Lawsuit: Dismissed MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MMiqa

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
MMiqa
MMiqa
Attorney
Joined
Jun 1, 2026
Messages
67

​

Case Filing


​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

​

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

ZachOfPotatoes10
Defendant


COMPLAINT​


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, had just joined the Commonwealth of Redmont, having played for only approximately 3 hours over the course of 1 day. The Plaintiff was attempting to begin their career as a Fisher and engage in lawful gameplay in Aventura. Without any provocation whatsoever, the Defendant, ZachOfPotatoes10, attacked and caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff three consecutive times in Aventura.

The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no weapons, no armour, and no means to protect themselves. The Defendant's repeated and targeted attacks robbed the Plaintiff of their ability to enjoy their first experience in Redmont. Furthermore, the server itself was forced to intervene, confirming that the Defendant had caused the wrongful death of so many citizens of Redmont that they had reached the server's murder limit.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from Wrongful Death and Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES​


  1. MMiqa, Plaintiff.
  2. ZachOfPotatoes10, Defendant.

II. FACTS​


  1. On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, was present in Aventura, a designated city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
  2. Aventura is not the wilderness. PvP combat is not permitted in Aventura.
  3. At the time of the attacks, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately 1 day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime.
  4. The Plaintiff was attempting to perform their Fisher duties and engage in lawful gameplay at the time of the attacks.
  5. The Defendant, ZachOfPotatoes10, initiated unprovoked combat against the Plaintiff.
  6. The in-game system confirmed: "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." (P-001)
  7. The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff. The in-game system confirmed: "MMiqa was pummeled by ZachOfPotatoes10." (P-001)
  8. The in-game system confirmed: "911 ZachOfPotatoes10 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities." (P-001)
  9. The Defendant repeated this conduct a second time, causing the wrongful death of the Plaintiff again in Aventura. (P-002)
  10. The Defendant repeated this conduct a third time, causing the wrongful death of the Plaintiff again in Aventura. (P-003)
  11. The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff a total of three times in Aventura without any provocation.
  12. The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no weapons, no armour, and no means to defend themselves.
  13. On a fourth occasion, when the Defendant attempted to attack the Plaintiff again, the server system displayed: "You've been healed and ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit." (P-004)
  14. This confirms that the Defendant had caused the wrongful death of so many citizens of Redmont that the server itself was forced to intervene and prevent further killing, demonstrating a clear pattern of habitual and deliberate criminal conduct.
  15. The Plaintiff called /911 to report the Defendant's conduct to the authorities following the attacks. (P-005)
  16. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff was unable to perform their Fisher duties and was significantly impacted in their ability to enjoy their first experience in the Commonwealth of Redmont.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​


CLAIM I: WRONGFUL DEATH — Criminal Code Act


  1. The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as the unlawful killing of another player.
  2. PvP combat is not permitted in Aventura.
  3. The Defendant unlawfully caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff three times in Aventura without provocation.
  4. Each instance of wrongful death constitutes a separate civil claim under the Criminal Code Act.
  5. The Plaintiff brings three counts of Wrongful Death against the Defendant.

CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 1


  1. The Redmont Civil Code Act provides: "The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct."
  2. The Defendant's three instances of wrongful death against the Plaintiff constitute criminal conduct giving rise to civil damages.
  3. Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit.

CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 4


  1. Nominal damages are available where a legal cause of action has been established, even though the Plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss.
  2. The Plaintiff has established a legal cause of action through three counts of Wrongful Death committed by the Defendant in Aventura.
  3. The maximum nominal damages cap is $7,500.
  4. The Plaintiff seeks $2,500 per instance × 3 = $7,500 in nominal damages.

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 3


  1. Punitive damages are available where the Defendant's conduct was outrageous.
  2. Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.
  3. The Defendant's conduct was outrageous for the following reasons:

  • (a) The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff three consecutive times without any provocation whatsoever.
  • (b) The Defendant deliberately targeted a brand new player who had been on the server for only 1 day with only 3 hours of playtime, with no weapons, no armour, and no means to defend themselves.
  • (c) The repeated nature of the attacks — three consecutive wrongful deaths of the same defenceless new player — demonstrates deliberate, calculated, and predatory conduct.
  • (d) The server system confirmed that the Defendant had reached the murder limit, meaning the Defendant had caused the wrongful death of so many citizens of Redmont that the server itself was forced to intervene. This demonstrates a clear pattern of habitual, deliberate, and systemic criminal conduct far beyond an isolated incident.
  • (e) The Defendant's conduct represents a pattern of targeting and killing citizens of Redmont, making punitive damages necessary not only to punish the Defendant but to deter this habitual behaviour in the future.

  1. The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 in punitive damages.

CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES — LOSS OF ENJOYMENT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 5


  1. Loss of Enjoyment is available where an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.
  2. The Plaintiff had just begun their first day in the Commonwealth of Redmont, intending to work as a Fisher and enjoy the server for the first time.
  3. The Defendant's three unprovoked instances of wrongful death on the Plaintiff's very first day severely and permanently diminished the Plaintiff's first experience in Redmont.
  4. The Plaintiff was unable to perform their Fisher duties as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
  5. A reasonable person in the same circumstances — suffering wrongful death three times as a brand new player on their very first day, with no weapons, no armour, and no means of defence — would experience a significant and lasting loss of enjoyment.
  6. As punitive damages are also being sought in this matter, the consequential damages cap of $50,000 does not apply per the Redmont Civil Code Act.
  7. The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief against the Defendant:


  1. $7,500 in nominal damages ($2,500 per wrongful death × 3 counts)
  2. $15,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's outrageous, repeated, and habitual criminal conduct
  3. $25,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
  4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

TOTAL: $47,500

V. EVIDENCE​


  • P-001: Screenshot of system messages confirming first wrongful death by ZachOfPotatoes10 in Aventura
P-001.png

  • P-002: Screenshot of system messages confirming "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight", "MMiqa was pummeled by ZachOfPotatoes10", and "911 ZachOfPotatoes10 has murdered you". There are both instances of MMiqa dying, comparing the chat messages can give you that these are two different events
P-002.png


  • P-003: Screenshot of system messages confirming third wrongful death by ZachOfPotatoes10 in Aventura
P-003.png


  • P-004: Screenshot of system message confirming "ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit" — confirming the Defendant's habitual pattern of wrongful death across multiple victims
P-004.png


  • P-005: Record of /911 call made by the Plaintiff following the wrongful deaths committed by ZachOfPotatoes10 in Aventura

P-005.png


VI. WITNESSES​


  1. MMiqa — The Plaintiff may testify about the three unprovoked wrongful deaths, the location in Aventura, the Plaintiff's status as a brand new player with no means of defence, the inability to perform Fisher duties, and the significant loss of enjoyment caused by the Defendant's conduct on the Plaintiff's very first day in Redmont.

VII. REPRESENTATION


The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Redmont Bar Association and is representing themselves in this matter.


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 2nd day of June, 2026

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@zachofpotatoes10 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10, [2026] DCR 67.

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.

 
Your honor, I am present on behalf of ZachOfPotatoes10 as his appointed legal representative.

1781065540844.png
 

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiff lacks a cognizable legal claim and lacks the standing necessary to bring this suit. Dismissal is sought under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges as follows:

I. LACK OF CLAIM​

A. No valid cause of action exists for Claims I and II​

The Plaintiff's entire complaint rests on "Wrongful Death," a tort that does not exist under the law of Redmont. The RCCA was enacted expressly "to provide a single source of truth for civil violations" (Part I, Section 2(2)) and enumerates every recognized civil tort across Parts V through XII. Wrongful Death appears in none of them.

More critically, RCCA Part II, Section 3(2) provides that "any civil violation purportedly created by another Act of Congress shall be null and void unless incorporated as an amendment to this Code." The RCCA explicitly replaced the prior Civil Code Act, which it references in its own statement of intent (Part I, Section 2(1)). If Wrongful Death ever existed under that prior Act, it has been extinguished. The legislature chose not to carry it forward, and Section 3(2) renders it null and void.

The Plaintiff's only remaining avenue is the common law carve-out at RCCA Part II, Section 3(1)(a)-(b), which preserves claims supported by existing common law precedent. The Plaintiff has cited none. The RCCA was enacted in January 2026, leaving an extremely narrow window for any such precedent to have formed. The burden of demonstrating precedent rests with the Plaintiff; it has not been met.

The Defense further notes that the Plaintiff's written statement alleges damages from both "Wrongful Death and Assault," yet no Assault cause of action appears anywhere in the numbered claims. To the extent any Assault claim is implied, it has not been properly pleaded.

Turning to Claim II: the Plaintiff cites RCCA Part III, Section 1(1) as authority for civil damages. This misreads the provision. Section 1(1) states that the damages framework applies "to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct." This is a procedural rule governing how damages are calculated once a valid cause of action exists. It does not itself create one. Without an actionable underlying claim, the damages framework has nothing to attach to.

Should the Court read Claim II as invoking RCCA Part II, Section 4(3), that pathway fails on two independent grounds. First, Section 4(3) applies only where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under this Code. Murder is a crime. It is not a violation under the RCCA; no such violation appears in the Code, and any prior statutory basis has been extinguished by Section 3(2). The conjunctive requirement is not satisfied. Second, Section 4(3)(b) allows a plaintiff to pursue "civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code," presupposing that the Criminal Code itself permits such recovery. The authoritative text of the Criminal Code Act contains no provision conferring a private right of civil damages upon murder victims. Section 4(3)(b) points to a right the Criminal Code does not confer.

Claims I and II should be dismissed.


B. The damage claims are independently defective​


Nominal, punitive, and consequential damages cannot be sought simultaneously. RCCA Part III, Section 4(1) defines nominal damages as "a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages." The phrase "not entitled to any other damages" is definitional, not discretionary. A plaintiff simultaneously claiming $40,000 in punitive and consequential damages is not a plaintiff "not entitled to any other damages." The Plaintiff's own filing confirms the contradiction: Claim V expressly states that the consequential damages cap does not apply because punitive damages are being sought. If punitive damages are properly sought, the plaintiff is, by definition, entitled to other damages, making nominal damages unavailable. The three damage claims cannot coexist. Claims III, IV, and V should be dismissed on this basis alone.

Loss of Enjoyment is not plausibly pleaded. RCCA Part III, Section 5(1)(a)(iii) defines Loss of Enjoyment as situations where an injured party "loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." The Plaintiff asserts their first experience was "severely and permanently diminished" and that they were unable to perform Fisher duties. Neither satisfies the legal test. After each death, the Plaintiff respawned and was immediately free to resume fishing in Aventura. The Plaintiff's ability to fish or engage in any activity was fully restored upon respawn. That a new player's early experience was unpleasant does not meet the definition; the RCCA requires lasting inability to engage in activities, not a negative first impression. RCCA Part III, Section 5(2)(a) further requires proof on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would experience the same consequential damage. No reasonable person standard supports a finding that temporary respawn interruptions produce a lasting Loss of Enjoyment.

Finally, the consequential damages claim is premised entirely on punitive damages surviving (Claim V explicitly invokes the uncapped damages provision). Since punitive damages themselves depend on a valid underlying cause of action, the consequential damages claim fails in cascade if the underlying claims are dismissed.


II. LACK OF STANDING​

Standing under Rule 2.1 requires a cognizable injury in fact, a causal connection to the Defendant's conduct, and a remedy available at law. The Plaintiff fails on all three.

The Plaintiff alleges three murders. In Redmont, death results in an immediate respawn. The Plaintiff suffered no lasting economic loss, no property damage, no loss of earnings, and no permanent diminishment of any kind. A temporary respawn interruption is not a cognizable civil injury under any provision of the RCCA. Without injury, there is no standing.

Even setting aside the injury requirement, the Plaintiff's case is grounded in the crime of Murder under the Criminal Code Act. CCA Part I, Section 7(4) provides that "Criminal Law pertains to offences committed against the peace, order, or security of the state, wherein the state undertakes the prosecution of individuals or entities." Criminal prosecution is a function of the state alone. The Plaintiff's assertion that "each instance of wrongful death constitutes a separate civil claim under the Criminal Code Act" has no basis in the CCA's text. The CCA confers no private right of civil action upon murder victims. The state, not the Plaintiff, is the appropriate party to pursue this conduct.

