Lawsuit: Dismissed kailabeann v. Yeet63638 [2022] FCR 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Courts

Citizen
Chief Justice
Justice
Judge
Magistrate
APPEALED CASE

Original Case: kailabeann vs. Yeet63638 [2022] DCR 2
Appeal Link: [2022] DCR-2 - Appeal Request
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


kailabeann (The Lovely Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Yeet63638
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. LukaSerdjo (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
2. Yeet63638

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff (Evidence #1)
2. This contract required the Defendant to not open a competing business with one month of leaving the Plaintiff’s employment.
3. The Defendant left the Plaintiff’s employment and opened a new business, in competition with the Plaintiff and in violation of this contract. (Evidence #2)
4. The Defendant did not cancel the contract, or notify the Plaintiff of any intention to do so.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1.It is clear this court must ensure that the contract the Defendant agreed to is enforced.
2. The Plaintiffs should not be punished financially for such an obvious violation of the contract the Defendant agreed to.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A permanent injunction preventing the Defendant from opening new businesses in violation of the contract, or committing any other further violation of the contract.
2. $200 in legal fees (Evidence #3)

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 January 2022

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Based on the evidence above, we ask that the court issue an injunction preventing the Defendant from opening the unlawful business until the court case resumes, since it could cause permanent loss of clients from the Plaintiff’s business, and the evidence is clear.
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
1641687975252.png


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant, Yeet63638 is required to appear before the court in the case of the kailabeann v. Yeet63638 [2022] FCR-3. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
1641698305573.png

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

As requested in the original filing and refiled in the appeal, I will granting the emergency injunction request. The defendant is prohibited from starting a new business and will cease operation of the business in question throughout the progression of this court case.​
 

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Attorney General's Office
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

kailabeann
Plaintiff

v.

Yeet63638
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The case is frivolous: it serves only to try and close down a general physical sales company out of the market on no legal grounds. It is simply to harass the defendant.
2. The case contains several inaccuracies:
  1. The contract has no section stipulating punitive measures if breached. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to no claims. Remedies must be stated in the contract in order to be enforcable. I believe that the District Court's ruling on this matter was errored as, otherwise, one party would effectively be inventing new terms of the contract without the other party's consent.
  2. The defendant did not breach the contract. The Plaintiff fails to show how the Defendant's company he is a member of is in competition with Pur Entertainment. Pur is a nightclub. Cosselz is a general supply company, much like real-life Amazon or Walmart. While Pur distributes alcohol, they are an entertainment/club company. They are not suppliers. It would be gross to say that Walmart is in competition-- direct or indirect-- with a nightclub. The main distinction here is that one company primarily provides a service, while the other focuses on material products. I don't see how any evidence can prove this; it is just an inaccuracy lodged to harass my client.
  3. The Plaintiff bases many facts of the case around the false claim that the Defendant is the owner of the company, when rather, he is simply the Chief Operating Officer of it. He is an employee of a general sales company.
3. This case is now moot. The contract has officially been terminated and neither party is obligated to follow its terms. Thus, the contract cannot be enforced in Court as there are no retroactive terms to the contract. One cannot be made to follow a null and void contract that only describes actions that must occur while the contract is active. Please refer to the bottom of my exhibit I attached here, and then take a look at the first sentence of the "Termination" section on the contract, also attached below for reference

Additionally, Your Honor, I ask for the revocation of the emergency injunction. It is ludicrous to prevent the Defendant's right to life and security of person via earning a wage (Precedent: Tekkovvs v. The Redmont Bar Association) based on speculation, inaccuracy (that I would go as far as to call perjury), and a lack of evidence. There is no urgency to this as well. Why should an emergency injunction exist when there is no emergency? And again, the Defendant does not own the company. This is affecting someone else's company by hindering their operations.

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 8th day of January 2022

Screen_Shot_2022-01-09_at_12.21.45_AM.png

183CBEFE-05BA-407A-886A-6799552E0F2A.png
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a response to the motion to dismiss.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice Department
RBA
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
traineeofficer
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

kailabeann
Plaintiff

v

Yeet63638
Defendant

REBUTTAL
1. This is unequivocally false. This is a legally binding contract that both the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to and signed. As such this case has complete legal merit in court.

2. I will address these claims each:
--1. The punitive measure is laid out in the non-compete clause - the defendant cannot open a competing company within 3 months after the termination of their employment with the Plaintiff's company PUR Entertainment. The claim for relief is the injunction and upholding of that clause. Additionally, the Plaintiff has sought the coverage of legal fees which is standard practice and no additional monetary damages that are not outlined in the contract has been requested.
--2. 99% of the Plaintiff’s revenue from the night club is alcohol sales. PUR Entertainment only employs brewers who supply alcohol to be sold for retail. While a nightclub may be defined as an entertainment business, the only revenue streams PUR has is through alcohol sales and venue bookings structured to encourage alcohol sales. The "entertainment" part of the business comes from the gathering of players at the commercial property for the purpose of consuming alcohol and listening to music played through the company's Discord server which alone offers no revenue. This means any business selling alcohol is in competition with the Plaintiff. Additionally, the official DCJobs Discord categorizes both PUR and Cosselz together as companies hiring brewers which further indicates they are competing since they offer the same jobs for the same products (Evidence 1). Even so, in-direct competition is also not permitted under the contract.
--3. The Defendant is not just the COO of the company, but is in fact the co-owner of Cosselz in addition to being the COO (Evidence 2). Not only did the Defendant's own co-owner confirm this, but holding an executive title this early in the company's stage indicates much more involvement than a casual employee. The contract states clearly co-owning is equally in violation of the non-compete than if the Defendant has created the company on his own.

3. This is false as well. The Defendant terminated their employment on their own free will on the 13th of December, not due to any breach in the contract, but that does not dissolve the contract itself because the non-compete clause survives employee termination. Just because employment was terminated does not mean the contract is as well, which was a decision the District Court upheld in the verdict (Evidence 3). Furthermore, simply asking for the contract to be canceled does not cancel the contract. There would be no point in having a contract at all if it were so easily revoked by a statement from only one party. As specifically stated in the "Entire Contract" section, the only way the contract can be canceled or changed is by a new written agreement signed by both parties. This means the non-compete clause is still in effect for three months after termination as the clause clearly states. The two days notice section of the contract refers to employment which my client waived for the Defendant when he asked to terminate his own employment on December 13th, 2021.

Requested charges against the Defendant
Your Honor, in light of Evidence 2 and insistence in this motion to dismiss, as well as in the original case filed in the District Court, we ask you to charge the Defendant with three counts of perjury for falsely claiming once in District Court and twice here in the Federal Court he is not a co-owner of Cosselz.

Additionally, Your Honor, we ask to have the injunction upheld for the specified three months of the non-compete in the contractual agreement. The Defendant is not prevented from life nor security as the Defense dramatically claims. The non-compete only specifies owning/co-owning a competing business. He is free to start any other business he wants in any other industry that doesn't sell alcohol. He can even work at a competing business so long as he is not the owner/co-owner. If he was simply a rank-and-file employee without any claim to co-ownership at Cosselz this suit would never have been filed to begin with. Furthermore, the non-compete clause is only in effect for three months after termination, not indefinitely, which is a reasonable timeframe and hardly a life sentence. Above all, the Defendant agreed to abide by that term when he signed the contract in November of 2021.

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 10th of January 2022
 

Attachments

  • Evidence 1.jpg
    Evidence 1.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 10
  • Evidence 2.jpg
    Evidence 2.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 11
  • Evidence 3.jpg
    Evidence 3.jpg
    112 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
After reviewing the motion to dismiss and the response, I have decided to reject the motion to dismiss. This is not a frivolous case as the plaintiff has alleged a serious potential breach of a contract. Furthermore, this case is not moot as the case hasn't been resolved and potential damages have been alleged with no resolution.

In regards to the defendants request for the court ordered injunction, I have decided to uphold the court order through the remainder of this case.

Finally, I have decided to reject perjury charges at this time, however, if more evidence is brought forth from the plaintiff about Yeet63638's potential ownership or part owner of Cosselz, the plaintiff may request perjury charges again.

The plaintiff may now present their opening statement at this time. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their opening statement.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice Department
RBA
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
traineeofficer
Your honor, I would like to request a 24 hour extension. We are in the final stages of negotiating a settlement agreement and if one cannot be reached we will proceed with an opening statement.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice Department
RBA
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
traineeofficer
Your Honor, both parties have agreed upon a settlement therefore we will be dropping the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top