Lawsuit: In Session Dodrio3 v. PurpleBG [2025] FCR 77

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dodrio3
Plaintiff

v.

PurpleBG
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 27th of May 2025 2 Eviction reports were created against dodrio3 for plots S075 and S076. On the 30th of June 2025 an auction was started for both plots. On the 1st of July and 5th of July PurpleBG Placed the winning bids of $65,000 and $100,000 Respectively. On the 29th of July 2025 the DCT skipped past PurpleBG due to failure to pay resulting in the plots getting sold for $12,500 and $90,000 Respectively resulting in a loss of $62,500 for the plaintiff. When bidding in the real estate channel “All bids are legally binding and all bidders therefore are obligated to uphold their stated bid.” The defendant failed to uphold their stated bids which caused the plaintiff to lose money from the actions.

I. PARTIES
1. Dodrio3 - Plaintiff
2. PurpleBG - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On the 27th of May 2025 2 Eviction reports were created against dodrio3 for plots S075 and S076
2. On the 30th of June 2025 an auction was started for plots S075 and S076
3. On the 1st of July PurpleBG placed the winning bid of $65,000 on S075
4. On the 5th of July PurpleBG placed the winning bid of $100,000 on S076
5. By placing a bid on the plots S075 and S076 PurpleBG place a legal biding bid they the are obligated to uphold
6. On the 29th of July PurpleBG failed to pay for S075 resulting in it being sold for $12,500 to Gribble19 at a loss of $52,500 to Dodrio3 [P-001,P-002]
7. On the 29th of July PurpleBG failed to pay for s076 resulting in it being sold for $90,00 to Brustklefurry
as a loss of $10,000 to Dodrio3

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. PurpleBG made a legal binding agreement to uphold their stated bid by failing to uphold this agreement the defendant cost $62,500 worth of losses to dodrio3.
2. PurpleBG inflicted emotional damages on dodrio3 at the perceived loss of $62,500.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $62,500 In compensatory damages for the loss that dodrio3 made on the plots by PurpleBG’s failed to uphold their legally binding agreement.
2. $25,000 In punitive damages for the outrageous action of PurpleBG failed to uphold a legal binding agreement that they entered.
3. $10,000 for the emotional harm caused to dodrio3
4. 30% of the value of the case in legal fees or a minimum of $2000 whichever is higher.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 August 2025

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,

Agrari Talion & Partners Will be Representing PurpleBG
Due to our right to a speedy trial we would like to get the summons Immediately so we can get this matter dismissed

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

@PurpleBG is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dodrio3 v. PurpleBG [2025] FCR 77

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.

 

[ameslap]

Your Honor,

Agrari Talion & Partners Will be Representing PurpleBG
Due to our right to a speedy trial we would like to get the summons Immediately so we can get this matter dismissed
View attachment 58968

I will say this is a warning for speaking when not yet summoned. That being said it appears you are already here and as such have 48 hours to submit your answer to the complaint.

 

[PurpleBG]

Im here too if needed ?

 

[dodrio3]

Ultrapvpnoob will be representing me in this matter

 

[KingBOB99878]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

DODRIO3
Plaintiff

v.

PURPLEBG
Defendant
(Represented by Agrari, Talion & Partners)


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

The Defendant, PurpleBG, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint on the following grounds:

1. PurpleBG asserts no wrongdoing has occurred on their part in relation to the claims presented by Dodrio3.
2. The alleged issues or damages cited by the Plaintiff are the result of actions undertaken solely by the Department of Construction & Transport (DCT), an independent governmental entity.
3. PurpleBG had neither control over nor responsibility for the decisions or actions made by DCT that led to the Plaintiff's alleged grievances.
4. As the claims properly fall within the jurisdiction and accountability of the DCT, PurpleBG is incorrectly named as a defendant in this case.

Therefore, PurpleBG requests that this Court:

* Dismiss the complaint entirely with respect to PurpleBG.
* Direct the Plaintiff, should they wish to pursue this matter further, to address their claims to the appropriate party, namely the Department of Construction & Transport.

DATED: This 3rd day of August, 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
KingBOB99878
Represented by Agrari, Talion & Partners

 

[dodrio3]

I will say this is a warning for speaking when not yet summoned. That being said it appears you are already here and as such have 48 hours to submit your answer to the complaint.

Your Honnur the defence has failed to provide answer to Complaint. May I request the Defendant be ordered to write one so the Plaintiff may respond to any points they make in our opening statement.

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,
The Defence is sorry we were focused on waiting for a response by you on the Motion we Will post in a few minutes

 

[KingBOB99878]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

DODRIO3
Plaintiff

v.

PURPLEBG
Defendant
(Represented by Agrari, Talion & Partners)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant, PurpleBG, denies all allegations made by the Plaintiff, Dodrio3, that suggest wrongdoing or liability.

Defendant denies causing any harm or damages alleged by the Plaintiff.

Defendant asserts no responsibility for the actions or decisions referenced in the complaint, as these were made solely by the Department of Construction & Transport (DCT).
Defendant, PurpleBG, denies this caused emotional harm.

Defendant, Denies he broke any law as it shows in D-001 that DCT Sec. xEndeavour said he could pay or not

II. DEFENCES
No Liability: The Defendant asserts they had no control over the actions taken by the DCT, which are the direct cause of any alleged harm.

Improper Party: The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff's grievances should be directed at DCT as the proper responsible party.

Compliance with Law: At all relevant times, PurpleBG acted lawfully, without violation of DemocracyCraft law or regulations.

Lack of Cause of Action: Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a legally valid claim against PurpleBG, as Defendant has committed no act causing the harm or damages alleged by Plaintiff.





Evidence

Spoiler: D-001

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 August, 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
KingBOB99878
Represented by Agrari, Talion & Partners

 

[ameslap]

I will rule in the motion to dismiss tomorrow morning, I’m on a little road trip so my internet connection is hit or miss.

In the meantime discovery is now open and will last 5 days. It may end early if both parties agree.

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

I apologize for the late response to motion, but the motion still has not been ruled on so I assume that I am allowed to respond to it:

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

When a bet is placed on an auction, a legally binding contract is formed. By winning the auction and refusing to pay you have committed a breach of contract, which is suitable grounds for damages. The DCT did not force PurpleBG to not fulfill their contract, they chose to not fulfill it on their own, and hence they are responsible for all damages caused by their breach of contract

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

DODRIO3
Plaintiff

v.

PURPLEBG
Defendant
(Represented by Agrari, Talion & Partners)


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

The Defendant, PurpleBG, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint on the following grounds:

1. PurpleBG asserts no wrongdoing has occurred on their part in relation to the claims presented by Dodrio3.
2. The alleged issues or damages cited by the Plaintiff are the result of actions undertaken solely by the Department of Construction & Transport (DCT), an independent governmental entity.
3. PurpleBG had neither control over nor responsibility for the decisions or actions made by DCT that led to the Plaintiff's alleged grievances.
4. As the claims properly fall within the jurisdiction and accountability of the DCT, PurpleBG is incorrectly named as a defendant in this case.

Therefore, PurpleBG requests that this Court:

* Dismiss the complaint entirely with respect to PurpleBG.
* Direct the Plaintiff, should they wish to pursue this matter further, to address their claims to the appropriate party, namely the Department of Construction & Transport.

DATED: This 3rd day of August, 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
KingBOB99878
Represented by Agrari, Talion & Partners

I apologize for the late response to motion, but the motion still has not been ruled on so I assume that I am allowed to respond to it:

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

When a bet is placed on an auction, a legally binding contract is formed. By winning the auction and refusing to pay you have committed a breach of contract, which is suitable grounds for damages. The DCT did not force PurpleBG to not fulfill their contract, they chose to not fulfill it on their own, and hence they are responsible for all damages caused by their breach of contract

The court agrees that the Defendant is the correct party and the motion to dismiss is denied.

Sorry for the delay, I was at a wedding this past weekend and didn't have the cell service that I thought I would.

 

[Babysoga4real]

The court agrees that the Defendant is the correct party and the motion to dismiss is denied.

Sorry for the delay, I was at a wedding this past weekend and didn't have the cell service that I thought I would.

Your Honor,

I would like to inform you as a Senior Partner of Agrari Talion & Partners I will ne taking this court case on behalf of the defendant the previous lawyer has some IRL stuff rn.

 

[Babysoga4real]

I will rule in the motion to dismiss tomorrow morning, I’m on a little road trip so my internet connection is hit or miss.

In the meantime discovery is now open and will last 5 days. It may end early if both parties agree.

Discovery Intergation:

1. Did the Defence inform you of not being able to pay?
2. If the Defendant did inform you. What did you reply?

 

[dodrio3]

Discovery Intergation:

1. Did the Defence inform you of not being able to pay?
2. If the Defendant did inform you. What did you reply?

1. As per P-003 and P-001 The defendant informed that he was not able to pay after making a legally biding bid on the DCT Eviction Auction.

2. I did not reply.

 

[Babysoga4real]

1. As per P-003 and P-001 The defendant informed that he was not able to pay after making a legally biding bid on the DCT Eviction Auction.

2. I did not reply.

Question:

3. How long did the Defendant have before it was sold to the other 2?

 

[dodrio3]

Question:

3. How long did the Defendant have before it was sold to the other 2?

When the DCT replied

For s075 27 days
For s076 14 days

When the actuon was won

S075 28 days
S076 24 days

 

[ameslap]

Seeing as we are way beyond the 5 days of discovery, we shall move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post theirs. To keep this moving, the Defense shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement as soon as the Plaintiff posts theirs.

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

Opening Statement

Your honor,

This is a clear and cut contract violation. According to the DCT’s Auction Policy:

“(2) Bids are legally binding and cannot be edited once submitted.”

Since PurpleBG made a legally binding bid on the listed auction, they entered into a contract. They then breached this contract by failing to pay once they won the auction, resulting in monetary loss for Dodrio3.

The defendant tries to claim that they did not violate any laws. This is wrong. They violated the contract they made by bidding on the auction. They claim that the DCT is the correct party. This is wrong. They were the one who had a legal responsibility to pay the price of the auction, which they made a bid on. Finally, the defendant claims that this caused no harm to the plaintiff. As can be clearly seen in the evidence, this caused tens of thousands of potential money to not be sent to the plaintiff, clearly constituting harm.

In conclusion, this court will find that although the defendant tries to pin all of their wrongdoing on the DCT, they are the ones at fault due to them breaching their legally binding contract they entered into by placing a bid.

 

[ameslap]

Seeing as we are way beyond the 5 days of discovery, we shall move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post theirs. To keep this moving, the Defense shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement as soon as the Plaintiff posts theirs.

Opening Statement

Your honor,

This is a clear and cut contract violation. According to the DCT’s Auction Policy:

“(2) Bids are legally binding and cannot be edited once submitted.”

Since PurpleBG made a legally binding bid on the listed auction, they entered into a contract. They then breached this contract by failing to pay once they won the auction, resulting in monetary loss for Dodrio3.

The defendant tries to claim that they did not violate any laws. This is wrong. They violated the contract they made by bidding on the auction. They claim that the DCT is the correct party. This is wrong. They were the one who had a legal responsibility to pay the price of the auction, which they made a bid on. Finally, the defendant claims that this caused no harm to the plaintiff. As can be clearly seen in the evidence, this caused tens of thousands of potential money to not be sent to the plaintiff, clearly constituting harm.

In conclusion, this court will find that although the defendant tries to pin all of their wrongdoing on the DCT, they are the ones at fault due to them breaching their legally binding contract they entered into by placing a bid.

Seeing as it has been almost a week with no response from the Defense and there are no witnesses, we shall move to Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement, once it is posted the Defense has 72 hours to post theirs.

Thank you.

 

[Talion77]

Seeing as it has been almost a week with no response from the Defense and there are no witnesses, we shall move to Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement, once it is posted the Defense has 72 hours to post theirs.

Thank you.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TOR RECONSIDER

Your Honor, defense counsel has been busy irl, we completely forgot to file an opening statement. I hereby ask the Court to grant us 24 more hours to prepare an opening statement.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TOR RECONSIDER

Your Honor, defense counsel has been busy irl, we completely forgot to file an opening statement. I hereby ask the Court to grant us 24 more hours to prepare an opening statement.

Granted. No other extensions will be given after the deadline passes.

You have 24 hours.

 

[Talion77]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honor, this Case that the Plaintiff brought before this honorable court is a clear example of a misunderstanding of Contract Law. The defense asserts the following:

1. The Plaintiff claims he “lost” $62,500 because the plots resold for less. But the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive PurpleBG's bid amount until the sale was completed and payment tendered. The true value of the plots is shown by their final sale prices - $12,500 and $90,000. The Plaintiff cannot claim a “loss” of money he never had a right to collect.

2. No evidence will be shown that the Defendant acted maliciously, recklessly, or with intent to harm. The Defendant simply failed to complete a transaction, something the DCT's own policy anticipate and address by re-auctioning properties. Emotional damages have no standing in this context, and punitive damages require far more egregious conduct than what is alleged here.

3. If this Case is decided in the Plaintiff's favour, any failed bid in an auction, even before payment, even before transfer, even when the Department of Construction and Transport has systems to deal with non-payment, would expose the bidder to outragous civil liability. That would chill participation in auctions, burden the courts with frivolous lawsuits, and place private citizens in the position of enforcing government-run auctions, rather than the Department that oversees them.

4. The Plaintiff claims that my client, PurpleBG, failed to honor auction bids, but the truth is that PurpleBG was unable to access the funds because of the horrible financial crisis that faced us all. This was not a matter of choice. This was not negligence. This was an unforseeable act that made performance temporarily impossible, and by that matter, qualifies as force majeure.

For these reasons the court will find that my client did not act unlawfully in any way.

 

[ameslap]

Seeing as it has been almost a week with no response from the Defense and there are no witnesses, we shall move to Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement, once it is posted the Defense has 72 hours to post theirs.

Thank you.

Seeing as I approved the opening statement from the defense late, I will also change the date for the Plaintiff to post closing statements to 48 hours from now.

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your honor,

The defense has claimed throughout this entire case that they are not liable for any monetary losses. However, let me present an analogy: imagine that I had signed a contract to give you $1,000 dollars for you to give me an item, and then later you refused to buy the item. That would obviously be a breach of contract, and if later I had to sell the item for a lower price, you directly caused monetary loss. This situation is simply the same thing. The defendant made a legally binding statement that ‘if my bid is the highest bid, I will buy this plot from you for that bid’, and later failed to act on it.

The defense also claims that if this case was decided for the plaintiff, that it would set a precedent of people suing for any failed bid in an auction. However, this is not true. I am assuming by ‘failed bid’ they are referring to a bid that got outbid by another bid. In this case, the conditional in the implicit contract fails to hold, as they are not the highest bidder. If the defense by ‘failed bid’ is referring to a fraudulent bid, where someone breaches their implicit contract and does not buy the property, then we agree that they should be sued. It is a breach of contract like any other contract.

Finally, the defense claims that they are protected under force majeure. However, force majeure is clearly listed as a cause for a temporary suspension of a contract until the force majeure event is over. The SOWF for voyager had opened before the date of the payment being required, and hence the defendant could have accessed their funds in a short timespan. Therefore, they are not protected under force majeure.

In conclusion, although the defendant is trying to portray themself as a helpless victim of a financial collapse, they still violated a contract, it still caused monetary harm, and they didn’t do all they could have to fulfill the contract. The court will agree that they are at fault here.

 

[ameslap]

The Defense has 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Talion77]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your honor,

The defense has claimed throughout this entire case that they are not liable for any monetary losses. However, let me present an analogy: imagine that I had signed a contract to give you $1,000 dollars for you to give me an item, and then later you refused to buy the item. That would obviously be a breach of contract, and if later I had to sell the item for a lower price, you directly caused monetary loss. This situation is simply the same thing. The defendant made a legally binding statement that ‘if my bid is the highest bid, I will buy this plot from you for that bid’, and later failed to act on it.

