Lawsuit: Dismissed Multiman155 v. Cahania [2025] DCR 34

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Franciscus

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
5th Anniversary
Multiman155
Multiman155
Attorney
Joined
Apr 25, 2025
Messages
12

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Multiman155
Plaintiff

v.
Cahania
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the UTC morning of 28 April 2025, I was violently and utterly attacked by Cahania (the "Defendant"). Cahania posed as a tourist, looking for public transportation, and asked the general world if anyone wanted to come to Willow in order to show them public transit. I teleported to Willow, intent on helping Defendant discover the town better. However, upon arriving, I was attacked; Cahania hit me and shot at me multiple times with a gun. I escaped to my home by teleportation, but only after I had taken several points of damage. I reported the Defendant to 911, and thought that would be the end of it as far as I was concerned.

Sadly, it wasn't. The Defendant wasn't satisfied with physically harming me; Cahania chose to harm my reputation too.

Unprovoked, the Defendant decided to post in the game chat that I had attacked Defendant, and that the Defendant had acted in self-defense after my alleged hitting. The Defendant also stated that they had called 911 to report my alleged attack against Defendant, and were informing chat. This was false on multiple counts: I never so much as hit the Defendant during the time I was attacked; I simply warped back to my house. As is shown in the evidence below, Cahania did not act in self-defense, but instead started a fight.

I asked the Defendant to retract these statements, since they were false and defamatory. But the Defendant chose to press on even further, alleging that I had committed the crime of "assault with a deadly weapon" and that courts would find me guilty of a crime.

Because I have been physically harmed, and Cahania has refused to retract even after being asked, I am asking the court to put an end to the Defendant's continued attacks.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Multiman155
2. Cahania

II. FACTS
1. On the UTC morning of 28 April 2025, I (Plaintiff) noticed messages in the main in-game chat from the Defendant.
2. The content of the messages read, "at willow. how can I get on public transit", and "can u show m e" (see: exhibit 1).
3. Upon seeing these messages, I teleported to Willow, so that I could help the Defendant (see: exhibit 1).
4. Upon arriving at Willow, I was viciously attacked by the Defendant. The Defendant hit me and shot at me with a gun multiple times. I took physical damage from the attack of over three hearts (see: exhibit 1).
5. This attack was unprovoked. I did not send any messages to the defendant to provoke it, nor did I hit or shoot projectiles in the direction of the defendant; the defendant started a fight for seemingly no reason (see: exhibit 1).
6. When I was ambushed immediately and attacked by Defendant, I swiftly returned home by typing the command "/home 1" in chat (see: exhibit 1).
7. All of this happened in a rapid span of time; between the time that the first message in fact No. 2 was sent by Defendant and the time that I had warped home for my safety, nobody but Defendant had sent a message in the global chat (see: exhibit 1).
8. I shortly thereafter reported the Defendant to 911, for having attacked me (see: exhibit 1).
9. Later that morning, the Defendant falsely alleged in the main game chat I had attacked the Defendant (see: exhibit 2).
10. The Defendant wrote, "I was attacked my multiman155", "*by", and "had to defend myself" (see: exhibit 2).
11. I responded stating that the Defendant must retract the statement, as it was pure slander (see: exhibit 2).
12. After my response, the Defendant sent a message stating "called 911 to report but thought id inform the chat" (see: exhibit 2).
13. After sending the message in the immediately above fact, the Defendant further stated, "not slander, the court of law will find you GUILTY of assault with a deadly weapon" and "your legal tricks won't protect you" (see: exhibit 2).
14. After I asked the Defendant to retract their false allegations, the Defendant publicly doubled down and again falsely accused me of a serious crime.
15. The Defendant has told the public that they filed a police report against me for the attack that Defendant publicly alleges, even though the attack never occurred.
16. At least 1 individual in the public chat appeared to believe that I had actually shot the Defendant, encouraging me to shoot the Defendant "again" (see: exhibit 3).
17. The Violent Offenses Act defines "Assault" as "The act of hitting a player, causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts; or putting them in a place of danger (such as pointing a weapon at them)".
18. The Violent Offenses Act defines "Attempted Murder" as "The act of repetitively hitting a player, causing a loss of more than 3 hearts. This crime overrides Assault."
19. The Violent Offenses Act defines "Falsely Claiming Self Defense" as "The act of falsely claiming you acted under self defense when committing another crime.".
20. The No More Defamation Act defines "Slander" as "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."
21. The No More Defamation Act defines "Defamation" as "a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander."
22. In attacking me and causing over 3 hearts of damage to me, the Defendant attempted to murder me.
22a. (Had the defendant done less damage to me in the unprovoked attack against me, the Defendant would have merely assaulted me, but attempted murder overrides assault.)
23. In publicly claiming self defense during their unprovoked attack against me, the Defendant falsely claimed self defense with respect to Defendant's attempted murder of me.
24. In repeatedly making public statements falsely alleging that I had committed criminal activity, the Defendant defamed me.
25. In repeatedly making public statements falsely alleging that I had committed criminal activity, the Defendant slandered me.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. As stated in Section 4, Clause 1(a) of the No More Defamation Act, "Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander." Section 4, Clause 3(a) of the same defines Slander as "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization". Section 5, Clause 1 of the same states that "Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer", and subclause (a) thereof states that "In addition, the courts may require the tortfeasor of defamation to issue an apology, which may be made public and/or to the parties with which the defamatory communication was made." As established in the facts, the Defendant has slandered and defamed me in a public forum, causing at least one player to falsely believe that I had committed a violent crime against the Defendant.

2. As stated in Section 4, Clause 1(a) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.” In the case of Defendant's attempt to murder me, the damages are clear - I was physically attacked by the Defendant, causing my temporary loss of enjoyment in Willow, intense emotional damage, and required me to spend my own resources to heal from the attack. Moreover, the slander and libel may be enhanced or eligible under this cause of action, as the slander involved a clearly false claim of self defense.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000 for loss of enjoyment in Redmont, defamation, and slander. The unprovoked attack forced me to withdraw from Willow entirely, and I no longer feel safe in the presence of the Defendant. I also am now much more suspicious of players who are asking for help with things, which has cause quite a bit of damper on my play. Moreover, being branded a criminal is an impediment to high-paying government positions, causing me a potential loss of future earnings.
2. Punitive damages in the amount of $20,000. The totality of this situation is egregious and outrageous. Civilized citizens of Redmont do not attempt to murder eachother in broad daylight, much less set a trap in order to attempt to kill a would-be good samaritan. And it is nothing short of outrageous to attempt to murder someone, file a false police report against them, and also intentionally spread vicious lies about the victim's character through the main in-game chat. For this reason, I am seeking treble damages in total.
3. In the absence of compensatory or punitive damages, nominal damages in the amount of $7,500.
4. Legal fees of the greater of $6,000 Redmont dollars or 30% of the total value of the case as mandated by the Legal Damages Act. Per the same, should this suit reach summary judgment or default judgment before any witnesses are examined, legal fees are sought in an award of the greater of $5,000 or 25% of the total value of the case.

Exhibit 1: Chat logs confirming the vicious attack by Cahania
1745811667129.png


Exhibit 2: Chat logs of the slander by Cahania, and refusal to retract
1745811674288.png


Exhibit 3: Evidence that this false allegation of me attacking Cahania was believed
1745813679000.png


Witness list:
1. multiman155
2. Cahania

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 28 day of April 2025.

 

Writ of Summons


@Cahania is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Multiman155 v. Cahania [2025] DCR 34

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.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor, the 72-hours deadline has passed, and the Defendant has failed to appear.

The Plaintiff moves for Default judgement. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant this motion and issue a verdict based on the known facts of this case.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor, the 72-hours deadline has passed, and the Defendant has failed to appear.

The Plaintiff moves for Default judgement. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant this motion and issue a verdict based on the known facts of this case.

Click to expand...
Motion for Default Judgement denied. A public defender has been requested
 
Your honor, I will be the Public Defender representing the Defense.
 
The defense has 72 hours to provide their answer to complaint
 

Motion


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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

They have provided insufficient claims for relief. The person that they are claiming that may or may not have believed the words of the Defendant is deported and we cannot call them as a witness to find out if they truly believed the statements at hand or, as is most likely given the person in reference, just enjoys violence at any cost.

Additionally, their claim for relief #2 is not a claim at all, they are only pointing out that people can sue for civil damages for criminal actions, but are not actually citing any law or damage.

 
Your honor,

May I respond to this motion? I respectfully request to do so.
 

RESPONSE TO MOTION​

ameslap said:

Motion


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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

They have provided insufficient claims for relief. The person that they are claiming that may or may not have believed the words of the Defendant is deported and we cannot call them as a witness to find out if they truly believed the statements at hand or, as is most likely given the person in reference, just enjoys violence at any cost.

Additionally, their claim for relief #2 is not a claim at all, they are only pointing out that people can sue for civil damages for criminal actions, but are not actually citing any law or damage.

Click to expand...

The Plaintiff respectfully disagrees with the defense's motion, and asks Your Honor to deny it.

Below, the Plaintiff first shows that the Defense's characterization of the second claim for relief is simply erroneous. Then, the Plaintiff contests the Defense's argument regarding deportation and testimony, finding it both to be dubious on its own grounds and also a non sequitur. Finally, the Plaintiff includes a note regarding recent case law, which reaffirms the statutory language contained in the Plaintiff's complaint—attempted murder and violent crime can indeed cause damages by loss of enjoyment.

The Defense is simply in error with respect to their characterization of the second claim for relief.​


Starting with the final paragraph, the defense appears to be simply in error. The defense claims that the Plaintiff has not made reference to (1) laws or (2) damages in the claim for relief, but this can be the result only of a lazy or sloppy reading. The defense's portrayal of the complaint is incomplete, and inconsistent with basic reason:
  1. With respect to the Defense's claim that no laws are being cited:

    Plaintiff clearly states a specific crime committed by the defendant (i.e. "Defendant's attempt to murder me"). As can be understood in the facts Nos. 18 and 22 in the case filing, the Plaintiff is stating that the defendant committed attempted murder as defined in the Violent Offenses Act (i.e. the crime described in Section 5(2) of that act).

