Lawsuit: Dismissed KingCleaver v. Jontay [2021] FCR 104

Status
Not open for further replies.

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice Department
RBA
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
traineeofficer
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

KingCleaver
Plaintiff

v.

Jontay
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant $10,000 around 8 months ago. After receiving the money the Defendant quit the server without returning the money despite explicitly telling the Plaintiff the money would be given back

I. PARTIES
1. KingCleaver
2. Jontay
3. TpersonH (legal counsel)
3. Drew_Hall (co-legal counsel)
4. ItzBananaMuffins (co-legal counsel)
5. AlexanderLove (co-legal counsel)

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant $10,000
2. The Defendant told the Plaintiff the money would be given back
3. The Plaintiff has gotten no return of money in 8 months
4. The Defendant has since quit the server and has not contacted the Plaintiff further

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant has violated law 10.1 by agreeing to return the money then ceasing contact afterwards

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in the amount owed by the Defendant
2. $500 in legal fees

Business 2 1.png

Business 2 2.png
Business 2 3.png

Screen Shot 2021-10-10 at 11.22.41 PM.png


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: October 8th, 2021
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
PwFVDhr.png







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


The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Kingcleaver (Lovely Law Firm representing) v. Jontay. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​
 

LilDigiVert

Citizen
Vice President
Mayor
Donator
RBA
LilDigiVert
LilDigiVert
vicepresident
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

KingCleaver
Plaintiff

v.

Jontay (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant

1634181983822.jpeg

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant $10,000
1. Acknowledge that $10,000 was transferred from Plaintiff to Defendant. However, there is NO evidence provided that indicates that any money or asset was "loaned".

The Defendant told the Plaintiff the money would be given back
2. Acknowledge that the evidence provided by the Plaintiff indicates that money would be returned, although there is no such indication of a contractual obligation.

The Plaintiff has gotten no return of money in 8 months
3. Contest the notion that items of similar value were not given to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant has since quit the server and has not contacted the Plaintiff further
4. Acknowledge that the Defendant has quit/been banned from DC and has not contacted the Plaintiff due to him deleting his DC-affiliated Discord account.

II. DEFENCES
1. There is zero evidence to indicate that the $10,000 transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a "loan". The Plaintiff would contend that unless given a contractual document, this transfer should be considered a gift exchange.

2. The evidence provided extends far beyond the window outlined in the Statute of Limitations Act. As such, the Defendant contends that the evidence should be disregarded. Seeing that this 8-month old Discord conversation with a "Deleted User" is the only evidence offered by the Plaintiff, the Defendant would motion to dismiss this case.

1634181018833.png

3, The Plaintiff and Defendant already settled the monetary dispute of the gifted amount in question. Due to a lack of in-game evidence on both sides, the Defendant contends that this case should be dismissed. If the Court is willing to evaluate recounts of in-game events as evidence, the Defendant urges that it considers penalizing the Plaintiff for perjury. The Defendant would also like to highlight that the value of a gifted Sampson Hills plot and Submarine vastly exceed $10,000.

1634181677783.jpeg

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 13th day of October 2020.
 

Attachments

  • 1634181509894.jpeg
    1634181509894.jpeg
    75.3 KB · Views: 35

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
If the plaintiff wishes to motion to dismiss this case I would like to ask they use the proper format
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
if the defendant does not proceed with their opening statement within 48 hours we will proceed without it
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
Yes, apologies, I had fixed this on the wrong lawsuit
 

TpersonH

Citizen
RBA
TpersonH
TpersonH
attorney
Your honour.
I am requesting another 48 hours for my opening statement due to the fact I was lead to believe the defendant was to send their opening statement first.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
I will hereby be granting the extension, apologies to both parties for any inconveniences this may have caused
 

TpersonH

Citizen
RBA
TpersonH
TpersonH
attorney
Your honour, opposing counsel.
I will show that the defendant owes the plaintiff $10,000.
The defendant no longer actively played on DC so the plaintiff asked if they could have or buy the defendant's house. The plaintiff then loaned the defendant $10,000 for the house, it was agreed that the defendant would pay back the loan. 8 months later and the plaintiff has still not received any of the loan back
My point is that it was clear the plaintiff paid the defendant as the defendant acknowledge by saying "I'll get that money to you" in response to being enquired about the $10,000.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
The defendant may proceed with their opening statement
 

LilDigiVert

Citizen
Vice President
Mayor
Donator
RBA
LilDigiVert
LilDigiVert
vicepresident
Your honor,

Before I motion to dismiss, just wanted to make a quick response before the warrantless arguments the Plaintiff makes is taken as a fact.

1)
The defendant no longer actively played on DC so the plaintiff asked if they could have or buy the defendant's house. The plaintiff then loaned the defendant $10,000 for the house, it was agreed that the defendant would pay back the loan. 8 months later and the plaintiff has still not received any of the loan back

The Plaintiff's argument logically doesn't hold not only because of a lack of evidence, but also because it logically doesn't add up. $10,000 for a house and submarine is not a loan, it is an exchange. This only corroborates the evidence I provide in my opening defense, proving that there was an external settlement made between the Plaintiff and my client.

2)
My point is that it was clear the plaintiff paid the defendant as the defendant acknowledge by saying "I'll get that money to you" in response to being enquired about the $10,000.

The Plaintiff doesn't respond to the argument that this exchange was settled out of discord with a submarine and house plot.

3) I want to point out that the plaintiff did not make any new arguments or respond to any of the arguments that the Defendant made prior. Indeed, the Plaintiff's opening statement is essentially a summary of the suit. The Plaintiff has still offered no evidence to provide that the gifted $10,000 is a "loan." At face value, you should err on the side of the Defendant because it is the only one to bring any actual evidence that is contextualized.

But even then, let's look at why you should dismiss this ludicrous shakedown of a player who is no longer part of the DC/Redmont community. (This time with proper formatting!)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

KingCleaver
Plaintiff

v.

Jontay (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff and Defendant already settled the monetary dispute of the gifted amount in question. Due to a lack of in-game evidence on both sides, the Defendant contends that this case should be dismissed. If the Court is willing to evaluate recounts of in-game events as evidence, the Defendant urges that it considers penalizing the Plaintiff for perjury. The Defendant would also like to highlight that the value of a gifted Sampson Hills plot and Submarine vastly exceed $10,000. (Evidence above)

2. The evidence provided extends far beyond the window outlined in the Statute of Limitations Act. As such, the Defendant contends that the evidence should be disregarded. Seeing that this 8-month old Discord conversation with a "Deleted User" is the only evidence offered by the Plaintiff, the Defendant would motion to dismiss this case.(Evidence above)

3. The Plaintiff provides no evidence that the gifted $10,000 is a "loan'". A decision in this lawsuit fundamentally cannot happen objectively without any contractual or legal documentation confirming it is one,

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 24th day of October 2021
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
If the plaintiff doesn't have any rebuttal within 48 hours I shall assume there is none
 

TpersonH

Citizen
RBA
TpersonH
TpersonH
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Rebuttal
The defendant has claimed that the statues of limitations illegitimacies this case. This is wrong as the screenshots were taken recently they are new evidence, which means the civil action the plaintiff is taking happened less that 2 months ago.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer

Verdict


I hereby dismiss this case without prejudice on the grounds of the Statuette of Limitations act is clear in saying, "Civil action must be commenced must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged dispute." Regardless whether or not the evidence was recently collected by the plaintiff the fact remains that the dispute finished, as shown in the final evidence, five months ago meaning this case is over three months late. With that in mind I cannot allow this trial to continue

I would like to thank both parties for their time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top