Lawsuit: Dismissed dearev v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 43

[dearev]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dearev
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

the defendant has copied the plaintiff’s auctions and mocked the plaintiff, as a result of so driving away bidders, the defendant copied the auction of the plaintiff two times they were copied with the exact same wording


I. PARTIES
1. Dearev (plaintiff)
2. Plura72 (defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On june 5th 2025 the plaintiff made a auction labeled “Sc or DC rank” about 2 hours after the defendant copied the auction with the exact same text only including an image of some dancing rabbits

2.On may 23th 2025 the plaintiff made a auction labeled “SC or DC rank” on thr 29th of may the defendant copied the auction with the exact same text only including a picture of the Democracycraft’s website

3. The defendant’s actions drove away bidders on the first instance mentioned

4. Defendant’s behavior shows a pattern of interference with the Plaintiff’s economic activity.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unfair business practices
2.Harassment

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. 35000 dollars in punitive damages for what could be earned from the Plaintiff’s auction if the defendant hadn’t copied it

2. A three day ban on the defendant participating and creating auctions on the #marketplace channel

DATED: This 6th day of june 2025



Witnesses
lcn

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-004

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Firstly, the Court believes there’s likely merit to the claim that the Defendant participated in “unfair business practices,” but it also recognizes that the complaint fails to cite any law the Defendant violated to support this claim.

Secondly, similar to the dismissal in Class Action Group v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 40, the defendant’s actions in this case were neither violent nor aggressive to be considered a violation of the Violent Offences Act § 5.5, even if the case’s facts were true.

For these reasons, this complaint lacks standing as required by Rules 3.1 and 2.1 of Court Rules and Procedures. Pursuant to Rule 2.2 of Court Rules and Procedures, the Court sua sponte dismisses this case without prejudice. Please refile your complaint with a citation of a law the Defendant violated, and please refrain from claiming it’s harassment unless you file with other facts which demonstrate so.

The District Court thanks the Plaintiff for their time.