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 documents…
1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

1.1. These logs can definitively determine a key factual dispute in this case, when exactly "member" (build and destroy) permissions were granted to the Defendant.

1.2. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff.

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]

Motion

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 KNOWN AS 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 spend.
• 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 from seeing the build logs. This is a 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."

This matters because 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

 

[dearev]

rulings are being written.

 

[Franciscus]

Stepping in here as the new presiding officer. Please give me 72 hours to review the case and write answers to pending rulings.

Deadlines are tolled until I say otherwise. Seeing as there are active motions regarding discovery itself on the floor, Discovery is re-opened from the time of the posting of this message until 60 hours after I write my next post in this thread, which should be a ruling in pending motions/objections.

 

[Franciscus]

Upon review of the case material: change of plans. There are a few motions I'd like responses on from the parties before I rule on them, though one objection was handled.

---

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.

@Brzzzes please provide the Court a response to this motion to strike within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

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.

@Brzzzes, please provide the Court a response to this motion to strike within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

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 documents…
1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

1.1. These logs can definitively determine a key factual dispute in this case, when exactly "member" (build and destroy) permissions were granted to the Defendant.

1.2. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: A-023

View attachment 77223

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

@Brzzzes, please provide the Court a response to this motion to compel within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

Motion

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 the Court does not identify a motion to dismiss as having been filed. What motion is this post referring to? Please provide the name of the motion and the post number.

---

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 KNOWN AS 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 spend.
• 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 from seeing the build logs. This is a 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."

This matters because 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

Again, I'm not seeing a motion to dismiss as having been filed. What are you referring to there, @Brzzzes?

Separately, @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer, please provide the Court a response to Section III of this motion within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

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

View attachment 77232

Spoiler: F-005

View attachment 77233

SUSTAINED. @Brzzzes you may not edit the Complaint without leave of the Court. You are ordered to refrain from doing so unless this Court grants you permission, on pain of Contempt of Court.

---

Discovery is extended until 3 April 2026 at 10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4). This overrides any other deadlines previously given.

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor, I am sorry that I provided the motion to dismiss; it went over my head, and I was working on something that also had a deadline. I send my apologies to the court, and it will never happen again.

 

[Brzzzes]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS & CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSES​

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, by and through Counsel, respectfully requests that this Court DENY any of the Defendant’s Motion to Strike in its entirety. Furthermore, the Plaintiff moves to strike the Defendant's "Refund Defense" as legally insufficient.

I. OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL​

The Defendant moves for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link.

• No Prejudice: The Defendant has failed to show any harm or "blind-siding" caused by this update. The evidence remains the same logs from Feb 23–28.
• Judicial Economy: Dismissing a D$15,100 claim over a 2-minute link correction would be a gross waste of this Court’s resources. The Plaintiff moves to deny this ground with prejudice.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE THE "REFUND DEFENSE"​

The Defendant argues that returning the deposit has "cured" the breach. This is a misunderstanding of Redmont Contract Law.

• Partial Restitution is not a cure: Returning a deposit only returns the Plaintiff's own money. It does not address the Expectation Damages or the Cost of Cover.
• The Gap: Because the Defendant abandoned the 12-floor project, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new builder (Wayne Kerr) at a D$1,500 premium. This is a direct financial loss caused by the Defendant's breach that the refund does not cover.

III. THE "PERMISSION" PRETEXT​

The Defendant’s motion relies on the claim that they were "unable" to build. As this Court has reopened Discovery, the Plaintiff asserts that this is a pretextual excuse.

• The Defendant knew the scope was 12 floors on Feb 23 (pre-contract).
• They failed to open a /ticket or name a Staff member who restricted them.
• Without proof of these "errors," their Motion to Dismiss is based on a falsehood.

CONCLUSION​

The Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and allow the case to proceed to a ruling on the merits. The facts remain: a contract was signed, the scope was known, and the Defendant walked away, causing real financial harm.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor, I am sorry that I provided the motion to dismiss; it went over my head, and I was working on something that also had a deadline. I send my apologies to the court, and it will never happen again.

What motion to dismiss are you talking about?

 

[Brzzzes]

What motion to dismiss are you talking about?

I just posted it sorry I thought I filed it.

 

[Franciscus]

I just posted it sorry I thought I filed it.

You are the Plaintiff's counsel. A motion to dismiss would be a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's case. I do not see you having sought to do that.

What I see is a "OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS" repeated several times in the absence of any MTD having been filed by the Defendant.

 

[Brzzzes]

You are the Plaintiff's counsel. A motion to dismiss would be a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's case. I do not see you having sought to do that.

What I see is a "OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS" repeated several times in the absence of any MTD having been filed by the Defendant.

Your Honor,

I apologize to the Court for any confusion regarding the titles of my previous filings. As Counsel, I was reacting to the Defendant’s repeated requests within their statements to have the case "thrown out" or settled by their partial refund. I labeled my responses as an "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss" to address those specific arguments.

I hear the Court’s point clearly: there is no formal MTD on the record. I will ensure my future filings reflect the actual state of the docket.

Moving Forward:
The core of our current focus is the Motion to Compel Discovery (That I am drafting). Regardless of the titles used in previous posts, the Plaintiff is still seeking the "Staff Logs" and "Permission Errors" that the Defendant claims are the reason they couldn't finish the job.

We are grateful for the 48-hour window the Court has given the Defendant to respond to that specific issue. We will wait for their response (or lack thereof) before making our next move.

Thank you for the guidance, Your Honor.

---
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes
Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Brzzzes]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY​

To the Honorable Judge,

I’d like to move past the procedural back-and-forth and get to the heart of why we are actually here. The Defendant, UrbanDesign, has based their entire defense on one claim: that "staff permissions" or "height errors" made it impossible for it to finish the contract.

In a professional setting, if you can’t do your job because of a technical error, you have to document it. You take a screenshot, you open a ticket, or you talk to a staff member. My client, Fletchingrs, has asked for this proof repeatedly, and so far, the Defendant has produced nothing but words.

We are formally asking the Court to COMPEL (force) the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Logs: Any chat, Discord DM, or telegram with a DemocracyCraft Staff member regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Visual Proof: Any screenshot showing a "No Permission" or height error message while they were on the plot.
3. Support Records: Proof of any /ticket they opened to try to resolve these issues before they walked away from the project.

Why this is necessary: Now, without the Defendant’s story, it is just a story. We believe these logs don't exist because the "errors" never happened. My client’s plot sat stagnant for three days while the Defendant held the permissions—if they were actually struggling with errors, they should be able to show us the proof in 30 seconds.

If they cannot or will not produce these documents within the 48-hour window the Court mentioned, we ask the Court to view their defense as a "pretext" for a bad-faith breach.

We just want the truth so we can move this case to a final ruling.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Franciscus]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY​

To the Honorable Judge,

I’d like to move past the procedural back-and-forth and get to the heart of why we are actually here. The Defendant, UrbanDesign, has based their entire defense on one claim: that "staff permissions" or "height errors" made it impossible for it to finish the contract.

In a professional setting, if you can’t do your job because of a technical error, you have to document it. You take a screenshot, you open a ticket, or you talk to a staff member. My client, Fletchingrs, has asked for this proof repeatedly, and so far, the Defendant has produced nothing but words.

We are formally asking the Court to COMPEL (force) the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Logs: Any chat, Discord DM, or telegram with a DemocracyCraft Staff member regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Visual Proof: Any screenshot showing a "No Permission" or height error message while they were on the plot.
3. Support Records: Proof of any /ticket they opened to try to resolve these issues before they walked away from the project.

Why this is necessary: Now, without the Defendant’s story, it is just a story. We believe these logs don't exist because the "errors" never happened. My client’s plot sat stagnant for three days while the Defendant held the permissions—if they were actually struggling with errors, they should be able to show us the proof in 30 seconds.

If they cannot or will not produce these documents within the 48-hour window the Court mentioned, we ask the Court to view their defense as a "pretext" for a bad-faith breach.

We just want the truth so we can move this case to a final ruling.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

Before this Court rules on this motion, would you please explain to the Court the difference in the records sought in this request from those sought in Post No. 12, Section III?

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor,

Yes, of course and thank you for the opportunity to clarify. While the types of records I am looking for haven't changed, the legal necessity for this specific Motion has.

The Difference between Post No. 12 and this Motion:

1. Post No. 12 was a Request: In my initial filing, I identified these logs (Staff chats, error screenshots) as evidence I intended to seek during the trial process. It was a notice to the Defendant and the Court that these records were central to the case.
2. This Motion is an Enforcement: Since that initial post, the Defendant has had ample time to voluntarily provide those records to prove their defense. Instead, they have offered only verbal claims. Now that the Court has officially reopened Discovery, this Motion to Compel is the formal legal mechanism to move from "asking" to "requiring."

In short: Post No. 12 said, "I am going to need these." This Motion says, "The Defendant hasn't produced them yet, and I need the Court to step in so we can finally see the truth."

I am seeking the same logs because they are the only way to prove or disprove the Defendant’s "permission error" excuse. Without a formal order to compel, we are stuck in a loop of "he-said, she-said."

I hope this clarifies the intent behind the filing.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff