Lawsuit: Pending Servalot v. duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith) [2026] DCR 119

D

Dawg1324

Citizen
Dawg1324
Dawg1324
Attorney
Joined
May 11, 2026
Messages
7

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Servalot (Represented by Dawg1324, para-legal at Singeheart, Addams & Associates)
Plaintiff

v.
Discord Username: duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
I marketed the property at a guide price of $70K due to recent and pending sales in the area - OR-Valley-15 at 90k (sale), has a sea view in particular which made it more valuable than the lots around it - and even at 90k this is still undervalued - OR-Valley-01 had an offer at 80k to Uwenn. And an auction of a Multiman plot next door went to 50k. I snagged a good deal by buying in a low-market exposure discord server, the Oakridge real estate channel. I then used my knowledge and expertise, of doing over 0.5m in sales and valuing over 2m' worth of lots to dictate a guide price of $70K. I listed it in a higher exposure market, the democracycraft real estate channel. I intended to leave it listed for a long time to allow a sale at the guide price listed. Instead, my post was hijacked by Jeb Jeabith, who said that the valuation was "diabolical". It was not, it was an educated, informed, and strategic decision, to list the property at a price that I felt that it was worth, in a higher-exposure market, using more appropriate marketing with my description and images. These components help buyers realise the true value of the lot, as they are educated about the area's amenities, the views, the access to transit or spawn, or other tangible features which aren't appreciated in a low exposure, government auction - where just raw numbers do the talking. These comments caused people to give me 2 low-ball offers, and I eventually felt pressured to negotiate up to $40k and sell at that.


I. PARTIES
1. Servalot (Plaintiff)
2. duck.duck.3000 (Defendant)
3. AverageAnnika (A bidder of the OR-R017 auction and buyer of the property)


II. FACTS
1. On the 28th of June 2026, 9:55 pm AEST, Servalot created an auction for the shipyard cottage OR-R017.
2. Servalot put a guide price of $70,000 on the property auction.
3. On the 30th of June 2026, 12:26 am AEST, duck.duck.3000 commented on the auction stating that $70,000 was not an appropriate price for the size of the property, calling the price “diabolical”
4. This comment caused the property to be seen as much less valuable than the initial guide price, which then resulted in multiple individuals bidding for around $30,000-$40,000.
5. Servalot felt forced to accept a much lower price than the guide price.
6. Servalot sold the plot for $40,000 to AverageAnnika.
6. Servalot believed the bids should have been be around the price of $70,000.
7. Servalot initially aquired the property for $34,000.
8. Servalot is a licensed realtor and is experienced with the valuation of properties.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has defamed him by doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.
2. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has committed slander by doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.
3. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused emotional damage and stress through the above claims.
4. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused others to bid much lower than the guide price due to the comment made.
5. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has attempted to bribe the representative of the Plaintiff into stopping his representation.
6. Any other claims the court deems fit.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Plaintiff seeks $30,000 for the difference between the guide price and final winning bid.
2. Plaintiff seeks $20,000 for emotional damages and stress caused by the Defendant tarnishing his reputation and image and doubting his knowledge in the field.
3. Plaintiff seeks legal fees.
In total, plaintiff seeks $50,000 (+ legal fees).


EVIDENCE

This screenshot shows the comment the Defendant made on the auction of OR-R017.
1783382306716.png

This screenshot shows the agreement between Servalot and AverageAnnika to finalise the sale of the property.
1783382405437.png

Evidence that the Defendant has a history of making comments similar to the one in this case.
1783417602909.png

Evidence that the Defendant has a history of making comments similar to the one in this case.
1783417638548.png

Evidence that the Defendant has a history of making comments similar to the one in this case.
1783417661270.png

Evidence that the Defendant has a history of making comments similar to the one in this case.
1783417692309.png

Evidence that the Defendant has a history of making comments similar to the one in this case.
1783417717909.png

This screenshot shows the Defendant attempting to bribe the representative of the Plaintiff to stop representing the Plaintiff during a negotiation.
1783424709199.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 8th day of July 2026

 
Last edited:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - STANDING

"Standing consists of three elements. First, the individual must have suffered an injury caused by a clearly identifiable second party or affected by an application of law. Second, the cause of the injury must be unlawful. Third, the injury must be capable of being remedied by a favorable decision under the relevant law" ([2025] SCR 19).

The court is concerned that no injury is alleged. In particular, Plaintiff claims to have profited approximately $6,000.

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in the next 48 hours.

 
I am having to deal with something IRL. I am naming Unknown_pal as second chair in my absence.
 

