Lawsuit: Dismissed PandaHacker5498 V. Bob Bobby [2026] DCR 79

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aelia_SingeH3art

Citizen
Supporter
Aelia_SingeH3art
Aelia_SingeH3art
Attorney
Joined
May 29, 2026
Messages
22
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

PandaHacker5498
Plaintiff
Represented by Attorney Aelia Singeheart

Consent given below

v.

Bob Bobby (Bob596 / bob_535313568)
Defendant

---

CIVIL COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, PandaHacker5498, brings this action against the Defendant, Bob Bobby (Bob596 / bob_535313568), and states as follows:

---

I. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter as it concerns a civil dispute arising within the Commonwealth of Redmont involving breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and harassment.

2. Venue is proper before the District Court as the amount in controversy falls within its civil jurisdiction.

---

II. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff PandaHacker5498 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

4. Defendant Bob Bobby, known in-game as Bob596 and on Discord as bob_535313568, is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

---

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. On June 5, 2026, Defendant approached Plaintiff requesting a personal loan in the amount of $3,000 DemocracyCraft Dollars.

6. Defendant represented that the funds would be used to purchase or upgrade a master fishing rod and stated that he earned approximately $1,000 per hour through fishing activities.

7. Defendant requested the loan and voluntarily agreed to repay $3,500 DemocracyCraft Dollars, representing the principal plus agreed interest.

8. During negotiations, Plaintiff requested a specific repayment deadline for legal certainty.

9. Defendant expressly agreed that repayment would occur the following day at 8:00 PM UTC+2 and acknowledged that failure to repay would constitute a default.

10. Plaintiff, relying on Defendant's representations and promises, transferred $3,000 DemocracyCraft Dollars to Defendant.

11. Defendant accepted the funds without objection.

12. At the agreed repayment time, Defendant transferred only $3.50 while asserting that the payment represented "$3.5k."

13. Plaintiff immediately notified Defendant that only*$3.50 had been received and explained that repayment required the command "/pay panda 3500."

14. Rather than correcting the payment, Defendant repeatedly insisted that he had already repaid the debt.

15. Defendant further stated "thx for the loan," demonstrating an intention to retain the borrowed funds despite being informed that repayment had not occurred.

16. Defendant additionally boasted, stating "look how much cash i made," while refusing to send the agreed repayment.

17. Defendant then sent an additional payment of $3.50, once again falsely claiming that it represented $3,500.

18. Plaintiff has therefore received only $7.00 against an agreed repayment of $3,500, leaving an unpaid balance of $3,493.00.

19. Defendant's actions demonstrate a deliberate course of conduct designed to obtain and retain Plaintiff's money through deception and bad faith.

20. Following the loan dispute, Defendant engaged in a continuing pattern of unwanted communications and harassment directed toward Plaintiff.

21. Defendant's conduct extended beyond Plaintiff and included individuals associated with Plaintiff, with the apparent purpose of provoking, intimidating, or interfering with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's community interactions.

22. Rather than attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith, Defendant continued to mock Plaintiff and persist in conduct intended to frustrate collection of the debt.

23. Defendant's actions have caused Plaintiff unnecessary stress, wasted time, and disruption within the DemocracyCraft community.

---

# IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

## COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

24. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.

25. A valid oral and written agreement existed whereby Plaintiff loaned Defendant $3,000 in exchange for repayment of $3,500 by 8:00 PM UTC+2 on the following day.

26. Plaintiff fully performed by transferring the agreed loan amount.

27. Defendant materially breached the agreement by failing to repay the agreed amount.

28. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered monetary damages.

---

## COUNT II – FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

29. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.

30. Defendant represented that he intended to repay the loan in full.

31. Defendant obtained Plaintiff's money through those representations.

32. After obtaining the funds, Defendant knowingly transferred only $3.50 while repeatedly insisting that it constituted $3,500.

33. Defendant continued this false representation even after Plaintiff explained that repayment had not occurred.

34. Defendant's statements and conduct demonstrate intentional deception designed to retain Plaintiff's money.

35. Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's representations and suffered financial loss as a direct result.

---

## COUNT III – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

36. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.

37. Defendant received and retained $3,000 belonging to Plaintiff.

38. Defendant has failed and refused to provide the promised repayment.

39. Allowing Defendant to retain these funds would result in unjust enrichment at Plaintiff's expense.

---

## COUNT IV – HARASSMENT

40. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.

41. Defendant engaged in repeated unwanted communications and conduct directed toward Plaintiff.

42. Defendant also directed similar conduct toward individuals associated with Plaintiff.

43. Defendant's actions served no legitimate purpose and instead appeared intended to annoy, intimidate, provoke, or interfere with Plaintiff.

44. Defendant continued this pattern after being informed that legal action would be pursued.

45. Defendant's conduct has caused Plaintiff inconvenience, disruption, and unnecessary expenditure of time and resources.

---

# V. DAMAGES

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered:

* Outstanding loan repayment: $3,493.00
* Court filing costs
* Time and effort spent attempting to recover the debt
* Additional damages resulting from Defendant's fraudulent conduct and harassment as determined by the Court

---

# VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

2. Award compensatory damages in the amount of $3,493.00 , representing the unpaid balance of the agreed repayment.

3. Award any additional damages the Court finds appropriate for Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation and bad-faith conduct.

4. Award damages arising from Defendant's harassment and continued misconduct.

5. Award Plaintiff all court costs and any additional fees recoverable under applicable law.

6. Grant such further legal or equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any order restricting Defendant from further harassment or interference with Plaintiff during the pendency of this action.

---

VII. EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Loan Transcript

The attached Discord transcript establishes:

* Defendant's request for a $3,000 loan;
* Defendant's stated purpose for the loan;
* Defendant's agreement to repay $3,500;
* Defendant's agreement to repay by 8:00 PM UTC+2;
* Plaintiff's transfer of $3,000;
* Defendant's payment of only $3.50;
* Defendant's repeated insistence that $3.50 constituted $3.5k;
* Defendant's statements including "thx for the loan" and refusal to correct the payment.

### Exhibit B – Harassment Evidence

Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional screenshots, chat logs, witness testimony, and other evidence demonstrating Defendant's continuing harassment toward Plaintiff and individuals associated with Plaintiff.

---

# VIII. WITNESSES

Plaintiff intends to call the following witnesses:

PandaHacker5498 (Plaintiff) – regarding the formation of the agreement, transfer of funds, Defendant's admissions, and damages suffered.

Wizsm– regarding Defendant's conduct, communications, and continuing harassment directed toward Plaintiff and Plaintiff's associates.

Plaintiff reserves the right to call additional witnesses identified through discovery or subsequent investigation.

---

Respectfully submitted,

Attorney Aelia Singeheart, representative of
PandaHacker5498
Plaintiff

---

VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand the penalties associated with knowingly making false statements before the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
 

Attachments

  • Tickets V2 _ A Discord Support Manager Bot.pdf
    Tickets V2 _ A Discord Support Manager Bot.pdf
    585.7 KB · Views: 28
  • Screenshot 2026-06-06 213226.png
    Screenshot 2026-06-06 213226.png
    13.5 KB · Views: 32
  • bobH2.png
    bobH2.png
    17.1 KB · Views: 31
  • BobH1.png
    BobH1.png
    41.2 KB · Views: 29
  • bobH.png
    bobH.png
    31.3 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@bob598 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Pandahacker5498 v Bob Bobby [2026] DCR 79

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,

Theory, Talion & Partners is present on behalf of the defendant. I, CreeperTD, will be lead counsel, and @JokesOnU will be co-counsel.

 
Your Honor,

Theory, Talion & Partners is present on behalf of the defendant. I, CreeperTD, will be lead counsel, and @JokesOnU will be co-counsel.

You have 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint
 
Your Honor,

Theory, Talion & Partners is present on behalf of the defendant. I, CreeperTD, will be lead counsel, and @JokesOnU will be co-counsel.

Your honor,

I mistakenly listed J0kesOnU as co-counsel rather than @CallMeMateo, who I intended to have as co-counsel instead. I apologize for this error, and would like to amend it for the record.
 
Your honor,

The Defense humbly requests a 24 hour extension for the Answer to Complaint, as the Co-Counsel only just finished moving between houses in real life today.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

PandaHacker5498
Plaintiff

v.

Bob596 (Represented by CallMeMateo of Theory, Talion, & Partners Inc.)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense affirms that on June 5, 2026, Defendant approached Plaintiff requesting a personal loan in the amount of $3,000 DemocracyCraft Dollars.

2. The Defense affirms that the Defendant represented that the funds would be used to purchase or upgrade a master fishing rod and stated that he earned approximately $1,000 per hour through fishing activities.

3. The Defense affirms that the Defendant requested the loan and voluntarily agreed to repay $3,500 DemocracyCraft Dollars, representing the principal plus agreed interest.

4. The Defense affirms that during negotiations, Plaintiff requested a specific repayment deadline for legal certainty.

5. The Defense denies that the Defendant expressly agreed that repayment would occur the following day at 8:00 PM UTC+2 and acknowledged that failure to repay would constitute a default.

6. The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff, relying on Defendant's representations and promises, transferred $3,000 DemocracyCraft Dollars to Defendant.

7. The Defense affirms that the Defendant accepted the funds without objection.

8. The Defense denies that at the agreed repayment time, Defendant transferred only 3.50 DC$ while asserting that the payment represented "$3.5k."

9. The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff immediately notified Defendant that only 3.50 DC$ had been received and explained that repayment required the command "/pay panda 3500."

10. The Defense affirms that rather than correcting the payment, the Defendant repeatedly insisted that he had already repaid the debt.

11. The Defense affirms that the Defendant further stated "thx for the loan," but denies this demonstrated an intention to retain the borrowed funds despite being informed that repayment had not occurred.

12. The Defense affirms that the Defendant additionally boasted, stating "look how much cash i made," but denies he was refusing to send the agreed repayment.

13. The Defense denies that the Defendant then sent an additional payment of 3.50 DC$, once again falsely claiming that it represented $3,500.

14. The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff has therefore received only 7.00 DC$ against an agreed repayment of 3,500 DC$, leaving an unpaid balance of 3,493.00 DC$.

15. The Defense denies that the Defendant's actions demonstrate a deliberate course of conduct designed to obtain and retain Plaintiff's money through deception and bad faith.

16. The Defense denies that following the loan dispute, the Defendant engaged in a continuing pattern of unwanted communications and harassment directed toward Plaintiff.

17. The Defense denies that the Defendant's conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff and included individuals associated with the Plaintiff, with the apparent purpose of provoking, intimidating, or interfering with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's community interactions.

18. The Defense denies that rather than attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith, Defendant continued to mock Plaintiff and persist in conduct intended to frustrate collection of the debt.

19. The Defense denies that the Defendant's actions have caused Plaintiff unnecessary stress, wasted time, and disruption within the DemocracyCraft community.

II. DEFENCES

  1. According to the first attachment to the Plaintiff’s initial complaint (no exhibits have been properly labeled with P-###), it is clear the payment was due at 8:00pm EST (UTC-5) on the 6th day of June 2026, contrary to the time claimed by the Plaintiff in Fact 5 (8:00 PM UTC+2). Until this point, the Defendant has full ability to fulfill his obligations to the Plaintiff. This lawsuit was brought up to the court at 4:38pm EST (UTC-5) on Saturday, June 6th 2026. Therefore any claim regarding “at the agreed repayment time” is summarily false when the suit was filed.
    1. The Defendant stated Eastern Standard Time (UTC-5), since it currently is Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4), Defense is willing to accept either EDT or EST as the established timezone where repayment is due and either of these timezones are not reached at time of suit.
  2. The Defendant attempted to fulfill his obligations in multiple ways to avoid this lawsuit prior to the deadline for repayment, even offering a higher repayment amount prior to the termination of his contractual agreement as seen in Exhibit (D-001) as defined by Contract Act §9.
  3. The Plaintiff continuously declined repayment multiple times making it impossible for the Defendant to fulfill his obligations.
  4. As seen in Exhibit (D-002) the Plaintiff’s associates were extorting the Defendant with statements that if the Defendant did not submit payment, then he would be left unable to pay and would be forced to court for a contract which he had full intent on paying by the agreed upon deadline.
  5. Harassment is not a tort under common law or the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA). Therefore, it cannot be pursued as a claim by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s representation failed to cite any relevant cases related to these claims, as can be seen in the Verdict in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, in which the Presiding Officer noted that a Plaintiff must point to either a judicial precedent or a statute which established any tort not contained within the RCCA.

III. EVIDENCE

D-001:
1781974495604.png

D-002:
1781974495612.png

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 19th day of June 2026.

 

Motion


Motion​


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Factual Error

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Under Rule 5.14, a case may be dismissed when a clear factual error was made in the complaint.
2. The complaint states that the payment was due on the “following day at 8:00 PM UTC+2” (specifically, Saturday, June 6th, 2026). However, as seen in the Plaintiff’s first unlabeled exhibit the document clearly shows the payment was due at 8:00 PM UTC-5 on Saturday, June 6th, 2026.
2. The lawsuit was filed at 4:38 PM (UTC-5) on Saturday, June 6th, 2026 before the contract was filed before the contract’s payment was due.
3. The Defendant spent hours attempting to pay back the loan and confirm the proper way to complete his obligations and duties according to the contract.
4. The Defendant still had over 2 hours to complete his payment to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff ceased contact and refused to accept payment from the Defendant.

 

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defense believes the Plaintiff’s initial complaint includes, and that none of its evidence has been presented with the proper naming conventions as stated in Rule 4.6, which states “Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###).” Rule 4.6 also goes on to state that any evidence improperly labeled may be struck for improper formatting.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Your honor,

The defense believes the contract was terminated by the Plaintiff under the Contracts Act §9 and §14(1) and moves for the court to rule this contract terminated in full. The Contract Act states that a contract may be terminated by the innocent party in cases of frustration. Frustration defined in §14(1) includes when an event makes the performance of the contract impossible. The Plaintiff cutting off all contact with the Defendant, refusing repayment from the Defendant, and then suing the Defendant as seen in Exhibit (D-001) and the Plaintiff’s counsel’s Statement of Fact points 20, 21, and 22 (in their document, in our response 16, 17, and 18). The Plaintiff cut all contact with the Defendant prematurely and threatened legal action prior to the suit and when requesting to repay the loan in full the Plaintiff continued to threaten legal action regardless of the payment status. Due to these issues, Defense believes the conditions for frustration were adequately met and the contract should be terminated.

 

Court Order


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

I will grant the motion to dismiss, but instead of Rule 5.14, it will be for Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim.

The defendant brings up an important issue when it comes to the complaint and the evidence provided. The timezones. The plaintiff seems to have switched up the time zones and, by doing so, has alleged no valid claims.

The plaintiff seems to have mistaken what the defendant said. The time zone given was Eastern Standard Time. This is the timezone known for housing the East Coast of the USA. The plaintiff in their complaint cites UTC+2, which would be Eastern European time, but more importantly, not Eastern Standard time. The time at which this case was filed was 4:38 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, which is before the 8 p.m. deadline. As it was before the deadline, there was no breach of contract at the time this lawsuit was filed, leading us to lack a claim.

As for the only other claim besides the claims deriving from the breach of contract, Harrassment. This is again a failure to state a valid claim, as many cases in the District court have done. There is no civil tort in the Redmont Civil Code Act for "Harassment." There isn't even a crime with the name harassment, though this would likely be disturbing the peace under Part V, Section 1. A valid civil tort must be claimed; the court can't make your case for you.


For these reasons, this case is dismissed without Prejudice

So adjudicated,
Judge Ko

 
An appeal concerning this action was denied by the Federal Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top