Lawsuit: Pending FireMatt_N 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;

 

[Muggy21]

Interrogatory for the Plaintiff

1) Can you describe the netherite leggings that were lost? (Eg: Enchantments, remaining hit points, etc...)
2) Can you detail the location where the "harassment and destruction"(Plaintiff's Complaint) of FireMatt_N had occured?
3) Did FireMatt_N engage in any behavior, be it physical or in the chat, that was directed towards Catboi27 prior to the commencement of the alleged actions?
4) How many alleged murders did CatBoi27 commit?
5) Where did FireMatt_N attempt to run to when "he was trying to run away from Catboi27?" (Plaintiff's Complaint)

Proof that Interrogatory was timely.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honour, as per Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, Plaintiffs move to obtain the following information from Defendant.

1) Image of the Netherite Leggings prior to any interaction by Defendant.
2) Visual or Textual evidence (such as chat logs) that show additional murders, if alleged.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honour, as per Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, Plaintiffs move to obtain the following information from Defendant.

1) Image of the Netherite Leggings prior to any interaction by Defendant.
2) Visual or Textual evidence (such as chat logs) that show additional murders, if alleged.

since the plaintiff has not asked for an answer i will be Granting this motion. if such pieces of evidence exist they should be provided to this court.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Compel, Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Discovery

Your Honour, the Rules require that interrogatories be answered within 48 hours. In the alternative, the interrogatory should be at minimum rendered during discovery.

Discovery has passed and Plaintiff has made no attempt to answer Defendant’s questions. I request the Court sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for this inaction.

 

[Muggy21]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Counterclaim
CatBoi27 (Appointed Counsel of the Judiciary of Redmont | Public Defender Program)
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

FireMatt_N (Lex Titanum Representing)
Counter-Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Counter-Plaintiff complains against the Counter-defendent as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER

The Public Defender program is designed to offer all citizens of Redmont access to a fair and competent defense. When the program is required to defend a lawsuit with no reasonable chance of success, the Program is harmed. Plaintiff filed a case, under penalty of perjury, and they failed to add any evidence or witnesses beyond a contextless screenshot. This behaviour is abhorrent and this Honourable Court should set an example.

PARTIES

1. CatBoi27 (Counter-Plaintiff)
2. FireMatt_N (Counter-Defendant)

FACTS

1. On August 27th, 2025 at 14:06 EST, dodrio3 filed a lawsuit in the District Court for FireMatt_N for an allegation against CatBoi27.
2. The Complaint offers 2 screenshots (P-001) as minimum evidence for the prosecution.
3. This Honourable Court opened Discovery for five days starting on September 1st, 2025 at 15:07; This term ends on September 6th, 2025 at 15:07
4. During this time, Counsel for the Defendant submitted an interrogatory, to which Plaintiff failed to respond within 48 hours, as per Rule 4.7 of the Rules.
5. Discovery ended on September 6th, 2025 at 15:07 with no extensions being made. Public records will show that Dodrio has responded to other cases and has appeared physically within the jurisdiction of the Court.
6. A Frivolous Court Case is defined as “lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value.” (see Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act).

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A.THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT IS FRIVOLOUS

1. The Co-Defendant launched a frivolous action by lodging a legal case with no serious purpose and no serious value. In this action, Co-Defendant’s claims were facially deficient at filing, lacking a credible theory of liability or remedy.
2. The submitted P-001 fails to meet the burden for the underlying civil claim. Not only does it fall short of proving any actionable harm, it fails even to establish the necessary elements required for civil liability (see Commonwealth v. Nacholebraa).
3. When a party fails to produce discovery, it is reasonable to infer that such evidence would not be supportive of the party’s claims.
4. Co-Defendant’s counsel has offered no additional evidence, failed to respond to discovery motions within a timely manner, and further failed to declare any witnesses within the allotted timeframe, as permitted under Court Rules.

B. MISC CLAIMS

1. The Legal Damages Act permits punitive damages when a frivolous lawsuit is filed; Nominal damages may be awarded in the alternative.
2. The Public Defender Program does not represent the Commonwealth. As an appointed agent of the Judiciary, the Legal Damages Act prohibition on the collection of legal fees by the Commonwealth is not applicable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. For Punitive Damages, a monetary award of $10,000; If not awarded, Counsel requests $7,500 in nominal damages in the alternative.
2. For Compensatory Damages, a monetary award of $2,500.00.
3. For Legal Fees, as permitted under the Legal Damages Act, a monetary award of $7,500.00.

