Lawsuit: Pending PetitRenard_ v. Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] DCR 78

[SimplyPiano]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


PetitRenard_
Plaintiff
v.

Department of Construction & Transportation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


I received plot c115 in clean condition with no violations whatsoever. Then, within just hours of receiving it, the Department of Construction & Transportation filed an eviction report against me. I immediately got to work on the construction and made real progress, but when I requested a deferral, they rejected it without any explanation or legal basis. Their arbitrary refusal to grant me an exemption under Section 20(1) of the Property Standards Act has costed me $70,000 in plot value and construction costs.

I. PARTIES

1. PetitRenard_
2. Department of Construction & Transportation

II. FACTS

1. On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff received ownership of plot c115 with no active violations or eviction reports on file.
2. On the same day, September 24, 2025, the Defendant filed an eviction report against plot c115 citing Non-Compliance for Invalid commercial use/purpose.
3. The eviction date was set for October 8, 2025, providing fourteen days from the filing date for compliance.
4. Throughout the fourteen-day compliance period, Plaintiff actively constructed the building and made substantial progress toward meeting zoning and construction requirements.
5. Plaintiff submitted a request for an eviction deferral to the Defendant in accordance with DCT policy.
6. On or about October 8, 2025, the Defendant rejected Plaintiff's deferral request without providing legal justification or applying Section 20(1) of the Property Standards Act.
7. The Defendant proceeded with eviction on October 8, 2025.
8. As a direct result of the eviction, Plaintiff lost ownership of plot c115 and incurred damages totaling $70,000 in lost plot value and construction costs.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
F͟a͟i͟l͟u͟r͟e͟ ͟t͟o͟ ͟G͟r͟a͟n͟t͟ ͟E͟x͟e͟m͟p͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟U͟n͟d͟e͟r͟ ͟S͟e͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟2͟0͟(͟1͟)͟:͟

1. Section 20(1) of the Property Standards Act grants the DCT Secretary authority to issue exemptions when significant progress is being made to rectify a breach.
2. Plaintiff demonstrated substantial progress within the fourteen-day compliance period, meeting the criteria established in Section 20(1).
3. The Defendant's rejection of Plaintiff's deferral request without applying Section 20(1) was arbitrary, unjustified, and violated the Plaintiff's right to fair administrative process.
4. The Defendant failed to exercise its discretionary authority lawfully and deprived Plaintiff of relief to which Plaintiff was entitled under law.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


T͟h͟e͟ ͟P͟l͟a͟i͟n͟t͟i͟f͟f͟ ͟s͟e͟e͟k͟s͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟f͟o͟l͟l͟o͟w͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟f͟r͟o͟m͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟D͟e͟f͟e͟n͟d͟a͟n͟t͟:͟

1. Reversal of the eviction of plot c115.
2. Reinstatement of Plaintiff's ownership of the property.
3. An exemption or extension under Section 20(1) of the Property Standards Act to allow Plaintiff to complete construction.
4. Damages in the amount of $70,000 for losses directly caused by the improper eviction, including lost plot value and construction costs.
5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

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 11th day of October, 2025

SimplyPiano - Attorney for Plaintiff

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur , is required to appear before the district Court in the case of PetitRenard_ v. Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] DCR 78

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.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Present

 

[dearev]

Present

You shall have 48 hours to present an answer to complaint.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Answer to Complaint

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

PetitRenard_
Plaintiff
v.

Department of Construction & Transportation
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Neither Affirm nor Deny when the plaintiff received ownership of the plot; Affirm there was no pending eviction on the plot prior to September 24th 2025.
2. Affirm.
3. Affirm.
4. Affirm the plaintiff made progress on the construction of the building, neither affirm nor deny how active the plaintiff was toward this goal or the substantiality of the progress made.
5. Affirm the plaintiff did request for a deferral.
6. Deny this was ‘on or about Oct 8th’ - This is a dated entry happening September 28th and was denied by DCT employee Winterwolf in the thread; Deny that legal justification was not provided.
7. Affirm.
8. Affirm that eviction means you lose ownership of the evicted plot, deny that damages were incurred that the Commonwealth is liable for.

II. DEFENCES
1. The plot was initially reported by Multiman155 for the reason of “Invalid Commercial use/purpose”, as noted in Fact 2; Further on September 28th on the denial of the deferral the plaintiff was told once again the reason for the eviction report as a part of the denial -- Winterwolf going so far as to point out that this eviction report was NOT for ‘lack of progress’ or ‘eyesore’, and attaching the policy for ‘Commercial Purpose’, as well as suggesting to the plaintiff they should open a DCT ticket if they need suggestions for resolution of the report.
This is a clear show of good faith from the DCT to enable the plaintiff to maintain their plot if they put in the work that was expected of them for said plot as reported on.
2. The plaintiff’s failure to rectify in line with policy and attempts from the DCT to have them reach out for suggestions does not constitute an ‘improper eviction’
3. The plaintiff is asking for both the reinstatement of the plot, as well as damages in the form of ‘lost plot value’ and ‘construction costs’ -- The plaintiff is not entitled to double-dip into damages, and notably the plot is being removed from the auction queue for the duration of this case despite the lack of a court order to do so, the plot is not incurring any material loss during this period.
4. Exemptions under the Property Standards Act are not a right, they are a privilege extended under certain conditions -
(a) there is a compassionate and compelling reason requiring an exemption/extension
(b) that the exemption/extension does not undermine the intent of the eviction process
(c) that there is significant progress being made to rectify the breach
(d) in the interests of large-scale development

This particular property fails on multiple points; the reason is not compassionate or compelling given they ignored the reason for the report and opted to instead construct more on the plot.
An extension would certainly undermine the intent of the eviction process; no progress had been made toward the goal of the report - yet the plaintiff was on and capable of fulfilling the request.
There was no progress being made to rectify the breach at all, the plaintiff instead opted to build walls.
The building itself is not ‘large-scale’ and the building that does exist contains no chestshops or rentals -- having no commercial use, this was not a report about not having ‘enough’ - it’s a report about having NONE.
5. A commercial purpose (D-001/D-002) for the DCT generally requires that plots have:

‘A significant proportion of the building’s usable area is actively used for commercial activity relative to the building’s overall size’ - This plot has nothing. It is an unfinished building with no rental signs, chestshops, or other commercial ventures. (D-003 -- D-011)

‘Interior spaces are furnished or decorated in a manner consistent with their stated use;’ - This plot has no furnishings at all. (D-003 -- D-011)

‘Multiple areas or units within the building are made available for use by others (e.g., offices, retail space, rentable areas, etc.);’ - Not a single area or unit within the building is for use by others. (D-003 -- D-011)

‘The use of the building reflects a reasonable scale given its size (e.g., a skyscraper is not primarily occupied by storage or a handful of shops).’ - Hard to say as again there is nothing inside of this plot. (D-003 -- D-011)

Witnesses:
Multiman155

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 15th day of October 2025

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

Spoiler: D-007

Spoiler: D-008

Spoiler: D-009

Spoiler: D-010

Spoiler: D-011

 

[dearev]

Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days, Discovery can be ended early if both parties agree.