  2. With respect to the Defense's claim that no specific damages were stated:

    The Plaintiff clearly states specific damages. These include "temporary loss of enjoyment", "intense emotional damage," and the spending of Plaintiff's resources to heal from the attack. All of these are truly present, and that Plaintiff had to spend resources in order to heal the hearts of damage from the attack is an extremely concrete damage, even if the cost of food itself is relatively small.
As such, the defense's faulty analysis that claim for relief No. 2 does not state a claim falls apart entirely; it is simply refuted. The claims related to the defendant's attempted murder of the Plaintiff are clear, evidenced, and have firm basis in the law.


The Defense's deportation analysis is a non sequitur, and additionally does not appear to hold water even on its own grounds.​


Moving on to the penultimate paragraph: the Plaintiff does not include any deported player on its list of witnesses, so the Plaintiff is a bit confused as to why the deportation status of a player not on a witness list or ability to call an individual not on a witness list as a witness would factor into a motion to dismiss. This appears to be a non sequitur, as the Plaintiff does not rely on the planned testimony of any permanently deported player in the complaint.

The Plaintiff understands this "witness" to whom the Defense is referring as being Naezaratheus ("Naez"), whom exhibit 3 shows as having spoken the words mentioned in Fact No. 16 contained within the Plaintiff's complaint.

But, even if the Court were to take the Defense's argument on its own terms, and presuming that Plaintiff were to rely on the testimony of Naez at trial, the Defense's analysis fails as follows:
  1. The Defense claims that the witness most likely "just enjoys violence at any cost", but has provided no evidence to that effect in the Defense's motion to dismiss.
  2. The Defense has not presented any evidence in the Defense's motion to dismiss that Naez has been permanently deported and therefore will never be able to provide testimony if summoned by the Defense.
    1. In Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, the Federal Court did scold an attorney regarding alleged Deportation of Naez, telling the attorney to "substantiate your accusations with proof" with respect to Naez's deportation status.
  3. The Plaintiff is not able to find evidence that Naez has been permanently deported. Indeed, on 29 April 2025, the Federal Court identified in a response to a motion filed in Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32 that Naezaratheus was not deported at that time.
  4. If Naez is not permanently deported, it should be possible for the Defense to call Naez as a witness at such a time when Naez is not deported. In other words, if Naez is not permanently deported, there should be a time after deportation expires in which Naez could be summoned as a witness by the Defense.
While the defense may believe that the Defense cannot call Naez as a witness, the Defense has not provided any evidence thereof. And, as Naez is not included the Plaintiff's witness list, the defense's whole rationale for dismissing the claim of slander on the alleged basis that Naez allegedly cannot testify would appear to be a non sequitur.

This court has previously found civil damages from violent crimes, including attempted murder, which resulted in loss of enjoyment​

This court has previously found civil damages arising from situations of attempted murder. similar issue was recently considered in Monacht v. MikeOxlonger [2025] DCR 17, where a set of attempted murders did indeed cause civil damages. There are differences between the two situations: the defendant's actions in this case constitute a single unprovoked attack instead of the two in the referenced case, but the principle that the violent crime of attempted murder can give rise to civil damages via loss of enjoyment remains as true as ever.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks Your Honor to deny the motion to dismiss.
 
I am accepting the motion to dismiss for lack of claim.

As for the first claim based on defamation, the claim rests on a single person's opinion which to the courts current understanding is deported. This directly harms the defense's ability to argue their case as it is impossible to refute this claim by calling them as a witness. But since this is no fault of either party, it cannot be held against the plaintiff. However, this does also bring up an interesting question. Can the opinion of deported players cause reputational harm? Deported players cannot speak in game or in discord and can overall not participate in any area of society. It is just about impossible for reputation harm from a deported player to be felt in any manner. The level of harm from a deported player would be essentially equivalent to no harm at all. Therefore, the opinion of a deported player does not reach the level of reputational harm needed for defamation and this claim must be thrown out.

As for the second claim, the plaintiff sites section 4, Clause 1(a) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act which only talks about the ability to use crimes to seek damages, but just because crimes can be used to seek damages doesn't mean that all crimes cause civil damages. This section also states that "damages are not presumed" yet for this case to continue those damages would be presumed. In this second claim the plaintiff claims Loss of Enjoyment and Emotional Damages. For loss of Enjoyment damages, the plaintiff has failed to produce as activity that they were prevented from participating in as outlined in Smokeyybunnyyy v. keeerun [2023] FCR 88 "The Plaintiff produced no evidence that there are any activities in Redmont that they can no longer enjoy in the same way as before these actions occurred." As for Emotional Damages, this type of damage was removed from the Legal Damages act with the Legal Damages Balance Act and therefore can't be used as a claim of relief. Therefore, this second and final claim must be thrown out for not clearly identifying actual damages, leaving no other claim to continue this case.


This case is dismissed with prejudice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top