Writ of Summons


IamJeb_ (aka duck.duck.3000 and Jeb Jeabith) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Servalot v. duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith) [2026] DCR 119.

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.



This summons was entered in error. Struck.
 
Your honor, The prosecution would like to request for a 24 hour extension due unforeseen IRL circumstances.
 
I am Servalot's lawyer. And to amend my previous message. The plaintiff would like to request a 24 hour extension due unforeseen IRL circumstances


Proof of representation Servalot.png
 

Response


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - STANDING


I. Show of Legal Injury.


Your Honor, the legal injury my client had suffered was Market Interference. My client was auctioning the shipyard cottage OR-R017 at a fair market value ($70K), this value was inferred from similar market sales over plots near and similar to OR-R017, such as the OR-Valley-15 Sale at $90K and the offer OR-Valley-01 at $80K. Using these sales as comparison and doing market research, my client used their knowledge and expertise with the valuation of properties to create their $70K auction for OR-R017.


It was only after the defendant's public comments was posted in the sales thread (P-001), did low offers start to come in. These comments undermined buyer's confidence during an active sale, resulting to depressed bidding. My client then had to mitigate his loses by selling the property (OR-R017) for $40K due to the defendant's public comments affecting the market.


Although my client had made a $6K profit from what they had bought the property from ($34K) and sold it for ($40K). The injury in this case comes from the fact that my client could have made $70K, this number coming extensive market research and taking into account other competitive prices for similar properties and the difference on what the property's fair market value was before the defendant's claims and what it was sold for after the defendant's claims. Even though my client had made profit, he still suffered compensable damage due to the defendant's comments artificially depressing the price.


II. Unlawful cause of injury.


Defamation Torts


The comments that the defendant made become a public attack on my client's competence as a licensed realtor in a way that intended and succeeded into influencing prospective buyers and interfering with the ongoing transaction. This is Slander and Defamation under the RCCA Part 5 §3 and RCCA Part 5 §1 respectively.


MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES


This is also Tortious interference with business relations, under the RCCA Part 10 §3 as the defendant's public comments interfered with the potential buyers of the OR-R017 by saying that the price of the auction was too high and was worth less than the price set by my client. Which was again researched on and was set based of other competitive prices of similar property.


III. Remedy for the Injury.


The remedy for Defamation and Slander is a public retraction of the comment. And Tortious interference with business relations has no fixed Remedy. It is a case by case basis. In this case, we believe the Remedy should be $30,000 for the difference between what the fair market value for the property was and what it was sold for. And for Loss of Enjoyment, we believe the remedy should be $20,000.

 

Writ of Summons


IamJeb_ (aka duck.duck.3000 and Jeb Jeabith) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Servalot v. duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith) [2026] DCR 119.

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.

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defence has failed to present their answer to complaint within 72 hours. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defence be held in Contempt of Court.

 
Dawg1324 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defence has failed to present their answer to complaint within 72 hours. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defence be held in Contempt of Court.

Click to expand...
Your Honour, I was deported around 2 hours before the time I was expected to post.

Screenshot_2026-07-15-17-00-23-34_572064f74bd5f9fa804b05334aa4f912.jpg
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, I was deported around 2 hours before the time I was expected to post.

View attachment 91284
Click to expand...
Short-Deported players still have full forums access.

Court Order


The Court finds Redlaw LLC in Contempt or Court for disobeying a court order to file, and orders a fine worth 1 Penalty Unit ($120) and no jail time.

 
Apologies for the delay, Your Honour.

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Servalot v. duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith) [2026] DCR 119
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Servalot (Represented by Dawg1324, para-legal at Singeheart, Addams & Associates)
Plaintiff

v.
Discord Username: duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRM.
2. AFFIRM.
3. AFFIRM.
4. DENY.
5. DENY.
6.A. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY.
6.B. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY.
7. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY.
8. DENY.

II. DEFENCES

Defences Under Fact:

A. Defendant Never Made “Statements”

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant defamed and slandered the Plaintiff by “doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.” Complaint, Part III, Sections 1 & 2.

This is simply not true. The Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to suggest that the Defendant made statements that directly questioned his knowledge in the field of real estate, and even if this were the case, it wouldn’t meet the statutory definition of defamation/slander. At best, what was shown was the Defendant’s opinions regarding the price. (P-001)

What the Plaintiff is doing is inferring meanings from what the Defendant said, and trying to construe a Defamation lawsuit because he did not have confidence in his selling price. See Complaint, Part II, Fact 5. (The Plaintiff himself concurred he felt “forced to accept” a lower price).

