Lawsuit: Pending Megamango800 vs. JackalGG [2026] DCR 156

[Carrottt_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Megamango800
Plaintiff


v.


JackalGG
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 8th, 2026, the Plaintiff was at spawn. The Defendant offered him an elytra for $2,000 in public chat. The Plaintiff messaged the Defendant that he was willing to take the offer. The Defendant increased the price to $2,300 but it was haggled back down to $2,000. The Defendant and the Plaintiff met at the zoo and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant $2,000. The Defendant presided to not give the Plaintiff the promised elytra and instead admitted to scamming him. To this day, the Plaintiff has not received his elytra nor the $2,000 back, constituting a breach of contract.

I. PARTIES
1. Megamango800 (Plaintiff)
2. JackalGG (Defendant)


II. FACTS
1. On August 8th, 2026, Defendant offered an elytra for $2,000 in public chat. See P-001
2. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant to buy the elytra. See P-002
3. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Agreed on $2,000 for the elytra. See P-003 and P-004
4. The Plaintiff sent the agreed upon $2,000. See P-004
5. Once the Defendant was paid, and he did not deliver the promised elytra to the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff asked the Defendant, “why are you scamming and stealing” in response the Defendant answered, “i need teh money im about to go broke”. See P-006
6. The Defendant never gave the Plaintiff a elytra nor the money back.
7. The Defendant continued to attempt to run the same scam on different players. See P-007


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (RCCA Part VI §1)
The Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI, §1 notes that a Defendant commits Breach of Contract when they fail to perform obligations under a valid contract. There was a valid contract was formed between the Plaintiff and Defendant via the Contracts Act §4, which requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.
1a. An offer was made by the Defendant when they said, “selling elytra for 2k” (P-001) and when the Defendant said to the Plaintiff, "fine 2k pay now” (P-004).
1b. The Plaintiff accepted when he paid the Defendant $2,000 (P-004).
1c. There was consideration, defined as each party giving up something of value, with the elytra from the Defendant and $2,000 from the Plaintiff. There was a clear intent, illustrated by both of their messages, and both parties have been playing on the server for more than a week.
1d. Therefore, the elements of the Contracts Act have been met, making their agreement a valid contract, which the Defendant broke by failing to give the Plaintiff the elytra (P-006).
2. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI §3)
RCCA Part VI §3 notes that a Defendant commits Failure to Deliver Goods or Services if they fail to deliver a good or service that they agreed to under a valid contract. As noted earlier in the filing, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a valid contract, and the Defendant failed to deliver the Plaintiff the promised diamond (P-006).
3. Unjust Enrichment (RCCA Part X §1)
RCCA Part X §1 says that a Defendant commits Unjust Enrichment if they obtain and retain a benefit at the Plaintiff’s expense, and that there is no legal justification for retaining that benefit. The Defendant obtained the $2,000 paid by the Plaintiff and failed to provide the elytra given by the valid contract (P-004, P-006). This benefit was obtained illegally as it was through a breach of contract. Therefore, the Defendant committed Unjust Enrichment through their actions.
4. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III §3)
RCCA Part III §3 notes that punitive damages will only be awarded to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct. RCCA Part III §3(5) considers outrages conduct to occur when “defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct. The Defendant ran a /ad stating, "selling elytra for 2k msg me” (P-007). This was the same scam that the Defendant used on the Plaintiff.




IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:
1. A specific performance order to require the Defendant to fulfill their contract by giving the Plaintiff the promised diamond, under Claim II: Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.
2. $2,000 in Restitution, according to Claim III: Unjust Enrichment.
4. $200 in Nominal Damages, if the Court grants no other damages.
5. $2,000 in Punitive Damages, according to Claim IV: Punitive Damages.
6. $3,000, the minimum under RCCA Part III §7(2)(d), in Legal Fees.





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 4th day of September 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

 

[Carrottt_]

Your Honor, xVoltrix is the Plaintiff's co-counsel.