Lawsuit: In Session fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22

[emilypancakes22]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


fickogames
Plaintiff

v.
Ollie_MineCraft
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff. Under the terms of the contract, the Plaintiff would supply the Defendant with the funds to pay for a property won in a DCT auction, and then the Defendant would transfer the property to the Plaintiff. After the Plaintiff sent the funds, the Defendant than removed the funds from their balance rather than paying for the property and became unresponsive to the Plaintiff's attempts at contact.

I. PARTIES
1. fickogames
2. Ollie_MineCraft

II. FACTS
1. On the 12th of February, 2026, the Defendant placed a winning bid of $28,000 on a DCT eviction auction for C117. (P-002)
2. On the 13th of February, 2026, the Defendant stated "i bought a diffrent property and can no longer aford it". (P-002)
3. The Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. (P-002, P-006)
4. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account. (P-007)
5. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff giving him 2 days to purchase the property. (P-003, P-001)
6. On the 15th of February, 2026, at 10:26 CST the Plaintiff sent the $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. (P-004)
7. The Defendant then posted a message in the auction thread stating "@Venne Montclair moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot". (P-005, P-010)
8. Approximately 4 hours5 hours and 45 minutes later, the DCT Inspection Officer running the auction stated that the Defendant did not have the funds and posted a screenshot showing the Defendant's balance at $17.38.(P-005)
9. On the 17th of February, 2026, the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant stating "2 days is about to expire", "Hows the buying going". (P-006)
10. 48 hours have passed since the contract was signed and funds were transferred, and the Defendant has not purchased and transferred C117 to the Plaintiff.
11. On the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, claiming that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection. (P-008, P-009)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The Defendant transferred or otherwise used the funds given to them by the Plaintiff for purposes other than purchasing C117, which is a breach of good faith as defined by section 12 of the Contracts Act.
3. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents outrageous behavior as defined by Part III Section 3.2b of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
4. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents an event "where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement", which means force majeure as outlined in Section 13 of the Contracts Act does not apply.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 in Liquidated Damages as outlined in the contract.
2. $40,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous conduct of using money sent in good faith for purposes outside the contract.
3. $3,000 or 30% of the case value, whichever is higher, in Legal Fees.

Spoiler: P-001

Contract between fickogames and Ollie_Minecraft (1).pdf

drive.google.com

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: Proof of representation

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 18th day of February 2026.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@Ollie_MineCraft, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22

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.

 

[gribble19]

Present, your Honor. I will be representing Ollie_MineCraft.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

 

[gribble19]

Objection

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, all complaints must have details that meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 3.1. These criteria include showing to the court that the cause of injury was against the law and that remedy is applicable under relevant law. See id. at Rule 2.1. Defendant does not believe that the complaint filed here by the Plaintiff reaches this standard. The only reference to law or precedence in the entire complaint is "The Defendant has also not contacted the Plaintiff offering any sort of justification as required by the Contracts Act to mitigate damages" however even after a thorough read of the Contracts Act, Defendants council is unable to find this requirement in the law in question. As with regards to showing that remedy is applicable under relevant law, the Complaint does not even make an attempt to do so.

Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff is made to amend their complaint with clear references to law and/or precedent in order to meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures, such that the Defendant in this case can eventually properly respond to the Complaint in question, without having to play any guessing games. Alternatively, Defendant respectfully requests that this case be dismissed Sua Sponte for failure to meet all criteria set out under Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures. See id. at Rule 2.2.

Thank you, your Honor.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, all complaints must have details that meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 3.1. These criteria include showing to the court that the cause of injury was against the law and that remedy is applicable under relevant law. See id. at Rule 2.1. Defendant does not believe that the complaint filed here by the Plaintiff reaches this standard. The only reference to law or precedence in the entire complaint is "The Defendant has also not contacted the Plaintiff offering any sort of justification as required by the Contracts Act to mitigate damages" however even after a thorough read of the Contracts Act, Defendants council is unable to find this requirement in the law in question. As with regards to showing that remedy is applicable under relevant law, the Complaint does not even make an attempt to do so.

Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff is made to amend their complaint with clear references to law and/or precedent in order to meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures, such that the Defendant in this case can eventually properly respond to the Complaint in question, without having to play any guessing games. Alternatively, Defendant respectfully requests that this case be dismissed Sua Sponte for failure to meet all criteria set out under Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures. See id. at Rule 2.2.

Thank you, your Honor.

Sustained.

The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours from this post to appropriately amend the complaint to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. In specific, the Plaintiff has not adequately shown the court which laws have been broken, and subsequently, the applicable remedy under said law.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised to fix the submission of evidence regarding P-001, as it is no longer accessible.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Sustained.

The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours from this post to appropriately amend the complaint to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. In specific, the Plaintiff has not adequately shown the court which laws have been broken, and subsequently, the applicable remedy under said law.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised to fix the submission of evidence regarding P-001, as it is no longer accessible.

Your Honour, I am joining in as second-chair from Talion & Partners LLC, we request a sidebar

 

[emilypancakes22]

Sustained.

The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours from this post to appropriately amend the complaint to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. In specific, the Plaintiff has not adequately shown the court which laws have been broken, and subsequently, the applicable remedy under said law.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised to fix the submission of evidence regarding P-001, as it is no longer accessible.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In accordance with your ruling, the Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached contract by not purchasing and transferring the property. The Defendant has also not contacted the Plaintiff offering any sort of justification as required by the Contracts Act to mitigate damages.
2. The Defendant transferred or otherwise used the funds given to them by the Plaintiff for purposes other than purchasing C117, which represents a breach of good faith.
1. The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The Defendant transferred or otherwise used the funds given to them by the Plaintiff for purposes other than purchasing C117, which is a breach of good faith as defined by section 12 of the Contracts Act.
3. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents outrageous behavior as defined by Part III Section 3.2b of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
4. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents an event "where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement", which means force majeure as outlined in Section 13 of the Contracts Act does not apply.

where red text is removed and green is added.

Furthermore, the link in P-001 shall be updated to this link so that it remains accessible.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In accordance with your ruling, the Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint as follows:


where red text is removed and green is added.

Furthermore, the link in P-001 shall be updated to this link so that it remains accessible.

Granted.

Please amend the complaint accordingly within the next 48 hours.

Your Honour, I am joining in as second-chair from Talion & Partners LLC, we request a sidebar

Please provide proof of representation/employment for the court.

Seperately, request for a sidebar is granted. Parties are to report to the judiciary discord within the next 48 hours.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Granted.

Please amend the complaint accordingly within the next 48 hours.



Please provide proof of representation/employment for the court.

Seperately, request for a sidebar is granted. Parties are to report to the judiciary discord within the next 48 hours.

Spoiler: Proof of Employment

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Granted.

Please amend the complaint accordingly within the next 48 hours.



Please provide proof of representation/employment for the court.

Seperately, request for a sidebar is granted. Parties are to report to the judiciary discord within the next 48 hours.

Your Honour, pursuant to the above proof submitted before the Court, I shall ping you in the Judiciary server to include me in the sidebar.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

@Dr_Eksplosive
Your Honour,
Sidebar was closed?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

@Dr_Eksplosive
Your Honour,
Sidebar was closed?

Not intentionally. Court is investigating an issue with the ticket bot.

Another sidebar has been opened.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Sidebar has been concluded.

Defense is afforded 48 hours to file an answer to complaint. Please request a time extension if necessary.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

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

fickogames
Plaintiff

v.

Ollie_MineCraft
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 12th of February, 2026, the Defendant placed a bid of $28,000 on a DCT eviction auction for C117. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that this bid was the winning bid.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 13th of February, 2026, the Defendant stated "i bought a diffrent property and can no longer aford it"
3. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff giving him 2 days to purchase the property.
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 15th of February, 2026, at 10:26 the Plaintiff sent the $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. Defendant notes that the time specified in this fact is the time of this action happening in a particular and undefined timezone.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Defendant posted a message in the auction thread stating "@Venne Montclair moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot".
7. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the DCT Inspection Officer running the auction stated that the Defendant did not have the funds and posted a screenshot showing the Defendant's balance at $17.38. The Defendant DENIES that this was "approximately 4 hours later", as P-005 shows that this was over 5 hours and 45 minutes later.
8. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 17th of February, 2026, the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant stating "2 days is about to expire", "Hows the buying going".
9. The Defendant DENIES that the Defendant has not responded to these messages.
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that 48 hours have passed since the contract was signed and funds were transferred, and tthat he Defendant has not purchased and transferred C117 to the Plaintiff.
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, informing them that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection.
12. The Defendant DENIES that on the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account.

II. DEFENCES
1. In Fact 1 of the Complaint the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's bid was the winning bid. The Defendant can neither affirm nor deny this statement, as it depends on the definition used for "winning bid". While the aforementioned bid was originally thought to be the winning bid by the DCT, the auction ended up being won by a different bid, namely one by fickogames.

2. In Fact 3 of the Complaint the Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. This fact is not currently sufficiently supported by the evidence in case. Plaintiff alleges that this is shown by P-002, however P-002 solely shows Plaintiff asking a DCT employee whether such a construction would be allowed, and does not show plaintiff extending the offer to Defendant. Furthermore, P-001 states that fickogames will lend R$28,000, rather than pay $28,000.

3. The Defendant has messaged the Plaintiff after the messages referenced in fact 8 and 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and has thus responded to these messages.

4. The Plaintiff claims in their first claim for relief that "as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act", however nothing within the claim for relief explains why consequential damages would be applicable, nor which exact consequential damages would be applicable. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III §5.

5. The Defendant was unable to fulfill their duties under the contract due to an event out of their control, a so-called "force majeure" event. The Defendant informed Plaintiff of the aforementioned as soon as the Defendant was able to.

6. The Defendant offered Rescission to the Plaintiff, through offering to return the $28,000, which would have restored the parties as far as possible to the positions they were in before the contract was formed. Plaintiff denied this offer, instead choosing to continue litigating 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 twenty-eighth day of February 2026.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Objection

Objection - Perjury

3. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property.

2. In Fact 3 of the Complaint the Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. This fact is not currently sufficiently supported by the evidence in case. Plaintiff alleges that this is shown by P-002, however P-002 solely shows Plaintiff asking a DCT employee whether such a construction would be allowed, and does not show plaintiff extending the offer to Defendant. Furthermore, P-001 states that fickogames will lend R$28,000, rather than pay $28,000.

The final message shown in P-002 is the Plaintiff pinging the Defendant with a question mark, indicating that the Plaintiff was asking for the Defendant's thoughts on the above (ie offering to carry out the actions described). Furthermore, that a contract was signed and the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant shows that an offer must have occurred. That the contract uses the word "lend" instead of "pay" is irrelevant, as it is not unusual that the language dictating the transaction would be refined between the initial offer and the final contract, & this fact concerns the initial offer as shown in P-002.

 

[gribble19]

Objection

Objection - Perjury


The final message shown in P-002 is the Plaintiff pinging the Defendant with a question mark, indicating that the Plaintiff was asking for the Defendant's thoughts on the above (ie offering to carry out the actions described). Furthermore, that a contract was signed and the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant shows that an offer must have occurred. That the contract uses the word "lend" instead of "pay" is irrelevant, as it is not unusual that the language dictating the transaction would be refined between the initial offer and the final contract, & this fact concerns the initial offer as shown in P-002.

Response
Your Honor, perjury objections apply when a party intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath and requires proof of the aforementioned to be submitted alongside the objection. See Objection Guide. Opposing counsel has not even alleged that this occurred, let alone provided proof. They have instead explained why they disagree with Defendant's stance on an undetermined fact (which was already clear from their Complaint. Finding out which genuine issues of material fact exist is exactly one of the purposes of the pre-trial filings.) Making a point on why Plaintiff would be correct rather than Defendant, through a perjury objection, is however completely inappropriate. We respectfully request that this objection be denied, and that Plaintiff be advised not to abuse perjury objections in an attempt to make points which should be made in opening or closing statement.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

Objection - Perjury


The final message shown in P-002 is the Plaintiff pinging the Defendant with a question mark, indicating that the Plaintiff was asking for the Defendant's thoughts on the above (ie offering to carry out the actions described). Furthermore, that a contract was signed and the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant shows that an offer must have occurred. That the contract uses the word "lend" instead of "pay" is irrelevant, as it is not unusual that the language dictating the transaction would be refined between the initial offer and the final contract, & this fact concerns the initial offer as shown in P-002.

Response
Your Honor, perjury objections apply when a party intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath and requires proof of the aforementioned to be submitted alongside the objection. See Objection Guide. Opposing counsel has not even alleged that this occurred, let alone provided proof. They have instead explained why they disagree with Defendant's stance on an undetermined fact (which was already clear from their Complaint. Finding out which genuine issues of material fact exist is exactly one of the purposes of the pre-trial filings.) Making a point on why Plaintiff would be correct rather than Defendant, through a perjury objection, is however completely inappropriate. We respectfully request that this objection be denied, and that Plaintiff be advised not to abuse perjury objections in an attempt to make points which should be made in opening or closing statement.

Overruled.

Despite the fact that the existence of the offer is insinuated by the virtue of a contract with those exact terms existing, the Plaintiff's Fact #3 clearly states:

3. The Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. (P-002)

This boils down to semantics and technicalities. Technically, the Defense is correct in denying the claim as evidence P-002 does not summarily prove that the offer was presented to the Defendant. Despite the existence of evidence P-001 (the contract) which counters this claim, given that the case has not even entered discovery yet and the Plaintiff has provided no allegations or proof of Perjury, either via intentionally lying or misrepresenting facts to the court, the court sees no reason to take further action.

With that out of the way, discovery is set for a period of 5 days from this post. Should both parties consent, discovery may be ended early.

 

[emilypancakes22]

The plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In order to rectify typos, fix a factual error, and indicate the timezone of Fact 5 (updated to Fact 6), as well as reflect events that occurred or whose evidence of occurring was only submitted after the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff requests to amend the complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
1. On the 12th of February, 2026, the Defendant placed a winning bid of $28,000 on a DCT eviction auction for C117. (P-002)
2. On the 13th of February, 2026, the Defendant stated "i bought a diffrent property and can no longer aford it". (P-002)
3. The Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. (P-002, P-006)
4. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account. (P-007)
5. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff giving him 2 days to purchase the property. (P-003, P-001)
6. On the 15th of February, 2026, at 10:26 CST the Plaintiff sent the $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. (P-004)
7. The Defendant then posted a message in the auction thread stating "@Venne Montclair moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot". (P-005, P-010)
8. Approximately 4 hours5 hours and 45 minutes later, the DCT Inspection Officer running the auction stated that the Defendant did not have the funds and posted a screenshot showing the Defendant's balance at $17.38.(P-005)
9. On the 17th of February, 2026, the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant stating "2 days is about to expire", "Hows the buying going". (P-006)
9. The Defendant has not responded to the Plaintiff's message. (P-006)
10. 48 hours have passed since the contract was signed and funds were transferred, and the Defendant has not purchased and transferred C117 to the Plaintiff.
11. On the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, claiming that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection. (P-008, P-009)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 56 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

where red text is removed, green is added, and all facts are renumbered as needed.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-007

View attachment 75821

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 75822

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 75823

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 75826

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In order to rectify typos, fix a factual error, and indicate the timezone of Fact 5 (updated to Fact 6), as well as reflect events that occurred or whose evidence of occurring was only submitted after the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff requests to amend the complaint as follows:

where red text is removed, green is added, and all facts are renumbered as needed.

Granted. Please make the appropriate amendments within 24 hours.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

The Defendant submits the following witness list:
- Ollie_MineCraft
- fickogames

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant hereby informs the Court that they have amended their Answer to Complaint as follows, in line with Court Rule 3.4. See Court Rules and Procedures.

I. Answer to Complaint
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, informing them that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection.
12. The Defendant DENIES that on the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account.

II. Defences
5. The Defendant was unable to fulfill their duties under the contract due to an event out of their control, a so-called "force majeure" event. The Defendant informed Plaintiff of the aforementioned as soon as the Defendant was able to.
6. The Defendant offered Rescission to the Plaintiff, through offering to return the $28,000, which would have restored the parties as far as possible to the positions they were in before the contract was formed. Plaintiff denied this offer, instead choosing to continue litigating this matter.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests a 36 hour extension to discovery. The Defendant is intending to file a permissive counterclaim, which may only be done before the end of discovery. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part IV §2.3. The Defendant requires some more time to properly prepare this filing. Thank you, your Honor.

 

[gribble19]

Spoiler: Stricken; see Post No. 26

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Ollie_MineCraft
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

fickogames
Counter-Defendant

I. PARTIES
1. Ollie_MineCraft (Counter-Plaintiff)
2. fickogames (Counter-Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the 14th of February 2026, the Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant agreed to a contract (hereafter referred to as "the contract").
2. The contract stated: "If Ollie_Minecraft does not give the property to fickogames after 2 days after its purchase, he shall pay instead fickogames R$40,000 as payback for the issued money
and penalisation for breaking contractual obligations."
3. "The property" as mentioned in the statement in Fact 2, refers to plot c117.
4. Counter-Plaintiff has not purchased c117 since the signing of the contract.
5. The contract does not contain any other clauses, beyond the clause quoted in Fact 2, with regards to liquidated damages.
6. On the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was transfered $28,000 by Counter-Defendant for the purpose of purchasing c117 and then transferring the property to Counter-Defendant, in line with the contract.
7. After this, in a timely manner, Counter-Plaintiff attempted to purchase the plot by sending a message in plot c117's auction thread, informing the person responsible for running the auction that he had acquired the money for the purchase.
8. Later on the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was unexpectedly taken on a camping trip by his parents, on which he had no internet.
9. Counter-Plaintiff did not log in on the DemocracyCraft minecraft server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
10. Counter-Plaintiff did not send any messages in the DemocracyCraft discord server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
11. On the 21st of February 2026, the first day on which Counter-Plaintiff logged in to the DemocracyCraft minecraft server again, Counter-Plaintiff promptly reached out to the Counter-Defendant, informing them of what had happened.
12. On the 21st of February, Counter-Plaintiff offered Counter-Defendant to transfer back the $28,000.
13. Counter-Defendant denied this offer.
14. Counter-Plaintiff did not use the $28,000, still owns the $28,000, and has been able to repay the $28,000 to the Counter-Defendant ever since the 21st of February.
15. Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel has informed Counter-Defendant's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff would be happy to repay the $28,000, as it is clear the contract was unable to be fulfilled due to a force majeure event.
16. Counter-Defendant's legal counsel informed Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff instead requested $60,000 to settle the other claim in this same court thread.
17. Had Counter-Defendant accepted the repayment of $28,000, the situations of both Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant would have been restored to as they were before the signing of the contract.
18. Counter-Defendant is continuing to litigate a legal case against Counter-Plaintiff, despite the offer of repayment.
19. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Liquidated Damages as outlined in the contract."
20. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous conduct of using money sent in good faith for purposes outside the contract."
21. Counter-Plaintiff has acquired legal counsel for this legal case, which has cost Counter-Plaintiff money.
22. Had Counter-Defendant accepted Counter-Plaintiff's initial offer, instead of continuing to litigate the legal case, Counter-Plaintiff would not have had to acquire counsel for the legal case, as it would no longer be existent.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A person commits Abuse of Legal Process when they initiate or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and this claim causes harm to the Defendant. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII §2. The remedy for Abuse of Legal Process is 100 civil penalty units. See id. From the facts within this counterclaim, it follows that Counter-Defendant has pursued a legal claim against Counter-Plaintiff. See II.18. The purposes of this legal claim were at most threefold: $40,000 in liquidated damages, $40,000 in punitive damages and legal fees. See II.19, II.20. It follows from the facts in this counterclaim that the prayer for $40,000 in liquidated damages is improper, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.2, II.3, II.4, II.5, II.19. It also follows from the facts, that the prayer for $40,000 in punitive damages was for improper purposes, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.14, II.20. The only purpose that then remains are the legal fees. Pursuing a legal case solely for the purpose of acquiring legal fees is improper. Lastly, the facts show that the legal claim has harmed the Counter-Plaintiff. See II.21, II.22.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counter-Plaintiff seeks the following from the Counter-Defendant:
1. A remedy of 100 civil penalty units.

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 seventh day of March 2026.

Evidence:
Counter-Plaintiff would hereby like to enter all evidence that was previously entered by either party to the other claim in this thread, to this claim as well.

Witness List:
Ollie_MineCraft
fickogames

 

[emilypancakes22]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Ollie_MineCraft
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

fickogames
Counter-Defendant

I. PARTIES
1. Ollie_MineCraft (Counter-Plaintiff)
2. fickogames (Counter-Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the 14th of February 2026, the Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant agreed to a contract (hereafter referred to as "the contract").
2. The contract stated: "If Ollie_Minecraft does not give the property to fickogames after 2 days after its purchase, he shall pay instead fickogames R$40,000 as payback for the issued money
and penalisation for breaking contractual obligations."
3. "The property" as mentioned in the statement in Fact 2, refers to plot c117.
4. Counter-Plaintiff has not purchased c117 since the signing of the contract.
5. The contract does not contain any other clauses, beyond the clause quoted in Fact 2, with regards to liquidated damages.
6. On the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was transfered $28,000 by Counter-Defendant for the purpose of purchasing c117 and then transferring the property to Counter-Defendant, in line with the contract.
7. After this, in a timely manner, Counter-Plaintiff attempted to purchase the plot by sending a message in plot c117's auction thread, informing the person responsible for running the auction that he had acquired the money for the purchase.
8. Later on the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was unexpectedly taken on a camping trip by his parents, on which he had no internet.
9. Counter-Plaintiff did not log in on the DemocracyCraft minecraft server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
10. Counter-Plaintiff did not send any messages in the DemocracyCraft discord server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
11. On the 21st of February 2026, the first day on which Counter-Plaintiff logged in to the DemocracyCraft minecraft server again, Counter-Plaintiff promptly reached out to the Counter-Defendant, informing them of what had happened.
12. On the 21st of February, Counter-Plaintiff offered Counter-Defendant to transfer back the $28,000.
13. Counter-Defendant denied this offer.
14. Counter-Plaintiff did not use the $28,000, still owns the $28,000, and has been able to repay the $28,000 to the Counter-Defendant ever since the 21st of February.
15. Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel has informed Counter-Defendant's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff would be happy to repay the $28,000, as it is clear the contract was unable to be fulfilled due to a force majeure event.
16. Counter-Defendant's legal counsel informed Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff instead requested $60,000 to settle the other claim in this same court thread.
17. Had Counter-Defendant accepted the repayment of $28,000, the situations of both Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant would have been restored to as they were before the signing of the contract.
18. Counter-Defendant is continuing to litigate a legal case against Counter-Plaintiff, despite the offer of repayment.
19. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Liquidated Damages as outlined in the contract."
20. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous conduct of using money sent in good faith for purposes outside the contract."
21. Counter-Plaintiff has acquired legal counsel for this legal case, which has cost Counter-Plaintiff money.
22. Had Counter-Defendant accepted Counter-Plaintiff's initial offer, instead of continuing to litigate the legal case, Counter-Plaintiff would not have had to acquire counsel for the legal case, as it would no longer be existent.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A person commits Abuse of Legal Process when they initiate or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and this claim causes harm to the Defendant. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII §2. The remedy for Abuse of Legal Process is 100 civil penalty units. See id. From the facts within this counterclaim, it follows that Counter-Defendant has pursued a legal claim against Counter-Plaintiff. See II.18. The purposes of this legal claim were at most threefold: $40,000 in liquidated damages, $40,000 in punitive damages and legal fees. See II.19, II.20. It follows from the facts in this counterclaim that the prayer for $40,000 in liquidated damages is improper, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.2, II.3, II.4, II.5, II.19. It also follows from the facts, that the prayer for $40,000 in punitive damages was for improper purposes, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.14, II.20. The only purpose that then remains are the legal fees. Pursuing a legal case solely for the purpose of acquiring legal fees is improper. Lastly, the facts show that the legal claim has harmed the Counter-Plaintiff. See II.21, II.22.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counter-Plaintiff seeks the following from the Counter-Defendant:
1. A remedy of 100 civil penalty units.

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 seventh day of March 2026.

Evidence:
Counter-Plaintiff would hereby like to enter all evidence that was previously entered by either party to the other claim in this thread, to this claim as well.

Witness List:
Ollie_MineCraft
fickogames

Objection

OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure
As stated in the Redmont Civil Code Act Part IV Section 2, which was cited by the Defense earlier in this thread, Compulsory Counterclaims may only be filed during discovery. Discovery has been over for some time now, and the Defense knows this as they filed for an extension which at this time has not yet been ruled on. The Defense has knowingly violated court procedure, and for that reason the Plaintiff requests this be struck from the record.

 

[Franciscus]

Howdy folks,

I am the new judicial officer on this case. I will review the case over the next 72 hours and will attempt to rule on pending motions/objections in that timeframe.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure
As stated in the Redmont Civil Code Act Part IV Section 2, which was cited by the Defense earlier in this thread, Compulsory Counterclaims may only be filed during discovery. Discovery has been over for some time now, and the Defense knows this as they filed for an extension which at this time has not yet been ruled on. The Defense has knowingly violated court procedure, and for that reason the Plaintiff requests this be struck from the record.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO COUNTERCLAIM (POST NO. 24)

Discovery began on 1 March 2026 and lasted for 5 days (Post No. 17). Defense requested an extension (Post No. 22), in order to submit a permissive counterclaim, but the Court did not grant this extension. As such, Discovery closed on 6 March 2026, 1 day before the counterclaim was filed (Post No. 23). This Court cannot erase the facts of the timeline here by retroactive extension.

Part IV of the RCCA governs ancillary claims, and has been in effect for the duration of this entire case. Under the Code, Counterclaims are governed as follows:

1. Definitions
(1) Counterclaim means a claim brought by a defendant against a plaintiff within the same proceeding.

...

(4) Compulsory claim means a counterclaim or cross-claim arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or subject matter as the original claim, which must be brought in the current proceeding.

(5) Permissive claim means a counterclaim or cross-claim arising from a different transaction or occurrence than the original claim, which may be brought in the current proceeding.

...

2. Counterclaims
(1) A defendant in any civil proceeding under this Code may file a compulsory or permissive counterclaim against the plaintiff.

(2) Compulsory counterclaims must be filed within the defendant’s initial response to the lawsuit, or they are waived.

(3) Permissive counterclaims may be filed before the close of discovery, provided they fall within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) A counterclaim must assert an independent violation under this Code or other applicable law; it is not merely a defence to the plaintiff’s claim.

(RCCA, Part IV, Sections 1(1), 1(4)-(5), 2)

This Court has previously taken note of differences between permissive language and mandatory language in statute (see: Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18, Verdict, Section III.III.I, par. 2-3). When language is permissive, it provides flexibility or choice; when it is mandatory, it creates requirements that some thing must occur.

Whereas the RCCA uses mandatory language in its treatment of the between the treatment of compulsory counterclaims (RCCA, Part IV, Section 2(2), "Compulsory counterclaims must be filed ... or they are waived"; "[A c]ompulsory claim... must be brought in the current proceeding", RCCA, Part IV, Section 1(4)), it uses permissive language in the context of permissive counterclaims (RCCA, Part IV, Section 2(3), "Permissive counterclaims may be filed before the close of discovery"; RCCA, Part IV, Section 1(5) "[A p]ermissive claim... may be brought in the current proceeding").

When examining statutes containing permissive language, we must also ask: what is the flexibility or choice that it provides? Reading the relevant portions RCCA as a harmonious whole, this Court finds that the permissive counterclaims "may be brought in the current proceeding, ... before the close of discovery, provided they fall within the jurisdiction of the court" (RCCA, Part IV, Sections 1(5) and 2(3)).

On its face, there may is a rational basis for this rule inasmuch as "[t]he scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness" (Court Rule 4.1) and requiring that permissive counterclaims be done prior to Discovery's end may allow parties to pursue discovery as it pertains to those counterclaims.

The defense, in asking for an extension, expressed that the filing of a permissive counterclaim "may only be done before the end of discovery" (Post No. 22). This Court's reading concurs with this understanding and, seeing no extension granted, concludes that the permissive counterclaim was untimely filed.

It should be noted that this does not bar the defendant from filing substantially the same claim in a standalone separate case; unlike mandatory claims, permissive claims are not waived for failure to file in the same case. The Court, thus, finds no prejudice to the defendant for this case, as their rights to pursue the substantial matter of the counterclaim continue to persist.

---

Seeing no reply from the Defense to the objection, and in light of the above analysis, the objection is sustained.

The permissive counterclaim in Post No. 23 is stricken from the record of this case. While the Defendant could have filed the claim prior to the close of discovery, the claim was filed too late for consideration in this case. Instead of consideration here, such claims may be re-filed separately by the Defendant, and may be considered separately so as to not delay the current proceding further (c.f. RCCA, Part IV, Section 7(4)).

 

[Franciscus]

Seeing as we have ended discovery, and all motions and objections pending have been ruled upon, we will proceed to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (@emilypancakes22) has 72 hours to present their opening statement. After the Plaintiff presents their opening statement, the Court will acknowledge Plaintiff's statement and then provide the defense 72 hours to present theirs.

 

[gribble19]

Seeing as we have ended discovery, and all motions and objections pending have been ruled upon, we will proceed to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (@emilypancakes22) has 72 hours to present their opening statement. After the Plaintiff presents their opening statement, the Court will acknowledge Plaintiff's statement and then provide the defense 72 hours to present theirs.

Motion

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

Your Honor, you have ruled that all pending motions and objections have been ruled upon, however it appears that you may have missed a request made by the Defendant that is yet to be ruled on. In Post #22, after Dr_Eksplosive's latest appearance in this case thread, Defendant requested an extension of Discovery. Opposing counsel reacted to this request with the 'Aye' emoji, and did not make an oppositional statement, their silence on the matter further confirms their assent. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.4. As this request has not yet been granted or declined, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court revert the decision to Start this trial, and first rule on the pending request before doing so. Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor, you have ruled that all pending motions and objections have been ruled upon, however it appears that you may have missed a request made by the Defendant that is yet to be ruled on. In Post #22, after Dr_Eksplosive's latest appearance in this case thread, Defendant requested an extension of Discovery. Opposing counsel reacted to this request with the 'Aye' emoji, and did not make an oppositional statement, their silence on the matter further confirms their assent. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.4. As this request has not yet been granted or declined, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court revert the decision to Start this trial, and first rule on the pending request before doing so. Thank you, Your Honor.

@emilypancakes22 - please provide the Court with a response to this motion within 48 hours.

All deadlines on opening statements are tolled pending response.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Motion

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

Your Honor, you have ruled that all pending motions and objections have been ruled upon, however it appears that you may have missed a request made by the Defendant that is yet to be ruled on. In Post #22, after Dr_Eksplosive's latest appearance in this case thread, Defendant requested an extension of Discovery. Opposing counsel reacted to this request with the 'Aye' emoji, and did not make an oppositional statement, their silence on the matter further confirms their assent. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.4. As this request has not yet been granted or declined, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court revert the decision to Start this trial, and first rule on the pending request before doing so. Thank you, Your Honor.

Response
While the Defense is correct in stating that I initially react to the Defense's request with the 'Aye' emoji to indicate an assent to the request, the Plaintiff no longer assents to an extension of discovery. Considering the substantial delay that occurred in this case in the time since the initial posting of the request and my reacting to it, and that the Defense is entitled to file their claims separately, it is the opinion of the Plaintiff that both parties would be better served by avoiding further delay to proceedings in this trial.

 

[gribble19]

Response
While the Defense is correct in stating that I initially react to the Defense's request with the 'Aye' emoji to indicate an assent to the request, the Plaintiff no longer assents to an extension of discovery. Considering the substantial delay that occurred in this case in the time since the initial posting of the request and my reacting to it, and that the Defense is entitled to file their claims separately, it is the opinion of the Plaintiff that both parties would be better served by avoiding further delay to proceedings in this trial.

Objection

Objection - Relevance

Your Honor, the Plaintiffs response in no way regards the motion that was made by the Defendant. The Defendant motion asked the Court to reconsider their decision to move on to the next stage of trial as there was still a pending matter. The Plaintiffs response has provided no arguments in either direction with regards to reconsidering the decision of whether or not the pending matter should be ruled on and whether or not the decision to move on to the next stage of trial should be reconsidered. Instead, the Defendant has made arguments on an entirely different subject, namely the potential ruling on the matter for which it is as of yet to be decided whether it will be ruled on at all. This is inappropriate and not relevant to the matter at hand, and the Defendant respectfully requests this response be struck. Thank you, your Honor.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

Objection - Relevance

Your Honor, the Plaintiffs response in no way regards the motion that was made by the Defendant. The Defendant motion asked the Court to reconsider their decision to move on to the next stage of trial as there was still a pending matter. The Plaintiffs response has provided no arguments in either direction with regards to reconsidering the decision of whether or not the pending matter should be ruled on and whether or not the decision to move on to the next stage of trial should be reconsidered. Instead, the Defendant has made arguments on an entirely different subject, namely the potential ruling on the matter for which it is as of yet to be decided whether it will be ruled on at all. This is inappropriate and not relevant to the matter at hand, and the Defendant respectfully requests this response be struck. Thank you, your Honor.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Defense's Relevance Objection, Post No. 31

Denied.

The response by Plaintiff is responsive to the substantive question posed in the motion to reconsider.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Objection

Objection - Relevance

Your Honor, the Plaintiffs response in no way regards the motion that was made by the Defendant. The Defendant motion asked the Court to reconsider their decision to move on to the next stage of trial as there was still a pending matter. The Plaintiffs response has provided no arguments in either direction with regards to reconsidering the decision of whether or not the pending matter should be ruled on and whether or not the decision to move on to the next stage of trial should be reconsidered. Instead, the Defendant has made arguments on an entirely different subject, namely the potential ruling on the matter for which it is as of yet to be decided whether it will be ruled on at all. This is inappropriate and not relevant to the matter at hand, and the Defendant respectfully requests this response be struck. Thank you, your Honor.

RESPONSE
In the Defense's motion, it is stated "Opposing counsel reacted to this request with the 'Aye' emoji, and did not make an oppositional statement, their silence on the matter further confirms their assent." Plaintiff's response directly responds to this statement. Furthermore, the Defense's motion for a ruling on the request is per se a request for Discovery to be extended, as if the Defense no longer requested for such a thing they could have remained silent. Therefore, to respond to that request is relevant to the motion.

 

[emilypancakes22]

RESPONSE
In the Defense's motion, it is stated "Opposing counsel reacted to this request with the 'Aye' emoji, and did not make an oppositional statement, their silence on the matter further confirms their assent." Plaintiff's response directly responds to this statement. Furthermore, the Defense's motion for a ruling on the request is per se a request for Discovery to be extended, as if the Defense no longer requested for such a thing they could have remained silent. Therefore, to respond to that request is relevant to the motion.

Apologies, your honor I did not see that ruling was made as I typed this response. I request that it be struck.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor, you have ruled that all pending motions and objections have been ruled upon, however it appears that you may have missed a request made by the Defendant that is yet to be ruled on. In Post #22, after Dr_Eksplosive's latest appearance in this case thread, Defendant requested an extension of Discovery. Opposing counsel reacted to this request with the 'Aye' emoji, and did not make an oppositional statement, their silence on the matter further confirms their assent. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.4. As this request has not yet been granted or declined, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court revert the decision to Start this trial, and first rule on the pending request before doing so. Thank you, Your Honor.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Motion to Reconsider, Post No. 28

Denied.

While I agree that Defense requested an extension, and that Plaintiff reacted "aye" to that reaction, the Court did not change its deadline. This, admittedly, was not a good look by the Court, which ought out (of professional obligation) have been responsive to this request so as to either grant or reject it. But by doing neither, the old deadline persisted at all times relevant; it's not really something I can cure retroactively.

To the extent that the moot request requires a ruling, it is denied as moot. No objections nor motions were pending (such request was not a motion) at the time of the statement quoted by the motion to reconsider.

As such, no reconsideration is required here. We shall proceed to trial, and the Defense retains the ability to file the permissive counterclaim separately (either concurrently to this case in another thread, or following this case's conclusion).

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

@emilypancakes22 - Deadlines are no longer tolled; opening statements for the Plaintiff are now due 65 hours after from the posting of this message. Please let me know ahead of time if you require an extension.

 

[Franciscus]

Apologies, your honor I did not see that ruling was made as I typed this response. I request that it be struck.

Denied as moot. I see no need to strike this from the record at this time, as its contents are not prejudicial.

 

[gribble19]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Motion to Reconsider, Post No. 28

Denied.

While I agree that Defense requested an extension, and that Plaintiff reacted "aye" to that reaction, the Court did not change its deadline. This, admittedly, was not a good look by the Court, which ought out (of professional obligation) have been responsive to this request so as to either grant or reject it. But by doing neither, the old deadline persisted at all times relevant; it's not really something I can cure retroactively.

To the extent that the moot request requires a ruling, it is denied as moot. No objections nor motions were pending (such request was not a motion) at the time of the statement quoted by the motion to reconsider.

As such, no reconsideration is required here. We shall proceed to trial, and the Defense retains the ability to file the permissive counterclaim separately (either concurrently to this case in another thread, or following this case's conclusion).

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

@emilypancakes22 - Deadlines are no longer tolled; opening statements for the Plaintiff are now due 65 hours after from the posting of this message. Please let me know ahead of time if you require an extension.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Clarification

Your Honor, it is not clear exactly to Defendant what was denied and what was accepted. Defendant's request was for the court to rule on the request for discovery extension by either accepting or denying the discovery extension, and asking for the move to Opening Statement to thus be reconsidered so that this ruling could thus be made. The Court has Denied the motion however in the explanation has stated that: "To the extent that the moot request requires a ruling, it is denied as moot" which to the Defendant seems to imply that the Court has thus chosen to rule on the extension and deny it with the reasoning being that "it is moot" and with further reasoning being that "it's not really something I can cure retroactively"

The Defendant would like to clarify the following:
1. Does the "moot request" in the above quote indeed refer to the request for an extension of discovery?
2. Is it thus correct to interpret this as the court ruling on this request for an extension of discovery?
3. and is it thus correct to interpret this ruling as a denial of the request?

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Clarification

Your Honor, it is not clear exactly to Defendant what was denied and what was accepted. Defendant's request was for the court to rule on the request for discovery extension by either accepting or denying the discovery extension, and asking for the move to Opening Statement to thus be reconsidered so that this ruling could thus be made. The Court has Denied the motion however in the explanation has stated that: "To the extent that the moot request requires a ruling, it is denied as moot" which to the Defendant seems to imply that the Court has thus chosen to rule on the extension and deny it with the reasoning being that "it is moot" and with further reasoning being that "it's not really something I can cure retroactively"

The Defendant would like to clarify the following:
1. Does the "moot request" in the above quote indeed refer to the request for an extension of discovery?
2. Is it thus correct to interpret this as the court ruling on this request for an extension of discovery?
3. and is it thus correct to interpret this ruling as a denial of the request?

1. The moot request refers to the request for an extension of discovery.
2. (and 3) You are correct to read that the request for an extension of discovery was denied by this Court as moot, seeing as the deadline passed ~2 weeks ago.

 

[gribble19]

1. The moot request refers to the request for an extension of discovery.
2. (and 3) You are correct to read that the request for an extension of discovery was denied by this Court as moot, seeing as the deadline passed ~2 weeks ago.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor, thank you for the clarification. the Defendant respectfully request the Court reconsider their decision to deny the request for an extension of discovery as moot.

