Lawsuit: Adjourned lemmou & .Hyrophant12 v. Cpvp_dog [2026] FCR 71

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xVoltrix

Citizen
Public Defender
BAR Councillor
Supporter
Health Department
xVoltrix
xVoltrix
Public Defender
Joined
Jul 20, 2026
Messages
43

​

Case Filing




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lemmou
Plaintiff

&

.Hyrophant12
Co-Plaintiff

v.

Cpvp_dog, aka Snowman dave
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Co-Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

"I am a realtor, my client Lemmou hired me to find him a plot that is within his budget of 40,000 DCC, I searched throughout redmont, search #real estate and I even posted on it because I found an empty plot and asking if I can get it for 40k from the owner of the plot. Then Cpvp_Dog/Snowman Dave reached out to me about my post, he claims that his business partner is selling a plot for 40k, I thought, that he was telling the truth so I asked whats the location and negotiated the price, he said that he can do 50,000 DCC for the entire building with the basement included as well as the items in the building, I said to meet up in the building to discuss the negotiations further. I told my client to come with me on the plot for negotiations. We both went to the plot S038 and saw Cpvp_Dog himself. He said that the building including the basement would be ours after we paid the 50,000 DCC, he claimed that he would ask his business partner to transfer the ownership to Lemmou once he is on, Lemmou paid Exactly 50,000 DCC to Cpvp_Dog. I tried to reach out to Cpvp_Dog after the negotiations regarding the status of transferring the ownership to Lemmou, what I got is Either an okay or excuses such as my business partner is dealing with Irl problems. I went inside S038 and saw that people are working in there and I asked questions regarding the building, they reach out to space because I said Cpvp_Dog is the one who negotiate and claimed that S038 is being transferred to Lemmou. they relayed the message to me from the owner and he said he does not know who Cpvp_Dog was, I thanked them and screenshoted the conversation. I sent the photos to Cpvp_Dog and I asked why there are people building in S038 if it was in the process of getting transferred, I demanded to him to tell me who his business partner is, there was no response, he ghosted me because I figured out he was a scammer."


I. PARTIES
1. lemmou (Plaintiff) represented by Blackstone Law Group
2. .Hyrophant (Co-Plaintiff) represented by Blackstone Law Group
3. Cpvp_dog (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff hired the Co-Plaintiff to acquire a plot within a budget of $40,000
2. The Plaintiff raised money to invest in the acquisition of a plot. [Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-002, Exhibit P-003, Exhibit P-004, Exhibit P-005, Exhibit P-006, Exhibit P-007]
3. The Defendant claimed to have a business partner who could sell a plot to the Co-Plaintiff. [Exhibit P-008]
4. The Defendant claimed to be the main manager of the plot S038 and had permission to sell it [Exhibit P-009]
5. The Defendant laimed that the owner of the plot asked them to negotiate the sale of the property [Exhibit P-010]
6. The Co-Plaintiff negotiated a price of $50,000 with the Defendant for the entire plot as well as the items on the first floor. [Exhibit P-011]
7. The Plaintiff accepted the contract. [Exhibit P-012]
8. The Plaintiff offered the Defendant $5,000 in good faith for the completion of the deal. [Exhibit P-013]
9. The Plaintiff payed the Defendant $50,001 [Exhibit P-014]
10. The Defendant suddenly became avoidant and tried to delay the transfer of ownership [Exhibit P-015 & Exhibit P-016]
11. The Defendant ghosted the Co-Plaintiff once he became suspicious. [Exhibit P-017]
12. Cpvp_dog is currently getting sued for 5 cases of fraudulent behavior with the first lawsuit having been filed on 8 July (Northwind Financial Group v. Cpvp_dog) and the latest one on 16 July (SirDingusOG & Somederp v. Cpvp_Dog). The rest were filed on 10 July (Teji2 & Henessyy v. CPvp_Dog), 14 July (TheHurricane_77 vs. Cpvp_Dog [2026] DCR 127), and 15 July (DuckyGamer27 v. Cpvp_dog [2026]).
13. The owner of the building (SpaceExplorer865) never had any intentions of selling the plot. [Exhibit P-018]


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant committed Misrepresentation (VI.2 of the Civil Code Act) by making false statements of fact which induced the Plaintiffs to enter into a contract and caused the Plaintiffs to suffer losses as a result.

2. The Defendant has shown Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (VI.3 of the Civil Code Act) by engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceptive in connection with the sale of a plot.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:
1. $50,000 in compensatory damages, to be awarded to lemmou
2. $50,000 in punitive damages, to be awarded evenly between both Plaintiffs for the outrageous conduct repeatedly shown by the Defendant. This conduct fulfills conditions (i), (ii), (iv), (v) of part III, section 3 of the Civil Code Act.
3. $50,000 in consequential damages, to be awarded to both Plaintiffs, with $40,000 going to the Plaintiff and $10,000 going to the Co-Plaintiff for the humiliation caused by the Defendant's reckless behavior and the impact on their reputations.
4. 250 Civillian Penalty Units ($25,000) for the Misleading Conduct in Trade and Commerce to be awarded evenly between both Plaintiffs.
5. $52,500 in legal fees, equalling 30% of the total damages requested.
Totalling $227,500 ($175,000 + $52,500)

V. LIST OF WITNESSES
KenjixYT07
Escudos
SpaceExplorer865

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 2. day of August 2026



Exhibit P-001.png
Exhibit-P002.png
Exhibit-P003.png
Exhibit-P004.png
Exhibit-P005.png
Exhibit-P006.png
Exhibit-P007.png
Exhibit-P008.png
Exhibit-P009.png
Exhibit-P010.png
Exhibit-P011.png
Exhibit-P012.png
Exhibit-P013.png
Exhibit-P014.png
Exhibit-P015.png
Exhibit-P016.png
Exhibit-P017.png
Exhibit-P018.png
PoR 1.png
PoR 2.png
 
Last edited:
The formatting has been fixed.
 
Your Honor,
The formatting has been fixed 4 days ago. Could we please move on with the trial?
 

Writ of Summons


@Cpvp_dog is hereby commanded to appear in the Federal Court in the case of lemmou & .Hyrophant12 v. Cpvp_dog [2026] FCR 71.

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




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

 
xVoltrix said:

​

Motion




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

Click to expand...
Motion is granted. Defendant was seen otherwise active on Discord.
As such, I find @Cpvp_dog in Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units and be imprisoned for 5 minutes.
We are now moving into Inquest proceedings. Discovery is now open for 5 days. Plaintiff reserves the right to close Discovery early.
 
Does the Plaintiff's counsel have permission to submit a closing statement?
 

Writ of Summons


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

@KenjixYT07, @Escudos and @SpaceExplorer865 are commanded to appear as witnesses before the Federal Court in the case of lemmou & .Hyrophant12 v. Cpvp_dog [2026] FCR 71.

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.

 
I will now be your presiding officer. Before considering this case further, the Court wishes to know if the Plaintiff still wishes to proceed with this case, nothing that the recovery of any delivered verdict is probably unlikely at this time. Plaintiff has 7 days to respond in line with Rule 5.17.
 
The Plaintiffs are confused since that rule applies to Motions to Dismiss (and not to this situation) but they would like to proceed with this trial.
 
Your Honor,
The Plaintiff's counsel requests to be awarded an extension due to real life matters such as exams. The legal brief could be filed by Sunday at the earliest.
 
xVoltrix said:
Your Honor,
The Plaintiff's counsel requests to be awarded an extension due to real life matters such as exams. The legal brief could be filed by Sunday at the earliest.
Click to expand...
Could Plaintiff specify what these "real life matters" are? Understand that a 4 day extension is a large one, and the Court would much prefer another counselor being assigned if that much time is needed so that the case might come to a speedier conclusion.
 
CreeperTD said:
Could Plaintiff specify what these "real life matters" are? Understand that a 4 day extension is a large one, and the Court would much prefer another counselor being assigned if that much time is needed so that the case might come to a speedier conclusion.
Click to expand...
A test today, a Position Paper + presentation due Friday, studying + practical lesson for a boat license (Friday-Saturday) in addition to other school work I might receive notice of today and tomorrow, and driving lessons.
I will have the time to work on the legal brief on Saturday but absolutely none today and tomorrow.
 
The Plaintiffs will be notified of the Court's wish for a different attorney, but finding one will take some time.
 

Brief



Your Honor, this case should be very clear. The Plaintiffs have been scammed by the Defendant in a business deal constituting the transaction of S038. Both Plaintiffs were under the impression that Cpvp_Dog was a Realtor working for the proper owner of S038 (SpaceExplorer865). They agreed to a price of $50,000 DCC in return for the entire plot. To raise this money, lemmou found investors whose trust was violated by the Defendant's actions. Once the transaction of money was completed, the Defendant completely cut off communications and has not appeared to this trial.

This is not the first time the Defendant has scammed citizens of Redmont out of their hard earned money. He had - at the time of this case being filed - 5 ongoing cases and hasn't won a single one. This sort of behavior must be punished to the fullest extent of Redmont's laws.

Therefore:
1. The Defendant committed Misrepresentation (VI.2 of the Civil Code Act) by making false statements of fact which induced the Plaintiffs to enter into a contract and caused the Plaintiffs to suffer losses as a result.

2. The Defendant has shown Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (VI.3 of the Civil Code Act) by engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceptive in connection with the sale of a plot.

 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
lemmou & .Hyrophant12 v. Cpvp_dog [2026] FCR 71

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

As the Defendant did not appear, the Court is only able to consider the facts and evidence presented to it by Plaintiff based on its own merit. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant claimed to be able to have the plot S038 transferred to the Co-Plaintiff, and that they had permission from the owner to sell it. Co-Plaintiff worked out a deal with the Defendant for the plot to be purchased for 50,000 DC$, and Plaintiff subsequently transferred the money to the Defendant. The plot was never transferred to Plaintiff or Co-Plaintiff, and the Defendant stopped communication with the Co-Plaintiff at some point before the initiation of proceedings. Plaintiff claims that the plot’s owner never had any intention to sell the plot, but points only to an out of court statement which cannot be treated as evidence.

II. THE COURT’S OPINION

The Plaintiff in this case has left many holes in their legal arguments, many of which leave Claims and Prayers for Relief entirely unsupported. Before considering the case, the Court feels obliged to remind all potential counselors that in the Federal Court, especially, it is not the responsibility of the Court to make legal arguments for a Plaintiff or Defendant in order to give them a favorable verdict. A Claim of Relief or a Prayer that a Plaintiff fails to argue for can be dismissed out of hand by the Presiding Officer; it is not our job to hold your hand once you come before the Court.

The first question to be answered is whether a contract was entered into between the Plaintiff(s) and the Defendant; this is required in order to consider whether or not Misrepresentation occurred. Plaintiff has failed to set out arguments as to how a contract was entered into during the incident described. However, the Court has been given enough through the facts and evidence provided by Plaintiff to consider this on its own, which it does only out of benevolence to the Plaintiff.

In the initial Complaint it is claimed that Plaintiff hired Co-Plaintiff to purchase a plot for them, presumably permitting them to negotiate such a purchase in their name. The Court has no reason to doubt this claim, even if no evidence is provided, as both of those individuals are being represented by the same Legal Counsel. The conversation between the Co-Plaintiff and the Defendant is, therefore, where the Court must look to determine if a contract was formed according to Contracts Act § 4(2):

Offer: in P-011, Defendant is shown presenting an Offer to sell the Plot S048 (determined through context given by P-008 — P-010) for “50k with all items.” The Court believes this to be “clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract” on the part of the Defendant (Contracts Act § 4(2)(a)).

Acceptance: Co-Plaintiff stated “Let’s negotiate further” as seen in P-011, and then a time jump in the messages occur in the evidence, where the first message in P-012 was sent at “10:14 AM” as compared to P-011 whose last message was sent at “4:16 AM.” The Court has not been shown what occurred in that time gap, if anything, but from what the Court does see, it appears that Co-Plaintiff and Plaintiff agreed to the offer, since they communicated details about the plot’s transfer, and the Plaintiff transferred the amount of money stated in the Offer to the Defendant. However, the Court cannot be satisfied as to at what time these events took place. No timeline with specific dates and time was provided by the Plaintiff at any point in their filings to the Court. However, because the Court has been given no reason to suspect the Plaintiff’s claims as stated to the Court under oath, the Court is satisfied that the Contract was, in fact, accepted by the Plaintiff.

Consideration: an exchange of something of value was agreed to between the two parties, and one of those parties executed their side of the deal. An agreement to transfer the plot in exchange for $50000 was reached, and the Plaintiff transferred that money. The Court believes that sufficient Consideration existed in the underlying incident.

Intent: Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff showed clear intent to create legal obligations with their discussions of the details of the transfer of the property and the execution of their side of the agreement. The Defendant showed intent by making the Offer, accepting the money, and making claims about attempts to have the property transferred after the funds were received. The Court believes that both sides showed clear intent.

Capacity: all parties involved have sufficient playtime at the time of this verdict being written, satisfying the Court as to their capacity to enter into a contract.

Given that all required elements of a contract are present, the Court concludes that a contract was formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

On Misrepresentation

RCCA Part VI § 2 defines Misrepresentation as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) makes a false statement of fact; and
(b) the statement induces another party to enter into a contract; and
(c) the other party suffers loss as a result.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the statement was genuinely believed to be true at the time it was made, and there were reasonable grounds for that belief; or
(e) the plaintiff did not rely on the statement in entering the contract.
Click to expand...
This means that for Defendant to be found liable for Misrepresentation, the Plaintiff must identify a false statement of fact which caused them to enter into the contract identified previously. What has Plaintiff argued in this regard? In Claim I, they state only “The Defendant committed Misrepresentation… by making false statements of fact which induced the Plaintiffs to enter into a contract and caused the Plaintiffs to suffer losses as a result.” No specific facts of the case have been pointed to, no evidence is identified, and no substantial argument has been presented. In their final legal brief, the Plaintiff, however, asserts that “Both Plaintiffs were under the impression that Cpvp_Dog was a Realtor working for the proper owner of S038,” implying that this was false and was responsible for the Plaintiffs entering into the agreement. Has Plaintiff presented evidence showing that this statement was false? Not any that can be considered: screenshots of statements by third parties outside of the core incident, such as P-018, constitute Hearsay and therefore are not considered valid evidence (see Guide - Objections). The Plaintiff did attempt to call the alleged owner of the plot, SpaceExplorer865, as a witness, however they failed to appear before the Court even after multiple weeks, so any testimony that they might have provided is unable to be obtained.

Because of this lack of evidence, the Plaintiff has only alleged that a statement was false, as no proof of its falsity has been provided to the Court. Civil litigants must prove their case on a balance of probabilities, and the Plaintiff has failed to do so. (Judicial Standards Act Part II § 3(a)). Due to this deficiency in evidence, the Court is unable to find that a false statement of fact was made by the Defendant, therefore not fulfilling the requirement set out in subsection (a) of RCCA Part VI § 2.

Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce

In order for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce to occur, there must exist conduct that is or could be construed as misleading or deceptive “in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services” (RCCA Part VI § 3). The Court chooses to consider plots as goods, and will forsake a further analysis of the point for the sake of brevity. Was the conduct misleading? Simply not delivering one’s end of the deal could be construed as being misleading, but there are other violations into which this sort of behavior more neatly fits into, namely Breach of Contract (RCCA Part VI § 1) and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI § 4). Neither of these are alleged by Plaintiff, and yet failing to deliver a plot fits into those violations much more clearly. The Court finds that the existence of these other violations suggests a more narrow scope of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce, which focuses not on whether or not goods were delivered at all, but rather the nature in which the goods were promoted, sold, or supplied to an individual. Thus, because of the aforementioned failure of the Plaintiff to prove that the claims made by the Defendant about their relationship to the owner were false, the Court is unable to find the Defendant liable for Misleading Conduct.

Given that no underlying claim exists, all forms of damages requested have nothing to support them, and must therefore be denied. The Court notes that even if the Plaintiff proved the underlying claims, it would have only been able to grant Compensatory damages, as the Plaintiff failed to provide substantive arguments for any other claims of relief.

The underlying incident certainly had the potential to support some kind of relief being granted by the Court, but the sheer incompetence of the Plaintiff’s Counsel undermined this, resulting in the verdict which must now be delivered.

III. DECISION

In the case of lemmou & .Hyrophant12 v. Cpvp_dog [2026] FCR 71, the Federal Court finds in favour of the Defendant. All Claims of Relief made by the Plaintiff are denied, and therefore the Court finds Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff liable to the Defendant for Legal Fees. Due to the Defendant’s failure to appear, the Court diminishes the amount of Legal Fees to be granted to the statutory minimum of 15% of the total requested claims (see RCCA Part III § 7(4)). The total owed legal fees shall be split between the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff. Thus:

Plaintiff lemmou is liable to Defendant DrippyPVP1234 (formally known as Cpvp_dog) for $13125 in Legal Fees.

Co-Plaintiff .Hyrophant12 is liable to Defendant DrippyPVP1234 for $13125 in Legal Fees.

The Court thanks the parties for their time. Let this verdict serve as a warning to all current and future legal practitioners that any and all errors or deficiencies in a legal case can result in horrible consequences for your clients. This Court is now adjourned.

So Ordered,
Judge CreeperTD

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top