Lawsuit: Pending ImzaKRD v. ToadKing [2025] DCR 89

[Imza]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ImzaKRD
Plaintiff

v.

ToadKing
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Defendant ToadKing filed a frivolous case. Plaintiff requests legal fees to remedy this.

I. PARTIES
1. ImzaKRD, hereinafter the 'Plaintiff'.
2. ToadKing, hereinafter the 'Defendant'.

II. FACTS
1. On November 1st, 9:58 PM GMT+03, Defendant filed the case ToadKing v. RealImza [2025] DCR 88.
2. On November 5th, 2:29 AM GMT+03, the Learned and Honourable Magistrate Muggy21 dismissed the case.
3. In his dismissal order, he admonished Defendant and remarked:

The Court admonishes ToadKing for the abuse of the judicial process in the strongest possible terms. The Court made all efforts to hear you fairly, yet your conduct has demonstrated a clear lack of genuine intent to pursue lawful relief. Litigation is not a tool for retaliation, dramatization, or public posturing. Your voluntary abandonment of the action once challenged strongly suggests that the case was initiated without meaningful legal purpose, resulting in unnecessary strain upon the Court and upon the Defendants who were compelled to answer your allegations.

4. The aforementioned case lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law and was filed to embarrass Plaintiff and was therefore frivolous in nature.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act entitles Plaintiff to 30% of the total value of the original case, or $2,000 in Legal Fees.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 30% of the total value of the original case, or $2,000 in Legal Fees.

By making this submission, I acknowledge that I understand the penalties for lying in court and the consequences of perjury, should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 5th day of November, 2025

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@ToadKing, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ImzaKRD v. ToadKing [2025] DCR 89

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.

 

[ToadKing]

Answer to Complaint

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

ImzaKRD
Plaintiff

v.

ToadKing
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRMS Defendant filed the case ToadKing v. RealImza [2025] DCR 88.
2. AFFIRMS the case was dismissed.
3. AFFIRMS the remarks.
4. DENIES the case lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law and was filed to embarrass Plaintiff and was therefore frivolous in nature.

II. DEFENCES​

1. The Case Was Not Frivolous​

The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4 defines a frivolous case as "lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value."
The case had serious purpose and value:

1. Mere 2 hours before filing, Defendant prevailed in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, where the District Court found that stepping on Defendant constituted Disturbing the Peace and awarded $5,000 in damages.
2. The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff deliberately stepped on Defendant after public notice that such conduct was unwanted. This was supported by evidence.
3. The claim was for Disturbing the Peace under Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1 - the same statute under which Defendant had just prevailed in [2025] DCR 82.

A case cannot be frivolous when it is based on facts and applies a legal theory under which the plaintiff recently won a similar case. The Court's admonishment concerned Defendant's voluntary dismissal after challenges arose - not the merits or good faith of the filing itself.

2. Defendant Attempted to Settle​

Defendant made good-faith efforts to resolve this matter without trial:

1. Defendant successfully settled with two other defendants (EATB and RaiTheGuy07) by voluntarily dismissing claims with prejudice.
2. Defendant attempted to settle with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff refused (D-001).
3. Only after settlement efforts failed did Plaintiff file a counterclaim.

The attempt to settle demonstrates Defendant's good faith and undermines any claim that the case was filed to embarrass or harass. A litigant acting in bad faith does not attempt to settle.

3. Legal Fees Are Capped at 30% of Award Sought Against Plaintiff​

Legal Damages Act, Section 9(2)(c)(i) states:

(i) In civil cases, the value of a case shall be assessed as either the award actually granted if the plaintiff prevails, or the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails. In criminal proceedings, the value of a case shall be the total amount of fines sought by the prosecutor.

In this multi-defendant case, "the award requested by the plaintiff" means the award requested against that specific defendant, not the total award requested against all defendants combined.

The original Complaint only sought $5,000 in consequential damages against Plaintiff.
Therefore:

• Maximum legal fees = 30% x $5,000 = $1,500

Plaintiff cannot claim 30% of the entire case value ($65,000) when only $5,000 was sought against him. Allowing the Plaintiff to claim 30% of the entire $65,000 case value ($19,500) when he only faced a $5,000 claim would create absurd results: a defendant sued for $1,000 in a $100,000 case could receive $30,000 in legal fees - far exceeding their actual exposure or legal work. This interpretation would discourage proper joinder of defendants and create perverse incentives.

The Legal Damages Act Section 9(2)(d) states legal fees "shall not exceed 30% of the total case value." The "case value" for a particular defendant is what was sought against that defendant.

Therefore, even if legal fees are awarded, they cannot exceed $1,500 (or $2,000 minimum under Section 9(3)(c) for District Court cases).

EVIDENCE:​

Spoiler: D-001

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 7th day of November 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,
The Defendant moves for summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. Despite denying Fact 4 of the Complaint, and to conserve judicial resources and resolve this matter expeditiously, Defendant concedes this case and stipulates to judgment in favour of Plaintiff in the amount of $2,000 in Legal Fees as requested in Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief.