Lawsuit: Adjourned Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] FCR 79

[itsBlazeX]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Ligthiago (Lovely Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

V.

FuriousPaladin
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Ligthiago owned a pet camel named John. Ligthiago had a very strong attachment to John. They took him for walks, played with him, and John was always by Ligthiago’s side. John was Ligthiago’s best friend. But on September 3rd, Ligthiago’s pet camel John was murdered. FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property (r078), and killed John. Now Ligthiago’s best friend is gone, and life will never be the same for them without their beloved camel.


I. PARTIES
1. Ligthiago (Plaintiff)
2. FuriousPaladin (Defendant)


II. FACTS
1. Ligthiago owned a pet camel.
2. Ligthiago took their camel on walks, and had a very strong emotional attachment to it (Evidence A).
3. FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property.
4. While trespassing, FuriousPaladin murdered Ligthiago’s camel (Evidence B).
5. After the loss of their camel, Ligthiago is now depressed, and life is not enjoyable for them anymore.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act (Evidence C) states Punitive Damages are awarded “to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law.” FuriousPaladin committed an outrageous act by trespassing onto another person’s property, and proceeding to destroy one of their valuable possessions (Ligthiago’s camel). To prevent FuriousPaladin from committing a similar outrageous act in the future, the Plaintiff will be seeking $15,000 in punitive damages.
2. The Legal Damages Act defines Emotional Damages as “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.” Due to FuriousPaladin’s intentional reckless actions, Ligthiago is suffering from depression. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to Emotional Damages.
3. The Legal Damages Act defines The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont as “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.” Ligthiago does not enjoy DC as much as he did when his camel was still alive. Lightiago took their camel on walks frequently, and can no longer do one of their favorite activities.
4. Right XIV of the Constitution states “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Ligthiago was deprived of their right to security when FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $15,000 in punitive damages, to prevent the Defendant from committing another outrageous act in the future.
2. $15,000 in emotional damages
3. $10,000 for The Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont
4. $10,000 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A

Evidence B

Evidence C

Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.

A BILL To Define the different forms of damages. The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short...

www.democracycraft.net

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 September 2023

 

[Matthew100x]

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 Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] FCR 79. 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.​

 

[Matthew100x]

I am placing this court on a 24 hour recess to ask a staff question related to permanently deported players.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, has this case been resumed?

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, has this case been resumed?

Yes. I will be writing the verdict shortly since according to staff, permanently banned players do not have a right to representation.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] FCR 79

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Plaintiff's pet camel was killed.
2. Plaintiff suffered Emotional Damage and Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Is permanently banned and is not afforded the right to a PD.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. FuriousPanda killed a Camal, assumingly at a location that was protected but the plaintiff does not show whether or not it was his nor if it was a protected area.
2. Plaintiff stating to his lawyer that he was depressed does not count as sufficient proof towards Emotional Damage and Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont. According to the Legal Damages Act, "awards must be denied for insufficient proof"
3. There is not enough evidence to prove that the conduct was "morally outrageous".

IV. DECISION
1. The Court is in favor of the plaintiff but grants no prayer for relief.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.