Lawsuit: In Session Reveille Legion v. BabySoga [2025] DCR 52

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Reveille Legion (Lex Titanum Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

BabySoga
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 21st of June 2025, the Defendant hosted a football event as part of the Department of Public Affairs (P-001). During this event, the Defendant “mishandled a major soccer league event with $75,000 on the line, doubling down on his troublesome behavior instead of apologizing to and helping the wronged players feel heard” (Quote from SPORTS LEAGUE REBOOT/ PUBLIC DPA APOLOGY) (P-002). During this event, the Defendant gave the final score as 1(3)-(2)1 (P-003), despite the team who scored 3 penalties not scoring a single goal (P-004), according to the league rules explained to the players before the semi-final (witnessed by Maxib02, z, Gromit (aka jaja_playz), Mg, Rubilubi55, DuckyGuy9921). The following actions caused humiliation to the team as they lost the cup when they should have won, as well as emotional damages to all of the players involved with Reveille Legion.

I. PARTIES
1. Reveille Legion - Plaintiff
2. BabySoga - Defendant
3. Maxib02 - Reveille Legion Player
4. z - Reveille Legion Player
5. Gromit (aka jaja_playz) - Reveille Legion Player
6. Mg - Reveille Legion Player
7. AbsInf - Reveille Legion Player
8. Rubilubi55 - Reveille Legion Player
9. DuckyGuy9921 - Reveille Legion Player

II. FACTS
1. On the 21st of June 2025, BabySoga hosted a DPA football event.
2. On the 22nd of June 2025, BabySoga stated that the score was “1(3)-(2)1” and Reveille Legion lost the match.
3. On the 22nd of July 2025, the DPA Secretary published an apology and declared that the event was "mismanaged" by BabySoga.
4. On the day of the semi-final, BabySoga verbally told the participants that if the ball (Armadillo) was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal.
5. According to this rule, the WW FC should not have scored a single penalty. This mismanagement resulted in Reveille Legion losing the match.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The mismanagement of the event led to Reveille Legion being humiliated as they lost the final.
2. The players of Reveille Legion suffered emotional damages after they were unfairly denied winning the event and the prize money that came with it.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $25,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of the Defendant and mismanagement of the event.
2. $15,000 in humiliation damages for the humiliation received by Reveille Legion as a result of the Defendant’s actions.
3. $3,500/player ($24,500 total) for the emotional damages of losing the event due to the mismanagement of the Defendant.
4. 30% of the case’s value in legal fees paid to Lex Titanum.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 29th day of July 2025


P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

Proof Of Representation

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@Babysoga4real is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of Reveille Legion v. BabySoga.

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.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Writ of Summons

@Babysoga4real is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of Reveille Legion v. BabySoga.

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.

Good Morning/Evening your Honor

 

[Babysoga4real]

Writ of Summons

@Babysoga4real is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of Reveille Legion v. BabySoga.

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,
Requesting to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Motion

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

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

1. BabySoga was in this Case working for the DPA.
2. As in: "Lawsuit: Dismissed - Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 49" where the Commonwealth is sued for a misconduct. Originally Captain @Mask3D_WOLF was sued. Although this was changed because he was representing the Commonwealth in his function as Captain of thee DHS.
3. BabySoga was representing the Commonwealth in his function as Event/Creative Manager.
4. By the Case of Mask3d_WOLF we can see that if you are representing the Commonwealth they are liable for what you do no matter if positive or negative.

 

[dodrio3]

Permissions to respond your honour.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor,
Requesting to file an Answer to Complaint.

You have 48 hours to file your Answer to Complaint.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Permissions to respond your honour.

Granted.

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

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

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

1. BabySoga was in this Case working for the DPA.
2. As in: "Lawsuit: Dismissed - Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 49" where the Commonwealth is sued for a misconduct. Originally Captain @Mask3D_WOLF was sued. Although this was changed because he was representing the Commonwealth in his function as Captain of thee DHS.
3. BabySoga was representing the Commonwealth in his function as Event/Creative Manager.
4. By the Case of Mask3d_WOLF we can see that if you are representing the Commonwealth they are liable for what you do no matter if positive or negative.

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO MOTION
Your Honour,
The defence submits that they are not liable for their actions on the basis that they were working on behalf of the Commonwealth. However, the only evidence provided to support this claim is [2025] DCR 49, in which the Plaintiff voluntarily amended the named party in their complaint. This case does not contain any formal verdict issued by a Magistrate, and therefore, does not establish binding precedent. As such, it is irrelevant to the current proceedings.
Furthermore, there exists no statute, law, or constitutional provision within the Commonwealth of Redmont that grants an individual complete immunity from civil liability merely because they were acting in a government capacity. Public service does not shield individuals from accountability, especially in cases involving mismanagement and harm

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

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

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

1. BabySoga was in this Case working for the DPA.
2. As in: "Lawsuit: Dismissed - Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 49" where the Commonwealth is sued for a misconduct. Originally Captain @Mask3D_WOLF was sued. Although this was changed because he was representing the Commonwealth in his function as Captain of thee DHS.
3. BabySoga was representing the Commonwealth in his function as Event/Creative Manager.
4. By the Case of Mask3d_WOLF we can see that if you are representing the Commonwealth they are liable for what you do no matter if positive or negative.

Motion to Dismiss is denied at this time. As the plaintiff has pointed out, the cited precedent does nothing to support the defendant's argument. However, this court is well aware of immunity protection. Ergo, I shall be conducting a thorough review of the evidence at the end of discovery to determine whether or not the case has standing to bring legal action directly against the defendant.

The deadline for the Answer to Complaint remains within effect.

 

[Babysoga4real]

You have 48 hours to file your Answer to Complaint.

Answer to Complaint

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

Reveille Legion
Plaintiff

v.

 BabySoga
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
2. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
3.The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
4. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
5. The Defence DENIES this Fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges Reveille Legion isn't not a legal entity.
2. The Defence is not liable, this can be seen from DHS Cases wherein if a person receives the wrong prison time, not the Officer that wrote the wrong time but the Department of Homeland Security is liable.
3. As we can see in IRL in the DFB for example referees are never liable for what happens expections are if the referee was paid-off.

Witnesses:
@lucaaaaMC
@Mask3D_WOLF


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 30 day of July 2025

 

[dodrio3]

Answer to Complaint

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

Reveille Legion
Plaintiff

v.

 BabySoga
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
2. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
3.The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
4. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
5. The Defence DENIES this Fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges Reveille Legion isn't not a legal entity.
2. The Defence is not liable, this can be seen from DHS Cases wherein if a person receives the wrong prison time, not the Officer that wrote the wrong time but the Department of Homeland Security is liable.
3. As we can see in IRL in the DFB for example referees are never liable for what happens expections are if the referee was paid-off.

Witnesses:
@lucaaaaMC
@Mask3D_WOLF


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 30 day of July 2025

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence point 3 is not relevant as it refers to policy that happens "IRL" and not within the world or laws/policies that are active within the commonwealth.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence point 3 is not relevant as it refers to policy that happens "IRL" and not within the world or laws/policies that are active within the commonwealth.

The Defendant may respond if they so choose.

Also, we will now enter Discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days, or may end sooner if both parties agree to such.

 

[dodrio3]

Answer to Complaint

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

Reveille Legion
Plaintiff

v.

 BabySoga
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
2. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
3.The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
4. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
5. The Defence DENIES this Fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges Reveille Legion isn't not a legal entity.
2. The Defence is not liable, this can be seen from DHS Cases wherein if a person receives the wrong prison time, not the Officer that wrote the wrong time but the Department of Homeland Security is liable.
3. As we can see in IRL in the DFB for example referees are never liable for what happens expections are if the referee was paid-off.

Witnesses:
@lucaaaaMC
@Mask3D_WOLF


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 30 day of July 2025

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence’s second point draws an analogy to Department of Homeland Security cases involving incorrect prison sentences. This comparison is not relevant to the matter at hand, which concerns the alleged mismanagement of a high-stakes public event involving $70,000 and the reputational standing of participants.

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff enters the following evidence

P-005

 

[dodrio3]

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

Reveille Legion
Plaintiff

v.

 BabySoga
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
2. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
3.The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
4. The Defence AFFIRMS this Fact.
5. The Defence DENIES this Fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges Reveille Legion isn't not a legal entity.
2. The Defence is not liable, this can be seen from DHS Cases wherein if a person receives the wrong prison time, not the Officer that wrote the wrong time but the Department of Homeland Security is liable.
3. As we can see in IRL in the DFB for example referees are never liable for what happens expections are if the referee was paid-off.

Witnesses:
@lucaaaaMC
@Mask3D_WOLF


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 30 day of July 2025
[/answer]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Defence’s first point claims that the Reville Legion is not a legal entity; they provide no proof of the accusation, and further, P-005 shows the Reville Legion are in fact, a legal entity registered within the commonwealth.

 

[dodrio3]

Integritory:

In your answer to the complaint, you agree with the statement that a goal does not count if it is caught by the leash before entering the goal, yet in P-004 it is clearly shown that this happens in all the penalties that the Reville Legion goal keeper faced. What was your reason for awarding the goals?

Do you BabySoga have any friendship or business attachments to any of the players or the manager/owner of WW FC?

