Lawsuit: Pending DeltaruneTMRW v. Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 81

D

DeltaruneTMRW

Citizen
DeltaruneTMRW
DeltaruneTMRW
Barrister
Joined
Aug 22, 2025
Messages
2

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


DeltaruneTMRW
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant to provide them 12 stacks of items for their shop, at a rate of $400 per delivery. The plaintiff delivered the defendant 12 stacks of ender pearls, but was not paid for them the following pay period.

I. PARTIES
1. DeltaruneTMRW - Plaintiff
2. Trentrick_Lamar - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On October 14, 2025, the defendant hired the plaintiff to collect 12 stacks of items for his shop for $400. This was meant to be an ongoing agreement. (P-002 + P-006)
2. That same day, the plaintiff delivered 12 stacks of ender pearls to the defendant's shop. 2 stacks were sold directly to a chest shop, and the other 11 were delivered directly to the defendant. (P-005)
3. On October 15, 2025, the defendant released pay logs for the previous day, where the plaintiff was intentionally excluded and had not been paid. (P-004)
4. Upon confrontation, the defendant claimed that, when he said "stacks", he meant "64 of an item", and since ender pearls only stack up to 16, and I only delivered 12 stacks of pearls, I was ineligible to be paid. (P-005)
5. The Minecraft Wiki affirms that some items can stack to either 64 or 16, and some items do not stack at all. (P-001)
6. The defendant later stated that they planned to "go nuclear" and quit the server entirely in order to avoid paying the plaintiff for their labor. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of contract (§9 of the Contracts Act)

The defendant agreed to pay $400 for 12 stacks of any given item. The plaintiff agreed, delivered the requisite 12 stacks, and was never paid, which constitutes a failure to fulfill the defendant's contractual obligations, leading to direct harm suffered by the plaintiff.

2. Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (§14 of the Contracts Act)

The defendant, while deliberately withholding payment from the plaintiff in order to extract more labor from her for the same price, and threatening to "go nuclear" in order to avoid payments and legal damages, acted neither with honesty, integrity, nor fairness in any aspect of their contractual relationship with the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensatory damages of $10,400 for missed payments and loss of enjoyment
2. Punitive damages of $40,000 for flagrant violations of the Contracts Act
3. Legal fees amounting to $15,120 (30% of damages in accordance with the Legal Damages Act)

V. EVIDENCE

1760552955087.png
1760553773439.png
1760553791158.png
1760553809742.png
1760553836247.png
1760553873613.png

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 October, 2025

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons

@Trentrick_Lamar, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of DeltaruneTMRW v. Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 81

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

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.

 
I'm here. Can I just present my argument and get it over with?
 
P1. No written agreement exists between myself and DeltaruneTMRW establishing any form of employment or contractual work arrangement.
P2. No verbal agreement exists between myself and DeltaruneTMRW establishing such an arrangement.
P3. The screenshot presented by DELTARUNE is misattributed: it is a response to Mercuryellow regarding potential ways to make money; not evidence of a work agreement between myself and DELTARUNE.
P3a.) They admitted (“i had to get creative”) to misattributing evidence.
P4. A party that knowingly attributes unrelated statements as contractual evidence acts in bad faith; in this case, DeltaruneTMRW’s action constitutes a false representation and thus perjury.
P5. In my business, ore blocks are purchased and calculated as 9 ingot sales per block to ease the workload on miners, thus keeping ore blocks within the base-64 payment model. This payment model is openly practiced and applied.
P6. This payment model is known and understood by DeltaruneTMRW, as it has never been disputed when referenced.
P7. Base-64 stacks are a near-universal standard unit of measurement for the game, with base-16 occasionally applied for special items.
P8. Employees were paid according to this unit system and payment model on the morning in question.
P9. If no agreement exists, if the alleged evidence is misattributed, and if actualized payment practices follow communicated standards, then there is no valid basis to claim the existence of an employment agreement or breach thereof.
C. Therefore, there is no reasonable or legitimate interpretation under which DELTARUNE could have understood themselves to be in a work agreement with me beyond the standard base-64 supply arrangement of 12 total stacks of items, nor any valid contractual claim against me.

DELTARUNE has also publicly alleged that I destroyed evidence of a supposed work agreement. In reality, no such destruction occurred; the relevant evidence never existed because the ticket bot system—through which such records would have been generated—was never properly configured in the first place. There is a functional and material distinction between failing to generate records due to non-use of a system and deliberately destroying existing evidence after the fact. Therefore, DELTARUNE’s allegation is factually inaccurate and cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of concealment or destruction of a work agreement.

