Lawsuit: Pending Golden Meadow Co. v. BorgiBuilds [2026] DCR 133

[xVoltrix]

​

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Golden Meadow Co.
Plaintiff

v.

BorgiBuilds
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I, .TinolangSabaw, owner of Golden Meadow Co., affirm that BorgiBuilds has breached their contract multiple times. They have stolen company property, have not worked at the company for the required amount of time (they have been employed for 4 days out of the required 3 weeks) and have not noticed the company prior to the termination of their employment.

I. PARTIES
1. Golden Meadow Co. ( “Plaintiff”) A duly operated agricultural company within the Commonwealth of Redmont, represented by Blackstone Law Group

2. BorgiBuilds (“Defendant”) The individual responsible for the lost profits and Breach of Contract at issue.


II. FACTS
1. The Defendant signed a contract including the following clauses: "The Employee shall not steal, remove, damage, or misappropriate any crops, equipment, tools, fuel, building materials, or any other property belonging to the Employer or associated with Golden Meadow Co." & "The Employee agrees that they may only resign or end their employment voluntarily after completing at least three (3) full weeks of service from their official start date. Should the Employee wish to resign after this period, they shall provide advance notice to the Employer." [Exhibit P-001]

2. The employment contract was signed on the 27th of July 2026 [Exhibit P-002]

3. The Defendant recieved a plethora of items from the Plaintiff in order to complete their job more efficiently. Among the tools given was a red tractor. [Exhibit P-003]

4. The tractor "disappeared" according to the Defendant, which is impossible [Exhibit P-004]

5. The Plaintiff tried to get compensation from the Staff team [Exhibit P-004]

6. The Staff team refused to compensate the tractor so the Plaintiff made an agreement with the Defendant stating that the Defendant is responsible for compensation. [Exhibit P-005, Exhibit P-006]

7. After asking the Defendant to reaffirm the agreement and meeting refusal, the Plaintiff reduced the time limit for compensation from 7 days to 5 (the . The Defendant then claimed they couldn't meet the required amount of wheat within the new timeframe. [Exhibit P-007]

8. The Plaintiff repeatedly tried to reaffirm the agreement in order to resolve the conflict, but was answered by the Defendant blocking the Plaintiff on discord and leaving the company server [Exhibit P-008, Exhibit P-009]

9. The Defendant founded their own company in the same industry as Golden Meadow Co. but has dissolved it prior to the current date [Exhibit P-010]

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant committed a Breach of Contract (Civil Code Act VI.1) by:
a) stealing a tractor from the Plaintiff
b) terminating their employment after 4 days instead of the 3 weeks stated in the contract
c) not giving proper prior notice to terminate their employment
2. The punitive damages are justified by the outrageous conduct of the Defendant with neither having regard to the laws of Redmont nor to the employment contract. The Defendant has demonstrated a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, reckless and grossly negligent disregard for the rights and interests of others.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in compensatory damages for the stolen tractor.
2. $42,000 in compensatory damages for the lost profit ($2,500 per day * 17 days) [Exhibit P-011, Exhibit P-012]
3. $150 in compensatory damages for the cost to hire a new employee [Exhibit P-013]
4. $12,850 in punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of the Defendant
5. $19,500 in legal fees, amounting to 30% of the prayer for relief
Totalling $84,500 ($65,000 + $19,500)


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 31. day of July 2026

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

Spoiler: Exhibit P-008

Spoiler: Exhibit P-009

Spoiler: Exhibit P-010

Spoiler: Exhibit P-011

Spoiler: Exhibit P-012

Spoiler: Exhibit P-013

Spoiler: Proof of representation

 

[Talion77]

Writ of Summons

@BorgiBuilds is required to appear before the District Court in the case of .TinolangSabaw v. BorgiBuilds [2026] DCR 133.

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.

 

[xVoltrix]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER - INQUEST PROCEEDING

Granted.

Pursuant to Rule 3.6.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures, as the defendant has failed to respond to the summons within 72 hours, the case shall proceed into an inquest proceeding under Rule 3.6.2.

Discovery shall be open for 5 days from now on. The Plaintiff may apply by motion for the issuance of subpoenas, writs, or summonses as the Court deems judicially prudent. After the closure of discovery, the Plaintiff shall submit a written brief containing a factual narrative of the controversy and all relevant legal arguments.

So ordered.
Signed,
Magistrate Talion Montclair-Contour

 

[xVoltrix]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-014

Spoiler: Exhibit P-015

 

[Talion77]

Discovery has concluded as of 10 August 2026, 13:09 UTC. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a written brief within 48 hours as mentioned in the Courts earlier order.

@xVoltrix

 

[xVoltrix]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF CONTAINING A FACTUAL NARRATIVE AND ALL RELEVANT LEGAL ARGUMENTS

I. FACTUAL NARRATIVE
1. The Defendant signed a contract including the following clauses: "The Employee shall not steal, remove, damage, or misappropriate any crops, equipment, tools, fuel, building materials, or any other property belonging to the Employer or associated with Golden Meadow Co." & "The Employee agrees that they may only resign or end their employment voluntarily after completing at least three (3) full weeks of service from their official start date. Should the Employee wish to resign after this period, they shall provide advance notice to the Employer." [Exhibit P-001]

2. The employment contract was signed on the 27th of July 2026 [Exhibit P-002]

3. The Defendant recieved a plethora of items from the Plaintiff in order to complete their job more efficiently. Among the tools given was a red tractor. [Exhibit P-003]

4. The tractor "disappeared" according to the Defendant, which is impossible [Exhibit P-004]

5. The Plaintiff tried to get compensation from the Staff team [Exhibit P-004]

6. The Staff team refused to compensate the tractor so the Plaintiff made an agreement with the Defendant stating that the Defendant is responsible for compensation. [Exhibit P-005, Exhibit P-006]

7. After asking the Defendant to reaffirm the agreement and meeting refusal, the Plaintiff reduced the time limit for compensation from 7 days to 5 (the Defendant then claimed they couldn't meet the required amount of wheat within the new timeframe. [Exhibit P-007]

8. The Plaintiff repeatedly tried to reaffirm the agreement in order to resolve the conflict, but was answered by the Defendant blocking the Plaintiff on discord and leaving the company server [Exhibit P-008, Exhibit P-009]

9. The Defendant founded their own company in the same industry as Golden Meadow Co. but has dissolved it prior to the current date [Exhibit P-010]

10. The Plaintiff has failed to make any sales since this dispute [Exhibits P-011 & P-012]

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Section VI of the Civil Code Act states:

1. Breach of Contract
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.

in the eyes of the Plaintiff, this applies fully to the Defendant's actions. This contract was valid and enforceable by fulfilling every requirement: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intent, and Capacity. The Defendant breached it by:

a) stealing a tractor from the Plaintiff
b) terminating their employment after 4 days instead of the 3 weeks stated in the contract
c) not giving proper prior notice to terminate their employment

Therefore, compensatory damages are in order.

Additionally, the Plaintiff would like to draw attention to Part III Section 3 §2 of the Civil Code Act:

(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.
(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.
(c) In the event that punitive damages are being argued because an authorised statute grants it, the award shall be limited by the amount granted by law.
(d) In assessing punitive damages, courts shall consider the character of the defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm, and the defendant’s wealth.

Of these, the Defendant has shown the conduct described in parts (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi), showing an extreme departure from acceptable standards of behavior while showing neither regard to the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont nor to their employment contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks a reasonable amount of compensation and appeals to the court's sense of justice.

 

[xVoltrix]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE FILING

Your Honor, it has come to my attention that I have included a mistake in my original case filing. It is located within the parentheses located in fact 7. The amendment would be to fix the contents of the parentheses to now state the following:

the Defendant then claimed they couldn't meet the required amount of wheat within the new timeframe.

I sincerely apologize for this mistake.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE FILING

Your Honor, it has come to my attention that I have included a mistake in my original case filing. It is located within the parentheses located in fact 7. The amendment would be to fix the contents of the parentheses to now state the following:


I sincerely apologize for this mistake.

Denied.

The Court Rules and Procedures, specifically Rule 3.3, dictate that amendments to the complaint may only be made during the course of discovery.

Court is now in recess pending verdict.