- Joined
- May 27, 2026
- Messages
- 15
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
SirDingusOG,
Plaintiff;
&
Somederp,
Co-Plaintiff
v.
Cpvp_Dog
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION
SirDingusOG,
Plaintiff;
&
Somederp,
Co-Plaintiff
v.
Cpvp_Dog
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:I. PARTIES
1. SirDingusOG (Plaintiff)2. Somederp (Co-Plaintiff)
3. Cpvp_Dog (Defendant)
II. FACTS
Incident 11. On July 9th, 2026, Defendant Cpvp_Dog, also known by Zach Doge, advertised a Golden Drill via /ad and /vc by showing the item (P-001).
2. Plaintiff SirDingusOG responded by asking "How much?" (P-001).
3. Plaintiff and Defendant could not agree on a deal so Defendant continued to advertise.
4. Defendant reached out multiple times, attempting to convince Plaintiff to buy at multiple different prices "i can do 10k js for the fact im getting off really soon like in 15 minuets"; "u want it still?"; "do u want it now? also if u want we can talk the price a bit lower"(P-002) (P-003)(P-004)."
5. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed on a deal for $8,000 (P-005).
6. After agreeing on a meeting location of the airport lower layer, Plaintiff and Defendant met up (P-006).
7. Plaintiff and Defendant inspect the item through Cpvp_Dog placing the Golden Drill and getting inside of it, then also through the Plaintiff asking the Defendant to confirm the fuel level by featuring the item in chat, which Defendant does in general chat. The item featured is a Golden Drill with a nearly-full fuel level, as evidenced by Cpvp_Dog’s statements of “ok look” and “1271/1300 fuel” and “1267 now” and the item feature Defendant posted in general chat. (P-007).
8. Plaintiff pays the agreed upon $8,000, Defendant confirms receipt of funds by saying "ok ty" and “come hgere i drop”. He then drops a piece of cobblestone, and follows up by saying "i feel bad man", "but i gotta go" and logs out of the server (P-008)(P-009).
9. 30 minutes later , Defendant continues to advertise the Golden Drill.
10. Cpvp_Dog has obtained $8,000 from SirDingusOG
11. Cpvp_Dog has obtained this money wrongfully by not following through on their end of the contract, when they did not drop the Golden Drill and logged out, after SirDingusOG fulfilled his contractual obligations by paying Cpvp_Dog $8,000.
12. Cpvp_Dog intended to wrongfully take this money, admitting guilt in stating "i feel bad man”. It is clear Defendant acted outrageously and in bad faith when they continued to advertise the Golden Drill when coming back online.
13. This outrageous action and clear wrongful intent is further evidenced by Defendant’s lack of an attempt to reach out to Plaintiff SirDingusOG when Defendant did come back online. There have been multiple instances since July 9th, 2026 where both Plaintiff and Defendant have been online simultaneously, and Plaintiff has not received any in-game mail from Defendant, even though Defendant has been seen advertising the Golden Drill on multiple separate occasions since July 9th, 2026.
Incident 2
13. On July 10th, 2026, Co-Plaintiff Somederp responded to an advertisement via /ad from Defendant Cpvp_Dog, also known as Zach Doge saying "selling gold drill 10k hmu" , following up with the <item> feature in /vc (P-010).
14. Co-Plaintiff reached out with a message stating "I'll bid", Defendant replied "no bid lol im js selling" (P-010).
15. Co-Plaintiff confirmed interest, saying "bet I want it", to which Defendant responded "im tryna clear echest space" (P-010).
16. Defendant then tried to get Co-Plaintiff to bid a different price than the prior agreed upon price for the drill, to which Co-Plaintiff replied "10k u mentioned ur just tryna sell right?". Defendant agrees "yea", and Co-Plaintiff agrees "yea let's do it" (P-011).
17. Both Co-Plaintiff and Defendant agree on a meeting spot of University Station and meet up (P-012).
18. Co-Plaintiff sends the previously agreed upon $10,000 to Defendant Cpvp_Dog (P-013).
19. Defendant states "i cant i though u were bidding", Co-Plaintiff responds "bruh u just mentioned u were selling no?", Defendant replies "no?" (P-013).
20. Defendant then convinces Co-Plaintiff to pay an extra $1,000 upping the total price to $11,000, bringing Co-Plaintiff to believe the previously agreed upon price was not valid (P-014).
21. Co-Plaintiff attempts to get Defendant to drop the Golden Drill prior to paying, but Defendant does not, Co-Plaintiff sends the extra $1,000, to which Defendant responds "ty" (P-014).
22. Defendant thanks Co-Plaintiff for the money and acts as though they have dropped the Golden Drill "should receive it", "pleasure doing biz" (P-015).
23. Under the false impression they received the Golden Drill, Co-Plaintiff thanks Defendant for the item "i got it", "pleasure" (P-015).
24. Co-Plaintiff and Defendant continue on to agree a deal for 2 more Golden Drills at the same meetup spot (P-015).
25. Co-Plaintiff then realizes Defendant never gave a Golden Drill, but in fact just a normal chest item, "wait u just gave me a chest", Defendant responds "no?". Conversation between Co-Plaintiff and Defendant continues with Defendant trying to convince Co-Plaintiff they did not give them a chest, but in fact a Golden Drill (P-016).
26. Defendant further tries to convince Co-Plaintiff they did not drop a chest by stating "gng dont actually try to get a free one from me", and "i rlly dont want to sue u for fraud", to which Co-Plaintiff responds "I am genuinely not joking" (P-016).
27. Both Co-Plaintiff and Defendant meet back up at University Station where Co-Plaintiff drops the normal chest item back to Defendant stating "this was the thing that u gave me" (P-017).
28. Defendant further attempts to convince Co-Plaintiff he is incorrect by claiming "I did not give u this bro", and "let me see if i can place it". Defendant then places a separate Golden Drill item and states "buddy it works", "name glitch?". To this Co-Plaintiff responds "it quite literally said chest", "not a drill", Defendant claims "i mean it works for m" (P-017).
29. After a lengthy argument in which Co-Plaintiff pleaded for their money back, and Defendant tried to negotiate for different remedies, such as "what about 3k", "oh yeah 2k". Co-Plaintiff stated "I just want my 11k back", "final", to which Defendant responded "ait", "GIVE ME A SECOND" (P-018).
30. Defendant continues to drag out the argument, appearing to attempt to get released by Somederp of his refund-obligation to pay the money back.
31. Defendant sends Co-Plaintiff $11.00 instead of $11,000 and claims it was a "typo". In reaction to this Co-Plaintiff says "send back", "the 11k". Defendant responds to this message stating "sorry sir no enlgish" (P-019).
32. Co-Plaintiff replies "alr I'm sueing you", "see you in court", to this Defendant responds "btw extra pixles dont mean shi" and "u2 uncle" (P-019).
33. Defendant immediately begins advertising the Golden Drill for sale again (P-020).
34. Cpvp_Dog has obtained $10,989 ($11,000.00 - $11.00) from Somederp.
35. Cpvp_Dog has obtained this money wrongfully by not following through on their end of the contract, shown through their lack of action in never dropping the actual Golden Drill item.
36. Cpvp_Dog intended to wrongfully take this money and acted in bad faith, admitting consciousness in the decision in saying "sorry sir no enlgish" and "btw extra pixels dont mean shi" when talking about the difference between $11.00 and $11,000.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
III.1 Breach of Contract
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Breach of Contract is a strict liability civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 1)
Both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege the Defendant had entered into a valid and enforceable with them as defined under Contracts Act §4.2 for the sale & transfer of a Golden Drill from Defendant to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff, in return for $8,000 and $11,000 respectively from Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff to Defendant.
III.1.A Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against both Plaintiff SirDingusOG and Co-Plaintiff Somederp
In both incidents, a valid and enforceable contract was formed between both, Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively as defined by Contracts Act §4.2.
In the case of SirDingusOG, a clear offer is seen here: Defendant asks "how much would u offer to buy it right now?", Plaintiff counters with "I would pay 7.5k rn", Defendant counters with "how about 8k?" (P-005). Clear acceptance is then seen from both Plaintiff and Defendant after Plaintiff contemplates the price and responds "deal!!", to which Defendant replies "oK!" (P-005). The Plaintiff's consideration is clear to see with the Plaintiff's promise to pay, and subsequent payment of $8,000. Plaintiff's promise is evidenced by the balance pay command in game. The Defendant's consideration is also clear to see with the promise to transfer ownership and possession of the Golden Drill in exchange for the agreed upon payment. Defendant's promise is evidenced through Defendant showing the item through the <item> feature multiple times as well as confirming the fuel level, before instructing Plaintiff to "come hgere i drop." In the case of Plaintiff SirDingusOG, there is clear intention from both Plaintiff and Defendant to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid. The actions of negotiating price, arranging a meeting location, traveling to complete the transaction, inspecting the item, and completing the payment confirms an intention for the agreement to create enforceable obligations. Regarding capacity, nothing in the chat logs or account info for either Plaintiff or Defendant suggests either party lacked contractual capacity. Both parties freely negotiated the terms of this transaction, agreed upon price, and understood what they were entering in to. Furthermore, both Plaintiff and Defendant possessed over six (6) hours of playtime at the time the contract was formed. Due to the aforementioned reasons, this contract fully satisfies the requirements as defined by Contracts Act §4.2.
In the case of Somederp, a clear offer is seen here: Defendant states "selling gold drill 10k hmu", followed up by "no bid lol im js selling", to which Co-Plaintiff Somederp responds "bet I want it" (P-010). Following this, Defendant tries to get Co-Plaintiff to then bid and Co-Plaintiff bids 10k "10k u mentioned ur just tryna sell right?", more evidence of a clear offer. Defendant replies with "yea", and Co-Plaintiff agrees "yea let's do it", this is positive and unambiguous acceptance from both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff (P-011). The Plaintiff's consideration is clear to see with the Plaintiff's promise to pay, and subsequent payment of $10,000. Plaintiff's promise is evidenced by the balance pay command in game. After the payment of $10,000, Defendant acted as though this was not an agreed upon deal and was able to convince Plaintiff to pay an extra $1,000, bringing the bid from $10,000 to $11,000. After the newly agreed upon price, the Defendant then showed evidence of consideration through Defendant showing the item through the <item> feature in game and stating "pay me 1k", as well as through dropping a normal chest item and saying "should receive it", "pleasure doing biz" (P-014)(P-015). In the case of Co-Plaintiff Somederp, there is clear intention from both Plaintiff and Defendant to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid. Once again, the actions of negotiating price, renegotiating price, arranging meeting location, traveling to complete the transaction, inspecting the item, and completing the payment confirms an intention for the agreement to create enforceable obligations. Regarding capacity, nothing in the chat logs or account info for either Co-Plaintiff or Defendant suggests either party lacked contractual capacity. Both parties freely negotiated the terms of this transaction, agreed upon price, and understood what they were entering in to. Furthermore, both Plaintiff and Defendant possessed over six (6) hours of playtime at the time the contract was formed. Due to the aforementioned reasons, this contract fully satisfies the requirements as defined by Contracts Act §4.2.
III.2 Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is an intentional/negligent civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 3).
III.2.A Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff SirDingusOG
Plaintiff SirDingusOG entered into a valid and enforceable contract with Defendant after all requirements as defined by Contracts Act §4.2 were satisfied as laid out in Claim for Relief III.1.A. Defendant intended to wrongfully take this money, dropping a cobblestone block, as well as admitting guilt in stating "i feel bad man”, and it is further made clear he acted outrageously and in bad faith when he continued to advertise the Golden Drill when coming back online (P-008).
By engaging in this misleading and deceptive conduct towards Plaintiff SirDingusOG, in connection with the advertisement and sale of a Golden Drill to Plaintiff, Defendant has committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff SirDingusOG.
III.2.B Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff Somederp
Co-Plaintiff Somederp entered into a valid and enforceable contract with Defendant after all requirements as defined by Contracts Act §4.2 were satisfied as laid out in Claim for Relief III.1.A. Defendant intended to wrongfully take this money, admitting consciousness in the decision in saying "sorry sir no enlgish" and "btw extra pixels dont mean shi" when talking about the difference between $11.00 and $11,000 (P-019). It is further confirmed that Defendant took purposeful action to deceiving Plaintiff in dropping Co-Plaintiff a normal chest item and convincing Co-Plaintiff to bid more money when a deal had been previously agreed upon (P-013)(P-016).
By engaging in this misleading and deceptive conduct towards Co-Plaintiff Somederp, in connection with the advertisement and sale of a Golden Drill to Co-Plaintiff, Defendant has committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff Somederp.
III.3 Misrepresentation
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misrepresentation is an intentional/negligent civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 2).
Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege that Defendant made multiple false statements of material fact when they represented they were selling genuine Golden Drills. Defendant made a false statement of fact when claiming a Golden Drill was truly for sale. A Golden Drill was shown with the item feature, both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff relied on the truth of the statement from Defendant when they both paid Defendant and satisfied their obligations of the contract, which resulted in both failing to receive a Golden Drill, causing a significant monetary loss, specifically, a loss of $8,000 for SirDingusOG, and $11,000 for Somederp.
