Lawsuit: In Session Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59

L

Le9endz_

Citizen
Le9endz_
Le9endz_
Barrister
Joined
May 27, 2026
Messages
10
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Le9endz_(Self Represented)
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I was at the airport thinking of where to go when all of a sudden AussiBloke25 ran to the entrance of the airport and began shooting at people with his firearm. Many people died(including me) but it all happened so fast I couldn't proccess what just happened. After I died I called 911 and then called then returned to the airport only to be killed again(as seen in the video). I had also called the Police to the airport but no one came.


I. PARTIES
1. Le9endz_(Plaintiff)
2. AussieBloke25(Defendant)
3. Governemnt

II. FACTS
1. Le9endz_ was at the airport
2. AussieBloke25 came from the road.
3. AussieBloke25 had killed many people
4. AussieBloke25 (supposedly) left after no one was there anymore.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Tort of Wrongful Death: The Defendant executed multiple intentional, unprovoked PvP executions against the Plaintiff in a designated non-PvP roleplay zone (the airport), directly violating the fundamental protections of Redmont common law.
2. Tort of Wrongful Property Deprivation: The Defendant’s actions caused an illegal and involuntary transfer of the Plaintiff's active inventory items upon death, causing immediate economic harm.
3. Loss of Enjoyment under the Legal Damages Act:
1. (a) Pursuant to Section III of the Legal Damages Act, "Loss of Enjoyment" is legally defined as situations where an injured party has "diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm."
2. (b) The Defendant purposefully camped a major public transit hub to repeatedly execute the Plaintiff, which directly and entirely stripped away the Plaintiff's ability to participate in server life "beyond conventional gameplay mechanics."
3. (c) In accordance with established judicial precedent within the Commonwealth of Redmont, egregious and continuous targeted harassment disrupting core gameplay loop metrics warrants a non-pecuniary compensation award of $25,000.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5000 from the court due to Government and Police negligence.
2. $5000 from the defendant due to lack of enjoyment.
3. $10000 from the defendant due to killing Le9endz_ twice.


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 27 day of February 2026

Video Evidence: Watch IMG_3150 | Streamable

Clerk note: First Prayer for Relief struck by court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons


The Commonwealth of Redmont (cc: @Superwoops) and AussieBloke25 are ordered to appear before the District Court in the case of Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59.

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.

 
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Your Honour, The Plaintiff recognizes the technical error in the initial filing. I hereby move to amend the complaint, changing the charge from "Murder" to the correct civil equivalent of **Wrongful Death**. The facts of the case remain completely identical: the Defendant unlawfully caused the death of the Plaintiff, resulting in a loss of health, items, and severe financial damages. Because this is a simple correction of terminology and was not filed with malicious intent, I respectfully request that the court deny any third-party requests to charge the Plaintiff with a frivolous lawsuit.
 
Franciscus said:

Writ of Summons


The Commonwealth of Redmont (cc: @Superwoops) and AussieBloke25 are ordered to appear before the District Court in the case of Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59.

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.

Click to expand...
The Commonwealth is present.
 
Superwoops said:
The Commonwealth is present.
Click to expand...
The Commonwealth is named as a party and has been summonsed on that basis. The Commonwealth shall be permitted 48 hours to brief the Court on whether or not the Commonwealth ought be joined to this case based on the factual allegations and claims for relief presented. Plaintiff will have 48 hours thereafter to respond to the brief.

Commonwealth’s brief need not be an answer to complaint; such would only be required should the Commonwealth be ordered joined by this Court.
 
Franciscus said:
The Commonwealth is named as a party and has been summonsed on that basis. The Commonwealth shall be permitted 48 hours to brief the Court on whether or not the Commonwealth ought be joined to this case based on the factual allegations and claims for relief presented. Plaintiff will have 48 hours thereafter to respond to the brief.

Commonwealth’s brief need not be an answer to complaint; such would only be required should the Commonwealth be ordered joined by this Court.
Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF ON JOINING

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth should not be joined in this case. The Plaintiff's only allegation against the Commonwealth is that the police did not respond when he summoned 911. The Complaint identifies no law creating civil liability for the alleged failure to respond, and it contains no facts establishing that the Commonwealth had a duty, breached it, and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

At most, the Plaintiff is alleging dissatisfaction with law enforcement response time, not that the Commonwealth acted in a way to be joined in this case.

Thank you

 
Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.
ameslap said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF ON JOINING

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth should not be joined in this case. The Plaintiff's only allegation against the Commonwealth is that the police did not respond when he summoned 911. The Complaint identifies no law creating civil liability for the alleged failure to respond, and it contains no facts establishing that the Commonwealth had a duty, breached it, and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

At most, the Plaintiff is alleging dissatisfaction with law enforcement response time, not that the Commonwealth acted in a way to be joined in this case.

Thank you

Click to expand...
 
To all parties,

I hereby move that the suit be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff has produced no evidence bar a written statement. As there is no evidence of sustenance to review, the Plaintiff simply does not have a case.

I also note that I, the defendant, currently have a balance below $400 and assets valued no more then $500. There is nothing to be made from this case.

It is my opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that wastes the courts time. The "throwing spaghetti at the wall approach" that the Plaintiff has taken when naming the Commonwealth in the case indicates to me that the Plaintiff's motives in this case is not that of justice, but of a quick payday.

It also appears that the Plaintiff is merely trying to have a 'YeahJaron' moment and replicate the 'drama' that was experienced during the recording of that video. I note that the Plaintiff joined a few days after the posting of the infamous 'YeahJaron' video. The Plaintiff enters this case with no lawyer, no understanding of the legal system and no real case.

Regards

Aussie Bloke 25
Defendant.

A note. There was no professional valuation of the Defendants assets, and the dollar values provided are estimates.
The Defendant would also like noted that there is a major difference in time zones across this case. The Defendent is in UTC + 8
 
Last edited:
AussieBloke25 said:
To all parties,

I hereby move that the suit be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff has produced no evidence bar a written statement. As there is no evidence of sustenance to review, the Plaintiff simply does not have a case.

I also note that I, the defendant, currently have a balance below $400 and assets valued no more then $500. There is nothing to be made from this case.

It is my opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that wastes the courts time. The "throwing spaghetti at the wall approach" that the Plaintiff has taken when naming the Commonwealth in the case indicates to me that the Plaintiff's motives in this case is not that of justice, but of a quick payday.

It also appears that the Plaintiff is merely trying to have a 'YeahJaron' moment and replicate the 'drama' that was experienced during the recording of that video. I note that the Plaintiff joined a few days after the posting of the infamous 'YeahJaron' video. The Plaintiff enters this case with no lawyer, no understanding of the legal system and no real case.

Regards

Aussie Bloke 25
Defendant.

A note. There was no professional valuation of the Defendants assets, and the dollar values provided are estimates.
The Defendant would also like noted that there is a major difference in time zones across this case. The Defendent is in UTC + 8
Click to expand...

Under Rule 5.1, "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions". Because the Court limits the number of discovery rules at which one can submit a Motion to Dismiss (see: Rule 5.15), the Court cannot overlook this deficiency in the filing and denies the motion due to procedural defect.
 
AussieBloke25 said:
To all parties,

I hereby move that the suit be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff has produced no evidence bar a written statement. As there is no evidence of sustenance to review, the Plaintiff simply does not have a case.

I also note that I, the defendant, currently have a balance below $400 and assets valued no more then $500. There is nothing to be made from this case.

It is my opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that wastes the courts time. The "throwing spaghetti at the wall approach" that the Plaintiff has taken when naming the Commonwealth in the case indicates to me that the Plaintiff's motives in this case is not that of justice, but of a quick payday.

It also appears that the Plaintiff is merely trying to have a 'YeahJaron' moment and replicate the 'drama' that was experienced during the recording of that video. I note that the Plaintiff joined a few days after the posting of the infamous 'YeahJaron' video. The Plaintiff enters this case with no lawyer, no understanding of the legal system and no real case.

Regards

Aussie Bloke 25
Defendant.

A note. There was no professional valuation of the Defendants assets, and the dollar values provided are estimates.
The Defendant would also like noted that there is a major difference in time zones across this case. The Defendent is in UTC + 8
Click to expand...
To AussieBloke25

I do have evidence since I attached a link to streamables where if you can see it’s a video of my gameplay.

Also may I regard the fact that I do understand the legal system and I am a solicitor which I managed to pass my test because I have real world law knowledge.

Even though your balance is already in debt if you were to pay me you would still have to pay me off to finally get to $0.

My timezone is UTC 00:00/GMT.

Regards
Le9endz_
Plaintiff
 
Le9endz_ said:
To AussieBloke25

I do have evidence since I attached a link to streamables where if you can see it’s a video of my gameplay.

Also may I regard the fact that I do understand the legal system and I am a solicitor which I managed to pass my test because I have real world law knowledge.

Even though your balance is already in debt if you were to pay me you would still have to pay me off to finally get to $0.

My timezone is UTC 00:00/GMT.

Regards
Le9endz_
Plaintiff
Click to expand...
Howdy,

Please do not make filings except when permitted. Because the motion to dismiss was already denied (Post No. 12), no response was warranted nor necessary at that time.
 
Your honor,

I am here as an associate of Solid Law representing our client, AussieBloke25, here is our answer to the complaint:

Answer to Complaint


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

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25 (Represented by SolidLawFirm)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm
2. Neither Affirm Nor Deny
3. Neither Affirm Nor Deny
4. Neither Affirm Nor Deny

II. DEFENCES
1. All stated claims for relief are not grantable under relevant statute.
2. Legal Damages Act was repealed by the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act.
3. No evidence indicating the plaintiff was killed a second time.
4. Given the bold errors in filing, and the prior admonishments for a deficient claim from another judicial officer for what is effectively the same claim- this meets the bar for a frivolous lawsuit.

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 28th day of May 2026


We also seek to file a separate motion to dismiss according to the courts rules and procedure:

Motion


On behalf of AussieBloke25
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the Complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rules 5.5 (Lack of Claim), 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), and 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of the Court Rules and Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Lack of Claim​

1. Failure to Prove Relief 1
Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.
Click to expand...
Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief. In Claim for Relief 1, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Death," but identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating a wrongful death claim for an in-game murder. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant killed Plaintiff, but murder is a criminal allegation and is not itself a civil claim for damages.

2. Failure to Prove Relief 2
In Claim for Relief 2, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Property Deprivation," but again identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating that tort. Plaintiff also pleads no specific inventory items lost, no value of those items, and no facts showing that any property was transferred to or retained by the Defendant. Of which it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for a player to drop items on death within Redmont.

3. Failure to Prove Relief 3: Loss of Enjoyment
In Claim for Relief 3, Plaintiff invokes Loss of Enjoyment under the Legal Damages Act, which has since been repealed in favor of the RCCA, if it may pleasure the court the defense will assume the plaintiff meant to reference the RCCA, but even so the facts alleged do not support that relief. Plaintiff's own Fact 4 states that "AussieBloke25 (supposedly) left after no one was there anymore." That allegation contradicts Plaintiff's later claim that Defendant "purposefully camped" the airport and engaged in "egregious and continuous targeted harassment." At most, Plaintiff pleads a brief incident at the airport, not a continuing deprivation of Plaintiff's ability to use public transit or participate in server life.

II. No Standing
Under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction):
A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case.
Click to expand...
and Rule 2.1 (Standing Application):
In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
  1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
  2. The cause of injury was against the law.
  3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...
Plaintiff has not established standing. Plaintiff has not shown a concrete civil injury caused by Defendant that is actionable under civil law, has not shown that the cause of injury was against the law in a civilly actionable way, and has not shown that the requested remedies are available under relevant law.

Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief is also unsupported by the Complaint. Plaintiff requests $5,000 "from the court due to Government and Police negligence," but the Complaint pleads no facts showing that the Government owed Plaintiff a duty, breached that duty, caused Plaintiff's injury, or are proper parties to this action. Plaintiff also requests $10,000 "due to killing Le9endz_ twice," but does not identify a civil damages provision authorizing that amount.

III. Previously Dismissed As Critically Deficient
Under Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel):
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if a case with a similar or, more exceptionally, same fact set has already been previously litigated.
Click to expand...
This case arises from the same or substantially similar fact set previously litigated in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58. That case was dismissed as a critically deficient complaint. Plaintiff has now refiled the same underlying dispute with the only change having been the addition of the "Government" as a party to the complaint, of which has decidedly not been enjoined.

The plaintiff negligently left core defects unresolved around unsupported civil causes of action, insufficient factual pleading, and unsupported damages. The plaintiff's agreement to not enjoin the commonwealth means that the plaintiff consequently has filed the same complaint that was dismissed for critical deficiencies in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58.

For the above reasons, dismissal with prejudice is warranted under Rule 5.16 (Prejudice Rule):
A case where a Motion to Dismiss is successful can only be retried if the case was dismissed without prejudice, although a case dismissed with prejudice may be appealed. The presiding judge shall ultimately make the decision on whether or not the case should be dismissed with or without prejudice.

If the presiding judge fails to specify if it was dismissed with or without prejudice, it is assumed it was dismissed without prejudice.
Click to expand...
Plaintiff was already placed on notice of the deficiencies in [2026] DCR 58 and had an opportunity to cure them before refiling. A second dismissal without prejudice would permit repetitive filings over the same deficient claims and impose unnecessary burden on the Defendant and the Court.

IV. On Frivolous Claims
The Defendant further notes that the Court Rules recognize frivolous claims as a proper basis for dismissal, and the Court Rules and Procedures recognize that a legal case with "no serious purpose or value" may constitute a Frivolous Court Case. Plaintiff's decision to refile a materially deficient complaint after [2026] DCR 58 supports dismissal with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

DATED: This 28th day of May 2026

 
Franciscus said:
The Commonwealth is named as a party and has been summonsed on that basis. The Commonwealth shall be permitted 48 hours to brief the Court on whether or not the Commonwealth ought be joined to this case based on the factual allegations and claims for relief presented. Plaintiff will have 48 hours thereafter to respond to the brief.

Commonwealth’s brief need not be an answer to complaint; such would only be required should the Commonwealth be ordered joined by this Court.
Click to expand...
ameslap said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF ON JOINING

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth should not be joined in this case. The Plaintiff's only allegation against the Commonwealth is that the police did not respond when he summoned 911. The Complaint identifies no law creating civil liability for the alleged failure to respond, and it contains no facts establishing that the Commonwealth had a duty, breached it, and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

At most, the Plaintiff is alleging dissatisfaction with law enforcement response time, not that the Commonwealth acted in a way to be joined in this case.

Thank you

Click to expand...
Le9endz_ said:
I accept that the Commonwealth will not join this case but I will proceed to sue the defendant, AussieBloke25.

Thank You
Click to expand...

Consistent with Rule 2.2, the Court dismisses the first prayer for relief sua sponte for lack of standing (see: Rule 2.1). The Commonwealth is dismissed from this action and the prayer shall be struck.
 
Your Honor, here is my formal objection to Solid Law's motion to dismiss. They are trying to twist the rules to get away with harassment.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

YOUR HONOR,

The Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The defense relies heavily on narrow technicalities and outright mischaracterizes my claims. The facts presented in this filing establish valid causes of action under active Redmont statutes.


I. REBUTTAL TO LACK OF CLAIM (RULE 5.5)

  1. Claim 1 (Civil Liability for Wrongful Death):
    The defense argues that "murder" is strictly a criminal matter. However, Chapter 5 of the Redmont Civil Code (RCC) (Torts and Civil Liability) explicitly establishes civil liability for any individual who intentionally causes unjustified harm, distress, or loss to another player. Criminal prosecution does not shield a defendant from civil consequences. If the specific phrasing of "Wrongful Death" is a structural issue for the court, I request leave to amend the charge to Civil Assault and Battery under the RCC, rather than dismissing the action entirely.
  2. Claim 2 (Wrongful Property Deprivation):
    Solid Law claims it is mechanically impossible to drop items upon death in Redmont. This completely misrepresents how server mechanics actually function. Inventory loss, performance penalties, and direct financial costs from respawning absolutely occur in certain wilderness zones and PvP plugin environments. The exact valuation and breakdown of what was lost is a matter for the Discovery Phase of this trial, not a ground for a pre-trial dismissal under Rule 5.5.
  3. Claim 3 (Loss of Enjoyment):
    While the defense is correct that the older Legal Damages Act was modified, I formally ask the Court to apply the updated statutory framework under Section 3 (Remedies and Damages) of the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act (RCCA). The Defendant’s targeted camping at the literal server location and warp named "airport" directly blocked me from using public transit infrastructure. I have the chat logs and death timestamps to prove this was a continuous, targeted effort to stop me from playing. This is a clear, actionable restriction on a player's ability to reasonably access and enjoy server functions under Section 3 of the RCCA.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING (RULE 2.1)

The Plaintiff completely satisfies the standing test outlined in Court Rule 2.1:

  • Injury: I suffered documented in-game deaths and targeted harassment by a clear second party.
  • Legality: Unlawful targeted killing and blocking public infrastructure violate the civil protections found in RCC Chapter 5.
  • Remedy: Section 3 of the RCCA grants this Court the explicit power to award monetary damages to compensate for lost time, disruption of play, and distress.

III. REBUTTAL TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (RULE 5.9 & RULE 5.16)

The defense is misapplying Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel). Collateral Estoppel requires that a fact set has already been fully litigated—meaning a trial took place and a final verdict on the merits was reached. Case DCR 58 was dismissed without prejudice due to critical procedural deficiencies before any arguments or trial ever started.

Under Court Rule 5.16 (Prejudice Rule), a case dismissed without prejudice explicitly retains the legal right to be refiled once those filing defects are fixed. Because DCR 59 features a modified framework and updated context, it is a perfectly valid refiling. Collateral Estoppel cannot apply here.


CONCLUSION & PRAYER

This lawsuit is filed with a serious purpose to address ongoing harassment and civil wrongdoing. It is not a frivolous claim.

I respectfully request that the Court:

  1. Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
  2. Grant Leave to Amend the complaint within 48 hours so I can explicitly realign the wording with RCC Chapter 5 and RCCA Section 3 to satisfy the Court's formatting rules.
DATED: This 28th day of May 2026
SUBMITTED BY: Le9endz_
 
I will be presiding officer in this case.

FloorIsTired said:
We also seek to file a separate motion to dismiss according to the courts rules and procedure:

Motion​


On behalf of AussieBloke25
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the Complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rules 5.5 (Lack of Claim), 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), and 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of the Court Rules and Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Lack of Claim​

1. Failure to Prove Relief 1
Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):
Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief. In Claim for Relief 1, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Death," but identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating a wrongful death claim for an in-game murder. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant killed Plaintiff, but murder is a criminal allegation and is not itself a civil claim for damages.

2. Failure to Prove Relief 2
In Claim for Relief 2, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Property Deprivation," but again identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating that tort. Plaintiff also pleads no specific inventory items lost, no value of those items, and no facts showing that any property was transferred to or retained by the Defendant. Of which it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for a player to drop items on death within Redmont.

3. Failure to Prove Relief 3: Loss of Enjoyment
In Claim for Relief 3, Plaintiff invokes Loss of Enjoyment under the Legal Damages Act, which has since been repealed in favor of the RCCA, if it may pleasure the court the defense will assume the plaintiff meant to reference the RCCA, but even so the facts alleged do not support that relief. Plaintiff's own Fact 4 states that "AussieBloke25 (supposedly) left after no one was there anymore." That allegation contradicts Plaintiff's later claim that Defendant "purposefully camped" the airport and engaged in "egregious and continuous targeted harassment." At most, Plaintiff pleads a brief incident at the airport, not a continuing deprivation of Plaintiff's ability to use public transit or participate in server life.

II. No Standing
Under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction):
and Rule 2.1 (Standing Application):
Plaintiff has not established standing. Plaintiff has not shown a concrete civil injury caused by Defendant that is actionable under civil law, has not shown that the cause of injury was against the law in a civilly actionable way, and has not shown that the requested remedies are available under relevant law.

Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief is also unsupported by the Complaint. Plaintiff requests $5,000 "from the court due to Government and Police negligence," but the Complaint pleads no facts showing that the Government owed Plaintiff a duty, breached that duty, caused Plaintiff's injury, or are proper parties to this action. Plaintiff also requests $10,000 "due to killing Le9endz_ twice," but does not identify a civil damages provision authorizing that amount.

III. Previously Dismissed As Critically Deficient
Under Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel):
This case arises from the same or substantially similar fact set previously litigated in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58. That case was dismissed as a critically deficient complaint. Plaintiff has now refiled the same underlying dispute with the only change having been the addition of the "Government" as a party to the complaint, of which has decidedly not been enjoined.

The plaintiff negligently left core defects unresolved around unsupported civil causes of action, insufficient factual pleading, and unsupported damages. The plaintiff's agreement to not enjoin the commonwealth means that the plaintiff consequently has filed the same complaint that was dismissed for critical deficiencies in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58.

For the above reasons, dismissal with prejudice is warranted under Rule 5.16 (Prejudice Rule):
Plaintiff was already placed on notice of the deficiencies in [2026] DCR 58 and had an opportunity to cure them before refiling. A second dismissal without prejudice would permit repetitive filings over the same deficient claims and impose unnecessary burden on the Defendant and the Court.

IV. On Frivolous Claims
The Defendant further notes that the Court Rules recognize frivolous claims as a proper basis for dismissal, and the Court Rules and Procedures recognize that a legal case with "no serious purpose or value" may constitute a Frivolous Court Case. Plaintiff's decision to refile a materially deficient complaint after [2026] DCR 58 supports dismissal with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

DATED: This 28th day of May 2026
Click to expand...
I'm going to deny this. Without exhaustively breaking down the dismissal bit by bit, at least one of Plaintiff's prayers could be reasonably granted, Plaintiff does allege a specific harm caused by Defendant that was against the law with a possibly applicable remedy, the previously dismissed complaint does not fulfill the necessary requirements for Rule 5.9 (see: "already been previously litigated," here the dismissed suit was dismissed for deficient filing and not litigated at all), and there is some reasonable purpose or value for this claim, even if that reasonable purpose ends up being a definitive answer to cases of this nature.

Discover timeline is re-opened at this time.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.
AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the re-opening of the Discovery phase, the Plaintiff hereby submits the following formal Discovery Requests to the Defendant, AussieBloke25, and their legal party. The Defendant is required to answer the following interrogatories and produce the requested documents/logs within the timeline established by this Honorable Court.

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (LOGS & EVIDENCE)

1. Production Request 1: Please provide unedited chat logs, console logs, or screenshots from the Defendant's perspective covering the date of incident, specifically capturing any interactions, global chat, or local chat involving the me(The Plaintiff).
2. Production Request 2: Please provide any timestamped evidence, video clips, or logs in the Defendant's possession regarding the Defendant's presence at the "airport" warp/location.

II. INTERROGATORIES (QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED UNDER OATH)
1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the airport during the times the I was killed, and clarify whether you were waiting for the me to log in or arrive.
2. Interrogatory 2: Confirm or deny if you or other any other players had specifically been conspiring to target me for a bounty or harassment reasons .

DATED: This 29th day of May 2026
 
Le9endz_ said:
II. INTERROGATORIES (QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED UNDER OATH)
1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the airport during the times the I was killed, and clarify whether you were waiting for the me to log in or arrive.
Click to expand...

Objection


Compound question
Plaintiff compounds multiple questions into a single interrogatory which would potentially enable them more than the allotted 5 within the Court Rules and Procedures.

We respectfully ask that if they wish to ask so many questions, they are split up.


2. Interrogatory 2: Confirm or deny if you or other any other players had specifically been conspiring to target me for a bounty or harassment reasons .
Click to expand...
Plaintiff speaks only for themselves when they answer "No."
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

In response to the Defendant's objections, the Plaintiff hereby submits this Amended First Discovery Request. The Plaintiff has separated the inquiries to comply with court rules regarding compound questions while remaining well under the total interrogatory limit.

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
  1. Production Request 1: Please provide unedited chat logs, console logs, or screenshots from the Defendant's perspective covering the date of the incident, specifically capturing any interactions, global chat, or local chat involving the Plaintiff.
  2. Production Request 2: Please provide any timestamped evidence, video clips, or logs in the Defendant's possession regarding the Defendant's presence at the "airport" warp/location on the date of the incident.
II. INTERROGATORIES
  1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the “airport” during the times the Plaintiff was killed.
  2. Interrogatory 2: Clarify whether you were waiting at the airport for the Plaintiff to log in or arrive.
  3. Interrogatory 3: Confirm or deny if you, or any other players to your knowledge, had been conspiring to target the Plaintiff for a bounty or harassment reasons.
DATED: This 30th day of May 2026
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top