Lawsuit: Pending Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign [2026] DCR 27

[Brzzzes]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Fletchingrs
Plaintiff

v.

UrbanDesign (Represented by Kiwi_Boi_Gamer)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

"On or about February 26, 2026, I entered into a professional agreement with UrbanDesign to renovate my property at S079. Despite inspecting the site days prior and knowing exactly what the job required, the Defendant sat on the project for three days, performed zero structural work, and then quit using dishonest excuses about 'permissions' and 'complexity.' This wasn't just a change of heart; it was a bad-faith abandonment that cost me time and money. While they returned my deposit, that doesn't fix the days of lost progress or the fact that I now have to pay more for a new builder to fix their mess. I am seeking full compensation for the time wasted and the legal fees I've been forced to incur to hold them accountable."

I. PARTIES

Fletchingrs (Plaintiff) - Legal leaseholder of Plot S079.

UrbanDesign / Kiwi_Boi_Gamer (Defendant) - Contractor hired for renovation services.

II. FACTS

On or about February 23, 2026, the Defendant conducted an on-site inspection of Plot S079, explicitly noting the floor height requirements and plot dimensions.

On or about February 25, 2026, the Parties executed a binding Renovation Contract for a total sum of D$21,000.

Between on or about February 25, 2026, and on or about February 28, 2026, the Defendant held active "Member" permissions on the plot but failed to perform any material structural work.

On or about February 28, 2026, the Defendant unilaterally terminated the agreement, claiming the project was "too big"—an excuse directly contradicted by their own prior inspection.

On or about March 1, 2026, the Plaintiff was forced to mitigate damages by securing a new builder (Wayne Kerr) for the same scope of work at a higher cost of D$22,500.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Material Breach of Contract: The Defendant failed to perform the core structural obligations of the agreement (Section 5.9), resulting in a total failure of consideration.

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The Defendant utilized dishonest pretexts regarding building permissions to escape a vetted professional obligation.

Estoppel: The Defendant is legally barred from claiming "unforeseen complexity" after having performed a site survey on or about Feb 23.

Liability for Cost of Cover: Under Redmont law, a breaching party is liable for the price difference between the original contract and the replacement contract required to finish the work.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

Lost Opportunity Costs: D$6,000.00 (For 3 days of total plot inactivity at D$2,000/day).

Cost of Cover: D$1,500.00 (Price difference between original and replacement contract).

Punitive Damages: D$3,550.00 (For bad-faith conduct and deceptive trade practices).

Legal Fees: D$4,050.00 (Broken down as: D$300 Contract Review, D$750 Discovery, D$1,000 Filing, D$2,000 Trial Representation.

Total Sum Requested: D$15,100.00

Evidence:

Exhibit A: Renovation Contract signed on or about Feb 25, 2026. (Contract added as an attachment.)

Exhibit B: New Master Construction Indenture with Wayne Kerr dated on or about Mar 1, 2026. (Contract added as an attachment.)

Exhibit C: Discord logs confirming inspection on or about Feb 23, 2026, and termination on or about Feb 28, 2026.

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Witnesses: N/A

Fletchingrs (Plaintiff)

Wayne Kerr (Secondary Contractor - to testify on project feasibility)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 2nd day of March 2026

 

[dearev]

@Brzzzes please provide proof of representation within 72 hours.

 

[Brzzzes]

@Brzzzes please provide proof of representation within 72 hours.

Sorry right here

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Kiwi_Boi_Gamer, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign [2026] DCR 27

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.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Present your Honour,
I've been authorised by Urban Design's Director (DaanBanaan5673) to represent them.

 

[dearev]

Present your Honour,
I've been authorised by Urban Design's Director (DaanBanaan5673) to represent them.

Present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Answer to Complaint

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

Fletchingrs (represented by Brzzzes)
Plaintiff

v.

UrbanDesign (Represented by Kiwi_Boi_Gamer)
Defendant


I. FACTS
All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

1. Affirms that before signing the contract the Defendant did inspect the property then explicitly mentioned the plot’s “max height limit” (A-009) and suggested increasing floor heights (A-012); Noting the increased floor height was included in the contract (clause 5.9) and the contract is the complete agreement between the parties which supersedes all prior “written or oral” agreements (clause 13).

2. Affirms that on 26/2/2026 at 2:52AM (A-003) the parties signed the Renovation Contract, which fulfilled all the requirements of formation (Contracts Act), Noting that consideration (clause 11) was established and cannot be invalidated or revoked.

3. Affirms no structural work was done Noting that the Defendant was only given permissions on 28/2/2026 (A-006) and after permissions were granted there were ongoing negotiations (A-006).

4. Affirms we gave notice to terminate the contract (clause 8) on the 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM (A-007) Noting that either party could have given notice to "unilaterally" terminate the contract at any time (clause 8) and the Defendant returned the $9k non-refundable deposit (clause 8) as a show of “goodwill” (A-007 & A-022).

5. Except as hereinbefore expressly affirmed or expressly neither affirmed nor denied, each and every other factual allegation and claim for relief is Denied as if set out herein.


II. DEFENCES
Defendant asserts these defences in the alternative and reserves the right to amend/add defences as facts and discovery develops.

1. Unavailable Cause of Action: The Plaintiff claims there was a “material” breach of contract, but the Defendant never failed to perform their obligations. The Defendant validly terminated the contract (clause 8) before the “5-day deadline” (A-003 & A-007). All obligations ended after termination; it is impossible to breach obligations you don't have.

2. Failure to State a Claim: The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of dishonesty, lack of integrity, or unfairness that has breached the implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Contracts Act). The Defendant acted in good faith and honestly throughout their business transaction.

3. Unavailable Cause of Action: Estoppel has not been recognised as a legitimate cause of action within DemocracyCraft and has been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court [1950minecrafter v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18]. Although Collateral Estoppel (rule 5.9) does exist, it is not a cause of action but rather a procedural rule.

4. Unavailable Cause of Action: The Plaintiff claims "Cost of Cover" is both a legitimate cause of action and remedy under "Redmont Law" without providing any Acts or cases to support their claim. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to establish proper authority and as none has been provided the "Cost of Cover" cause of action is unjustified and must fail.

6. Lack of Damages: The Plaintiff lost no money from the termination; they were made whole after the 9k non-refundable deposit was returned. The Plaintiff only started losing money after they decided to take legal action. Both parties lost an equal amount of time in this transaction.

7. Speculative Damages: The Plaintiff claims to have suffered "lost opportunity costs” but has failed to explain what "opportunity" exactly was lost. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence justifying the "$2,000 per day" figure for "plot inactivity"; the figure has no logical basis.

8. Punitive Damages not Warranted: Defendant did not act with the requisite malice/outrageousness to justify punitive damages, and any punitive damages request is excessive, unsupported, and contrary to governing damages principles.


III. Evidence

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: A-006

Spoiler: A-007

Spoiler: A-009

Spoiler: A-012

Spoiler: A-022

IV. Witness List
1. Fletchingrs
2. sarf123


V. Attestation
By making this submission, I agree and 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: 18th March 2026 (UTC+12:00)

 

[dearev]

discovery shall start lasting 5 days.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Motion

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

The last image in Exhibit C (Discord Messages) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing is redundant and vague:
1. The messages in the last image are redundant as they provide no additional facts to the Court. All facts contained in the messages are available in their original form (A-006, Renovation Contract).

2. The messages in the last image make vague claims of "wasting time" and "bad faith" which are purely the Plaintiff’s opinion. These messages presume the Defendant is guilty without any evidence and call for a conclusion to matters in dispute.

The last image in Exhibit C of the Plaintiff's Case Filing should be struck from the record as it is redundant and vague.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the Court compel the Plaintiff to produce the following document…
1. In-game build and destroy permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

Spoiler: A-023

NOTE: All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Motion

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

The defence moves that Exhibit B (New Contract) in its entirety be struck from the record as it is immaterial to this case...
1. The New Contract concerns a completely different plot (C343).

2. The New Contract was created and signed after contractual relationship between the parties ended. The contractual terms of new contract don’t bind the defendant.

3. The Plaintiff freely chose to contract with a third party. Defendant did not “force” or “cause” the Plaintiff to contract with a third party, and the Defendant had no influence or participation in the “new contract”.

4. New Master Construction was not a party to the original Renovation Agreement or these proceedings.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has removed "Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign (Complaint).pdf", which has changed the information available to the Court and Defendant (F-004 & F-005).

The Plaintiff has breached either one or both of the following Court Rules and Procedures...
1. The Plaintiff has breached Rule 3.3 by failing to declare and explain the amendment of their Complaint to the Court.

2. The Plaintiff has breached Rule 3.5 by failing to get approval from the Court before removing a file containing information from their Complaint.

Spoiler: F-004

Spoiler: F-005

 

[Brzzzes]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (REGARDING EVIDENCE)

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, respectfully submits this opposition to the Defendant’s latest motion. The Defendant is attempting to have this case dismissed over a minor clerical error that has already been corrected.

1. No Prejudice to the Defendant: The Plaintiff accidentally removed a file and immediately replaced it. The evidence is now fully available for the Court and the Defendant to review. The Defendant has not been "harmed" or "blindly led" by this 2-minute error. Dismissing a case over a temporary link issue would be a massive overreach and a waste of judicial resources.

2. A Tactical Distraction: The Defendant is hyper-focusing on the Plaintiff’s "edits" because they cannot answer for the actual evidence. The logs from on or about February 23rd clearly show the Defendant knew about the 12 floors before signing. The Defendant is simply trying to use a technicality to avoid answering for their bad-faith breach of contract.

3. Request to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE: The Plaintiff moves that this motion be denied with prejudice. The Defendant is repeatedly filing frivolous motions (including their previous attempt to file in the wrong court venue) to delay the trial.

CONCLUSION We ask the Court to ignore this distraction and move forward with the case. The evidence is present, the breach is clear, and the Plaintiff deserves a ruling on the merits.

 

[Brzzzes]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS & MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, objects to the Defendant’s latest attempt to dismiss this case. The Defendant is using minor clerical corrections and a partial refund to dodge a clear-cut breach of contract.

I. RESPONSE TO CLAIM 1: CLERICAL EDITS ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

The Defendant is asking to throw out a D$15,100 claim because a link was briefly updated.

• This update took minutes and ensured the Court had the most accurate version of the evidence.
• The Defendant has suffered zero prejudice. They have the files, they know the facts, and they are simply using this as a tactical distraction. We move to deny this claim with prejudice.

II. RESPONSE TO CLAIM 2: A REFUND IS NOT A SETTLEMENT

The Defendant argues that returning the deposit ends the case. This is legally baseless.

• A refund only returns the Plaintiff’s own money. It does not compensate for the D$1,500 cost of cover (the extra cost of the replacement builder), the three days of lost plot utility, or the D$4,050 in legal fees the Plaintiff was forced to incur.
• Returning a deposit after a breach does not magically erase the financial damage caused by that breach.

III. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Defendant’s entire defense is that "staff" or "permissions" stopped them. This is a pretextual (fake) excuse.

We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Communication: Screenshots of any chat with DemocracyCraft Staff regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Error Proof: Screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot.
3. /ticket Logs: Records of any official support tickets opened to resolve these "issues."

Why this matters: On Feb 26, the Defendant stated, "build should cover it." If they didn't talk to staff or open a ticket, they lied to the Plaintiff to escape their professional obligations.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Defendant knew the scope was 12 floors on Feb 23, two days before signing. They held the perms for three days, did zero work, and then quit. We ask the Court to deny the motion to dismiss and grant Discovery so the truth can come out.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes of Titan Legal Group Counsel for the Plaintiff