The defense also claims that if this case was decided for the plaintiff, that it would set a precedent of people suing for any failed bid in an auction. However, this is not true. I am assuming by ‘failed bid’ they are referring to a bid that got outbid by another bid. In this case, the conditional in the implicit contract fails to hold, as they are not the highest bidder. If the defense by ‘failed bid’ is referring to a fraudulent bid, where someone breaches their implicit contract and does not buy the property, then we agree that they should be sued. It is a breach of contract like any other contract.

Finally, the defense claims that they are protected under force majeure. However, force majeure is clearly listed as a cause for a temporary suspension of a contract until the force majeure event is over. The SOWF for voyager had opened before the date of the payment being required, and hence the defendant could have accessed their funds in a short timespan. Therefore, they are not protected under force majeure.

In conclusion, although the defendant is trying to portray themself as a helpless victim of a financial collapse, they still violated a contract, it still caused monetary harm, and they didn’t do all they could have to fulfill the contract. The court will agree that they are at fault here.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor
the following statement in the closing statement just cannot be classified as a stretch by any reasonable person, it is perjury at worst:

„The SOWF for voyager had opened before the date of the payment being required, and hence the defendant could have accessed their funds in a short timespan.“

As seen in the Screenshot attached (D-002), PurpleBG had received their insurance payout, which you did not need to open a SOWF ticket to receive, on the 9th of August, 2025, way later than both due dates of the Auctions.

As such, we humbly request that this honorable Court does not consider that statement and punish the plaintiff for perjury as it sees fit.

Spoiler: D-002

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The discord link for the SOWF was sent at the date the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff understood this as the SOWF being open from that point. Therefore, this was a factually correct statement

 

[Talion77]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your honor,

The defense has claimed throughout this entire case that they are not liable for any monetary losses. However, let me present an analogy: imagine that I had signed a contract to give you $1,000 dollars for you to give me an item, and then later you refused to buy the item. That would obviously be a breach of contract, and if later I had to sell the item for a lower price, you directly caused monetary loss. This situation is simply the same thing. The defendant made a legally binding statement that ‘if my bid is the highest bid, I will buy this plot from you for that bid’, and later failed to act on it.

The defense also claims that if this case was decided for the plaintiff, that it would set a precedent of people suing for any failed bid in an auction. However, this is not true. I am assuming by ‘failed bid’ they are referring to a bid that got outbid by another bid. In this case, the conditional in the implicit contract fails to hold, as they are not the highest bidder. If the defense by ‘failed bid’ is referring to a fraudulent bid, where someone breaches their implicit contract and does not buy the property, then we agree that they should be sued. It is a breach of contract like any other contract.

Finally, the defense claims that they are protected under force majeure. However, force majeure is clearly listed as a cause for a temporary suspension of a contract until the force majeure event is over. The SOWF for voyager had opened before the date of the payment being required, and hence the defendant could have accessed their funds in a short timespan. Therefore, they are not protected under force majeure.

In conclusion, although the defendant is trying to portray themself as a helpless victim of a financial collapse, they still violated a contract, it still caused monetary harm, and they didn’t do all they could have to fulfill the contract. The court will agree that they are at fault here.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

the plaintiffs statement:

„The SOWF for voyager had opened before the date of the payment being required, and hence the defendant could have accessed their funds in a short timespan.“

, as in their interpretation here (Lawsuit: In Session - Dodrio3 v. PurpleBG [2025] FCR 77) is not relevant, as the SOWF discord link being sent does not concur with funds being accessible in a short timespan. The SOWF Discord link was being sent many weeks before funds were paid out and accessible, as such, this statement is irrelevant and to be disregarded.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honor, I request a 48 hour extension due to unfortunate irl circumstances.

 

[ameslap]

Your Honor, I request a 48 hour extension due to unfortunate irl circumstances.

Granted.

Objections ruling coming up shortly.