Lawsuit: Pending FireMatt_N (Lex Titanum Representing) v. CatBoi27 [2025] DCR 66

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


FireMatt_N (Lex Titanum Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

CatBoi27
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 22nd of July the Plaintiff was murdered by Catboi27. This was an unsolicited attack on the Plaintiff after getting murdered, The outrageous acts of the Defendant caused financial damage to the Plaintiff as his enchanted netherite leggings were destroyed forcing the Plaintiff to replace them.

I. PARTIES
1. FireMatt_N - Plaintiff
2. Catboi27 - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. Catboi27 murdered FireMatt_N on the 22nd of July. [p-001]
2. FireMatt_N had his enchanted netherite leggings destroyed on the 22nd of July.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The leggings cost FireMatt_N $5,000 and as Carboi27 destroyed them we find it fair to ask this as relief.
2. The constant harassment and destruction from Catboi27 caused the loss of enjoyment as he was trying to run away from Catboi27.
3. Catboi27 continuously attacked and maimed the plaintiff causing emotional distress to the plaintiff and causing him a loss in income due to being unable to complete tasks while being harassed

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5,000 In compensatory Damages for destruction of the leggings
2. $5,000 In compensatory Damages for the time the plaintiff was unable to work due to the defences actions
3. $5,000 For the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont due to the harassment of the plaintiff
4. $10,000 In punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of the defendant
5. 30% of the case’s value in legal fees paid to Lex Titanum.



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: The 22nd of August 2025

P-001

 

[dodrio3]

Proof Of Represntation

Darkplays3656 will be representing but due to some issues was unable to post the filing.

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@CatBoi27, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of FireMatt_N v. CatBoi27 [2025] DCR 66

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.

 

[dodrio3]

Writ of Summons

@CatBoi27, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of FireMatt_N v. CatBoi27 [2025] DCR 66

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.

The Defendant has failed to appear within the 72h as requested, thus the plaintiff moves for a summary judgement.

 

[dearev]

The Defendant has failed to appear within the 72h as requested, thus the plaintiff moves for a summary judgement.

Denied. A public defender will be appointed shortly.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

I've been assigned as the Public Defender for CatBoi27. (My credentials are pending, please reach out the PD Director if the Court requires confirmation).

I request 72 Hours to review and respond to the case filing.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

I've been assigned as the Public Defender for CatBoi27. (My credentials are pending, please reach out the PD Director if the Court requires confirmation).

I request 72 Hours to review and respond to the case filing.

Confirmation has been received. You may have 48 hours to review the case and respond with an answer to complaint;

 

[Muggy21]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Answer to Complaint

FireMatt_N
Plaintiff

v.

CatBoi27
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. DEFENDANT can neither AFFIRM nor DENY that Catboi27 murdered, as defined in the Criminal Code Act, FireMatt_N. Further, DEFENDANT neither can AFFIRM nor DENY that this action took place on July 22nd, 2025.
2. DEFENDANT can neither AFFIRM nor DENY that FireMatt_N was in possession of any pieces of armor, without respect to their condition or qualities.

II. DEFENCES

1. FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
   1. As provided in the Legal Damages Act § (4) (3)(a), parties have the duty to mitigate any damages suffered upon them by a counterparty.
   2. The second image of P-001 (Img: AD_4nXFN) shows that Plaintiff killed Defendant prior to being killed in kind. Without speculating on the reason for this conflict, Plaintiff returned to an area where further combat was a possibility.
   3. Further, neither image contained in P-001 shows any armor points nor any reasonable indication that the Plaintiff ever had armor.
   4. The Plaintiff’s combined Compensatory Damages prayer of $10,000.00 is wholly inappropriate and should be severely curtailed by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
2. EXCESSIVE VALUATION OF ALLEGED LOSS
   1. Plaintiff alleges that the netherite leggings cost him $5,000; No reasonable proof of this valuation has been proffered.
   2. Even if Plaintiff can produce a receipt of the cost, Plaintiff is entitled to replacement value of the Loss according to the CPI at the time of the incident. According to the CPI for July 2025, netherite leggings were sold for $250.00; Enchanted Books sold for at most $200. If Plaintiff’s claim of valuation was seen in the most favorable light, with 4 enchantments, the most the leggings would cost to produce is $1,050.00 (D-001). (This valuation is indicative rather than authoritative; Defendant’s counsel is unaware of any other standard to properly value common items in Redmont.)
   3. Further, the Legal Damages Act, in part, states the following regarding Loss of Enjoyment: “Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.”
   4. The Plaintiff has failed to mention, nor allude, to any distinct activity that was either lost or diminished due to any action of the Defendant.
   5. Further, Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for the valuation for loss of “work”; On this point, no proof nor reasonable allusion is made of any actions made by Plaintiff prior to the alleged activities of Defendant.
3. MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES
   1. Plaintiff fails to show any proof that the conduct is outrageous.
   2. Plaintiff fails to show any proof that the conduct alleged caused Loss of Enjoyment, as defined under common law.
   3. Under Rule 2.1 (1), Plaintiff lacks standing.
   4. If Plaintiff fails on all claims, legal fees can’t be recovered.
   5. Compensatory Damages require proof of pecuniary loss, none was shown.
   6. Emotional Distress is not a basis under the Legal Damages Act to collect any monetary award.

D-001 (July 2025 CPI): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tsJYHyCaTZMDAELrwEN0oUdlhhCHxiVHi9kzpLCWVkE/edit?gid=110521414#gid=110521414

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 1st day of September, 2025.

Motion

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

1. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Under Rule 5.12

Under Court Rules and Procedures ("CRP") 5.12, the plaintiff must possess sufficient standing to bring suit against an individual.

Plaintiff fails to prove that the alleged harassment undertaken by Defendant occurred within the physical jurisdiction of the Courts. Plaintiff’s evidence, P-001, merely demonstrates two players who attacked and murdered each other; Since Defendant is inactive, Plaintiff is attempting to cry foul after suffering a loss after mutual combat.


2. Lack of Claim under Rule 5.5

Likewise to Rule 5.12, the Plaintiff fails to prove a substantive claim on which the Courts can grant relief. Plaintiff cannot convert combat into a compensable wrong merely because the outcome was unfavorable.

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Answer to Complaint

FireMatt_N
Plaintiff

v.

CatBoi27
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. DEFENDANT can neither AFFIRM nor DENY that Catboi27 murdered, as defined in the Criminal Code Act, FireMatt_N. Further, DEFENDANT neither can AFFIRM nor DENY that this action took place on July 22nd, 2025.
2. DEFENDANT can neither AFFIRM nor DENY that FireMatt_N was in possession of any pieces of armor, without respect to their condition or qualities.

II. DEFENCES

1. FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
   1. As provided in the Legal Damages Act § (4) (3)(a), parties have the duty to mitigate any damages suffered upon them by a counterparty.
   2. The second image of P-001 (Img: AD_4nXFN) shows that Plaintiff killed Defendant prior to being killed in kind. Without speculating on the reason for this conflict, Plaintiff returned to an area where further combat was a possibility.
   3. Further, neither image contained in P-001 shows any armor points nor any reasonable indication that the Plaintiff ever had armor.
   4. The Plaintiff’s combined Compensatory Damages prayer of $10,000.00 is wholly inappropriate and should be severely curtailed by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
2. EXCESSIVE VALUATION OF ALLEGED LOSS
   1. Plaintiff alleges that the netherite leggings cost him $5,000; No reasonable proof of this valuation has been proffered.
   2. Even if Plaintiff can produce a receipt of the cost, Plaintiff is entitled to replacement value of the Loss according to the CPI at the time of the incident. According to the CPI for July 2025, netherite leggings were sold for $250.00; Enchanted Books sold for at most $200. If Plaintiff’s claim of valuation was seen in the most favorable light, with 4 enchantments, the most the leggings would cost to produce is $1,050.00 (D-001). (This valuation is indicative rather than authoritative; Defendant’s counsel is unaware of any other standard to properly value common items in Redmont.)
   3. Further, the Legal Damages Act, in part, states the following regarding Loss of Enjoyment: “Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.”
   4. The Plaintiff has failed to mention, nor allude, to any distinct activity that was either lost or diminished due to any action of the Defendant.
   5. Further, Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for the valuation for loss of “work”; On this point, no proof nor reasonable allusion is made of any actions made by Plaintiff prior to the alleged activities of Defendant.
3. MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES
   1. Plaintiff fails to show any proof that the conduct is outrageous.
   2. Plaintiff fails to show any proof that the conduct alleged caused Loss of Enjoyment, as defined under common law.
   3. Under Rule 2.1 (1), Plaintiff lacks standing.
   4. If Plaintiff fails on all claims, legal fees can’t be recovered.
   5. Compensatory Damages require proof of pecuniary loss, none was shown.
   6. Emotional Distress is not a basis under the Legal Damages Act to collect any monetary award.

D-001 (July 2025 CPI): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tsJYHyCaTZMDAELrwEN0oUdlhhCHxiVHi9kzpLCWVkE/edit?gid=110521414#gid=110521414

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 1st day of September, 2025.

Motion

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

1. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Under Rule 5.12

Under Court Rules and Procedures ("CRP") 5.12, the plaintiff must possess sufficient standing to bring suit against an individual.

Plaintiff fails to prove that the alleged harassment undertaken by Defendant occurred within the physical jurisdiction of the Courts. Plaintiff’s evidence, P-001, merely demonstrates two players who attacked and murdered each other; Since Defendant is inactive, Plaintiff is attempting to cry foul after suffering a loss after mutual combat.


2. Lack of Claim under Rule 5.5

Likewise to Rule 5.12, the Plaintiff fails to prove a substantive claim on which the Courts can grant relief. Plaintiff cannot convert combat into a compensable wrong merely because the outcome was unfavorable.

Thank you. Motion to dismiss is hereby denied as this court sees as beneficial to both parties to allow this case to reach discovery

Discovery shall now being lasting 5 days;