Lawsuit: Pending Paintball_Steve v. NeonDeveloper and Melowy1

[LuccaVG]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

CIVIL ACTION​

Paintball_Steve,
Plaintiff,


v.


NeonDeveloper and Melowy1,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR CONVERSION, TRESPASS, AND ALTERNATIVE UNJUST ENRICHMENT​

---

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

I am the captain of Red Team and the authorized possessor and operator of the restricted Red Team headquarters, the Willow shop, its private chest shops, the associated inventory, and the RedTeamFund Corporate Account.


The Willow shop was protected by a password-controlled entrance. Signs at both entrances stated that Blue Team members were trespassed and were not permitted inside.


On July 14 and July 15, 2026, NeonDeveloper and Melowy1 entered the restricted area and obtained large quantities of Red Team building materials and potions through internal chest shops configured with nominal prices.


NeonDeveloper used a password that had been leaked without my authorization. Melowy1 had previously been directly told that Blue Team members were not permitted inside the Willow shop.


I did not consent to either Defendant entering the restricted area or obtaining the inventory. The Defendants have not returned the items or compensated me for the resulting losses.

---

I. PARTIES​

1. Plaintiff Paintball_Steve is the captain of Red Team and the authorized possessor and operator of the restricted Red Team headquarters, the Willow shop, the private chest shops, the associated inventory, and the RedTeamFund Corporate Account.
2. Defendant NeonDeveloper is a citizen who entered the restricted Red Team premises and obtained inventory from the private chest shops on or about July 14, 2026.
3. Defendant Melowy1 is a citizen who entered the restricted Red Team premises and obtained inventory from the private chest shops on or about July 15, 2026, after receiving direct notice that Blue Team members were not permitted inside the Willow shop.
4. LuccaVG, Barrister, appears as legal counsel for Plaintiff Paintball_Steve.
5. No claim for relief is brought against thysomeone, also referred to in the evidence as Thy Someone, or any other non-party who may have disclosed the entrance password.

---

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDING​

1. The District Court has original jurisdiction over minor civil cases whose value does not exceed $50,000 under Part II, sections 15 and 16 of the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act.
2. The requested monetary relief is $12,235.68, consisting of $9,235.68 in apportioned treble damages and $3,000 in statutory District Court legal fees.
3. Plaintiff has standing under Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures because:
   
   a. Plaintiff suffered an identifiable property and economic injury caused by the Defendants;
   
   b. The alleged conduct constitutes conversion and trespass under the Redmont Civil Code Act; and
   
   c. Treble damages, restitution, legal fees, and an order preventing further trespass are remedies available to the Court.
4. Because the total requested remedy does not exceed $15,000, Plaintiff requests treatment under the District Court Small Claims Exception established by Rule 2.2(b) of the Court Rules and Procedures.

---

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS​

1. Before the incidents, the Willow shop and Red Team headquarters were protected by a password-controlled entrance.
2. Visible signs stated that Blue Team members were trespassed and were not permitted to enter the property.
3. The chest shops inside the premises were restricted internal shops intended for authorized Red Team use.
4. Building materials were configured at approximately $0.01 per item and potions at approximately $0.10 per item. These were nominal internal prices substantially below the alleged replacement values.

A. NeonDeveloper​

1. On or about July 14, 2026, NeonDeveloper entered the restricted premises using a password that had been leaked without Plaintiff’s authorization.
2. NeonDeveloper did not receive permission from Plaintiff to enter the premises or obtain the inventory.
3. In subsequent communications, NeonDeveloper acknowledged that the password had been leaked.
4. Plaintiff offered NeonDeveloper an opportunity to return the property. NeonDeveloper declined and responded, “sue me.”
5. Chest-shop transaction records show that NeonDeveloper obtained:

a. 1,344 Red Stained Glass;


b. 7 Swiftness Potions; and


c. 28 Haste Potions.

1. Plaintiff calculates the replacement value of the items obtained by NeonDeveloper as follows:

a. 1,344 Red Stained Glass × $0.35 = $470.40;


b. 7 Swiftness Potions × $10.00 = $70.00; and


c. 28 Haste Potions × $3.00 = $84.00.

1. The total replacement value of the property obtained by NeonDeveloper is therefore $624.40.
2. NeonDeveloper paid approximately $16.94 through the nominally priced chest shops.
3. After crediting the amount paid, Plaintiff alleges a net actual loss of $607.46 attributable to NeonDeveloper.

B. Melowy1​

1. Before the July 15 incident, Plaintiff directly informed Melowy1 that Blue Team members were not permitted inside the Willow shop.
2. Melowy1 acknowledged the discussion and disputed the restriction, demonstrating actual knowledge that Plaintiff had denied Blue Team members permission to enter.
3. On or about July 15, 2026, Melowy1 entered the restricted premises without Plaintiff’s consent.
4. Chest-shop transaction records show that Melowy1 obtained:

a. 119 Red Stained Glass;


b. 1,408 Red Wool;


c. 1,728 Red Concrete;


d. 36 Swiftness Potions; and


e. 64 Haste Potions.

1. Plaintiff calculates the replacement value of the items obtained by Melowy1 as follows:

a. 119 Red Stained Glass × $0.35 = $41.65;


b. 1,408 Red Wool × $0.75 = $1,056.00;


c. 1,728 Red Concrete × $0.50 = $864.00;


d. 36 Swiftness Potions × $10.00 = $360.00; and


e. 64 Haste Potions × $3.00 = $192.00.

1. The total replacement value of the property obtained by Melowy1 is therefore $2,513.65.
2. Melowy1 paid approximately $42.55 through the nominally priced chest shops.
3. After crediting the amount paid, Plaintiff alleges a net actual loss of $2,471.10 attributable to Melowy1.
4. Plaintiff attempted to send Melowy1 a written demand offering the opportunity to return the property or compensate Plaintiff.
5. Discord reported that the message could not be delivered because Melowy1 had blocked Plaintiff.
6. The failed delivery screenshot is offered only as evidence that Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute before filing. It is not offered as proof that Melowy1 received the demand.
7. Neither Defendant has returned the identified inventory or compensated Plaintiff for the alleged net replacement losses.

---

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

COUNT I — CONVERSION AGAINST NEONDEVELOPER​

1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34.
2. Part VII, section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides that conversion occurs when a person:

a. Wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner;


b. Intends to deprive the owner of the property or appropriate it to themselves or another person; and


c. Obtains the property through one of the wrongful methods enumerated by the Act.

1. The statutory remedies for conversion are treble damages and restitution.
2. NeonDeveloper allegedly:

a. Used a leaked password to enter a restricted property;


b. Entered despite visible access restrictions;


c. Obtained substantial quantities of private inventory through internal chest shops configured with nominal prices;


d. Lacked permission from Plaintiff to obtain the property; and


e. Declined to return the property after receiving an opportunity to do so.

1. These circumstances support a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that NeonDeveloper wrongfully obtained and retained Plaintiff’s property with the intent to appropriate it.

COUNT II — CONVERSION AGAINST MELOWY1​

1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34.
2. Melowy1 allegedly:

a. Entered the restricted premises after receiving direct notice that Blue Team members were not permitted inside;


b. Obtained substantial quantities of private inventory through internal chest shops configured with nominal prices;


c. Lacked permission from Plaintiff to obtain the property; and


d. Retained the property despite Plaintiff’s objection.

1. These circumstances support a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that Melowy1 wrongfully obtained and retained Plaintiff’s property with the intent to appropriate it, constituting conversion under Part VII, section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

COUNT III — TRESPASS AGAINST NEONDEVELOPER​

1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34.
2. Part VII, section 3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides that a person commits trespass when they enter or remain on land in another person’s possession without consent or legal privilege.
3. NeonDeveloper entered the password-protected Red Team premises without Plaintiff’s consent or legal privilege.
4. Plaintiff therefore requests an order preventing NeonDeveloper from committing any further trespass upon the Willow shop or restricted Red Team headquarters.

COUNT IV — TRESPASS AGAINST MELOWY1​

1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34.
2. Melowy1 entered the restricted Red Team premises without Plaintiff’s consent or legal privilege after receiving direct notice that Blue Team members were not permitted inside.
3. Plaintiff therefore requests an order preventing Melowy1 from committing any further trespass upon the Willow shop or restricted Red Team headquarters.

COUNT V — UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN THE ALTERNATIVE​

1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34.
2. Part X, section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides that unjust enrichment occurs when a person obtains and retains a benefit at another person’s expense without legal justification.
3. If the Court determines that conversion has not been sufficiently established, each Defendant nevertheless obtained and retained valuable property at Plaintiff’s expense without legal justification.
4. Plaintiff therefore requests restitution under unjust enrichment only as an alternative to the requested conversion remedies.
5. Plaintiff requests that any restitution be adjusted to prevent double recovery.

---

V. DAMAGES CALCULATION​

1. Part III, section 8 of the Redmont Civil Code Act defines treble damages as three times the actual damages suffered.
2. Treble damages are expressly authorized as a remedy for conversion and replace ordinary compensatory damages.
3. Plaintiff requests separate and apportioned awards so that each Defendant is responsible only for the loss attributed to that Defendant.

