Lawsuit: Dismissed Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wow_wow_o

Citizen
Wow_Wow_O
Wow_Wow_O
Barrister
Joined
Jun 7, 2026
Messages
3
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ẻtco
Plaintiff
v.
mvchrelle
Defendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On June 9, 2026, the Plaintiff, ẻtco a Generally is a New player, was running his shop on a regular day in the city, just trying to make his living by selling some diamonds he bought with his hard-earned money, and was setting up the price, and while being new didn't really know how to set it right, so made it higher the market price making it 10$ instead of 1$ both the Plaintiff and the Defendant noticed this as the Plaintiff was trying to fix it the Defendant caused the Wrongful Death of the Plaintiff while selling him diamonds at 10$ taking all the Plaitiff money After taking everything form the Plaintiff the Defendant ran off with his money after this the Plaitiff was able to fix his mistakes and call the cops but no one showed up and the Defendant was long gone.

I. PARTIES
1. etco - Plaintiff
2. Mychrelle - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On June 9, 2026, the Plaintiff Etco was present at his shop in the city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont
2. The Plaintiff was in the city, so PVP combat is not permitted in the City
3. The Defendant, Mychrelle, initiated unprovoked combat against the Plaintiff.
4. The in-game system confirmed: "Mychrelle has murdered you! type /911 to report them to the authorities"
5. The Transactions logs show that Mvchrelle sold Diamonds to Etco for 10$ as 16x10=160
6. The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no weapons, no armour, and no means to defend themselves.
7. The Plaintiff called /911 to report the Defendant's conduct to the authorities following the attacks, but no one showed up.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM I: WRONGFUL DEATH — Criminal Code Act

The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as the unlawful killing of another player.
PvP combat is not permitted in Aventura.
The Defendant unlawfully caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff in the city without provocation.
An instance of wrongful death constitutes a separate civil claim under the Criminal Code Act.
The Plaintiff brings one count of Wrongful Death against the Defendant.

CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 1

The Redmont Civil Code Act provides: "The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct."
The Defendant's one instance of wrongful death against the Plaintiff constitutes criminal conduct giving rise to civil damages.
Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit.

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 3

Punitive damages are available where the Defendant's conduct was outrageous.
Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behavior and reflects a willful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.
The Defendant's conduct was outrageous for the following reasons:
(a) The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff without any provocation whatsoever.
(b) The Defendant deliberately targeted a brand new player who had been on the server for only 1 day, with no weapons, no armour, and no means to defend themselves.
(c) The nature of the attacks — a wrongful death of the defenceless new player and taking his money through his shop while he was trying to change it — demonstrates deliberate, calculated, and predatory conduct.
(d) making punitive damages necessary not only to punish the Defendant but also to deter this habitual behaviour in the future, to make sure they won't do this to another player again.

The Plaintiff seeks $5,000 in punitive damages.

CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES — LOSS OF ENJOYMENT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 5

Loss of Enjoyment is available where an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.
The Plaintiff had just begun their first day in the Commonwealth of Redmont, intending to make their living selling diamonds and other Resources and enjoy the server for the first time.
The Defendant's unprovoked instance of his wrongful death on the Plaintiff's very first day severely and permanently diminished the Plaintiff's first experience in Redmont.
The Plaintiff was unable to run his shop as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
A reasonable person in the same circumstances — suffering a wrongful death as a brand new player on their very first day in a city that has laws about no killing and with no cops showing up to help him, with also no weapons, no armour, and no means of defence — would experience a significant and lasting loss of enjoyment.
As punitive damages are also being sought in this matter, the consequential damages cap of $50,000 does not apply per the Redmont Civil Code Act.
The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
$5,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's outrageous, repeated, and habitual criminal conduct
  1. $10,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
  2. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

    Total: 15,000
V. EVIDENCE

View attachment 85186

View attachment 85187


View attachment 85188

VI. REPRESENTATION


The Plaintiff, etco, asked a licensed Barrister Wow_wow_o to represent them in this matter.

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 9th day of June 2026
 

Writ of Summons


@mvchrelle is commanded to appear in the District Court for case etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR XX

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 am present on behalf of mvchrelle as his legal counsel.
1781242052164.png
 

Answer to Complaint


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

ẻtco
Plaintiff

v.

mvchrelle
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM
2. AFFIRM
3. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
4. AFFIRM
5. AFFIRM
6. DENY
7. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
II. DEFENCES
1. The Defendant did not intend to murder the plaintiff, and he did not do so with malice.
2. The Plaintiff has a responsibility to ensure that the prices are set up correctly for a chest shop prior to opening it; the negligence of the Plaintiff does not indicate a wrong on behalf of the Defendant.
3. The request for Punitive Damages is, itself, outrageous. The complaint alleges "repeated, habitual criminal conduct"; however, there has been no evidence provided that would substantiate this claim.
4. The Consequential Damages are insignificant. Any reasonable person would simply adjust the pricing and make up for the loss; in addition, $10,000 is far too high of an amount to remedy what is, at worst, a minor inconvenience.
5. "Wrongful Death" is not a recognized tort under the Civil Code Act.


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 12th day of June 2026


Motion


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

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

1. Under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures, a case can be dismissed based on claims of relief that have insufficient evidence to support civil charges.
(a). Claim I, Wrongful Death, is not a tort under the Civil Code Act.
(b). Claim III is missing.
(c). Claim IV, Punitive Damages, is a prayer for relief, not a claim for relief.
(d). Claim V, Consequential Damages, is also a prayer for relief.
2. Under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff lacking sufficient standing is cause for dismissal of a case. Rule 2.1 of Court Rules and Procedures defines standing as consisting of 3 parts:
(a). Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
(b). The cause of injury was against the law.
(c). Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
2.1. The standing of this case fails on aspect (b). The only crime that the Defendant committed was murder, which is not the primary cause of the damages, and the murder itself caused minimal damages. The primary cause of damage was the Plaintiff's act of setting up the shop incorrectly, as opposed to researching prior.


In addition, the Defense notes that the Plaintiff's evidence has not been filed in accordance with the Court Rules and Procedures.
 
00f3 said:

Answer to Complaint


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

ẻtco
Plaintiff

v.

mvchrelle
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM
2. AFFIRM
3. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
4. AFFIRM
5. AFFIRM
6. DENY
7. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
II. DEFENCES
1. The Defendant did not intend to murder the plaintiff, and he did not do so with malice.
2. The Plaintiff has a responsibility to ensure that the prices are set up correctly for a chest shop prior to opening it; the negligence of the Plaintiff does not indicate a wrong on behalf of the Defendant.
3. The request for Punitive Damages is, itself, outrageous. The complaint alleges "repeated, habitual criminal conduct"; however, there has been no evidence provided that would substantiate this claim.
4. The Consequential Damages are insignificant. Any reasonable person would simply adjust the pricing and make up for the loss; in addition, $10,000 is far too high of an amount to remedy what is, at worst, a minor inconvenience.
5. "Wrongful Death" is not a recognized tort under the Civil Code Act.


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 12th day of June 2026


Motion


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

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

1. Under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures, a case can be dismissed based on claims of relief that have insufficient evidence to support civil charges.
(a). Claim I, Wrongful Death, is not a tort under the Civil Code Act.
(b). Claim III is missing.
(c). Claim IV, Punitive Damages, is a prayer for relief, not a claim for relief.
(d). Claim V, Consequential Damages, is also a prayer for relief.
2. Under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff lacking sufficient standing is cause for dismissal of a case. Rule 2.1 of Court Rules and Procedures defines standing as consisting of 3 parts:
(a). Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
(b). The cause of injury was against the law.
(c). Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
2.1. The standing of this case fails on aspect (b). The only crime that the Defendant committed was murder, which is not the primary cause of the damages, and the murder itself caused minimal damages. The primary cause of damage was the Plaintiff's act of setting up the shop incorrectly, as opposed to researching prior.


In addition, the Defense notes that the Plaintiff's evidence has not been filed in accordance with the Court Rules and Procedures.
Click to expand...

@Wow_wow_o You have until 6/16/26 at 9pm EDT to respond to the Motion to Dismiss

Discovery is now open until 6/19/26 @ 9pm EDT.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the defense submits the following questions for the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their abilities, under penalty of Perjury.

  1. What was the Plaintiff's total playtime, in hours, when the Plaintiff first set up the chestshop on June 9th, 2026?
  2. Was the Plaintiff experiencing any kind of outside influence while setting up the chestshop for the Diamonds?
  3. Did the Plaintiff observe the Defendant prior to the Plaintiff's death?
  4. How much money did the Plaintiff have following the transactions with the Defendant?
  5. What items did the Plaintiff possess following the transactions with the Defendant?

 

Motion


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

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

The Plaintiff has neglected the 48 hour deadline for answers to be interrogatories to be submitted. Under Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery), the Defense moves to dismiss this complaint in its entirety.

The Defense also requests that this motion be considered independently of the first Motion to Dismiss.

 
00f3 said:

Motion


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

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

The Plaintiff has neglected the 48 hour deadline for answers to be interrogatories to be submitted. Under Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery), the Defense moves to dismiss this complaint in its entirety.

The Defense also requests that this motion be considered independently of the first Motion to Dismiss.

Click to expand...
@Wow_wow_o Any response to this? You have until 6/21/26 @ 9pm EDT.
 
Your honor, do you have a ruling on the first Motion to Dismiss?
 
The action is dismissed for want of prosecution.

00f3 said:

Motion


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

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

The Plaintiff has neglected the 48 hour deadline for answers to be interrogatories to be submitted. Under Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery), the Defense moves to dismiss this complaint in its entirety.

The Defense also requests that this motion be considered independently of the first Motion to Dismiss.

Click to expand...

GRANTED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top