Lawsuit: Dismissed kailabeann vs. Yeet63638 [2022] DCR 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
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.
 

Attachments

  • 183CBEFE-05BA-407A-886A-6799552E0F2A.png
    183CBEFE-05BA-407A-886A-6799552E0F2A.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 123
  • F6FA927C-5180-4289-9524-C77D852B9507.png
    F6FA927C-5180-4289-9524-C77D852B9507.png
    128 KB · Views: 118
  • 719668C9-7C4D-4F23-96D9-451BFEAF8F74.jpeg
    719668C9-7C4D-4F23-96D9-451BFEAF8F74.jpeg
    56.1 KB · Views: 102
  • 018A15E2-B794-4130-82F5-767D69ABAE13.png
    018A15E2-B794-4130-82F5-767D69ABAE13.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 101
  • 9295E646-3530-4F16-8B92-1D1DB6734A76.png
    9295E646-3530-4F16-8B92-1D1DB6734A76.png
    128 KB · Views: 97
  • EE94B654-A779-49F0-9C4E-1D279A079972.jpeg
    EE94B654-A779-49F0-9C4E-1D279A079972.jpeg
    56.1 KB · Views: 92
  • CE9C014D-468E-461A-8A27-9A714FD9B973.jpeg
    CE9C014D-468E-461A-8A27-9A714FD9B973.jpeg
    54.7 KB · Views: 118

Banana

The one and only
Judge
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
BananaNova
BananaNova
judge
PwFVDhr.png


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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of kailabeann v. Yeet63638. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​
 

Banana

The one and only
Judge
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
BananaNova
BananaNova
judge
I will be granting the emergency injunction, and the Defendant is hereby forbidden to begin or continue doing business under any company directly competing with PUR Entertainment during the progression of this court case.
 

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Your honor, I am Alexander Love and I will be representing the defendant in this case. I will have the response prepared within the 48-hour timeframe.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (6).png
    Screenshot (6).png
    75.8 KB · Views: 88

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

kailabeann
Plaintiff

v.

Yeet63638
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move 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 an alcohol 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 breeched. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to no claims. Remedies must be stated in the contract in order to be enforcable.
  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 an alcohol/brewing company. While Pur has alcohol, they are an entertainment/club company. They are not alcohol suppliers.
  3. Since there are no enforceable remedies nor is there any indication of competition, this case is inaccurate and should be dismissed.
  4. In the last section, the contract states that it can be invalidated immediately upon a party breaching the contract. In conjunction with inaccuracy #1, this is what must happen even if there was a breach. Termination of the contract, and therefore the Defendant may operate within Cosselz as normal. No other damages are required as the contract would be rendered null and void.
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 3rd day of January 2022
 

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Your honor, it has come to my attention that the Plaintiff also stated that the Defendant owns the company in question. This is not true. He is the COO. I therefore ask for that to be added to the list of inaccuracies above for dismissal, and for the emergency injunction to be considered invalid. I also ask the Plaintiff to be charged with perjury.
Screenshot (286).png

As you can see, Gertis is the CEO and owner. Yeet is merely an employee of the company.
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
My apologies for the error. However, it has no impact on the case, since being an employee of a competing business is still not permitted.

Edit: It was never claimed that he was the owner of the business, merely that he “opened a new business”, which he did, since he is the co-owner of the business.
 
Last edited:

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
My apologies for the error. However, it has no impact on the case, since being an employee of a competing business is still not permitted.

Edit: It was never claimed that he was the owner of the business, merely that he “opened a new business”, which he did, since he is the co-owner of the business.
Objection your honor, breach of Court procedure. A rebuttal was not requested.

Objection your honor, perjury. There is no evidence suggesting that Yeet co-owns this company nor co-create it. He is employed as the COO of this Amazon-like company, which is certainly not in direct competition with a nightclub which offers services. Pur offers a service (entertainment), while Cosselz offers products (physical items solely). The Plaintiff has fabricated direct competition and Yeet's relationship with Cosselz, therefore I am requesting two total charges of perjury.
 

Banana

The one and only
Judge
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
BananaNova
BananaNova
judge
I do not find the Plaintiff guilty of perjury, as they never claimed that the Defendant was the owner of the business. The Defense's addition to the Motion to Dismiss is noted.
 

Banana

The one and only
Judge
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
BananaNova
BananaNova
judge

Verdict


The motion to dismiss is approved, based on the following grounds:

The contract that the Defendant signed does not stop the Defendant from participating in any business, just in one that directly competes with PUR Entertainment. From this logic, the Defendant may participate in any business that does not have to do with owning an entertainment venue or brand.

The Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the company in question, Cosselz, is in direct competition with PUR Entertainment. This is especially true seeing as the company markets itself not as an entertainment company that would be in direct competition with PUR, but as a supply or retail company.

That concludes the grounds for dismissal. I will also stipulate the following for the Defendant.

The Defense’s remarks regarding the contract being terminated immediately upon a breach do not fit with the contract, as it specifies that only the other party may terminate upon a breach. So from this the contract is still intact.

Furthermore, it is the opinion of the court that this contract is still valid even without a specific listing of the penalty for breaching the clause. The court believes that the clause’s terms also define its penalty, which would be the ceasing of any business done in violation of it. Thus, the contract is still binding, and the Defendant is still forbidden from specifically founding or co-founding any business wherein the primary source of revenue is entertainment.

This case is hereby dismissed. The court thanks both parties for their time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top