NeonDeveloper​

Replacement value: $624.40
Amount paid: $16.94
Net actual loss: $607.46
Treble damages: $1,822.38

Melowy1​

Replacement value: $2,513.65
Amount paid: $42.55
Net actual loss: $2,471.10
Treble damages: $7,413.30

Combined totals​

Replacement value: $3,138.05
Amount paid: $59.49
Net actual loss: $3,078.56
Total apportioned treble damages: $9,235.68

---

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Enter judgment that NeonDeveloper committed conversion and trespass.
2. Enter judgment that Melowy1 committed conversion and trespass.
3. Award $1,822.38 in treble damages against NeonDeveloper, calculated from the alleged net actual loss of $607.46.
4. Award $7,413.30 in treble damages against Melowy1, calculated from the alleged net actual loss of $2,471.10.
5. Alternatively, order restitution or return of the identified property, with appropriate credits and adjustments to prevent double recovery.
6. Issue an order preventing NeonDeveloper and Melowy1 from entering the restricted Red Team headquarters and Willow shop without the express permission of Plaintiff or another person with lawful authority over the premises.
7. Award statutory legal fees to the prevailing party under Part III, section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, including the applicable $3,000 District Court minimum. Plaintiff does not waive the recovery of statutory legal fees.
8. Grant any further relief the Court considers just and lawful.

---

VII. EVIDENCE AND WITNESS LIST​

Plaintiff submits or intends to submit the following evidence:

1. P-001A through P-001F: NeonDeveloper chest-shop transaction records.
2. P-002A through P-002D: Photographs of the restricted premises, password-controlled entrance, trespass signs, and internal chest shops.
3. P-003: Discord communication concerning NeonDeveloper’s access, the leaked password, the request to return the property, and NeonDeveloper’s response.
4. P-004A through P-004Q: Melowy1 chest-shop transaction records.
5. P-005: Discord communication showing that Melowy1 received direct notice that Blue Team members were not permitted inside the Willow shop.
6. P-006: Screenshot showing that Plaintiff’s attempted pre-suit demand to Melowy1 could not be delivered.
7. Damages Schedule: The calculations contained in Part V of this Complaint.

Expected witnesses​

1. Paintball_Steve.
2. Any Red Team member able to authenticate the signs, access controls, ownership, inventory, and replacement values.
3. Any appropriate custodian of server or chest-shop records, should the authenticity or completeness of the transaction records be disputed.

The screenshots were supplied by Plaintiff. Plaintiff will authenticate them through testimony and, where necessary, seek relevant server or chest-shop records during the proceedings.

---

CERTIFICATION​

By making this submission, Plaintiff acknowledges the penalties of lying in court and understands that knowingly making a false statement in court may constitute perjury.


Dated this 16th day of July 2026.


Respectfully submitted,


LuccaVG
Barrister
Counsel for Plaintiff Paintball_Steve_

 

[LuccaVG]

Defendents Served

 

[Muggy21]

Defendents Served

These summonses are of no effect, the Court will summon defendants.

1. Any Red Team member able to authenticate the signs, access controls, ownership, inventory, and replacement values.
2. Any appropriate custodian of server or chest-shop records, should the authenticity or completeness of the transaction records be disputed.

^ These are not specific people, you must identify citizens to summon.

 

[LuccaVG]

These summonses are of no effect, the Court will summon defendants.

1. Any Red Team member able to authenticate the signs, access controls, ownership, inventory, and replacement values.
2. Any appropriate custodian of server or chest-shop records, should the authenticity or completeness of the transaction records be disputed.

^ These are not specific people, you must identify citizens to summon.

Your Honor,


Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court will summon the Defendants and withdraws the previous statement that the Defendants were formally served.


Plaintiff amends and clarifies the witness list as follows:

1. PaintballSteven, also known as Paintball Steve — Plaintiff and operator of the restricted Red Team shop. He will testify regarding possession and control of the premises and inventory, the password-controlled entrance, the trespass signs, the Defendants’ lack of permission, the chest-shop transaction records, the missing inventory, communications with the Defendants, and the claimed replacement values.
2. Paprika — This witness was present when the missing inventory and relevant transaction records were discovered. They will testify regarding the condition of the shop, the missing items and transaction records they personally observed, and the access restrictions and signs present at the premises.
3. MrTheTanTan — This witness was present when the missing inventory and relevant transaction records were discovered. They will testify regarding the condition of the shop, the missing items and transaction records they personally observed, and the access restrictions and signs present at the premises.
4. S_Starlight — This witness was present during the discovery and aftermath of the incident. They will testify regarding the condition of the shop, the missing inventory and transaction records they personally observed, and any relevant subsequent events or conversations they personally witnessed.

Plaintiff clarifies that Paprika, MrTheTanTan, and S_Starlight did not personally witness the Defendants entering the premises or removing the items. Their testimony is limited to the discovery, condition of the premises, missing inventory, transaction records, access restrictions, and subsequent events they personally observed.


Plaintiff withdraws the generic request to summon an unidentified custodian of server or chest-shop records.


Respectfully submitted,
LuccaVG
Counsel for Plaintiff

 

[NeonDev]

Yo sup, your Honor,
Can I request it we do it on mc pretty please?
Cya!!!!