Evidence 2.png
Evidence 1.png
 
Trentrick_Lamar said:
P1. No written agreement exists between myself and DeltaruneTMRW establishing any form of employment or contractual work arrangement.
P2. No verbal agreement exists between myself and DeltaruneTMRW establishing such an arrangement.
P3. The screenshot presented by DELTARUNE is misattributed: it is a response to Mercuryellow regarding potential ways to make money; not evidence of a work agreement between myself and DELTARUNE.
P3a.) They admitted (“i had to get creative”) to misattributing evidence.
P4. A party that knowingly attributes unrelated statements as contractual evidence acts in bad faith; in this case, DeltaruneTMRW’s action constitutes a false representation and thus perjury.
P5. In my business, ore blocks are purchased and calculated as 9 ingot sales per block to ease the workload on miners, thus keeping ore blocks within the base-64 payment model. This payment model is openly practiced and applied.
P6. This payment model is known and understood by DeltaruneTMRW, as it has never been disputed when referenced.
P7. Base-64 stacks are a near-universal standard unit of measurement for the game, with base-16 occasionally applied for special items.
P8. Employees were paid according to this unit system and payment model on the morning in question.
P9. If no agreement exists, if the alleged evidence is misattributed, and if actualized payment practices follow communicated standards, then there is no valid basis to claim the existence of an employment agreement or breach thereof.
C. Therefore, there is no reasonable or legitimate interpretation under which DELTARUNE could have understood themselves to be in a work agreement with me beyond the standard base-64 supply arrangement of 12 total stacks of items, nor any valid contractual claim against me.

DELTARUNE has also publicly alleged that I destroyed evidence of a supposed work agreement. In reality, no such destruction occurred; the relevant evidence never existed because the ticket bot system—through which such records would have been generated—was never properly configured in the first place. There is a functional and material distinction between failing to generate records due to non-use of a system and deliberately destroying existing evidence after the fact. Therefore, DELTARUNE’s allegation is factually inaccurate and cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of concealment or destruction of a work agreement.

View attachment 64375View attachment 64374
Click to expand...

Filings required an affirmation that you aren't committing perjury.
Please review the Court rules. For example: " 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."
 
By making this submission, and by having made the previous one, 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.
 
Okay, we're now entering Discovery. This shall last 5 days and will end on 10/20/25 @ 6pm EST.


If either party wish to dispose of this action quicker, you file a Motion for Summary Judgement.
 
Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing Defendant from this point on. Defendant intends to file an updated Answer.

1760566230045.png
 
BrownBerry said:
Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing Defendant from this point on. Defendant intends to file an updated Answer.

View attachment 64382
Click to expand...
Defendant responded and affirmed that answer under perjury.

The Court already opened Discovery based on this answer, you'll have to file a motion to amend atp.
 
Your Honor, I'd make three points:

1. Under Rule 3.4, a Defendant can amend their answer at any time before the end of discovery.

2. Our initial Answer was not valid because it was (1) not filed using the required template; and (2) did not explicitly affirm or deny each fact (see Rule 3.2 for both). Defendant should be allowed to file a new Answer in compliance with the rules.

3. Defendant has just hired MZLD as counsel.

Therefore, Defendant would ask the Court to allow Defendant to file a new Answer, noting we are still within the 72 hour deadline.
 
BrownBerry said:
Your Honor, I'd make three points:

1. Under Rule 3.4, a Defendant can amend their answer at any time before the end of discovery.

2. Our initial Answer was not valid because it was (1) not filed using the required template; and (2) did not explicitly affirm or deny each fact (see Rule 3.2 for both). Defendant should be allowed to file a new Answer in compliance with the rules.

3. Defendant has just hired MZLD as counsel.

Therefore, Defendant would ask the Court to allow Defendant to file a new Answer, noting we are still within the 72 hour deadline.
Click to expand...

Understood, you shall have 72 hours to answer the Complaint. The Court warns your client that that failure to comply with the rules and procedures will result in penalties.

Discovery has not opened yet, disregard #8
 

Answer to Complaint


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

DeltaruneTMRW
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. Defendant DENIES paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
  2. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
  3. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
  4. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
  5. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
  6. Defendant AFFIRMS that Defendant made the statement in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, but DENIES that it was anything more than hyperbole.


II. DEFENCES​

A. There was no contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.​

Plaintiff has not met their burden of proof with respect to the alleged contract. P-002 is misleading evidence and does not show a "clear and unequivocal" offer to form a contract (see §4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act). P-002 was not directed towards the Plaintiff, but rather another person unrelated to this case (Mercuryellow).

B. The alleged contract lacks consideration.​

Each time that a person sells an item to one of Defendant's chestshops, they form a contract. They give items to Defendant and, in return, Defendant pays the seller. The Chestshop plugin provides all of the elements of the contract. Inherent in the Complaint, Plaintiff admits they participated in this contract. Plaintiff provided items and was paid for them.

But Plaintiff alleges an additional contract on top of the "base" Chestshop contract. Plaintiff alleges that there was a contract where if they supplied 12 stacks in 24 hours, Defendant would pay $400. So what does Defendant receive for paying extra bonuses for mass supply? Nothing: Defendant does this to help new players and keep on good terms with them. But mere goodwill does not rise to a level that the Court can consider as consideration. Remember that Defendant has already paid for the items through the Chestshop. This further contract, for the payment of bonuses after selling 12 stacks a day, is one-sided. It lacks consideration and the Court should find it void.

