Lawsuit: Pending Pepecuu v JediAJMan [2025] FCR 99

[Franciscus]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Civil Action

Pepecuu (Represented by MZ Law)
Plaintiff

v.

JediAJMan
Defendant

---

​

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Plaintiff states that on July 17, 2025, Defendant auctioned Plot C998 in the Democracycraft #RealEstate forum; Plaintiff placed the winning $410,000 bid and paid within ten hours. An active DCT eviction report dated July 15, 2025—predating the auction—was not disclosed by Defendant. DCT executed the eviction on August 3, 2025, seized the plot, and auctioned the plot leading $230,000 bid (by Plaintiff) in a competitive auction. To retain the property, DCT imposed a $115,000 former-owner fee and a $57,500 fairness fee. As a result, Plaintiff has lost the $410,000 purchase price, faced $172,500 in fees, and has been deprived of the use of funds—which the Plaintiff argues may be fairly estimated at 3% interest per month compounded since July 15, 2025.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s nondisclosure violated the Property Standards Act §§ 13–14 (failure to disclose), constituted fraud by material omission under Criminal Code Part VII § 7 (with treble-damages authority recognized in lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 50), and amounts to common-law negligence (duty, breach, damages per RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29) as well as breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Contracts Act § 13 (see lcn v. Blazora Corp. [2025] FCR 18; Boomsides & Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10; Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11; FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1). Plaintiff therefore seeks: restitution of $410,000; DCT re-purchase fees if incurred; consequential interest at 3% per month on $410,000 from July 15, 2025; consequential damages for loss of enjoyment (up to $50,000), humiliation/reputational harm (up to $50,000), and provable lost opportunities; punitive damages of $1,747,500; legal fees equal to 30% of the total recovery; and equitable relief including an injunction restraining Defendant from transferring or concealing assets up to the judgment.

---

​

I. PARTIES​

1. Pepecuu (Plaintiff).
2. JediAJMan (Defendant).

---

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 17 July 2025, Defendant advertised Plot C998 for auction in a post within the #RealEstate Forum the Democracycraft Discord (See: exhibit P-A01).
2. Plaintiff placed the winning bid of $410,000 Redmont Dollars (“RMD”) and transferred that amount to Defendant within 10 hours of winning the auction (see: Exhibits P-A01 through P-A05).
3. An Eviction Report against Plot C998 had already been posted by the Department of Construction & Transport (“DCT”) on or about 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time)—over one day before the auction opened (see: Exhibit P-A01 and Exhibit P-001).
4. Defendant had an obligation to inform Plaintiff of the eviction report prior to the Plaintiff's winning bid being made.
5. Defendant did not inform Plaintiff of this active eviction report prior to the Plaintiff’s winning bid being made (See: Exhibits P-A01 through P-A05).
6. On or about 3 August 2025, DCT executed the eviction of property C998 and seized the plot from the Plaintiff (see: Exhibit P-001).
7. The plot went to a government eviction auction following its eviction (see: Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-B01).
8. The Plaintiff retained the property after winning the eviction auction with a bid of $230,000 (see: Exhibits P-B01 through P-B09).
9. The DCT charged Plaintiff a $115,000 former‑owner fee and a $57,500 fairness fee under its then-effective eviction policy (see: Exhibits P-B01 through P-B09; Exhibit P-002; Exhibit P-003).
10. Plaintiff has lost access to $410,000 in the purchase price of the plot to Defendant.
11. In order to retain the plot following eviction, the Plaintiff became subject to $172,500 in DCT fees.
12. The Plaintiff missed out on using funds to purchase the plot and maintain the plot elsewhere, such as by collecting interest.

---

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Statutory Failure to Disclose (Property Standards Act §§ 13(3)-14(1)(a))​

Defendant violated Property Standards Act (PSA) § 13(3) and PSA § 14 by transferring a plot under active eviction without warning the buyer. The statute carries penalties of the “cost of damages incurred by the recipient as a result of the failure to disclose”, with liability imposed on the individual who failed to disclose. In this case, Defendant did not disclose the active eviction notice to the buyer before the winning bid was placed, constituting failure to disclose. It should be noted that under Property Standards Act § 14(1)(a), the tort arising from the failure to inform is per se; as the act notes "[a] plea of ignorance to a report is not an admissible defence to failure to disclose".