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 7th of September, 2025

I, Muggy21, as Public Defender summoned to this case by Magistrate Dearev, do represent the client by order of the Court.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honnur,

The plaintiff wishes to apologise for the delays as stated in the filing. We only filed on my behalf, and I was handling the case. The Attorney responsible for this case has had some IRL stuff come up, and we have been unable to assign anyone

For the time being, we do not have a picture of the armour in the plaintiff's inventory. I don't know any player who goes around taking pictures of their own inventory in case they are assaulted and it gets destroyed.

For the second part, all the evidence of the murder and attempted murder of our client is presented in P-001, where they were murdered once and assaulted twice.

Additionally, we can answer the first 4 questions; we are still pending an answer on the 5th (and request extra time to get it)

1) They were Unb III, Mending, Thorns III and Prot IV, although I don't recall the remaining hit points. They were netherite leggings with diamond silence trim on them, they weren't named
2) It happened to lcn’s casino (777 casino), near spawn, inside the machine's mechanism
3) I didn't know this person till he showed up to the machines too. We were both stuc,k and i pointed it out in the chat in a silly way:” We are stuck! Help!” Then he has an idea and shoots me, trying to kill me to make me respawn, but i didn't know this person before that event
4) he killed me once, even tho I repeatedly said to stop cause he was breaking my armour, but he continued

 

[dodrio3]

Question 5 Answer: I wasn't trying to run physically, I was stuck, I was typing /spawn, but the gun was faster

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Motion to Strike

Dodrio3 keeps referring to this other attorney for Lex Titanium's failure to prosecute, Dodrio3 filed this case and thus is responsible for ensuring its timely prosecution. Nonetheless, these answers are untimely and bar the Defendant from adding new evidence since discovery is closed.

Defendant moves for the entirety of the following posts:

Your Honnur,

The plaintiff wishes to apologise for the delays as stated in the filing. We only filed on my behalf, and I was handling the case. The Attorney responsible for this case has had some IRL stuff come up, and we have been unable to assign anyone

For the time being, we do not have a picture of the armour in the plaintiff's inventory. I don't know any player who goes around taking pictures of their own inventory in case they are assaulted and it gets destroyed.

For the second part, all the evidence of the murder and attempted murder of our client is presented in P-001, where they were murdered once and assaulted twice.

Additionally, we can answer the first 4 questions; we are still pending an answer on the 5th (and request extra time to get it)

1) They were Unb III, Mending, Thorns III and Prot IV, although I don't recall the remaining hit points. They were netherite leggings with diamond silence trim on them, they weren't named
2) It happened to lcn’s casino (777 casino), near spawn, inside the machine's mechanism
3) I didn't know this person till he showed up to the machines too. We were both stuc,k and i pointed it out in the chat in a silly way:” We are stuck! Help!” Then he has an idea and shoots me, trying to kill me to make me respawn, but i didn't know this person before that event
4) he killed me once, even tho I repeatedly said to stop cause he was breaking my armour, but he continued

Current

Question 5 Answer: I wasn't trying to run physically, I was stuck, I was typing /spawn, but the gun was faster

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Motion to Strike

Dodrio3 keeps referring to this other attorney for Lex Titanium's failure to prosecute, Dodrio3 filed this case and thus is responsible for ensuring its timely prosecution. Nonetheless, these answers are untimely and bar the Defendant from adding new evidence since discovery is closed.

Defendant moves for the entirety of the following posts:

Response

If the defence wants to ask more questions the Plaintiff is happy to allow an extension of Discovery

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Motion to Strike

Dodrio3 keeps referring to this other attorney for Lex Titanium's failure to prosecute, Dodrio3 filed this case and thus is responsible for ensuring its timely prosecution. Nonetheless, these answers are untimely and bar the Defendant from adding new evidence since discovery is closed.

Defendant moves for the entirety of the following posts:

Denied.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

There are several items outstanding.
1) I submitted a counter-claim, I haven't seen an answer (may not be required here)
2) A Motion to Compel (to sanction for untimeliness)
3) Opening Statements.

 

[dearev]

Apologies for the delay.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Compel, Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Discovery

Your Honour, the Rules require that interrogatories be answered within 48 hours. In the alternative, the interrogatory should be at minimum rendered during discovery.

Discovery has passed and Plaintiff has made no attempt to answer Defendant’s questions. I request the Court sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for this inaction.

Denied. Plaintiff has responded to the interrogatories although untimely the plaintiff has given justification for said untimely response

 

[dearev]

Plaintiff shall have 72 hours to submit their opening statements.

 

[dodrio3]

Opening Statement

Your Honour, though the facts and evidence presented in this case it is clear that the plaintiff was repeatedly harassed by the defendant. It can be seen in P-001 that defendant attacked the plaintiff twice and killed him once, these actions would cause any reasonable person to have some for of loss of enjoyment within redmont.

Additionally for the pricing of the leggings that were "They were Unb III, Mending, Thorns III and Prot IV, although I don't recall the remaining hit points. They were netherite leggings with diamond silence trim on them, they weren't named" This would take the following to make

- 6x Diamonds (5 for the legs, 1 for the trim) - $63.06
- 1x Netherite Upgrade Smithing Template - $83.92
- 1x Netherite Ingot - $113.71
- 1x Silence Armour Trim Smithing Template - $99.03
- 250x Enchanted bottles (33 Levels) - $1692.50

$2702.66 total if you include 20% extra for any potential changes in price. You must also include the cost of both the time to make the item and the time to collect the items or find them in shops.

 

[dearev]

Opening Statement

Your Honour, though the facts and evidence presented in this case it is clear that the plaintiff was repeatedly harassed by the defendant. It can be seen in P-001 that defendant attacked the plaintiff twice and killed him once, these actions would cause any reasonable person to have some for of loss of enjoyment within redmont.

Additionally for the pricing of the leggings that were "They were Unb III, Mending, Thorns III and Prot IV, although I don't recall the remaining hit points. They were netherite leggings with diamond silence trim on them, they weren't named" This would take the following to make

- 6x Diamonds (5 for the legs, 1 for the trim) - $63.06
- 1x Netherite Upgrade Smithing Template - $83.92
- 1x Netherite Ingot - $113.71
- 1x Silence Armour Trim Smithing Template - $99.03
- 250x Enchanted bottles (33 Levels) - $1692.50

$22702.66 total if you include 20% extra for any potential changes in price. You must also include the cost of both the time to make the item and the time to collect the items or find them in shops.

Thank you! defense shall now have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

- 6x Diamonds (5 for the legs, 1 for the trim) - $63.06
- 1x Netherite Upgrade Smithing Template - $83.92
- 1x Netherite Ingot - $113.71
- 1x Silence Armour Trim Smithing Template - $99.03
- 250x Enchanted bottles (33 Levels) - $1692.50

There is no basis in the evidence for the number of enchanted bottles stated in the calculation. Experience could've been obtained via farming in the End, or owning a farm in Willow.

Objection

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

$22702.66 total

Your Honour, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the value of the loss here. Leggings that the Plaintiff alleged were worth ~ $2,052.52, can't possibly justify a new valuation of nearly $22,702.66.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that compensatory damages of $5,000.00 were caused. This is a back-door effort to re-categorize the compensatory loss allegedly suffered.

 

[Muggy21]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

With discovery concluded, the Court will find that the Plaintiff’s case is immensely deficient. Plaintiff’s “facts and evidence” are two screenshots that show mutual combat between two players and Plaintiff’s own testimony. For some odd reason, Plaintiff believes that two contextless images showing deaths automatically entitles him to extract $32,500 from the Defendant.

In addition, this Court visited a similar situation recently. (Pepecuu v. Vortexx_x [2025] DCR 8)


Lastly, your Honour, I’m not sure what this trial will even look like. Plaintiff’s counsel hasn’t called any witnesses, not even his own client. The insufficient evidence, failure to call witnesses, and the outlandish extrapolation of two images is horribly insufficient to sustain a civil suit; Defendant will sufficiently prove that this complaint is without merit and that the counterclaim is meritorious.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE



There is no basis in the evidence for the number of enchanted bottles stated in the calculation. Experience could've been obtained via farming in the End, or owning a farm in Willow.

Objection

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



Your Honour, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the value of the loss here. Leggings that the Plaintiff alleged were worth ~ $2,052.52, can't possibly justify a new valuation of nearly $22,702.66.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that compensatory damages of $5,000.00 were caused. This is a back-door effort to re-categorize the compensatory loss allegedly suffered.

Response

This is an error in typing in which an extra 2 was added by mistake. I will amend this with permission your honour.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE



There is no basis in the evidence for the number of enchanted bottles stated in the calculation. Experience could've been obtained via farming in the End, or owning a farm in Willow.

Objection

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



Your Honour, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the value of the loss here. Leggings that the Plaintiff alleged were worth ~ $2,052.52, can't possibly justify a new valuation of nearly $22,702.66.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that compensatory damages of $5,000.00 were caused. This is a back-door effort to re-categorize the compensatory loss allegedly suffered.

Response

All numbers are from the August CPI which the defence had no problem using in this answer to Complaint.

 

[dearev]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE



There is no basis in the evidence for the number of enchanted bottles stated in the calculation. Experience could've been obtained via farming in the End, or owning a farm in Willow.

Objection

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



Your Honour, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the value of the loss here. Leggings that the Plaintiff alleged were worth ~ $2,052.52, can't possibly justify a new valuation of nearly $22,702.66.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that compensatory damages of $5,000.00 were caused. This is a back-door effort to re-categorize the compensatory loss allegedly suffered.

OBJECTION - FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE Sustained. Plaintiff claims to have been a typo, they shall have 24 hours to ammend

OBJECTION - PERJURY Overruled

 

[dodrio3]

OBJECTION - FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE Sustained. Plaintiff claims to have been a typo, they shall have 24 hours to ammend

OBJECTION - PERJURY Overruled

It has been amended.

 

[dearev]

It has been amended.

Thank you. Since no witnesses have been listed we will be moving to closing statements, the plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Muggy21]

Denied.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider, Defendant's Motion to Strike

Your Honour,

Discovery rules are designed to allow parties to fairly add evidence to bolster their respective claims.
When the Court allows a party to disregard these rules, the Court unfairly assists the offending party.

Between September 3rd and September 6th, dodrio3 was on the server (M-1). He, as the attorney of record, keeps telling this Court that since some other attorney had IRL issues, that this automatically allows EVERY other Lex Titanium attorney to use that as an excuse. Further, the late response bars Defendant from adding additional evidence to counter Plaintiff's interrogatory. The Court, in accepting the response untimely, didn't permit the Defendant to add additional evidence.


For example, the Plaintiff states the he suffered "loss of enjoyment" and was "unable to complete tasks while being harassed."

If interrogatory was timely, Defendant would've pointed out that BEFORE this alleged harassment the Plaintiff stated that "we were roleplaying" (M-2)

Furthermore, the alleged harassment occured over the course of an hour. Is this Honourable Court to accept that a player who gets stuck in the 777 Casino's mechanism is somehow able to command $5000/hr in lost wages?

Lastly, Rules 4.1, 4.4, and 4.8 state the following:

Rule 4.1 (Scope and Purpose of Discovery)​

The 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. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.

Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery)​

Discovery can be extended by either the plaintiff or defendant. If one side does not agree, they must submit an oppositional statement. Silence will be taken as assent on the matter. All decisions regarding the extension of discovery are decided by the presiding Judicial Officer. When discovery extensions are granted, they shall be for another 3 days from the initial starting date of discovery, unless otherwise specified.

Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories)​

The Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other that they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability. Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked. Objections to Interrogatories must be made within 24 hours. Requests for Interrogatories must be made 72 hours prior to the end of discovery.

A strict reading of the rules states that your Honour does not have the ability to summarily extend the deadline to respond to interrogatories. Rule 4.8 states that answers must be made in 48 hours. If the Plaintiff needed more time, he could've stopped playing on the server for a moment and put in a quick message in this case thread. Since the Court accepted this response outside of both discovery AND the response period under Rule 4.8, the Plaintiff's response must be striken.


M-1

M-2

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider, Defendant's Motion to Strike

Your Honour,

Discovery rules are designed to allow parties to fairly add evidence to bolster their respective claims.
When the Court allows a party to disregard these rules, the Court unfairly assists the offending party.

Between September 3rd and September 6th, dodrio3 was on the server (M-1). He, as the attorney of record, keeps telling this Court that since some other attorney had IRL issues, that this automatically allows EVERY other Lex Titanium attorney to use that as an excuse. Further, the late response bars Defendant from adding additional evidence to counter Plaintiff's interrogatory. The Court, in accepting the response untimely, didn't permit the Defendant to add additional evidence.


For example, the Plaintiff states the he suffered "loss of enjoyment" and was "unable to complete tasks while being harassed."

If interrogatory was timely, Defendant would've pointed out that BEFORE this alleged harassment the Plaintiff stated that "we were roleplaying" (M-2)

Furthermore, the alleged harassment occured over the course of an hour. Is this Honourable Court to accept that a player who gets stuck in the 777 Casino's mechanism is somehow able to command $5000/hr in lost wages?

Lastly, Rules 4.1, 4.4, and 4.8 state the following:



A strict reading of the rules states that your Honour does not have the ability to summarily extend the deadline to respond to interrogatories. Rule 4.8 states that answers must be made in 48 hours. If the Plaintiff needed more time, he could've stopped playing on the server for a moment and put in a quick message in this case thread. Since the Court accepted this response outside of both discovery AND the response period under Rule 4.8, the Plaintiff's response must be striken.


M-1
View attachment 61874View attachment 61875

M-2

View attachment 61877

Response

What is presented here is not a motion to reconsider, but instead a personal attack on me because I was not able to respond

 

[Muggy21]

Response

What is presented here is not a motion to reconsider, but instead a personal attack on me because I was not able to respond

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Responses to motions are by permission, this response should be struck.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Responses to motions are by permission, this response should be struck.

Response

This is just an extremely pathetic attempt by the defence. There is no official court rule or procedure that forces us to require permission to respond to a motion.

 

[dodrio3]

Closing Statement

Your Honour,

Throughout this case, the evidence has shown that CatBoi27’s actions were not merely incidental but egregiously wrong. On July 22, 2025, the Plaintiff was the victim of an unsolicited attack, resulting in both the destruction of his enchanted netherite leggings and emotional as well as financial harm. The Images and Interrogatories (P-001) provided confirm not just a single incident, but a pattern of harassment resulting in loss of property, loss of enjoyment, and an inability to carry out normal activities within Redmont.

We have made clear the value of the damaged item according to its enchantments: Unbreaking III, Mending, Thorns III, and Protection IV, with diamond silence trim. The cost to acquire and repair or replace such an item is significant, not speculative, but rooted in the market and materials required. We’ve also offered proof of the location and effects of the harassment. We have answered the interrogatories posed. We’ve been more than willing to extend discovery due to the issues with our firm, but the defence just seeks to use it as a way to nullify the case.

Meanwhile, the Defendant has not provided convincing evidence to counter the claims. Their primary challenge was that we were unable to answer the interrogatories in a timely manner due to unforeseen circumstances. Instead of submitting a motion to extend discovery, they attempted to use this as a claim to their client's innocence. The burden of proof remains with the Plaintiff, and that burden has been met here in the form of screenshot proof and integrity.

Thank you for your attention and your service in this matter.

 

[dearev]

Closing Statement

Your Honour,

Throughout this case, the evidence has shown that CatBoi27’s actions were not merely incidental but egregiously wrong. On July 22, 2025, the Plaintiff was the victim of an unsolicited attack, resulting in both the destruction of his enchanted netherite leggings and emotional as well as financial harm. The Images and Interrogatories (P-001) provided confirm not just a single incident, but a pattern of harassment resulting in loss of property, loss of enjoyment, and an inability to carry out normal activities within Redmont.

We have made clear the value of the damaged item according to its enchantments: Unbreaking III, Mending, Thorns III, and Protection IV, with diamond silence trim. The cost to acquire and repair or replace such an item is significant, not speculative, but rooted in the market and materials required. We’ve also offered proof of the location and effects of the harassment. We have answered the interrogatories posed. We’ve been more than willing to extend discovery due to the issues with our firm, but the defence just seeks to use it as a way to nullify the case.

Meanwhile, the Defendant has not provided convincing evidence to counter the claims. Their primary challenge was that we were unable to answer the interrogatories in a timely manner due to unforeseen circumstances. Instead of submitting a motion to extend discovery, they attempted to use this as a claim to their client's innocence. The burden of proof remains with the Plaintiff, and that burden has been met here in the form of screenshot proof and integrity.

Thank you for your attention and your service in this matter.

Thank you, defense shall now have 72 hours to present theirs, rulings on the motion to reconsider and objection will soon follow.