Lawsuit: Pending MrEntomology v. DocTheory [2025] FCR 132

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MrEntomology (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

On or around 20 July 2025, the Defendant deliberately requested and completed a paste of plot c261 that destroyed Plaintiff's business operation and inventory he was renting on the plot, without providing any notice whatsoever. The Defendant knew the Plaintiff was operating a business on his property, yet he chose to proceed with a destructive paste that erased thousands of dollars worth of inventory. Plaintiff received no warning, no opportunity to remove items, and no compensation.

I. PARTIES​

1. MrEntomology
2. DocTheory

​

II. FACTS​

1. The Plaintiff owns and operates the business "Obesity." (P-001)
2. At the time of the incident, the Defendant owned plot c261 in Reveille.
3. The Plaintiff was granted permission by the previous owner of plot c261 to set up chestshops for Obesity, on the condition that the shops sold "RU" banners.
4. The plot was subsequently transferred to Defendant, but the rental rights were still maintained by the Plaintiff.
5. The Defendant became the new effective landlord of the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff stocked his chestshops at c261 with valuable and rare items, including but not limited to maces and sponges. (P-002)
7. The Plaintiff's chestshops at c261 contained the following inventory:
a. Four (4) maces valued at $2,999 each
b. Thirteen (13) sponges valued at $1,969.69 each
c. Seven hundred twenty-three (723) grass blocks valued at $2.69 each
8. On or around 12 July 2025, the Defendant submitted a Paste Request Application to the DCT for plot c261. (P-003)
9. In his Paste Request Application, the Defendant did not disclose the existence of the Plaintiff's chestshops or business operations on the plot. (P-003)
10. The Defendant did not provide any notice to the Plaintiff that he was requesting a paste of plot c261.
11. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff any opportunity to remove his inventory or business operations before the paste.
12. On or around 20 July 2025, the DCT completed the paste of plot c261, completely destroying the Plaintiff's chestshops and all inventory contained within them. (P-003)
13. The total value of the Plaintiff's destroyed inventory was approximately $39,546.84, calculated as follows:
a. Maces: 4 x $2,999 = $11,996.00
b. Sponges: 13 x $1,969.69 = $25,605.97
c. Grass blocks: 723 x $2.69 = $1,944.87
14. In a subsequent ticket with the DCT, the department confirmed that their policy is to "paste straight over the building, disregarding any chests & the like." (P-004)
15. The Defendant provided no warning to the Plaintiff before, during, or immediately after the paste was completed.
16. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with a refund for any pre-paid rent.
17. The Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff for the destruction of his business operations.
18. Plot c261 was the primary location for the Plaintiff's business operations for Obesity.
19. The Plaintiff lost not only his inventory but also his ability to continue operating his business at that location.
20. The Defendant's actions were deliberate and knowing, as he was aware of the Plaintiff's business operations on his property.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Violation of Duty of Disclosure​

The Property Standards Act, Section 15 states:

15 - Duty of Disclosure
(1) Failure to Disclose
A tort that occurs when a party fails to provide the other parties with all legally required information and or documents which are relevant to a property.
Per Tort: The tort may be liable for treble damages incurred by the recipient as a result of the failure to disclose.
(a) A plea of ignorance to a report is not an admissible defense to failure to disclose.

The Defendant had information that was absolutely relevant to the property - he was planning to request a paste that would destroy everything on plot c261, including the Plaintiff's entire business operation and inventory. As the Plaintiff's landlord, the Defendant had a legal duty to disclose this information to the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff could protect his property and business.

The Defendant's failure to disclose his paste plans directly caused the Plaintiff to lose $39,546.84 worth of inventory. The Defendant cannot claim ignorance - he knew the Plaintiff operated a business on his property, he knew the paste would destroy everything on the plot, and he deliberately chose not to inform the Plaintiff. This is a clear violation of the Duty of Disclosure.

​

2. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing​

The Contracts Act, Section 14 states:

14 - Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
(1) Parties to a contract shall perform their respective duties and exercise their rights under the contract in good faith and in a manner that is fair and just.
(2) There exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract covered by this Act, whether or not expressly stated. This covenant shall be read into contracts to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship.

The continued rental of the space by the Plaintiff for his business, created mutual obligations between the parties.

The Defendant violated his duty of good faith and fair dealing by:

• Requesting a paste that would destroy the Plaintiff's property without any notice
• Failing to give the Plaintiff any opportunity to remove his inventory
• Prioritising his own interests (getting a new building pasted) over the Plaintiff's contractual rights
• Acting in a manner that was neither fair nor just toward his tenant

No reasonable person dealing in good faith would destroy their tenant's business and $39,546.84 worth of inventory without at least providing notice and an opportunity to protect that property. The Defendant's conduct violated the fundamental covenant of good faith that exists in every contract.

​

3. Violation of Tenant Rights Act​

The Tenant Rights Act, Section 3(1) states:

3 - Private Renting
When a player is renting from a private landlord, they are entitled to the rights listed in this section:
(1) Tenants must be given 24 hours notice from the landlord before they are evicted from a rental region, excluding a report made by a building inspector or if the tenant has been permanently banned/deported.

This requires landlords to give tenants 24 hours notice before eviction. The paste effectively evicted the Plaintiff by completely destroying his rental space and making it impossible for him to continue his business operations there.

The Tenant Rights Act, Section 3(2) states:

(2) Tenants must be given a full refund of the rent they have pre-paid if evicted. unless the tenant has been permanently banned/deported.

This requires landlords to give evicted tenants a full refund of any pre-paid rent. When the paste destroyed the Plaintiff's rental space and effectively evicted him, the Defendant was obligated to refund any rent the Plaintiff had paid, but failed to do so.

The Tenant Rights Act, Section 5 states:

5 - Business Establishments
(1) Landlords may be required to compensate the tenant for the cost of moving their operations, if the rented region was:
(a) The main operation of a registered business,
(b) The main operation of a group, party, or organization otherwise.

Plot c261 was the main location for the Plaintiff's business Obesity. The Defendant was required to compensate the Plaintiff for business relocation costs. However, the Defendant went far beyond merely requiring the Plaintiff to move - he completely destroyed the Plaintiff's entire business operation and inventory, causing damages that far exceed simple "moving costs."

​

4. Outrageous Conduct​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a) states:

5 - Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) “Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.

The Defendant's actions are outrageous because:

• He deliberately destroyed a tenant's entire business operation without any warning
• He knew the Plaintiff operated a business on his property and still chose to proceed without notice
• He violated multiple statutory protections designed to protect tenants
• He caused $39,546.84 in damages through his deliberate choice not to provide notice

Under Legal Damages Act, Section 5(3)(a), when assessing punitive damages, "the judicial officer can properly consider the character of the defendant's act." The character of the Defendant's act - knowingly destroying a business without warning while violating multiple laws - warrants substantial punitive damages to deter such conduct in the future.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $118,640.52 in Treble Damages under the Duty of Disclosure violation, Property Standards Act Section 15, representing three times the compensatory damages of $39,546.84

2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages due to the outrageous actions of the Defendant, pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 5

3. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 9(2)(c)

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/docstheory-paste-request-application.27054/

Spoiler: P-004

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 14th day of December 2025

Spoiler: Proof of Representation