2. Fraud (Criminal Code Act Part VII, §7)​

Under Criminal Code Act Part VII §7, Fraud is defined as “knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm.” Defendant knowingly or recklessly omitted a material fact – the presence of an eviction notice – when opening the auction that led to the sale. The Plaintiff relied on this misrepresentation in bidding, and did not anticipate the eviction of the property at the time the bid was placed. This fraud resulted in actual quantifiable harm, as the Plaintiff was induced both to make the purchase and then forced to pay additional fees to the DCT in order to retain possession of the property.

Such conduct is fraud and warrants civil damages under Part I §6(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act. See lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 50 (treble damages for fraud).

3. Common Law Negligence and Breach of Duty of Care​

Redmont common law recognizes a duty of care when an obligation is set out by statute. Failing to follow the statute is a breach that gives rise to damages. See RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29 (“all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty on the defendant” and “negligence requires: 1) a duty of care, 2) breach of duty, and 3) damages or remedy”). Here, PSA § 13 created a clear duty – individuals selling properties must themselves “disclose the report and/or violation to the buyer or recipient of the plot”; Defendant’s breach meets the Court’s three‑part negligence test (duty, breach, damages) and warrants relief.

4. Breach of Good Faith & Fair Dealing​

Under § 13 of the Contracts Act, every contract in Redmont carries an "an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing", which exists "to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship" even when such covenant is "not expressly stated" in the express contract terms. By unloading a doomed plot, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the fundamental benefit of the deal – ownership in that property. See lcn v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 18 (court enforced the covenant where a party’s bad‑faith actions stripped investors of the contract’s value) and Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10 (affirming the precedent that “winning bids are legally binding contracts”, as established in Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11 and FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1).

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment providing the following relief:

1. Compensatory damages sufficient to place Plaintiff in the same economic position he would have enjoyed had the fraud never occurred, including:
   • Return of funds paid — $410,000 would constitute full refund of the original purchase price of c998 as paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under fraudulent terms;
   • DCT re‑purchase fees — $172,500 in the DCT's former‑owner fee ($115,000) plus the fairness fee ($57,500) that were required to maintain possession the plot post-eviction;
   • Consequential interest — 3 % per month, compounded monthly, on $410,000 from 15 July 2025 until the date of judgment to reflect lost investment opportunities.
2. Consequential damages under the Legal Damages Act § 7, recognizing harms beyond pure economic loss, namely:
   • Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont — up to $50,000, compensating for the inability to use or develop the plot during the eviction and litigation period and prior to the plot's repurchase by the Plaintiff;
   • Humiliation & Reputational Harm — up to $50,000, addressing the public embarrassment and damage to Plaintiff’s standing caused by the eviction; and
3. Punitive damages of $1,747,500 (or such sum the Court deems appropriate) to punish the Defendant’s fraud and to deter future violations, consistent with the treble‑damage framework for fraud affirmed in lucaaasserole v Naezaratheus.
4. Legal fees equal to 30 % of the total monetary recovery, in line with the Legal Damages Act §9(2)(c).
5. Ancillary relief as justice requires, including entry of a permanent injunction restraining Defendant from transferring or concealing assets up to the value of the judgment.

---

​

V. Evidence:​

Spoiler: Exhibit P-A01

Spoiler: Exhibit P-A02

Spoiler: Exhibit P-A03

Spoiler: Exhibit P-A04

Spoiler: Exhibit P-A05

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

C998 Eviction Thread; see attached PDF document "c998 Eviction Report"

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B01

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B02

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B03

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B04

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B05

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B06

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B07

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B08

Spoiler: Exhibit P-B09

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

Eviction Policy; see attached PDF "Evictiosn Policy"

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Auction Policy; see attached PDF "Auction Policy"

​

VI. Witness List​

1. xEndeavour (DCT Secretary)
2. JediAJMan (Defendant)

By submitting this complaint, I affirm I understand the penalties for perjury and that this statement is truthful to the best of my knowledge.

Dated: This 26th day of September, 2025

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent