Lawsuit: Dismissed Sockful v. unalign [2026] DCR 100

[Sockful]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTCIVIL ACTION

Sockful
Plaintiff

v.

unalign
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES

1. Sockful, the Plaintiff and victim of the unprovoked attack.
2. unalign, the Defendant who initiated the attack.

II. FACTS

1. On June 18, 2026, the Plaintiff was peacefully located by the server Spawn, an area designated for player utility where citizens maintain a reasonable expectation of safety.
2. Without any prior interaction, warning, or mutual agreement to engage in Player-versus-Player (PvP) combat, the Defendant intentionally attacked and killed the Plaintiff.
3. While the Plaintiff did not lose physical items or direct currency due to plugin mechanics, the Plaintiff suffered a direct personal loss of time, significant inconvenience, and a severe disruption to their game play experience.
4. The Defendant's actions were entirely malicious and intended solely to disrupt the Plaintiff's ability to enjoy the server.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Civil Battery and Malicious Disruption: The Defendant intentionally and maliciously struck the Plaintiff without consent. This civil claim is filed because the Defendant's actions directly resulted in a personal loss of game play time and convenience. While no material items were lost, civil battery protects a citizen's right to be free from intentional, harmful, and unprovoked disruptions to their character.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. General / Punitive Damages: $500.00 to compensate for the lost time, severe inconvenience, and negative impact on the Plaintiff's game play experience caused by the unprovoked attack.

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 18th day of June 2026

 

[Matthew100x]

This complaint only alleges a claim of relief using a crime as a tort for a civil suit. Where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under the Civil Code, the plaintiff may pursue civil remedies under the Civil Code, civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code, or both, so long as there is no double recovery (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 (citing Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 4(3)(a)–(c), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act); see also Lawsuit: Dismissed - Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59 ("The Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA") does indeed allow for civil action regarding a criminal violation, but typically only supports that action where both the RCCA and the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") reference the underlying claim")).

Here, the charge of assault is only in the Redmont Criminal Code, but not under the Civil Code. As such, the Plaintiff cannot pursue damages under the Civil Code, which precludes him from all damages. Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim of "Malicious Disruption" does not exist, it is not a cause of action with any basis in the law. This case is dismissed sua sponte.