C. Defendant pays other people on a base-64 standard.​

If the Court rejects our first two defences and finds there was a contract between the parties, then Defendant also alleges that the contract was not broken. Plaintiff did not supply enough enough items to meet the threshold for payment.

Plaintiff is omitting to mention that the "total stacks" can come from any type of item (whether stacking in 64 or 16). The number of items are fungible: it can be a mix of 16 and 64-stacking items. It doesn’t make sense to try and differentiate between 9 16-stacking items here and 46 64-stacking items there. For simplicity, Defendant’s spreadsheet (see D-001; used to track payments) explicitly calculates the number of stacks as the number of items divided by 64. Plaintiff and Defendant both use the term "stacks" as a convenience, when it actually means 64 items. Defendant pays others on this 640-item basis and nobody has complained. It would not make sense for the Court to find that Plaintiff and Defendant had a special arrangement—more favourable than others—where Defendant would pay for 192 items rather than 640.

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that they supplied 13 stacks of Ender Pearls to Defendant. In other words, they supplied 208 items. By the arrangement in place with other contractors, Plaintiff has not supplied the required 640 items to be eligible for the $400 payment. There is no breach of contract.


III. Evidence​

1760574498928.png

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 16th day of October 2025.

 

Motion


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

Defendant moves that the Complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.5, the punitive damages claim is insufficiently pleaded. Nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff allege that Defendant's conduct was outrageous. A simple breach of contract is not outrageous. The Court should be wary of allowing minor claims to attract punitive damages.

2. Plaintiff has claimed "loss of enjoyment" as part of their compensatory damages prayer. By law, compensatory damages can not be claimed for loss of enjoyment (see §4 and 7 of the Legal Damages Act).

2. This case is frivolous. Plaintiff pleads $400 of actual concrete harm. Plaintiff pleads the contract was worth $400. Defendant accepts that extra damages are available in many cases. But it is frivolous to claim $65,520 for a minor contract dispute worth (according to the Plaintiff themself) $400. That is over 160 times the actual value of the contract. This is not a case where the facts should be left to be proven at trial. Based on the Complaint itself, it is inconceivable that the Court would award damages in this amount.

For those reasons, the Court should dismiss the Complaint and award Defendant reasonable legal fees, in about the $5,000 range (one third of what Plaintiff claims).

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — PERJURY

Plaintiff’s claims exhibit P-002 is evidence of a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. That is not correct. P-002 is from a conversation between Defendant and Mercuryellow (an unrelated person). Attachment 1 to this Objection shows the message in context.

If Plaintiff wanted to claim that the Mercuryellow conversation is somehow evidence of a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, then they should’ve provided the full conversation and alleged its import. Ultimately, the Court must be entitled to come to its own opinion on the evidence and that is not possible when a party misleads the Court.

Defendant also presents Plaintiff’s admission of misleading the Court as Attachment 2 to this Objection.

Therefore, Defendant would ask the Court to (1) strike exhibit P-002; and (2) order Plaintiff to pay sanctions at a reasonable amount of $5,000.



Attachment 1.png

Attachment 2.png
 
BrownBerry said:

Motion


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

Defendant moves that the Complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.5, the punitive damages claim is insufficiently pleaded. Nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff allege that Defendant's conduct was outrageous. A simple breach of contract is not outrageous. The Court should be wary of allowing minor claims to attract punitive damages.

2. Plaintiff has claimed "loss of enjoyment" as part of their compensatory damages prayer. By law, compensatory damages can not be claimed for loss of enjoyment (see §4 and 7 of the Legal Damages Act).

2. This case is frivolous. Plaintiff pleads $400 of actual concrete harm. Plaintiff pleads the contract was worth $400. Defendant accepts that extra damages are available in many cases. But it is frivolous to claim $65,520 for a minor contract dispute worth (according to the Plaintiff themself) $400. That is over 160 times the actual value of the contract. This is not a case where the facts should be left to be proven at trial. Based on the Complaint itself, it is inconceivable that the Court would award damages in this amount.

For those reasons, the Court should dismiss the Complaint and award Defendant reasonable legal fees, in about the $5,000 range (one third of what Plaintiff claims).

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ORDER - Trentrick_Lamar Motion to Dismiss

Movant prays for Dismissal for failure to state a valid claim, excessive pleadings, and impermissible prayers. Non-movant was not heard in opposition.

DENIED.

The Court will not prejudicate plaintiff’s punitive damages claim at this stage, but nonetheless agrees in principle that the Court should avoid allowing “minor claims to attract punitive damages.” That being said, the definition of a stack is highly relevant and a fact finding analysis must be performed to properly adjudicate the claim of non-performance.

The rest of Plaintiff’s arguments are noted and the Court will be mindful of them. Remarks on Plaintiff’s argument [3] (Brownberry put 2. twice), are reserved.

~ Magistrate Mug

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top