III.4 Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is a strict liability civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 4).
Defendant agreed to supply genuine Golden Drills under valid and enforceable contracts as defined under Contracts Act §4.2, and failed to deliver the goods they agreed to supply. Plaintiff SirDingusOG paid Defendant an agreed upon $8,000 in exchange for a Golden Drill which was never delivered. Co-Plaintiff Somederp paid Defendant an agreed upon $11,000 in exchange for a Golden Drill which was never delivered. Defendant delivered a cobblestone block to SirDingusOG and Defendant delivered a normal chest item to Somederp, neither of these were the goods promised.
Both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege that Defendant had no lawful excuse for failing to deliver the promised goods and this directly affected both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff, causing them to suffer a significant monetary loss. Cpvp_Dog has not reached out to either the Plaintiff or Co-Plaintiff to try to remedy this situation or to explain any mitigating circumstances for their actions during the incidents since the incidents occurred.
III.5 Unjust Enrichment
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Unjust Enrichment is a Strict Liability civil violation defined as:(RCCA, Part X, Section 1)
Both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege that Defendant obtained and retained benefit at their expense, this benefit was $8,000 in the case of SirDingusOG, and $11,000 in the case of Somederp. Defendant retained these benefits at their expense by never providing the promised Golden Drills.
There is absolutely no legal justification for the Defendant retaining either the Plaintiff’s or the Co-Plaintiff's money after providing SirDingusOG a single cobblestone block, and Somederp a single normal chest item. The actions taken by the Defendant have no excuse and fit the description of this civil violation exactly, Defendant has obtained and retained a benefit of $19,000 total at the combined expense of Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
Both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege that for these reasons, Defendant has committed Unjust Enrichment.
III.6 Conversion
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Conversion is an intentional civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VII, Section 7).
Both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege that money, under law, should be considered personal property for purpose of this offense. Not only can money be owned by a specific individual, but it is also true that the unlawful taking of someone's money can and often will, cause them not only economic harm, but mental harm as well.
In the case of both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff, they allege that Defendant purposefully obtained and retained, or possibly even used their money to obtain their own ill-gotten personal property through deception, lies, and false statements.
Defendant claimed to SirDingusOG that SirDingusOG would receive a Golden Drill after paying Defendant the previously agreed upon $8,000. Defendant claimed to Somederp that Somederp would receive a Golden Drill after paying Defendant the previously agreed upon $11,000. In both of these cases, Defendant did not deliver a Golden Drill and never attempted to deliver a Golden Drill, but rather dropped non-conforming items, a cobblestone block for SirDingusOG, and a normal chest item for Somederp. In the case of SirDingusOG, Defendant quickly talked about how they felt bad for what they had done and logged out of the server. In the case of Somederp, Defendant continued to try and convince Somederp that the item was a Golden Drill, and continued trying to get more money out of Somederp, eventually sending back $11.00, pretending they meant to send $11,000, ultimately never sending the money back.
Both the Plaintiff and the Co-Plaintiff allege that Defendant unlawfully took both Plaintiff's personal property, in the form of Redmontian money, to their own use, harming both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:1. Compensatory Damages: Plaintiff paid $8,000 to Defendant, whereas Co-Plaintiff paid $11,000. In total, this means making Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff whole would require $19,000, shared between the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff in proportion to the size of their losses.
2. Punitive Damages: As defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA, Part III, Section 2), “Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous”. For the reasons as described in this case, both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege the conduct of the Defendant is clearly outrageous. By repeating this offence in bad faith, time and time again, taking hard-earned money from good-faith buyers, continuing to advertise in attempt to find more victims, and dropping a cobblestone block and normal chest item to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff respectively, the Defendant has crossed the line for outrageous activity. For this, Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff seek $25,000 each in punitive damages for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce and additional $20,000 each for Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. This totals to $45,000 split evenly between Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
3. Nominal Damages: In the case that no additional damages to Compensatory Damages can be awarded, and only in this case, both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff seek restitution in the form of nominal damages at $7,500 each to acknowledge harm done by Defendant to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
4. Legal Fees: Plaintiff & Co-Plaintiff seek 30% of the total damages awarded as legal fees.
V. EVIDENCE
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
Additionally, full chat logs from both incidents included.
VI. Witnesses
1. SirDingusOG2. Somederp
3. Cpvp_Dog
Witness consents attached here:
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 15 day of July 2026