B. No Evidence Regarding Pressure to Accept Price or Damage to Reputation

The Plaintiff, throughout the Complaint, alleges that he felt “pressurised” to accept the price. See Complaint, Part II, Fact 5 and 6B. This is not relevant to the Defamation accusation that is alleged at all.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff fails to provide any evidentiary proof that links the lower prices offered to the Plaintiff to the comment made by the Defendant. There may be a mere plausibility or suspicion that such may be the case, but certainly not enough to prove on a balance of probabilities.

C. Defendant’s Words Are Opinions

The Defendant did not ever make a statement regarding the Plaintiff that stated facts, or alleged an action of the Plaintiff. They merely commented on the price proposed by the Plaintiff. The word “diabolical” is not a fact but rather an adjective. Adjectives are used to describe something. Descriptions are perceptions and one’s own view, and thus are opinions.

Defences Under Law:

D. Opinions Cannot Construe “Defamation” or “Slander”

As discussed supra in Section C, the Defendant’s words were merely opinions and not statements of alleged facts.

As such, under Part V of the RCCA, Section 1(e) and Section 3(d), the offence of Defamation or Slander cannot occur.

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.

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — PLAINTIFF

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following additional evidence pursuant to Rule 4.6:

Under DCT-DoC Auction Cooperation policy
in § 1(3) it is specifically stated that commenting negatively on the starting price is an act which serves to direct attention away from a bid and is strictly prohibited.
The defendant has done it specifically, as seen in P-001


DATED: This 16th day of July, 2026
 
Last edited:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — PLAINTIFF

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff asks to amend his facts and claims for relief pursuant to Rule 3.3:

Add the fact that expressing opinions (as the defendant claimed he stated) is against DCT-DoC policy.
Amend claims 1 and 2 from defamation and slander to Tortious interference with business relations under RCCA Part 10 §3


DATED: This 16h day of July, 2026
 
monkey_itay said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — PLAINTIFF

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff asks to amend his facts and claims for relief pursuant to Rule 3.3:

Add the fact that expressing opinions (as the defendant claimed he stated) is against DCT-DoC policy.
Amend claims 1 and 2 from defamation and slander to Tortious interference with business relations under RCCA Part 10 §3


DATED: This 16h day of July, 2026
Click to expand...
Please submit a full amendment, not a summary of changes.
 

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Servalot (Represented by Dawg1324, para-legal at Singeheart, Addams & Associates)
Plaintiff

v.
Discord Username: duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
I marketed the property at a guide price of $70K due to recent and pending sales in the area - OR-Valley-15 at 90k (sale), has a sea view in particular which made it more valuable than the lots around it - and even at 90k this is still undervalued - OR-Valley-01 had an offer at 80k to Uwenn. And an auction of a Multiman plot next door went to 50k. I snagged a good deal by buying in a low-market exposure discord server, the Oakridge real estate channel. I then used my knowledge and expertise, of doing over 0.5m in sales and valuing over 2m' worth of lots to dictate a guide price of $70K. I listed it in a higher exposure market, the democracycraft real estate channel. I intended to leave it listed for a long time to allow a sale at the guide price listed. Instead, my post was hijacked by Jeb Jeabith, who said that the valuation was "diabolical". It was not, it was an educated, informed, and strategic decision, to list the property at a price that I felt that it was worth, in a higher-exposure market, using more appropriate marketing with my description and images. These components help buyers realise the true value of the lot, as they are educated about the area's amenities, the views, the access to transit or spawn, or other tangible features which aren't appreciated in a low exposure, government auction - where just raw numbers do the talking. These comments caused people to give me 2 low-ball offers, and I eventually felt pressured to negotiate up to $40k and sell at that.


I. PARTIES
1. Servalot (Plaintiff)
2. duck.duck.3000 (Defendant)
3. AverageAnnika (A bidder of the OR-R017 auction and buyer of the property)


II. FACTS
1. On the 28th of June 2026, 9:55 pm AEST, Servalot created an auction for the shipyard cottage OR-R017.
2. Servalot put a guide price of $70,000 on the property auction.
3. On the 30th of June 2026, 12:26 am AEST, duck.duck.3000 commented on the auction stating that $70,000 was not an appropriate price for the size of the property, calling the price “diabolical"
4. This comment caused the property to be seen as much less valuable than the initial guide price, which then resulted in multiple individuals bidding for around $30,000-$40,000.
5. Servalot felt forced to accept a much lower price than the guide price.
6. Servalot sold the plot for $40,000 to AverageAnnika.<br>
6. Servalot believed the bids should have been be around the price of $70,000.
7. Servalot initially aquired the property for $34,000.<br>
8. Servalot is a licensed realtor and is experienced with the valuation of properties.
9. Expressing opinions (as the defendant claimed he stated) about the listed price is against DCT-DoC policy.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has defamed him by doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.
2. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has committed slander by doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.

1. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has committed Tortious Interference with Business Relations by interfering in his business relations by commenting negatively on the starting price, using improper means (against DCT-DoC policy) and causing economical damages (price went down by 30k).
2. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused emotional damage and stress through the above claims.
3. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused others to bid much lower than the guide price due to the comment made.
4. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has attempted to bribe the representative of the Plaintiff into stopping his representation.
5. Any other claims the court deems fit.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Plaintiff seeks <b>$30,000</b> for the difference between the guide price and final winning bid.
2. Plaintiff seeks<b> $20,000</b> for emotional damages and stress caused by the Defendant tarnishing his reputation and image and doubting his knowledge in the field.
3. Plaintiff seeks legal fees.
In total, plaintiff seeks <b>$50,000 (+ legal fees)</b>.


EVIDENCE
(I couldn't copy the evidence from the original court filing; please use that instead of here.

 
Last edited:
monkey_itay said:

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Servalot (Represented by Dawg1324, para-legal at Singeheart, Addams &amp; Associates)
Plaintiff

v.
Discord Username: duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
I marketed the property at a guide price of $70K due to recent and pending sales in the area - OR-Valley-15 at 90k (sale), has a sea view in particular which made it more valuable than the lots around it - and even at 90k this is still undervalued - OR-Valley-01 had an offer at 80k to Uwenn. And an auction of a Multiman plot next door went to 50k. I snagged a good deal by buying in a low-market exposure discord server, the Oakridge real estate channel. I then used my knowledge and expertise, of doing over 0.5m in sales and valuing over 2m' worth of lots to dictate a guide price of $70K. I listed it in a higher exposure market, the democracycraft real estate channel. I intended to leave it listed for a long time to allow a sale at the guide price listed. Instead, my post was hijacked by Jeb Jeabith, who said that the valuation was "diabolical". It was not, it was an educated, informed, and strategic decision, to list the property at a price that I felt that it was worth, in a higher-exposure market, using more appropriate marketing with my description and images. These components help buyers realise the true value of the lot, as they are educated about the area's amenities, the views, the access to transit or spawn, or other tangible features which aren't appreciated in a low exposure, government auction - where just raw numbers do the talking. These comments caused people to give me 2 low-ball offers, and I eventually felt pressured to negotiate up to $40k and sell at that.


I. PARTIES
1. Servalot (Plaintiff)
2. duck.duck.3000 (Defendant)
3. AverageAnnika (A bidder of the OR-R017 auction and buyer of the property)


II. FACTS
1. On the 28th of June 2026, 9:55 pm AEST, Servalot created an auction for the shipyard cottage OR-R017.
2. Servalot put a guide price of $70,000 on the property auction.
3. On the 30th of June 2026, 12:26 am AEST, duck.duck.3000 commented on the auction stating that $70,000 was not an appropriate price for the size of the property, calling the price “diabolical"
4. This comment caused the property to be seen as much less valuable than the initial guide price, which then resulted in multiple individuals bidding for around $30,000-$40,000.
5. Servalot felt forced to accept a much lower price than the guide price.
6. Servalot sold the plot for $40,000 to AverageAnnika.<br>
6. Servalot believed the bids should have been be around the price of $70,000.
7. Servalot initially aquired the property for $34,000.<br>
8. Servalot is a licensed realtor and is experienced with the valuation of properties.
9.expressing opinions (as the defendant claimed he stated) about the listed price is against DCT-DoC policy.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has committed Tortious Interference with Business Relations by interfering in his business relations by commenting negatively on the starting price, using improper means (against DCT-DoC policy) and causing economical damages (price went down by 30k).
2. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused emotional damage and stress through the above claims.
3. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused others to bid much lower than the guide price due to the comment made.
4. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has attempted to bribe the representative of the Plaintiff into stopping his representation.
5. Any other claims the court deems fit.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Plaintiff seeks <b>$30,000</b> for the difference between the guide price and final winning bid.
2. Plaintiff seeks<b> $20,000</b> for emotional damages and stress caused by the Defendant tarnishing his reputation and image and doubting his knowledge in the field.
3. Plaintiff seeks legal fees.
In total, plaintiff seeks <b>$50,000 (+ legal fees)</b>.


EVIDENCE
(I couldn't copy the evidence from the original court filing; please use that instead of here.

Click to expand...
Dartanboy said:
Please submit a full amendment, not a summary of changes.
Click to expand...

Your Honour, this is incoherent and does not specify the changes made.
 
monkey_itay said:

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Servalot (Represented by Dawg1324, para-legal at Singeheart, Addams &amp; Associates)
Plaintiff

v.
Discord Username: duck.duck.3000 (aka Jeb Jeabith)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
I marketed the property at a guide price of $70K due to recent and pending sales in the area - OR-Valley-15 at 90k (sale), has a sea view in particular which made it more valuable than the lots around it - and even at 90k this is still undervalued - OR-Valley-01 had an offer at 80k to Uwenn. And an auction of a Multiman plot next door went to 50k. I snagged a good deal by buying in a low-market exposure discord server, the Oakridge real estate channel. I then used my knowledge and expertise, of doing over 0.5m in sales and valuing over 2m' worth of lots to dictate a guide price of $70K. I listed it in a higher exposure market, the democracycraft real estate channel. I intended to leave it listed for a long time to allow a sale at the guide price listed. Instead, my post was hijacked by Jeb Jeabith, who said that the valuation was "diabolical". It was not, it was an educated, informed, and strategic decision, to list the property at a price that I felt that it was worth, in a higher-exposure market, using more appropriate marketing with my description and images. These components help buyers realise the true value of the lot, as they are educated about the area's amenities, the views, the access to transit or spawn, or other tangible features which aren't appreciated in a low exposure, government auction - where just raw numbers do the talking. These comments caused people to give me 2 low-ball offers, and I eventually felt pressured to negotiate up to $40k and sell at that.


I. PARTIES
1. Servalot (Plaintiff)
2. duck.duck.3000 (Defendant)
3. AverageAnnika (A bidder of the OR-R017 auction and buyer of the property)


II. FACTS
1. On the 28th of June 2026, 9:55 pm AEST, Servalot created an auction for the shipyard cottage OR-R017.
2. Servalot put a guide price of $70,000 on the property auction.
3. On the 30th of June 2026, 12:26 am AEST, duck.duck.3000 commented on the auction stating that $70,000 was not an appropriate price for the size of the property, calling the price “diabolical"
4. This comment caused the property to be seen as much less valuable than the initial guide price, which then resulted in multiple individuals bidding for around $30,000-$40,000.
5. Servalot felt forced to accept a much lower price than the guide price.
6. Servalot sold the plot for $40,000 to AverageAnnika.<br>
6. Servalot believed the bids should have been be around the price of $70,000.
7. Servalot initially aquired the property for $34,000.<br>
8. Servalot is a licensed realtor and is experienced with the valuation of properties.
9. Expressing opinions (as the defendant claimed he stated) about the listed price is against DCT-DoC policy.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has defamed him by doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.
2. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has committed slander by doubting and challenging his knowledge in the field of realty.

1. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has committed Tortious Interference with Business Relations by interfering in his business relations by commenting negatively on the starting price, using improper means (against DCT-DoC policy) and causing economical damages (price went down by 30k).
2. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused emotional damage and stress through the above claims.
3. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has caused others to bid much lower than the guide price due to the comment made.
4. Plaintiff claims the Defendant has attempted to bribe the representative of the Plaintiff into stopping his representation.
5. Any other claims the court deems fit.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Plaintiff seeks <b>$30,000</b> for the difference between the guide price and final winning bid.
2. Plaintiff seeks<b> $20,000</b> for emotional damages and stress caused by the Defendant tarnishing his reputation and image and doubting his knowledge in the field.
3. Plaintiff seeks legal fees.
In total, plaintiff seeks <b>$50,000 (+ legal fees)</b>.


EVIDENCE
(I couldn't copy the evidence from the original court filing; please use that instead of here.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, I've bolded and colored all of the changes made
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, I'm going to save the Plaintiff some time and say the Defence will object to any changes to what is already in the court record.

The Plaintiff cannot change the case from defamation to tortious interference. That is against Court Rules.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, the Plaintiff addresses the Defendant's claim regarding the amendment:
1. The Plaintiff is not introducing a brand-new, unrelated case. The operative facts remain identical, the Defendant's public comment ("diabolical") disrupted a commercial real estate auction and caused financial harm.
2. Under standard civil procedure, a Plaintiff is permitted to amend their legal claims during discovery to ensure the correct cause of action is adjudicated under Rule 3.3.
The Plaintiff requests the Court reject the Defense's attempt to block this filing and allow the amended complaint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top