 

[AmityBlamity]

As with the first objection, I am giving the defendant 24 hours to respond to the other objections.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Integritory:

In your answer to the complaint, you agree with the statement that a goal does not count if it is caught by the leash before entering the goal, yet in P-004 it is clearly shown that this happens in all the penalties that the Reville Legion goal keeper faced. What was your reason for awarding the goals?

Do you BabySoga have any friendship or business attachments to any of the players or the manager/owner of WW FC?

1. I am a referee in real life and I will tell you we always try to do our best and be as fair as possible. I believe that one of my DPA employees(I was deputy secretary at the time) was sitting above the goal. I believe it was possibly @jimmygamer who I asked before declaring if it was a goal or not.


2. No I don't.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence’s second point draws an analogy to Department of Homeland Security cases involving incorrect prison sentences. This comparison is not relevant to the matter at hand, which concerns the alleged mismanagement of a high-stakes public event involving $70,000 and the reputational standing of participants.

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff mentions humiliation. Now humiliation could be understood as slander. There was no slander. The comparison is totally fair. Both are allegedly mismanagements.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence’s second point draws an analogy to Department of Homeland Security cases involving incorrect prison sentences. This comparison is not relevant to the matter at hand, which concerns the alleged mismanagement of a high-stakes public event involving $70,000 and the reputational standing of participants.

Your Honor,

As our defence we would like to use one of the questions during discovery.

When was Reveille Legion registered?

If it was registered during Events. It does not make a difference expect it has legal standing, the defence disputes as in the motion to dismiss that the Defendant is legally liable.


If it was registered after the Event it has no legal standing could occur as it could not suffer damages.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence point 3 is not relevant as it refers to policy that happens "IRL" and not within the world or laws/policies that are active within the commonwealth.

Your Honor,

This Defence is an explanation of how it is in real life. And it was to explain also how humiliation works. Is it humiliation if an Eviction Notice is posted? Is it humiliation if a application is denied because they aren't qualified? If it isn't humiliation losing this game also isn't done by the DPA. They just weren't qualified (qualification means skill or effectiveness in this context) so it isn't humiliation. Humiliation also isn't a Law as said before.

 

[Babysoga4real]

The Defendant may respond if they so choose.

Also, we will now enter Discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days, or may end sooner if both parties agree to such.

Your Honor,

We request that the Magistrate summon the following Witnesses:

@jimmygamer
@lucasssserole
@Bardiya_King
@Mask3D_WOLF

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,

We request that the Magistrate summon the following Witnesses:

@jimmygamer
@lucasssserole
@Bardiya_King
@Mask3D_WOLF

Please also call @RspDMcd

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor,

We request that the Magistrate summon the following Witnesses:

@jimmygamer
@lucasssserole
@Bardiya_King
@Mask3D_WOLF

Can the Defendant please explain the relevance of each witness?

 

[Babysoga4real]

Can the Defendant please explain the relevance of each witness?

1. DPA Employee at the Event
2. DPA Secretary at the Time
3. WW-FC Owner/Manager and Player at the Event
4. League Commissioner at the Time and at the event
5. DPA Employee sitting on the Goal of WW-FC (believed after speaking with someone at the event)

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence point 3 is not relevant as it refers to policy that happens "IRL" and not within the world or laws/policies that are active within the commonwealth.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defence’s second point draws an analogy to Department of Homeland Security cases involving incorrect prison sentences. This comparison is not relevant to the matter at hand, which concerns the alleged mismanagement of a high-stakes public event involving $70,000 and the reputational standing of participants.

Overruled. That objection relates to evidence or witness questioning, not a defense in an Answer to Complaint. If plaintiff believes it to be irrelevant, they should have no issue proving such in court with their statements and evidence.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Defence’s first point claims that the Reville Legion is not a legal entity; they provide no proof of the accusation, and further, P-005 shows the Reville Legion are in fact, a legal entity registered within the commonwealth.

Sustained at this time. However, please answer the question posed by the Defendant.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT - MOTION TO COMPEL

The defence moves that the plaintiff in this case provide the following Information about the ReveilleAL/Reveille Legion (db): Members/Employees, Networth, Date of Foudation, Reason of Foundation and all Information concerning Shareholders, Management structure and form of the company: LLC, corporation etc. . And in support thereof, respectfully sees why this should be provided:

1. Reason: This Information is crutial to the Plaintiffs legal standing.

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT - MOTION TO COMPEL

The defence moves that the plaintiff in this case provide the following Information about the ReveilleAL/Reveille Legion (db): Members/Employees, Networth, Date of Foudation, Reason of Foundation and all Information concerning Shareholders, Management structure and form of the company: LLC, corporation etc. . And in support thereof, respectfully sees why this should be provided:

1. Reason: This Information is crutial to the Plaintiffs legal standing.

Permissions to respond.