Where no cause of action exists and no civil injury has occurred, no remedy is available at law. The Plaintiff fails the third element of standing independently. The complaint should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.




III. CONCLUSION​

The Defense respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Claim I fails because Wrongful Death is not a cognizable civil tort, any prior statutory basis has been extinguished by RCCA Part II Section 3(2), and no common law precedent supports it. Claim II fails because RCCA Part III Section 1 is procedural only and the Section 4(3) pathway is inoperative on two independent grounds. Claims III, IV, and V fail because nominal damages are mutually exclusive with all other damage types, Loss of Enjoyment requires lasting inability rather than a tainted first impression, and the consequential damages claim collapses without a valid underlying cause of action. The entire complaint should additionally be dismissed for lack of standing, as the Plaintiff has suffered no cognizable civil injury, lacks standing to privately prosecute criminal conduct, and has identified no available remedy.



 
Your honor, the defense would like to know if the deadline for the Answer to Complaint will be tolled until the ruling on this motion.
 
CreeperTD said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiff lacks a cognizable legal claim and lacks the standing necessary to bring this suit. Dismissal is sought under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges as follows:

I. LACK OF CLAIM​

A. No valid cause of action exists for Claims I and II​

The Plaintiff's entire complaint rests on "Wrongful Death," a tort that does not exist under the law of Redmont. The RCCA was enacted expressly "to provide a single source of truth for civil violations" (Part I, Section 2(2)) and enumerates every recognized civil tort across Parts V through XII. Wrongful Death appears in none of them.

More critically, RCCA Part II, Section 3(2) provides that "any civil violation purportedly created by another Act of Congress shall be null and void unless incorporated as an amendment to this Code." The RCCA explicitly replaced the prior Civil Code Act, which it references in its own statement of intent (Part I, Section 2(1)). If Wrongful Death ever existed under that prior Act, it has been extinguished. The legislature chose not to carry it forward, and Section 3(2) renders it null and void.

The Plaintiff's only remaining avenue is the common law carve-out at RCCA Part II, Section 3(1)(a)-(b), which preserves claims supported by existing common law precedent. The Plaintiff has cited none. The RCCA was enacted in January 2026, leaving an extremely narrow window for any such precedent to have formed. The burden of demonstrating precedent rests with the Plaintiff; it has not been met.

The Defense further notes that the Plaintiff's written statement alleges damages from both "Wrongful Death and Assault," yet no Assault cause of action appears anywhere in the numbered claims. To the extent any Assault claim is implied, it has not been properly pleaded.

Turning to Claim II: the Plaintiff cites RCCA Part III, Section 1(1) as authority for civil damages. This misreads the provision. Section 1(1) states that the damages framework applies "to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct." This is a procedural rule governing how damages are calculated once a valid cause of action exists. It does not itself create one. Without an actionable underlying claim, the damages framework has nothing to attach to.

Should the Court read Claim II as invoking RCCA Part II, Section 4(3), that pathway fails on two independent grounds. First, Section 4(3) applies only where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under this Code. Murder is a crime. It is not a violation under the RCCA; no such violation appears in the Code, and any prior statutory basis has been extinguished by Section 3(2). The conjunctive requirement is not satisfied. Second, Section 4(3)(b) allows a plaintiff to pursue "civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code," presupposing that the Criminal Code itself permits such recovery. The authoritative text of the Criminal Code Act contains no provision conferring a private right of civil damages upon murder victims. Section 4(3)(b) points to a right the Criminal Code does not confer.

Claims I and II should be dismissed.


B. The damage claims are independently defective​


Nominal, punitive, and consequential damages cannot be sought simultaneously. RCCA Part III, Section 4(1) defines nominal damages as "a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages." The phrase "not entitled to any other damages" is definitional, not discretionary. A plaintiff simultaneously claiming $40,000 in punitive and consequential damages is not a plaintiff "not entitled to any other damages." The Plaintiff's own filing confirms the contradiction: Claim V expressly states that the consequential damages cap does not apply because punitive damages are being sought. If punitive damages are properly sought, the plaintiff is, by definition, entitled to other damages, making nominal damages unavailable. The three damage claims cannot coexist. Claims III, IV, and V should be dismissed on this basis alone.

Loss of Enjoyment is not plausibly pleaded. RCCA Part III, Section 5(1)(a)(iii) defines Loss of Enjoyment as situations where an injured party "loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." The Plaintiff asserts their first experience was "severely and permanently diminished" and that they were unable to perform Fisher duties. Neither satisfies the legal test. After each death, the Plaintiff respawned and was immediately free to resume fishing in Aventura. The Plaintiff's ability to fish or engage in any activity was fully restored upon respawn. That a new player's early experience was unpleasant does not meet the definition; the RCCA requires lasting inability to engage in activities, not a negative first impression. RCCA Part III, Section 5(2)(a) further requires proof on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would experience the same consequential damage. No reasonable person standard supports a finding that temporary respawn interruptions produce a lasting Loss of Enjoyment.

Finally, the consequential damages claim is premised entirely on punitive damages surviving (Claim V explicitly invokes the uncapped damages provision). Since punitive damages themselves depend on a valid underlying cause of action, the consequential damages claim fails in cascade if the underlying claims are dismissed.


II. LACK OF STANDING​

Standing under Rule 2.1 requires a cognizable injury in fact, a causal connection to the Defendant's conduct, and a remedy available at law. The Plaintiff fails on all three.

The Plaintiff alleges three murders. In Redmont, death results in an immediate respawn. The Plaintiff suffered no lasting economic loss, no property damage, no loss of earnings, and no permanent diminishment of any kind. A temporary respawn interruption is not a cognizable civil injury under any provision of the RCCA. Without injury, there is no standing.

Even setting aside the injury requirement, the Plaintiff's case is grounded in the crime of Murder under the Criminal Code Act. CCA Part I, Section 7(4) provides that "Criminal Law pertains to offences committed against the peace, order, or security of the state, wherein the state undertakes the prosecution of individuals or entities." Criminal prosecution is a function of the state alone. The Plaintiff's assertion that "each instance of wrongful death constitutes a separate civil claim under the Criminal Code Act" has no basis in the CCA's text. The CCA confers no private right of civil action upon murder victims. The state, not the Plaintiff, is the appropriate party to pursue this conduct.

Where no cause of action exists and no civil injury has occurred, no remedy is available at law. The Plaintiff fails the third element of standing independently. The complaint should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.




III. CONCLUSION​

The Defense respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Claim I fails because Wrongful Death is not a cognizable civil tort, any prior statutory basis has been extinguished by RCCA Part II Section 3(2), and no common law precedent supports it. Claim II fails because RCCA Part III Section 1 is procedural only and the Section 4(3) pathway is inoperative on two independent grounds. Claims III, IV, and V fail because nominal damages are mutually exclusive with all other damage types, Loss of Enjoyment requires lasting inability rather than a tainted first impression, and the consequential damages claim collapses without a valid underlying cause of action. The entire complaint should additionally be dismissed for lack of standing, as the Plaintiff has suffered no cognizable civil injury, lacks standing to privately prosecute criminal conduct, and has identified no available remedy.



Click to expand...
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to make a response to this motion to dismiss.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

ZachofPotatoes10 (Represented by CreeperTD)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense affirms that on June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, was present in Aventura, a designated city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Defense affirms that Aventura is not the wilderness, but clarifies that PvP combat is not legal in Aventura.
3. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that at the time of the attacks, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately 1 day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime.
4. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that the Plaintiff was attempting to perform their Fisher duties and engage in lawful gameplay at the time of the attacks.
5. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that in the three instances shown in the Plaintiff’s evidence, the Defendant initiated unprovoked combat against the Plaintiff.
6. The Defense affirms that the in-game system confirmed: "911 ZachOfPotatoes10 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities,” as well as the next two points.
7. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that the Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff a total of three times in Aventura without any provocation.
8. The Defense denies that the Plaintiff had no weapons and no means to defend themselves, as the evidence presented by the Plaintiff clearly shows that they possessed a stone axe in their hotbar. The Defense neither affirms nor denies that the Plaintiff was a new player and had no armor, although the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of this.
9. The Defense affirms that when the Defendant attempted to attack the Plaintiff again, the server system displayed: "You've been healed and ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit."
10. The Defense denies that this demonstrates a clear pattern of habitual and deliberate criminal conduct, as the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of the circumstances regarding any other deaths the Defendant caused.
11. The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff called /911 to report the Defendant's conduct to the authorities following the attacks.
12. The Defense denies that as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff was unable to perform their Fisher duties and was significantly impacted in their ability to enjoy their first experience in the Commonwealth of Redmont.

II. DEFENCES
1. Your Honor, the Plaintiff has failed to properly establish personal jurisdiction to pursue this case, and lacks legal standing. Rule 2.1 states that:

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...
The Plaintiff fails to show all three of these through what they have presented to the court:
  1. The Plaintiff alleges three individual murders from which they claim damages. Deaths resulting from murder are relatively inconsequential in Redmont; when an individual is killed, they immediately respawn at the hospital, without any economic losses in the form of losing items, property, or earnings, or any other long-term diminishment. A short, temporary interruption is not a cognizable claim under any provision of the RCCA.
  2. As previously stated, the Plaintiff grounds this entire case on the crime of Murder as defined by the Criminal Code Act. Part I, Section 7(4) of the CCA, however, explicitly states that"Criminal Law pertains to offences committed against the peace, order, or security of the state, wherein the state undertakes the prosecution of individuals or entities." The state is the sole entity with the power to prosecute individuals for criminal actions. The Plaintiff's assertion that "each instance of wrongful death constitutes a separate civil claim under the Criminal Code Act" has no basis in the CCA's text. The CCA confers no private right of civil action upon murder victims.
  3. Where no cause of action exists and no civil injury has occurred, no remedy is available at law. The Plaintiff fails the third element of standing independently.
2. The Plaintiff also lacks a cognizable legal claim. The Defense’s arguments for this have already appeared before the court, but they will be briefly reiterated.
  1. The Plaintiff's entire complaint rests on "Wrongful Death," a tort that does not exist under the law of Redmont.
  2. RCCA Part II, Section 3(2) provides that "any civil violation purportedly created by another Act of Congress shall be null and void unless incorporated as an amendment to this Code." If Wrongful Death ever did exist as a civil tort, the legislature chose not to carry it forward, and Section 3(2) renders it null and void.
  3. RCCA Part II, Section 3(1)(a)-(b) preserves claims supported by existing common law precedent. The Plaintiff has cited none. The RCCA was enacted in January 2026, leaving an extremely narrow window for any such precedent to have formed. The burden of demonstrating precedent rests with the Plaintiff; it has not been met.
  4. In Claim II, the Plaintiff cites RCCA Part III, Section 1(1) as authority for civil damages, and yet no authority is derived from that section. Section 1(1) states that the damages framework applies "to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct." This is a procedural rule governing how damages are calculated once a valid cause of action exists.
3. The Plaintiff is attempting to claim three different forms of damages, and yet those three forms, Nominal, punitive, and consequential damages, cannot be sought simultaneously. RCCA Part III, Section 4(1) defines nominal damages as "a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages." A plaintiff simultaneously claiming $40,000 in punitive and consequential damages is not a plaintiff "not entitled to any other damages." If punitive damages are properly sought, the plaintiff is, by definition, entitled to other damages, making nominal damages unavailable. The three damage claims cannot coexist.
4. In Claim V, the Plaintiff attempts to seek consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment, and yet they fail to outline a valid claim to do so. The Plaintiff asserts their first experience was "severely and permanently diminished" and that they were unable to perform Fisher duties. The Plaintiff's ability to fish or engage in any activity was fully restored upon respawn. That a new player's early experience was unpleasant does not meet the definition; the RCCA requires lasting inability to engage in activities, not a negative first impression. Loss of Enjoyment requires a lasting interruption or change, and the Plaintiff has failed to prove that this occurred.

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 twelfth day of June 2026

 
Last edited:
MMiqa said:

​

Case Filing


​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

​

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

ZachOfPotatoes10
Defendant


COMPLAINT​


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, had just joined the Commonwealth of Redmont, having played for only approximately 3 hours over the course of 1 day. The Plaintiff was attempting to begin their career as a Fisher and engage in lawful gameplay in Aventura. Without any provocation whatsoever, the Defendant, ZachOfPotatoes10, attacked and caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff three consecutive times in Aventura.

The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no weapons, no armour, and no means to protect themselves. The Defendant's repeated and targeted attacks robbed the Plaintiff of their ability to enjoy their first experience in Redmont. Furthermore, the server itself was forced to intervene, confirming that the Defendant had caused the wrongful death of so many citizens of Redmont that they had reached the server's murder limit.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from Wrongful Death and Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES​


  1. MMiqa, Plaintiff.
  2. ZachOfPotatoes10, Defendant.

II. FACTS​


  1. On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, was present in Aventura, a designated city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
  2. Aventura is not the wilderness. PvP combat is not permitted in Aventura.
  3. At the time of the attacks, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately 1 day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime.
  4. The Plaintiff was attempting to perform their Fisher duties and engage in lawful gameplay at the time of the attacks.
  5. The Defendant, ZachOfPotatoes10, initiated unprovoked combat against the Plaintiff.
  6. The in-game system confirmed: "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." (P-001)
  7. The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff. The in-game system confirmed: "MMiqa was pummeled by ZachOfPotatoes10." (P-001)
  8. The in-game system confirmed: "911 ZachOfPotatoes10 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities." (P-001)
  9. The Defendant repeated this conduct a second time, causing the wrongful death of the Plaintiff again in Aventura. (P-002)
  10. The Defendant repeated this conduct a third time, causing the wrongful death of the Plaintiff again in Aventura. (P-003)
  11. The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff a total of three times in Aventura without any provocation.
  12. The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no weapons, no armour, and no means to defend themselves.
  13. On a fourth occasion, when the Defendant attempted to attack the Plaintiff again, the server system displayed: "You've been healed and ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit." (P-004)
  14. This confirms that the Defendant had caused the wrongful death of so many citizens of Redmont that the server itself was forced to intervene and prevent further killing, demonstrating a clear pattern of habitual and deliberate criminal conduct.
  15. The Plaintiff called /911 to report the Defendant's conduct to the authorities following the attacks. (P-005)
  16. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff was unable to perform their Fisher duties and was significantly impacted in their ability to enjoy their first experience in the Commonwealth of Redmont.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​


CLAIM I: WRONGFUL DEATH — Criminal Code Act


  1. The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as the unlawful killing of another player.
  2. PvP combat is not permitted in Aventura.
  3. The Defendant unlawfully caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff three times in Aventura without provocation.
  4. Each instance of wrongful death constitutes a separate civil claim under the Criminal Code Act.
  5. The Plaintiff brings three counts of Wrongful Death against the Defendant.

CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 1


  1. The Redmont Civil Code Act provides: "The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct."
  2. The Defendant's three instances of wrongful death against the Plaintiff constitute criminal conduct giving rise to civil damages.
  3. Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit.

CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 4


  1. Nominal damages are available where a legal cause of action has been established, even though the Plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss.
  2. The Plaintiff has established a legal cause of action through three counts of Wrongful Death committed by the Defendant in Aventura.
  3. The maximum nominal damages cap is $7,500.
  4. The Plaintiff seeks $2,500 per instance × 3 = $7,500 in nominal damages.

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 3


  1. Punitive damages are available where the Defendant's conduct was outrageous.
  2. Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.
  3. The Defendant's conduct was outrageous for the following reasons:

  • (a) The Defendant caused the wrongful death of the Plaintiff three consecutive times without any provocation whatsoever.
  • (b) The Defendant deliberately targeted a brand new player who had been on the server for only 1 day with only 3 hours of playtime, with no weapons, no armour, and no means to defend themselves.
  • (c) The repeated nature of the attacks — three consecutive wrongful deaths of the same defenceless new player — demonstrates deliberate, calculated, and predatory conduct.
  • (d) The server system confirmed that the Defendant had reached the murder limit, meaning the Defendant had caused the wrongful death of so many citizens of Redmont that the server itself was forced to intervene. This demonstrates a clear pattern of habitual, deliberate, and systemic criminal conduct far beyond an isolated incident.
  • (e) The Defendant's conduct represents a pattern of targeting and killing citizens of Redmont, making punitive damages necessary not only to punish the Defendant but to deter this habitual behaviour in the future.

  1. The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 in punitive damages.

CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES — LOSS OF ENJOYMENT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 5


  1. Loss of Enjoyment is available where an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.
  2. The Plaintiff had just begun their first day in the Commonwealth of Redmont, intending to work as a Fisher and enjoy the server for the first time.
  3. The Defendant's three unprovoked instances of wrongful death on the Plaintiff's very first day severely and permanently diminished the Plaintiff's first experience in Redmont.
  4. The Plaintiff was unable to perform their Fisher duties as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
  5. A reasonable person in the same circumstances — suffering wrongful death three times as a brand new player on their very first day, with no weapons, no armour, and no means of defence — would experience a significant and lasting loss of enjoyment.
  6. As punitive damages are also being sought in this matter, the consequential damages cap of $50,000 does not apply per the Redmont Civil Code Act.
  7. The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief against the Defendant:


  1. $7,500 in nominal damages ($2,500 per wrongful death × 3 counts)
  2. $15,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's outrageous, repeated, and habitual criminal conduct
  3. $25,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
  4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

TOTAL: $47,500

V. EVIDENCE​


  • P-001: Screenshot of system messages confirming first wrongful death by ZachOfPotatoes10 in Aventura
View attachment 84379
  • P-002: Screenshot of system messages confirming "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight", "MMiqa was pummeled by ZachOfPotatoes10", and "911 ZachOfPotatoes10 has murdered you". There are both instances of MMiqa dying, comparing the chat messages can give you that these are two different events
View attachment 84385

  • P-003: Screenshot of system messages confirming third wrongful death by ZachOfPotatoes10 in Aventura
View attachment 84386

  • P-004: Screenshot of system message confirming "ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit" — confirming the Defendant's habitual pattern of wrongful death across multiple victims
View attachment 84387

  • P-005: Record of /911 call made by the Plaintiff following the wrongful deaths committed by ZachOfPotatoes10 in Aventura

View attachment 84388

VI. WITNESSES​


  1. MMiqa — The Plaintiff may testify about the three unprovoked wrongful deaths, the location in Aventura, the Plaintiff's status as a brand new player with no means of defence, the inability to perform Fisher duties, and the significant loss of enjoyment caused by the Defendant's conduct on the Plaintiff's very first day in Redmont.

VII. REPRESENTATION


The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Redmont Bar Association and is representing themselves in this matter.


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 2nd day of June, 2026

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff's evidence, designated P-005, is not relevant to the case as a whole because in no part of the Plaintiff's initial filing is the call for 911 used in conjunction with the Plaintiff's claims for relief.

 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following response to the Defendant's Answer to Complaint.

I. REPLY TO ANSWER

3-4. The Defence neither affirms nor denies the Plaintiff's status as a new player engaging in lawful gameplay. Silence is not denial. The burden of disproving these facts rests with the Defence — it has not been met.

5. The Defence neither affirms nor denies that the Defendant initiated unprovoked combat. The system message "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself" — affirmed by the Defence in point 6 — conclusively establishes that the Defendant initiated each fight.

8. The stone axe had full and unused durability — it was never deployed in any of the three encounters. The Defendant killed the Plaintiff three consecutive times despite this item being present, demonstrating conclusively it provided no meaningful means of defence. As to armour, the screenshots clearly show empty armour slots. The Defence neither affirms nor denies this — implicitly conceding it.

10. The system message "ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit" speaks for itself. No further evidence is required to establish habitual conduct.

12. The Defence denies loss of enjoyment without providing any supporting evidence. This is addressed fully below.

II. REPLY TO DEFENCES

1. Standing and injury: The Defence argues that death in Redmont is inconsequential because players respawn. This argument would render the entire Loss of Enjoyment provision of the RCCA meaningless — a result the legislature plainly did not intend when enacting Part III Section 5. The harm is not merely the temporary interruption — it is the cumulative and lasting impact of three consecutive unprovoked wrongful deaths on the Plaintiff's very first day. The Plaintiff relies on the Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 1, which expressly provides that civil damages may arise from criminal conduct. The CCA establishes the underlying wrong; the RCCA provides the civil remedy.

2. Wrongful Death as a tort: The Plaintiff does not require Wrongful Death to exist as a standalone civil tort. The underlying wrong is Murder — unlawful killing — as defined in the CCA. The RCCA Part III Section 1 expressly provides that civil damages may arise from criminal conduct without requiring a standalone tort. Conviction is not required per RCCA Part III Section 1(3).

3. Nominal, punitive, and consequential damages cannot coexist: Nominal damages are pleaded in the alternative — should the Court find punitive and consequential damages unavailable, nominal damages remain available as a minimum recognition that a legal wrong occurred. Alternative pleading of damages is a well-established practice. Furthermore, RCCA Part III Section 3 explicitly provides for punitive damages in addition to other damages.

4. Loss of Enjoyment: The Defence argues the Plaintiff's ability to fish was restored upon respawn. This fundamentally misunderstands Loss of Enjoyment. The harm is the lasting impact on the Plaintiff's experience of Redmont as a whole. A reasonable person who suffers three consecutive unprovoked wrongful deaths on their very first day does not simply respawn and continue unaffected.

III. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION — P-005

The Plaintiff does not oppose this objection. P-005 is not material to the Plaintiff's claims for relief and may be disregarded by the Court. The Plaintiff's case rests entirely on P-001 through P-004, which conclusively establish three counts of murder committed by the Defendant in Aventura.

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defence has failed to raise a viable legal defence and requests that the Court proceed to judgment in the Plaintiff's favour.

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 June, 2026

 
Last edited:
MMiqa said:

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

ZachOfPotatoes10
Defendant

I. REPLY TO ANSWER

3-4. The Defence neither affirms nor denies the Plaintiff's status as a new player engaging in lawful gameplay. Silence is not denial. The burden of disproving these facts rests with the Defence — it has not been met.

5. The Defence neither affirms nor denies that the Defendant initiated unprovoked combat. The system message "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself" — affirmed by the Defence in point 6 — conclusively establishes that the Defendant initiated each fight.

8. The stone axe had full and unused durability — it was never deployed in any of the three encounters. The Defendant killed the Plaintiff three consecutive times despite this item being present, demonstrating conclusively it provided no meaningful means of defence. As to armour, the screenshots clearly show empty armour slots. The Defence neither affirms nor denies this — implicitly conceding it.

10. The system message "ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit" speaks for itself. The server was forced to intervene because the Defendant had killed so many citizens that the system automatically blocked further killing. No further evidence is required to establish habitual conduct.

12. The Defence denies loss of enjoyment without providing any evidence to support this denial. This is addressed fully below.

II. REPLY TO DEFENCES

1. Standing and injury: The Defence argues that death in Redmont is inconsequential because players respawn. This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would render the entire Loss of Enjoyment provision of the RCCA meaningless — a result the legislature plainly did not intend when enacting Part III Section 5. The harm is not merely the temporary interruption — it is the cumulative and lasting impact of three consecutive unprovoked wrongful deaths on the Plaintiff's very first day, permanently shaping their experience of Redmont. The Defence further argues the CCA confers no private right of civil action. The Plaintiff does not rely on the CCA to create a civil cause of action. The Plaintiff relies on the Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 1, which expressly provides that civil damages may arise from criminal conduct. The CCA establishes the underlying wrong; the RCCA provides the civil remedy.

2. Wrongful Death as a tort: The Plaintiff does not require Wrongful Death to exist as a standalone civil tort. The underlying wrong is Murder — unlawful killing — as defined in the CCA. The RCCA Part III Section 1 expressly provides that civil damages may arise from criminal conduct without requiring a standalone tort. The label "Wrongful Death" is descriptive shorthand — the legal foundation is the RCCA's civil damages framework applied to an unlawful killing. Conviction is not required per RCCA Part III Section 1(3).

3. Nominal, punitive, and consequential damages cannot coexist: Nominal damages are pleaded in the alternative — should the Court find punitive and consequential damages unavailable, nominal damages remain available as a minimum recognition that a legal wrong occurred. Alternative pleading of damages is a well-established practice. Furthermore, RCCA Part III Section 3 explicitly provides for punitive damages in addition to other damages — including consequential damages. The Defence's reading would render punitive damages effectively unavailable in any case where consequential damages are also sought, which cannot have been the legislature's intent.

4. Loss of Enjoyment: The Defence argues the Plaintiff's ability to fish was restored upon respawn. This fundamentally misunderstands Loss of Enjoyment. The harm is the lasting impact on the Plaintiff's relationship with and experience of Redmont as a whole. A reasonable person who suffers three consecutive unprovoked wrongful deaths on their very first day does not simply respawn and continue unaffected. The psychological impact, the disruption of their first impression, and the lasting effect on their ability to enjoy the server freely constitute precisely the harm RCCA Part III Section 5 was designed to address.

III. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION — P-005

The Plaintiff does not oppose this objection. P-005 is not material to the Plaintiff's claims for relief and may be disregarded by the Court. The Plaintiff's case rests entirely on P-001 through P-004, which conclusively establish three counts of murder committed by the Defendant in Aventura.

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defence has failed to raise a viable legal defence and requests that the Court proceed to judgment in the Plaintiff's favour.

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 June, 2026

Click to expand...
What is any of this? The only thing that I recognize is the response to the objection.
 
Matthew100x said:
What is any of this? The only thing that I recognize is the response to the objection.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, I apologize for the confusion. I have now edited my previous submission with the correct format. I respectfully ask the Court to consider the edited version.
 
MMiqa said:
Your Honor, I apologize for the confusion. I have now edited my previous submission with the correct format. I respectfully ask the Court to consider the edited version.
Click to expand...
Counselor I appreciate your candor, but there is no such thing as a response to the answer. None of what you wrote will be considered at this time. I will be moving the case into discovery momentarily. You can lodge your objection by itself in discovery. You can also remake these arguments during your opening statement.
 
We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 5 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early)​

If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may request the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

Please remember that we are under the old Court Rules & Procedure for this case!
 
Your Honor,

The defense would like to know what the status of the Motion to Dismiss is at this time. Will it be ruled on at some point after the Plaintiff properly responds to it?
 
Matthew100x said:
Counselor I appreciate your candor, but there is no such thing as a response to the answer. None of what you wrote will be considered at this time. I will be moving the case into discovery momentarily. You can lodge your objection by itself in discovery. You can also remake these arguments during your opening statement.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, I apologize for the confusion and thank you for the clarification. You are entirely correct — I was not aware that a reply to the answer was not a recognized procedural step, and I will ensure my arguments are properly presented during the opening statement and discovery. I also wish to note for context that I currently have three active civil cases before this Court, and I believe some procedural confusion arose from managing multiple proceedings simultaneously. I mean no disrespect to the Court or to Your Honor — I have the utmost respect for this Court and its procedures, and I will ensure my future submissions are properly formatted. I look forward to proceeding to discovery.
 
CreeperTD said:
Your Honor,

The defense would like to know what the status of the Motion to Dismiss is at this time. Will it be ruled on at some point after the Plaintiff properly responds to it?
Click to expand...
Yes, case law dictates that dispositive motions be allowed a response. (See Appeal: Denied - In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8 ("The non-moving party must be allowed to respond to a movant’s dispositive motion, unless the presiding judge plans to dispose of the motion without response.").
 

Response


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (Post #5)

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

I. A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTS

The Defendant argues that Wrongful Death does not exist as a standalone civil tort under the RCCA. The Plaintiff does not rely on Wrongful Death as a standalone tort.

First, RCCA Part II Section 3(1)(a) expressly provides that "nothing in this Code prevents a plaintiff from seeking remedy for harm not explicitly codified, where common law principles or judicial precedent support such a claim." Wrongful Death is a well-established common law tort. Section 3(2) extinguishes civil violations "purportedly created by another Act of Congress" — it does not extinguish common law torts, which exist independently of any Act of Congress.

Second, RCCA Part II Section 4(2) provides that "this Code operates concurrently with, and does not limit or affect the Criminal Code, which permits civil damages to be sought for crimes." The Criminal Code Act Part I Section 6(1)(a), as amended, expressly provides that "in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages." This is a direct, express grant of the right to seek civil damages arising from criminal conduct — including Murder. The Defendant's argument that the CCA confers no private right of civil action is directly contradicted by this provision.

Third, this Court has already addressed a substantially similar Motion to Dismiss on substantially similar facts. In Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, the defendant moved to dismiss a Wrongful Death claim arising from an unprovoked killing in a non-PvP zone, arguing — as the Defendant does here — that no civil cause of action exists for in-game murder. This Court denied that motion, finding that "at least one of Plaintiff's prayers could be reasonably granted," that "Plaintiff does allege a specific harm caused by Defendant that was against the law with a possibly applicable remedy," and that "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." The Plaintiff's case is significantly stronger than that in DCR 59 — backed by multiple pieces of server log evidence, a confirmed murder limit trigger, and a clear pattern of habitual conduct.

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING

The Defendant argues that respawning eliminates all injury. This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would render RCCA Part III Section 5 — Loss of Enjoyment — entirely meaningless. The legislature would not have enacted Loss of Enjoyment if temporary death were always legally inconsequential.

The Plaintiff was a brand new player on their very first day in the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Defendant killed the Plaintiff three consecutive times without any provocation. The server's own systems were forced to intervene — the murder limit was triggered, confirming that the Defendant had committed so many wrongful killings that the plugin itself had to stop him. The Plaintiff had no armour, no meaningful weapons, and no means of defence.

The harm is not merely that the Plaintiff temporarily ceased to exist and then respawned. The harm is that the Plaintiff's entire first experience of Redmont was defined by being hunted down and killed repeatedly by the same person. That experience does not reset upon respawn. A reasonable person in those circumstances would not simply continue as if nothing had happened. The Plaintiff's ability to enjoy Redmont freely and safely was permanently diminished from that moment forward — precisely the harm RCCA Part III Section 5(1)(a)(iii) was designed to address.

III. DAMAGES ARE PROPERLY PLEADED

Nominal damages are pleaded in the alternative. RCCA Part III Section 1(2) expressly provides that "awards are to be given for each type of damage if multiple are asked for and meet the definitional criteria." Should the Court find punitive and consequential damages unavailable, nominal damages remain available as a floor. The Defendant's reading would produce an absurd result — nominal damages would only ever be available where the plaintiff seeks nothing else, rendering them practically useless. This cannot have been the legislature's intent.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff has suffered a real, lasting, and cognizable harm. The Defendant killed the Plaintiff three consecutive times on their very first day in Redmont, without provocation, until the server's own systems were forced to intervene. Binding precedent from this very Court supports denying this motion. The law provides a remedy for this conduct.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety and allow this case to proceed.

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 June, 2026

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION (Objection) — P-005

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendant's objection to P-005. P-005 is not material to the Plaintiff's claims for relief and may be disregarded by the Court. The Plaintiff's case rests entirely on P-001 through P-004, which conclusively establish three counts of unlawful killing committed by the Defendant in Aventura.

DATED: This 14th day of June, 2026
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LIST

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff submits the following witness list:

1. MMiqa — The Plaintiff will testify regarding the three consecutive unprovoked wrongful deaths in Aventura on June 2, 2026, their status as a brand new player on their very first day, the absence of any provocation, the murder limit being triggered by the Defendant, and the lasting impact on their enjoyment of the server.

2. ZachOfPotatoes10 — The Defendant will testify regarding their decision to attack the Plaintiff three consecutive times without provocation in Aventura, a designated non-PvP zone, and the circumstances surrounding the murder limit being triggered by the server's own systems.

DATED: This 14th day of June, 2026

 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

ZachOfPotatoes10
Defendant

MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67

VERDICT ON MOTION TO DISMISS​

I. Background​

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Following Supreme Court precedent governing dispositive motions, the Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to respond before the Court ruled on the motion. Having reviewed the Motion, the Plaintiff’s response, and the arguments before the Court, the Court now issues its decision.

The Defendant moves to dismiss under Court Rule 5.5 and Court Rule 5.12. A Rule 5.5 motion may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge. (Old Court Rules & Procedure, Rule 5.5, Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]). A Rule 5.12 motion may be submitted where the plaintiff lacks sufficient standing to pursue the case. (Old Court Rules & Procedure, Rule 5.12, Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated])

At this procedural stage, the Court treats the pleaded facts as true because discovery has not developed the record further.

The Plaintiff’s primary claim is styled as wrongful death. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff and that this killing caused civil harm.

The remaining claims are damages theories. The Plaintiff seeks civil damages generally, nominal damages, punitive damages, and consequential damages for loss of enjoyment. These damages theories cannot stand unless the underlying claim itself is legally cognizable.

The central issue is therefore whether wrongful death exists as a civil cause of action under Redmont law.

II. Rule 5.5 — Failure to State a Claim​

A. Wrongful Death as a Civil Tort
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot pursue this action because the complaint rests entirely on wrongful death, a tort that does not exist under Redmont law. The Court agrees.

The Court has considered the Plaintiff’s argument that wrongful death exists as a common law tort. The Redmont Civil Code Act provides that the Code is a non-exhaustive listing of civil violations and does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking a remedy for harm not explicitly codified where common law principles or judicial precedent support such a claim. (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 3(1)(a), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act). It also preserves existing common law torts already established unless expressly abolished by the Code. (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 3(1)(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

However, the Plaintiff has not provided authority establishing wrongful death as a recognized common law tort in Redmont. The Court has searched the records and has found no established Redmont precedent recognizing wrongful death as an independent civil cause of action. The Court notes that a similar claim appears in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, but that matter has not yet proceeded to a verdict and therefore does not establish binding or persuasive precedent sufficient to recognize the tort here. The Court also notices that the reasoning for the denial of the motion to dismiss is because one of the two claims could plausibly be granted. This case is distinguished from Le9endz_ because this case only has one claim that could be granted.

The Redmont Civil Code Act further provides that any civil violation purportedly created by another Act of Congress is null and void unless incorporated as an amendment to the Civil Code, except for rights, remedies, causes of action, and procedures established under the Bankruptcy Act. (see Redmont Civil Code. Part II, § 3(2), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act; Bankruptcy Act, § 40(1), Act of Congress - Bankruptcy Act). Accordingly, a civil cause of action must either exist in the Civil Code, arise from a preserved common law tort, or be otherwise validly recognized by law.

Wrongful death does not appear as a civil violation in the Redmont Civil Code Act, and the Plaintiff has not shown that it exists as an established common law tort. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a legally cognizable wrongful death claim.

B. Criminal Code and Civil Recovery Thereunder
The Plaintiff’s argument also fails insofar as it attempts to convert murder into a private civil action without an applicable civil cause of action.

The Redmont Civil Code Act provides that it operates concurrently with, and does not limit or affect, the Criminal Code, which permits civil damages to be sought for crimes. (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 4(2), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act). It further provides that where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under the Civil Code, the plaintiff may pursue civil remedies under the Civil Code, civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code, or both, so long as there is no double recovery (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 4(3)(a)–(c), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

Here, the difficulty is that wrongful death is not a violation under the Civil Code. Murder may be a crime under the Criminal Code, but the Plaintiff has not identified a concurrent Civil Code violation that would permit the requested civil damages under the framework of the Civil Code.

The Criminal Code does contain a proceeds-of-crime provision. It states that funds or assets acquired from criminal acts may be seized by the Government in court proceedings, including by fine or civil recovery up to the total proceeds of the offence committed (see Redmont Criminal Code, Part I, § 6(8)(a)(i), Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). But that provision does not create a general private right of action for a private plaintiff to sue for murder as wrongful death. It concerns government seizure and recovery of criminal proceeds in court proceedings. There is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot proceed on a wrongful death theory merely by pointing to murder under the Criminal Code, because they cannot collect a civil remedy under this theory.

III. Rule 5.12 — Standing​

The Defendant’s Rule 5.12 succeeds because there is no remedy which can be sought under the Civil Code.

Standing requires the Plaintiff to show three things: first, that the Plaintiff suffered some injury caused by a clear second party or was affected by an application of law; second, that the cause of injury was against th0e law; and third, that a remedy is applicable under relevant law and can be granted by a favorable decision. (Old Court Rules & Procedure, Rule 2.1, Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]).

The Plaintiff cannot satisfy the third prong. Because wrongful death is not a recognized civil cause of action under the Redmont Civil Code or established Redmont common law, there is no applicable remedy the Court can grant on the current pleading.

IV. Order​

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.12.

This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff may refile if the Plaintiff can plead a legally cognizable claim and identify a remedy applicable under relevant law.

So ordered.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top