The Defendant believes that the passage of the discovery deadline is unrelated to both:
- The relevance of a request for an extension of discovery made before the passage of the discovery deadline.
- The Court's ability to accept a request for an extension of discovery made before the passage of the discovery deadline.

The Defendant has such beliefs due to precedent set in previous cases, such as for example jsrkiwi v Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] FCR 112.

In post #12 of that case, the defendant in that case requested an extension of discovery. This request for an extension of discovery was made 5 minutes before the passage of the original discovery deadline in that case.

5 days later, and thus after the passage of the original discovery deadline in this case, post #19 was made by the presiding judicial officer in that case. Note that the presiding judicial officer in question was a justice at the time this ruling was made. In post #19, the aforementioned request for discovery extension was accepted, even though the original discovery deadline had already passed multiple days ago.

In line with this precedent, which shows a remarkable similarity to the case at hand at the time the current judicial officer took over the case at hand, the Defendant believes that it was and is inappropriate to consider this request moot and respectfully request the Court to reconsider their decision.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor, thank you for the clarification. the Defendant respectfully request the Court reconsider their decision to deny the request for an extension of discovery as moot.

The Defendant believes that the passage of the discovery deadline is unrelated to both:
- The relevance of a request for an extension of discovery made before the passage of the discovery deadline.
- The Court's ability to accept a request for an extension of discovery made before the passage of the discovery deadline.

The Defendant has such beliefs due to precedent set in previous cases, such as for example jsrkiwi v Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] FCR 112.

In post #12 of that case, the defendant in that case requested an extension of discovery. This request for an extension of discovery was made 5 minutes before the passage of the original discovery deadline in that case.

5 days later, and thus after the passage of the original discovery deadline in this case, post #19 was made by the presiding judicial officer in that case. Note that the presiding judicial officer in question was a justice at the time this ruling was made. In post #19, the aforementioned request for discovery extension was accepted, even though the original discovery deadline had already passed multiple days ago.

In line with this precedent, which shows a remarkable similarity to the case at hand at the time the current judicial officer took over the case at hand, the Defendant believes that it was and is inappropriate to consider this request moot and respectfully request the Court to reconsider their decision.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

This Court has reviewed the motion to reconsider. We issue two orders, one denying the motion to reconsider, and a second formally severing the now-stricken ancillary claim (the stricken counterclaim in Post No 26), consistent with RCCA, Part IV, Section 7(4).

The Orders are entered below:

---

ORDER - MOTION TO RECONSIDER (Post No. 39)

Upon review of the motion to reconsider, movant the Court will lay out its understanding of the timeline of events relevant to the question of whether or not the since-stricken counterclaim in Post No 26 was timely filed:

1. Discovery was opened by then-Magistrate Eksplosive on 1 March at 9:46 AM (Post No. 17). The post opening discovery says that "discovery is set for a period of 5 days from this post".
2. On 6 March at 9:40 AM (Post No. 22), Defendant requests an extension.
3. On 6 March at 9:46 AM, 5 days after discovery began, discovery closed. This is a mere 6 minutes after the extension in (2) was requested.
4. On 7 March at 6:04 PM (Post No. 23), Defense attempts to submit a counterclaim.
5. On 7 March at 7:21 PM (Post No. 24), Plaintiff objects to Defense's counterclaim, citing breach of procedure for lack of timeliness.
6. On 21 March at 12:57 AM (Post No. 25), and a swap of presiding officer, the Court sustains the objection in (5) and strikes the counterclaim that the defense belatedly submitted in (4).

This Court is not obligated to accept a request for an extension that was made 6 minutes before discovery closed. Under ordinary circumstances, parties are not to presume that such an extension would automatically be granted, nor are they automatically granted as a matter of law.

Denied.

(All times are given in Eastern Daylight Time; that is, GMT -4.)

---

ORDER - SEVERANCE OF ANCILLARY CLAIMS

The RCCA, Part IV, Section 7(4) grants that "a court may sever any claim under this Part for separate trial where it would unduly complicate or delay the original proceeding". This Court finds that re-opening discovery and creating further delays here by processing a counterclaim would, at this point, unduly delay the original proceeding.

In our Order sustaining the objection to Counterclaim, the Court wrote as follows:

The permissive counterclaim in Post No. 23 is stricken from the record of this case. While the Defendant could have filed the claim prior to the close of discovery, the claim was filed too late for consideration in this case. Instead of consideration here, such claims may be re-filed separately by the Defendant, and may be considered separately so as to not delay the current proceding further (c.f. RCCA, Part IV, Section 7(4)).

What was strongly implied in this will now be made more explicit. Pursuant to RCCA, Part IV, Section 7(4), the counterclaim has been severed from this case. As has already been noted, such claims may be re-filed separately by the Defendant in a different trial thread, should Defendant wish to file such claim.

---

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

All deadlines remain the same.

 

[gribble19]

Defendant requests a sidebar.

 

[Franciscus]

Defendant requests a sidebar.

Deadlines will continue untolled.

@emilypancakes22 and @gribble19 - I have added you to a sidebar on the judiciary discord.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The matter before the court is simple. The Defendant signed a contract with the Plaintiff and then failed to uphold their end of the deal. While the Defendant's sudden camping trip resembles a force majeure event, it does not qualify.

I. THE CONTRACT WAS BREACHED
The first term of the contract (P-001) required the Plaintiff to send the Defendant $28,000 to use solely for the purpose of purchasing the property C117 within 2 days after it was sent. The Plaintiff upheld his end of the deal by sending the money as shown in P-004. The Defendant did not uphold their end of the deal. While an attempt was made to purchase the property, by the time the DCT attempted to collect the funds, the Defendant had already used the money for some other purpose which is not currently known to the court (P-005). Because of this, they were unable to purchase the property within 2 days of receiving the $28,000 and violated the contract.

II. FORCE MAJEURE DOES NOT APPLY
Sometime after 4:35 PM EST on the 15th of February, 2026 (D-005), the Defendant claims to have been taken on a camping trip "for a week" (P-008). The Defense would like the court to find that this trip, which the Defendant says was sprung on them at the last minute, constitutes a force majeure event. Under ordinary circumstances the Defense would likely be correct, however the circumstances of this case are not ordinary. Consider for a moment what should have occurred in this scenario. The Defendant had already indicated to the DCT that they had the money in their account to complete the purchase prior to leaving for the camping trip. The DCT is able to collect money and transfer properties without input from the purchaser so long as the money is in the purchaser's account.

Force majeure events and the rules that govern them are defined in Section 13 of the Contracts Act. Subsection (2) states that "the affected party may temporarily suspend contractual duties to the extent that the situation significantly hinders their ability to fulfill obligations" when a force majeure event occurs. Considering the facts of this case, the Defendant should have been able to complete the purchase regardless of when they left for the camping trip and therefore it would not waive this section of the contract had it been a force majeure event. Furthermore, subsection (4) states "events where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement are not considered force majeure events." In choosing to remove the $28,000 from their account, the Defendant acted such that there was negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement. Accordingly, the camping trip does not constitute a force majeure event as the effect it had on the Defendant's ability to carry out their contractually obligated duty were directly caused by the Defendant's negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, and/or mismanagement.

III. THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD DCT AUCTIONS
If the Defendant had used the funds due to a lack of knowledge with regards to how the DCT auctions functioned, that may have acted as a mitigating factor. Such conduct would still be negligent and therefore remove the possibility of a force majeure event, but it could be argued to reduce or remove the punitive damages that the Plaintiff asks for. However, a defense of incompetence is plainly untrue. In P-007, the Defendant can be seen saying "they said they will take it out my acc". In other words, the Defendant understood that the DCT would take the payment out of their account. This is corroborated by P-005, in which the Defendant pings the auctioneer stating "moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot", which indicates their understanding that simply having the money in their account was all they needed to do at that point.

Considering the immediacy with which the Defendant pinged the auctioneer (as indicated in P-004, where they confirm they had done so just one minute after receiving the $28,000), it is reasonable to assume that at the time of that ping, the Defendant still had the $28,000 within their account. Despite this, when the auctioneer checked the Defendant's funds, they had only $17.38 in their account (P-005). Furthermore, the Defendant was online less than an hour prior to the DCT pinging the Defendant about their insufficient balance(D-005). It is unreasonable to believe that $28,000 could have left the Defendant's account without their knowledge in under an hour, and the Defense has presented no evidence explaining what happened to the money. For that reason it can only be assumed that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally removed the $28,000 from their account for some unknown purpose.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Defendant removed the $28,000 sent in good faifth from their account and for that reason alone they failed to complete the purchase of C117. Their mismanagement of the funds they were sent voids any claim of force majeure. Punitive damages apply, as intentionally using funds sent as part of the contract for some reason outside the contracts is outrageous behaviour. Furthermore, the property was not transferred to the Plaintiff by the Defendant within 2 days of being purchased and therefore the $40,000 in liquidated damages is applicable.

 

[Franciscus]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The matter before the court is simple. The Defendant signed a contract with the Plaintiff and then failed to uphold their end of the deal. While the Defendant's sudden camping trip resembles a force majeure event, it does not qualify.

I. THE CONTRACT WAS BREACHED
The first term of the contract (P-001) required the Plaintiff to send the Defendant $28,000 to use solely for the purpose of purchasing the property C117 within 2 days after it was sent. The Plaintiff upheld his end of the deal by sending the money as shown in P-004. The Defendant did not uphold their end of the deal. While an attempt was made to purchase the property, by the time the DCT attempted to collect the funds, the Defendant had already used the money for some other purpose which is not currently known to the court (P-005). Because of this, they were unable to purchase the property within 2 days of receiving the $28,000 and violated the contract.

II. FORCE MAJEURE DOES NOT APPLY
Sometime after 4:35 PM EST on the 15th of February, 2026 (D-005), the Defendant claims to have been taken on a camping trip "for a week" (P-008). The Defense would like the court to find that this trip, which the Defendant says was sprung on them at the last minute, constitutes a force majeure event. Under ordinary circumstances the Defense would likely be correct, however the circumstances of this case are not ordinary. Consider for a moment what should have occurred in this scenario. The Defendant had already indicated to the DCT that they had the money in their account to complete the purchase prior to leaving for the camping trip. The DCT is able to collect money and transfer properties without input from the purchaser so long as the money is in the purchaser's account.

Force majeure events and the rules that govern them are defined in Section 13 of the Contracts Act. Subsection (2) states that "the affected party may temporarily suspend contractual duties to the extent that the situation significantly hinders their ability to fulfill obligations" when a force majeure event occurs. Considering the facts of this case, the Defendant should have been able to complete the purchase regardless of when they left for the camping trip and therefore it would not waive this section of the contract had it been a force majeure event. Furthermore, subsection (4) states "events where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement are not considered force majeure events." In choosing to remove the $28,000 from their account, the Defendant acted such that there was negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement. Accordingly, the camping trip does not constitute a force majeure event as the effect it had on the Defendant's ability to carry out their contractually obligated duty were directly caused by the Defendant's negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, and/or mismanagement.

III. THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD DCT AUCTIONS
If the Defendant had used the funds due to a lack of knowledge with regards to how the DCT auctions functioned, that may have acted as a mitigating factor. Such conduct would still be negligent and therefore remove the possibility of a force majeure event, but it could be argued to reduce or remove the punitive damages that the Plaintiff asks for. However, a defense of incompetence is plainly untrue. In P-007, the Defendant can be seen saying "they said they will take it out my acc". In other words, the Defendant understood that the DCT would take the payment out of their account. This is corroborated by P-005, in which the Defendant pings the auctioneer stating "moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot", which indicates their understanding that simply having the money in their account was all they needed to do at that point.

Considering the immediacy with which the Defendant pinged the auctioneer (as indicated in P-004, where they confirm they had done so just one minute after receiving the $28,000), it is reasonable to assume that at the time of that ping, the Defendant still had the $28,000 within their account. Despite this, when the auctioneer checked the Defendant's funds, they had only $17.38 in their account (P-005). Furthermore, the Defendant was online less than an hour prior to the DCT pinging the Defendant about their insufficient balance(D-005). It is unreasonable to believe that $28,000 could have left the Defendant's account without their knowledge in under an hour, and the Defense has presented no evidence explaining what happened to the money. For that reason it can only be assumed that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally removed the $28,000 from their account for some unknown purpose.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Defendant removed the $28,000 sent in good faifth from their account and for that reason alone they failed to complete the purchase of C117. Their mismanagement of the funds they were sent voids any claim of force majeure. Punitive damages apply, as intentionally using funds sent as part of the contract for some reason outside the contracts is outrageous behaviour. Furthermore, the property was not transferred to the Plaintiff by the Defendant within 2 days of being purchased and therefore the $40,000 in liquidated damages is applicable.

@gribble19 - The Defense shall have 72 hours from the time of this post (Post No. 44) to post the Defense's opening statements.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves to dismiss Claim for Relief 1 as filed in Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). See Court Rules and Procedures. Under Rule 5.2 (When to Submit Motion) a Motion to Dismiss citing rule 5.5 must be submitted at any time before the beginning of witness testimony. See id. Witness testimony has currently not yet begun. Under Rule 5.3 (Motion Can be Applied to) a Motion to Dismiss may be submitted against any and all claims for relief and prayers for relief. See id. As such Defendant submits this motion specifically against the specified claim for relief.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), a case may be dismissed when the Plaintiff commits a "failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge". See id. The Defense alleges that Claim for Relief 1 as filed by Plaintiff does not state a valid claim for relief.

Claim for Relief 1 states that: "The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act". Defendant alleges that this is not a valid Claim for Relief. It is clear from the wording of Rule 5.5 that a valid Claim for Relief must constitute either a civil or criminal charge. This Claim for Relief as filed in Plaintiff’s complaint however, does not constitute a civil or criminal charge at all. Nowhere in this first claim does Plaintiff allege that any actions of Defendant were against the law, or does Plaintiff show how any actions by Defendant constituted either a civil or criminal violation under statutory or common law.

The only reference to law in this Claim for Relief is through a reference of Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act claiming that according to this section, damages are applicable. The introduction to Part III of the Redmont Civil Code Act reads: "This Part establishes the types of damages available in civil proceedings and the rules governing their award. It consolidates the provisions previously contained in the Legal Damages Act and provides the framework for calculating and awarding damages under this Code."
While Part III of the Code thus provides a framework for calculating and awarding damages, the Code itself is also very clear in specifying when these damages shall be applicable. Part III Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act reads: “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.”
This Part of the code thus defines how damages shall be calculated when a civil matter has been established under the same code, however Plaintiff in this Claim for Relief has not even attempted to establish a civil matter under this code, as no civil violations under the code have been claimed or referenced.

Considering the above, the Defendant respectfully requests the first Claim for Relief be dismissed.
Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves to dismiss Claim for Relief 1 as filed in Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). See Court Rules and Procedures. Under Rule 5.2 (When to Submit Motion) a Motion to Dismiss citing rule 5.5 must be submitted at any time before the beginning of witness testimony. See id. Witness testimony has currently not yet begun. Under Rule 5.3 (Motion Can be Applied to) a Motion to Dismiss may be submitted against any and all claims for relief and prayers for relief. See id. As such Defendant submits this motion specifically against the specified claim for relief.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), a case may be dismissed when the Plaintiff commits a "failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge". See id. The Defense alleges that Claim for Relief 1 as filed by Plaintiff does not state a valid claim for relief.

Claim for Relief 1 states that: "The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act". Defendant alleges that this is not a valid Claim for Relief. It is clear from the wording of Rule 5.5 that a valid Claim for Relief must constitute either a civil or criminal charge. This Claim for Relief as filed in Plaintiff’s complaint however, does not constitute a civil or criminal charge at all. Nowhere in this first claim does Plaintiff allege that any actions of Defendant were against the law, or does Plaintiff show how any actions by Defendant constituted either a civil or criminal violation under statutory or common law.

The only reference to law in this Claim for Relief is through a reference of Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act claiming that according to this section, damages are applicable. The introduction to Part III of the Redmont Civil Code Act reads: "This Part establishes the types of damages available in civil proceedings and the rules governing their award. It consolidates the provisions previously contained in the Legal Damages Act and provides the framework for calculating and awarding damages under this Code."
While Part III of the Code thus provides a framework for calculating and awarding damages, the Code itself is also very clear in specifying when these damages shall be applicable. Part III Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act reads: “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.”
This Part of the code thus defines how damages shall be calculated when a civil matter has been established under the same code, however Plaintiff in this Claim for Relief has not even attempted to establish a civil matter under this code, as no civil violations under the code have been claimed or referenced.

Considering the above, the Defendant respectfully requests the first Claim for Relief be dismissed.
Thank you.

As dismissal is a dispositive motion, the Court shall give Plaintiff’s counsel ( @emilypancakes22 ) 48 hours to respond to the above quoted motion (see: In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8), beginning at the time that this post (I.e. Post No. 46) is posted on the forums.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for their opening statement be tolled until after any pending dispositive motions are ruled on.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for their opening statement be tolled until after any pending dispositive motions are ruled on.

Granted. The deadline for the Defendant’s opening statement is tolled.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Your honour, I am here on behalf of T&P. We would like to request a 24h extension.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour, I am here on behalf of T&P. We would like to request a 24h extension.

Granted

 

[gribble19]

Your Honour, Defendant requests a response to the request

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, Defendant requests a response to the request

Denied. A request for a 24-hour extension is not a dispositive motion, and the request has already been granted.

 

[gribble19]

Denied. A request for a 24-hour extension is not a dispositive motion, and the request has already been granted.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Your Honour, Defendant's motion filed in #28 was not dispositive, yet the Court specifically requested a response from the Plaintiff. Could the Court clarify how it is then reasonable to deny a request to response due to something not being a dispositive motion, or alternatively why the Court specifically requested a response in #29 to the contrary of this?

 

[gribble19]

Granted

Motion

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

Your Honour, the Defendant hereby opposes this request for extension, as they do not believe it to be in their best interest. Furthermore, Plaintiff has previously stated under oath that they believe that "both parties would be better served by avoiding further delay to proceedings in this trial" and thus per Plaintiff it is also in Plaintiff's best interest that this request be denied, as it would clearly delay proceedings in this trial. As both parties believe it to be in their best interest that this request be denied, the Defendant respectfully request that this request be denied instead.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves to dismiss Claim for Relief 1 as filed in Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). See Court Rules and Procedures. Under Rule 5.2 (When to Submit Motion) a Motion to Dismiss citing rule 5.5 must be submitted at any time before the beginning of witness testimony. See id. Witness testimony has currently not yet begun. Under Rule 5.3 (Motion Can be Applied to) a Motion to Dismiss may be submitted against any and all claims for relief and prayers for relief. See id. As such Defendant submits this motion specifically against the specified claim for relief.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), a case may be dismissed when the Plaintiff commits a "failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge". See id. The Defense alleges that Claim for Relief 1 as filed by Plaintiff does not state a valid claim for relief.

Claim for Relief 1 states that: "The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act". Defendant alleges that this is not a valid Claim for Relief. It is clear from the wording of Rule 5.5 that a valid Claim for Relief must constitute either a civil or criminal charge. This Claim for Relief as filed in Plaintiff’s complaint however, does not constitute a civil or criminal charge at all. Nowhere in this first claim does Plaintiff allege that any actions of Defendant were against the law, or does Plaintiff show how any actions by Defendant constituted either a civil or criminal violation under statutory or common law.

The only reference to law in this Claim for Relief is through a reference of Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act claiming that according to this section, damages are applicable. The introduction to Part III of the Redmont Civil Code Act reads: "This Part establishes the types of damages available in civil proceedings and the rules governing their award. It consolidates the provisions previously contained in the Legal Damages Act and provides the framework for calculating and awarding damages under this Code."
While Part III of the Code thus provides a framework for calculating and awarding damages, the Code itself is also very clear in specifying when these damages shall be applicable. Part III Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act reads: “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.”
This Part of the code thus defines how damages shall be calculated when a civil matter has been established under the same code, however Plaintiff in this Claim for Relief has not even attempted to establish a civil matter under this code, as no civil violations under the code have been claimed or referenced.

Considering the above, the Defendant respectfully requests the first Claim for Relief be dismissed.
Thank you.

RESPONSE
The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defense's Motion to Dismiss Claim for Relief 1. The motion rests on a misreading of the Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA"). Claim for Relief 1 is a properly stated civil claim and should not be dismissed.

I. Claim for Relief 1 is Valid Under RCCA Part VI §1

The Defense argues that Claim for Relief 1 lacks a valid legal basis. This is incorrect. RCCA Part VI §1 expressly codifies Breach of Contract as a civil violation and defines its legal test: a party is liable where they "fail to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse." This violation carries strict liability and no fixed remedy.

Claim for Relief 1 states: "The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property." This description precisely satisfies the legal test set out in RCCA Part VI §1(a). The claim is not vague, it identifies the violated obligation and the party who failed to perform it.

II. Part III §6 is the Remedy, Not the Violation

The Defense challenges the citation to RCCA Part III §6 (Liquidated Damages) within Claim for Relief 1, suggesting this undermines the claim's legal basis. This misreads the structure of the RCCA. Part III §6 is a remedy provision, it governs how damages are calculated once a violation is established. The underlying violation is found in Part VI §1, which the claim satisfies.

Furthermore, RCCA Part III §1(3)(a) expressly provides: "Damages do not have to be explicitly stated as a remedy to be sought as relief." The Plaintiff is not required to cite a damages provision for a claim to be legally cognizable. The presence of a damages citation strengthens the claim, it does not expose it to dismissal.

III. Precedent Supports Denying This Motion

This Court's own precedent strongly disfavours dismissal where a claim is substantively identifiable.

In Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18, this Court, presided over by the same judge, held at Section III.II: "Neither claim cites any statute, so this Court shall attempt to fill in the gaps to determine whether either claim is cognizable." In that case, the court declined to dismiss claims that cited no statute at all. Claim for Relief 1 here cites a specific section of the RCCA, it is, by that standard, on firmer ground than the claims the Court preserved in Superwoops.

In Dearev v. Lucky_waq [2026] DCR 20, the breach of contract claim stated only: "Breach of Contract under the Redmont civil code act", no section, no sub-element, no remedy provision cited. That claim was accepted and the court found for the Plaintiff. The Defense's argument, if accepted, would require dismissing claims that this Court has already upheld in a more deficient form.

IV. Conclusion

Claim for Relief 1 identifies a recognized civil violation under RCCA Part VI §1, satisfies its legal test on its face, and is supported by consistent precedent from this Court. The Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honour, the Defendant hereby opposes this request for extension, as they do not believe it to be in their best interest. Furthermore, Plaintiff has previously stated under oath that they believe that "both parties would be better served by avoiding further delay to proceedings in this trial" and thus per Plaintiff it is also in Plaintiff's best interest that this request be denied, as it would clearly delay proceedings in this trial. As both parties believe it to be in their best interest that this request be denied, the Defendant respectfully request that this request be denied instead.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — MOTION TO RECONSIDER (Post No. 54)

This Court initially gave the Plaintiff 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss, starting at 12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time on 24 March (Post No. 46).


At 8:25 AM EDT on 26 March, Plakntiff posted a request for a 24-hour extension, which was granted by the Court (Post No. 50). After this extension was granted, Defense sought leave to respond to the request for extension, which the Court denied for both (1) the request to respond having been made after the extension was granted and (2) requests for extensions to deadlines not being dispositive motions (no prejudice occurs from a 24-hour extension being granted).

Nevertheless, Plaintiff posted their response on or about 10:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time on 26 March (Post No. 55), which was before the original deadline set by the court.

The Court is confused as to why the extension was requested in the first place if submission were to occur around two hours before the original deadline. But that confusion is not material to any live issue, and the Court chooses to avoid clogging the main thread with further discussion around this request.

As the response from the Plaintiff was posted before the extension would have even kicked in, the extension was not actually used. And as the response has been submitted, there is nothing material pending on this chain except the Court’s order regarding the motion to dismiss. Motion to Reconsider, thus, is denied as moot.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman