Lawsuit: Pending Maxib02 V. ILatteralus [2026] DCR 32

[ThePuffer]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxib02
Plaintiff (Represented by ThePufferOfficial)

v.

ILatteralus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Maxib02 (Plaintiff) had made a deal for two certificates of incorporation from ILatteralus (Defendant), for the total price of 2,000$. The deal took effect on February 26th, 2026, a couple of weeks after the Legal Entity Act became law, with Plaintiff paying Defendant the agreed-upon sum, thus completing their end of the agreement. Plaintiff then received two certificates of incorporation from Defendant, but they have failed to meet the legal standards required by the Legal Entity Act. Though Plaintiff tried contacting Defendant numerous times, he had not received any responses from Defendant, who did not fulfill his end of the agreement

I. PARTIES
1. Maxib02 (Plaintiff)
2. ILaterus (Defendant).


II. FACTS

1. On February 7th, 2026, the “Legal Entity Act” became law within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. On or about the 26th of February, Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into a deal, in which Defendant is to create two Certificates of Incorporation (hereinafter referred to as COI, or the Certificates), for the total price of 2,000$ (See P-001- P-003, which shows the agreed terms of negotiation.)
3. Later that day (26th of February), Plaintiff had completed their end of the bargain, paying defendant the agreed-upon sum of 2,000$ (see P-004, which shows the proof of payment).
4. On or about the 4th of March, 2026, one of the certificates had been rejected twice,for not meeting the requirements of the Legal Entity Act. The DOC had sent the new requirements to the plaintiff, who then sent them to the defendant (see P-005).
5. From March 5th to March 17th, the plaintiff had made numerous attempts to contact Defendant, asking them to complete the requirements of the deal, but had failed to receive a response from defendant, despite them still being a player on the server, and even making contact with other players (See P-006 which shows attempts made by the plaintiff to contact defendant, and P-007 which is a conversation between Plaintiff and RiggoSoft, in which RiggoSoft made it clear they have been in contact with Defendant on the 15th of March).
6. On the the 19th of March, 2026, the Department of Commerce denied the second certificate (See P-008).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract: The agreed contract between Plaintiff and Defendant had been for two COI to be made for the price of 2,000$ total. For the documents to be considered legal, Certificates of Incorporation, they must have complied with the requirements made in the Legal Entity Act, which had entered into effect before the deal had begun. Since Defendant failed to meet the requirements for the two COIs, they had failed to meet their end of the bargain, thus causing Breach of Contract.
2. Loss of Joy within the Commonwealth of Redmont: Plaintiff's numerous attempts to contact Defendant had caused loss of joy for the Plaintiff, as the time spent contacting Defendant could have been spent on other activities within Redmont.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 2,000$ In Breach of Contract
2. 3,000$ In Loss of Joy
3. 3,600$ In Legal Fees
4. 5,000$ In Consequential Damages

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 20th day of March, 2020

List of Potential Witnesses:
1. RiggoSoft (was in contact with Defendant after Defendant stopped talking to Plaintiff)
2. xXTheoryXx (Member of the DOC, and the superior officer for the Company Docket)

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[ThePuffer]

May it please the court that, after talks with my client, it had come to my attention that Plaintiff had decided to pay for the two certificates of incorporation from another lawyer. As such, I would like to amend the prayer for relief to include the following:
add 5,000$ in consequental damages (which was the sum Plaintiff had to pay for another lawyer to complete the two certificates).
Should the court require, ill be more then happy to add the payment to another client as evidence.

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@ILatteralus is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 V. ILatteralus [2026] DCR 32

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.

 

[ILatteralus]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint

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

ILatteralus
Defendant

v.

Maxib02
Plaintiff

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to relief in any amount.

2. Defendant denies that the parties formed a binding contract on the terms alleged in the Complaint.

3. Defendant denies that Plaintiff performed first as alleged. On information presently available, the certificates/documents at issue were sent before payment was made.

4. Defendant denies that Plaintiff can establish acceptance of any definite offer before the documents were sent.

5. Defendant admits that Plaintiff later made payment, but denies that such payment proves the existence of the specific contract alleged by Plaintiff.

6. Defendant denies that he guaranteed approval, acceptance, or legal sufficiency of the certificates by the Department of Commerce.

7. Defendant denies that any rejection by the Department of Commerce, standing alone, proves breach by Defendant.

8. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has proven that both certificates were defective at the time they were sent by Defendant.

9. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to “loss of joy” damages, as such damages are speculative, unsupported, and not recoverable on the facts alleged.

10. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to legal fees absent a lawful basis specifically permitting such recovery.

11. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to consequential damages in the amount of $5,000.00, and further denies that any such alleged replacement cost was caused by Defendant’s conduct or was reasonably necessary.

12. Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Complaint not expressly admitted herein.

II. DEFENCES

1. Failure of Contract Formation
Plaintiff cannot prove mutual assent to a definite agreement on the terms alleged. If the documents were sent before payment, then the chronology is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s claim that payment completed a previously formed bargain.

2. No Acceptance Before Performance
The evidence, as presently understood, indicates there was no clear acceptance by Plaintiff before Defendant sent the documents. Without offer and acceptance, there is no enforceable contract on the terms Plaintiff claims.

3. Payment After Delivery Undermines Plaintiff’s Theory
Plaintiff paid after receiving the documents. That sequence undermines the claim that Defendant breached by failing to perform after payment. It also supports the inference that payment was made after review or receipt of the work product.

4. No Proven Guarantee of Approval
Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant promised a guaranteed Department of Commerce approval rather than preparation or delivery of draft/incorporation documents. Rejection by the DOC does not automatically establish breach.

5. Waiver / Acceptance of Performance
By paying after the documents were sent, Plaintiff accepted the benefit of Defendant’s performance or, at minimum, waived any objection that was apparent at the time of payment.

6. Failure to Mitigate / Unreasonable Damages
Plaintiff’s claimed damages are excessive, speculative, and not properly tied to any proven breach. The “loss of joy” claim is non-economic and unsupported. The later payment to another lawyer was a separate choice by Plaintiff and is not automatically chargeable to Defendant.

7. Legal Fees Not Recoverable
Plaintiff has identified no rule, statute, or agreement entitling Plaintiff to attorney’s fees or similar litigation costs from Defendant.

8. Complaint Contains Material Inconsistencies
The Complaint contains factual and drafting inconsistencies, including its characterization of the payment/performance sequence and even an incorrect date in the signature block, which undermine its reliability and should weigh against Plaintiff’s requested relief.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;
2. Deny Plaintiff’s requested damages in full;
3. Deny Plaintiff’s request for legal fees and consequential damages; and
4. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

List of Potential Witnesses:
1. ILatteralus

Potential Evidence:
1. Screenshots showing the full message chronology between Plaintiff and Defendant
2. Proof that the documents were sent before payment
3. Proof of when payment was actually made
4. Copies of the documents sent to Plaintiff
5. Any messages showing no guarantee of approval was made
6. Any messages showing Plaintiff accepted, used, or retained the documents after receipt
(Above Items already listed by Plaintiff in original complaint)

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 20th day of March, 2026

ILatteralus
Defendant

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you for your prompt reply to summons and your submission of your answer to complaint therein.

Seeing as the answer has been submitted, we shall proceed to discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days (120 hours) from the publication of this message.

 

[ThePuffer]

May it please the court that, after talks with my client, it had come to my attention that Plaintiff had decided to pay for the two certificates of incorporation from another lawyer. As such, I would like to amend the prayer for relief to include the following:
add 5,000$ in consequental damages (which was the sum Plaintiff had to pay for another lawyer to complete the two certificates).
Should the court require, ill be more then happy to add the payment to another client as evidence.

Your honor, would love for a response on the request to amend complaint.

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves to compel the following evidence from the Defendant:
1. Screenshots showing the full message chronology between Plaintiff and Defendant
2. Proof that the documents were sent before payment
3. Proof of when payment was actually made
4. Copies of the documents sent to Plaintiff
5. Any messages showing no guarantee of approval was made
6. Any messages showing Plaintiff accepted, used, or retained the documents after receipt

Reasons:

Seeing as this evidence is to be crucial in the Defendants arguement (as they were marked as "Potential Evidence"), and because the Defendant did not provide this evidence within their Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff Herbey moves to compel said evidence from the Defendant

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves to compel the following evidence from the Defendant:
1. Screenshots showing the full message chronology between Plaintiff and Defendant
2. Proof that the documents were sent before payment
3. Proof of when payment was actually made
4. Copies of the documents sent to Plaintiff
5. Any messages showing no guarantee of approval was made
6. Any messages showing Plaintiff accepted, used, or retained the documents after receipt

Reasons:

Seeing as this evidence is to be crucial in the Defendants arguement (as they were marked as "Potential Evidence"), and because the Defendant did not provide this evidence within their Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff Herbey moves to compel said evidence from the Defendant

@ILatteralus - You have 48 hours to respond to this motion to compel.

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT.
The Plaintiff would like to amend their complaint to include the following:

1. Add 5,000$ In Consequential Damages

Reasons:

Due to the Defendants' failure to comply with the contract, Plaintiff had to pay for the two COIs from another counsel, with a total price of $5,000 (2,500 per COI). As such, Plaintiff believes they are entitled to 5,000$ in consequential damages.

To support this claim, Plaintiff would also love to file the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-009

As well as add Musa096 to the witness list

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT.
The Plaintiff would like to amend their complaint to include the following:

1. Add 5,000$ In Consequential Damages

Reasons:

Due to the Defendants' failure to comply with the contract, Plaintiff had to pay for the two COIs from another counsel, with a total price of $5,000 (2,500 per COI). As such, Plaintiff believes they are entitled to 5,000$ in consequential damages.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Granted.

You may amend the complaint to add "$5000 in Consequential Damages" to the prayers for relief.

Separately, the evidence outside of the motion is noted as a discovery submission, and Musa096 is added to the Plaintiff's witness list.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor, would love for a response on the request to amend complaint.

Noting that the Motion to Amend Complaint has been granted, the separate request is ruled moot.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves to compel the following evidence from the Defendant:
1. Screenshots showing the full message chronology between Plaintiff and Defendant
2. Proof that the documents were sent before payment
3. Proof of when payment was actually made
4. Copies of the documents sent to Plaintiff
5. Any messages showing no guarantee of approval was made
6. Any messages showing Plaintiff accepted, used, or retained the documents after receipt

Reasons:

Seeing as this evidence is to be crucial in the Defendants arguement (as they were marked as "Potential Evidence"), and because the Defendant did not provide this evidence within their Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff Herbey moves to compel said evidence from the Defendant

@ILatteralus - You have 48 hours to respond to this motion to compel.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — MOTION TO COMPEL (Post No. 7)

Seeing no response from the Defense, the Court will order the defense to produce the following items, to the maximum extent permitted under server rules, should such items be in the possession of the Defendant:

1. Screenshots of the full message chronology between Plaintiff and Defendant;
2. Evidence pertaining to the date and time of the sending of documents material to this case between Plaintiff and Defendant;
3. Evidence pertaining to the date and time of payments material to this case made between Plaintiff and Defendant;
4. Copies of the documents material to this case sent to Plaintiff by Defendant;
5. Any messages material to this case between Plaintiff and Defense material to this case regarding (1) guarantee of approval or (2) a lack of guarantee of approval
6. Any messages material to this case regarding Plaintiff’s acceptance, use, or retention of documents after receipt of such documents from the Defendant.

This material must be provided to the Court prior to the end of discovery, on pain of Contempt.

So Ordered,
Judge Multi