 — Lack of Claim: The Plaintiffs assert “harassment” as a claim for relief but have provided no evidence of any actual injury, harm, or damage caused by the Defendant’s actions.

No reasonable person could conclude that the Defendant’s actions, which were neither violent nor aggressive in nature, would cause harassment, alarm, or distress. This position is supported by the precedent set in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where the District Court found:



The District Court further noted that common law has applied the Violent Offenses Act only to violent or aggressive conduct, citing Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, and JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29.

Rule 5.12 — Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: As per Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1, a Plaintiff must show:

• Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party;
• The cause of injury was against the law;
• Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

In this case:

(a) The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any tangible injury caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

(b) As confirmed in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, there is no legal basis or precedent in Redmont law making “marriage attempts without consent” illegal.

(c) The relief sought has no basis in law, as no violation occurred.

Rule 5.9 — Collateral Estoppel: This case is identical to Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, where these claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs have merely increased the claimed damages to bring the matter before this Court, but the legal deficiencies remain unchanged. The re-litigation of claims already adjudicated wastes judicial resources and should be barred.

For the reasons provided, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and dismiss the complaint.


Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Defendant "Plura72"
Dated: 7 July 2025.

Motion to dismiss denied. This entire motion to dismiss is based on the dismissal in the district court that has already been overturned.


We will now be moving to discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.

 

[dearev]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests discovery ends early as we dont have any further submissions at this time.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests discovery ends early as we dont have any further submissions at this time.

Does the defense agree?

 

[ko531]

Now that Discovery is over, The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their opening statements.

 

[dearev]

Now that Discovery is over, The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their opening statements.

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a 72h extension due to internet issues

 

[ko531]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a 72h extension due to internet issues

You may have 48 hours, if you need more time we will address it then.

 

[dearev]

your honor i require a 12 hour extension as my internet just came back and i need to prepare the opening statement

 

[ko531]

your honor i require a 12 hour extension as my internet just came back and i need to prepare the opening statement

Granted

 

[dearev]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
opening statement

Your honor, today we show what Plura72 has done and its consequenses to the plaintiffs
Plura72 has tried to Marry individuals without their consent multiple times without thinking of the consequenses and what effect his actions have to the involved.
The Plaintiffs were victim to Plura's outrageous conduct we come foward to this court to ask the court to do what is right. and that is Hold the defandent accountable for their actions.
The plaintiff has provided 4 pieces of evidence that should be enough for this court to realize the damages caused by plura, we trust in the Justice system to look over the evidence and provide a verdict that is fair to both sides.

We the plaintiff have been harrased by the defendant and the defendant simply claims it as a "Prank" or a "Joke" which is insesitive to the plaintiffs who experienced this first hand multiple times, and knowing that this court will provide fairness to those involved.

Marriage is something that should only be done in consent with both parties involved and the defandent dosent seem to realize that as even when warned they kept going, this childish behaviour should not be tolarated by this court.


Dated: 25th of july 2025

 

[ko531]

The defendant has 72 hours to provide their opening statements

 

[dearev]

Objection

Breach of procedure

The defendant has not filed their opening statements

 

[ko531]

As the defense has failed to provide their opening statements and no witnesses were called, The plaintiff has 24 hours to provide their closing statements

 

[dearev]

Motion

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The plaintiff has settled for all damages minus legal fees.

 

[ko531]

Motion

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The plaintiff has settled for all damages minus legal fees.

Case is dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.