Lawsuit: Pending Rqtting v. .Hannah35210 [2026] DCR 107

[Ebborsnam]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Rqtting
Plaintiff

v.

.Hannah35210
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff alleges that he reached an agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant 15000 dollars in total, of which half (7500 dollars in advance) and the Defendant would give the Plaintiff 5 stacks of Netherite Ingots. When the Plaintiff paid the amount, the Defendant left without giving the Plaintiff the agreed upon 5 stacks of netherite ingots. When the Plaintiff then sent the Defendant a private message stating that he would get his money back, the Plaintiff found out that the Defendant blocked him/removed him from their friend list, which caused the Plaintiff not being able to message the Defendant anymore.

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff: Rqtting
2. Defendant: Hannah35210

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant told the Plaintiff that they were in the Everwild and found around 9 stacks of netherite ingots that was dropped by an individual that died there. The Defendant claimed to want to give back the netherite ingots to the player who originally owned them. (Shown in P-001, P-002, P-003).
2. The Defendant then told the Plaintiff that they want to sell the netherite ingots. (Shown in P-004).
3. The Defendant asked if they can reach out to the Defendant on Discord. (P-008).
4. The Defendant and Plaintiff agreed on a price of 15000 dollars for 4 and a half stacks. (P-013).
5. The Defendant and Plaintiff agree that the Plaintiff will pay half (7500 dollars) in advance and that the Defendant would then drop the ingots. (P-011, P-012).
6. The Defendant then disappeared and blocked the Plaintiff/Removed the Plaintiff from their friend lists on Discord so the Plaintiff was unable to reach the Defendant. (P-014).
7. The Defendant admitted to scamming the Plaintiff (P-017).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant scammed the Plaintiff out of 7500 dollars. The Plaintiff should get this amount paid back in full.
2. Breach of Contract: The Defendant and Plaintiff had an agreement, the Defendant broke this agreement.
3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce: The Defendant engaged in conduct that is misleading and deceptive in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.
4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services: The Defendant failed to supply the goods that were agreed upon.
5. Unjust Enrichment: The Defendant enriched themself at the expense of the Plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 7500 dollars of Compensatory Damages.
2. 15000 dollars in Punitive Damages, the Defendant's conduct was outrageous:
a) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss: The Defendant deliberately caused the loss of 7500 dollars to the Plaintiff.
b) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power: The Defendant misled the Plaintiff.
c) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences: The Defendant engaged in this conduct multiple times, trying to scam one of our witnesses (ThEd0cToR_)

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 30th day of June 2026

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

P-006

P-007

P-008

P-009

P-010

P-011

P-012

P-013

P-014

P-015

P-016

P-017

Witness: ThEd0cToR_

 

[Superwoops]

Writ of Summons

@.Hannah35210 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Rqtting v. .Hannah35210 [2026] DCR 107.

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.

 

[Superwoops]

The Defendant has been sent the following in-game mail.

 

[Ebborsnam]

The Defendant has been sent the following in-game mail.
View attachment 89869

Your Honor, I hereby inform the court that I will not be representing the Plaintiff anymore due to me resigning from the firm. Another lawyer from the firm will take this over.

 

[Superwoops]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER - INQUEST PROCEEDINGS

Upon sua sponte review of the Defendant's punishment history, the Court finds that the Defendant has been banned.

Spoiler: Ban

As such, the Court shall now proceed on Inquest.
Discovery is now open, and will remain open for 5 days. The Plaintiff is reminded that the option to close Discovery early exists as to not clog up the docket with what should be administratively simple proceedings.

The Court takes notice of the change of counsel. @Rqtting please inform the Court who will be taking over; alternatively, the Court requires new counsel to provide proof of representation.

 

[Rqtting]

Your Honor, I consent to NoMoreUno representing me in this case.

 

[NoMoreUno]

I am present, Your Honor.

 

[NoMoreUno]

The Plaintiff would like to end Discovery early.

 

[Superwoops]

Very well! We will now move to witness testimony. The Plaintiff is reminded that at this stage of Inquest, they may "apply by motion for the issuance of subpoenas, writs, or summonses as the Court deems judicially prudent."

Witness summons will come shortly.

 

[Superwoops]

Writ of Summons

@ThEd0cToR_ is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Rqtting v. .Hannah35210 [2026] DCR 107.

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.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Default Judgement

Your Honor,
@ThEd0cToR_ has failed to appear within 72 hours. As such, a default judgement is in order.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Default Judgement

Your Honor,
@ThEd0cToR_ has failed to appear within 72 hours. As such, a default judgement is in order.

Inquest proceedings differ from standard court rules.
Nevertheless, we will be moving on.

For failing to appear as a witness in the case of Rqtting v. .Hannah35210 [2026] DCR 107, I find ThEd0cToR_ in contempt of Court. They shall be fined 20 Penalty Units.

 

[Superwoops]

We are now entering the last phase of these proceedings.
@NoMoreUno please submit a written brief containing a factual narrative of the controversy and all relevant legal arguments within 72 hours. This is akin to an opening/closing statement and will be the final item on the agenda before I deliver a verdict.
As always, you may request extensions.

 

[NoMoreUno]

My apologies for the mistake. I have familiarized myself with inquest proceedings and rules.

​

I. Narrative​

On some undisclosed date, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff with the claim that they had found nine stacks of netherite ingots in the wild, which they claimed to have obtained as a result of a player's death in the everwild (where keepinventory is turned off). They initially seemed to be looking for advice regarding methods of returning the ingots to their alleged 'rightful owner', but eventually prompted the Plaintiff with their proposal- they had no need for nine stacks of netherite ingots, and wished to sell them for 30-40k. The Plaintiff did not wish to buy nine stacks, and came to a deal with the Defendant where the Plaintiff would buy four and a half stacks for 15k. Half of this sum was to be paid upfront, and half of this sum was to be paid after the ingots had been recieved. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the agreed-upon initial sum of 7.5k; however, they were blocked by the Defendant and did not recieve the four and a half stacks of ingots agreed upon. Evidence from witnesses suggests that the Defendant had performed this scam before and intended to perform it again.

Perhaps most damningly, the Defendant confessed that they scammed waygooda, exclusive, and the Plaintiff Rqtting.

II. Legal Arguments​

Breach of Contract occurs when an individual fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse. The contract here, then, must be proved to be valid. A contract is valid if it contains an offer (which here can be reasonably inferred from the expression of mutual agreement in which goods were to be exchanged for money), an acceptance (which can be found when the Defendant and Plaintiff agree upon four and a half stacks of netherite ingots for 15k), a consideration (which here is proven quite obviously, as the exchange of netherite for cash substantiates the exchange of something of value between both parties), an intent (which was clearly expressed when both parties showed they had come to an agreement which they planned to soon execute, showing that the agreement had been satisfying enough for both sides to willing enter into it), and capacity (which is simply each player having more than 6 hours of playtime).

In this case, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce can also be proven. The Defendant purposely decieved the Defendant by enticing them with high-value items (stacks of netherite ingots) that were, given the failure to deliver, never proven to actually exist. As no evidence besides an image provided in DM's that could, given the Defendant's previous deceptive behavior, easily be doctored to show stacks of netherite ingots, nothing proving that any netherite ingots exist has been supplied. We must also evaluate how the Defendant claims to have come into possession of such riches; the chances a player in the wild who is carrying around nine stacks of netherite ingots dying in a way where the ingots are preserved and easily recoverable can reasonably be assumed to be low. Under this assumption, the context of the situation shifts from a simple breach of contract into a situation where the Defendant knowingly lied about what they had in order to entice the Plaintiff into entering a sale.

Failure to Deliver Goods and Services is quite easily provable. The Defendant agreed to supply the Plaintiff with a product, even though they were obligated to under a valid contract and the Plaintiff had paid 7.5k as agreed..

Under the I Admit Act, "anytime that someone admits guilt to a crime, by seriously and explicitly stating the crime that they committed, they are confessing their guilt in committing the crime. This admission of guilt may then be used in court in order to satisfy the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." The Defendant explicitly stated that they had scammed waygooda, exclusive, and the Plaintiff, confessing to the crimes that they committed. Nothing in this statement implies that they were being anything but serious, and the admission is quite explicit. Since the Defendant has not disputed any facts, we must assume that this scam happened, fulfilling the second term of the act, and no unprompted follow-up statement retracting the first statement has been supplied. This sufficiently proves the Defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


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 July 2026