Lawsuit: Pending .Sophiethesage V. FluixIsh [2026] DCR 114

S

Sophiethesage

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Justice Department
.SophietheSage
.SophietheSage
Investigator
Joined
Jun 6, 2026
Messages
19
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


.Sophiethesage
Plaintiff

v.

FluixIsh
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I first got an invitation from the Defendant to go to Willow spawn to attend a blind date with ElvisKadzim. When I reached there I told the Defendant I cant do this cause I was about to be married, then ElvisKadzim killed me. I returned to Willow spawn because I had seen a nice house around there but when I got there I saw the Defendant, ElvisKadzim and StrawberrySara who was my fiance so I decided to stay. As I was talking to StrawberrySara, ElvisKadzim started to attack me, which angered my dog causing him to start attacking ElvisKadzim. I was trying to make him sit when the Defendant went and killed my dog which was my emotinal support animal, which i needed because of recent loss in the House of Reps election. Then after this the Defendant tried to bribe the witness into not sending me evidence of this.

I. PARTIES
1. .Sophiethesage
v.

2. FluixIsh



II. FACTS
1. The Defendant killed the Plaintiff's emotional support pet.

2.The Defendant tried to bribe the witness so she wouldn't send me evidence of this.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant committed Animal murder.
2. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant caused Property loss.
3. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant committed emotional harm.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Defendant pays $300 in Damages. 2. Defendant pays $50 for a new emotional support pet.




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

1. StrawberrySara

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 19th day of June 2026.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: MJL

Writ of Summons



@Fluixish is commanded to appear in the District Court for the case .Sophiethesage v. Fluixish [2026] DCR 114

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,

I am present on behalf of the Defendant as their legal representative.

1783827975251.png
 

Answer to Complaint


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

.Sophiethesage
Plaintiff

v.

FluixIsh, Represented by _GreyMC
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense DENIES that the Defendant killed the Plaintiff’s emotional support pet.
2. The Defense DENIES that the Defendant tried to bribe StrawberrySara to prevent evidence from being shared.


II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff fails to show a legally cognizable civil tort in this case.

The Plaintiff brings up three claims in this case: animal murder, property loss, and emotional harm. However, all three of these claims are not valid in a civil case.

1. In MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, the Court decided that there is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.” Animal Murder is a crime under the Criminal Code Act, which contains a list of crimes that the Commonwealth can bring forward, not a civil Plaintiff. The CCA can be used when both the CCA and Redmont Civil Code Act reference the same underlying claim, as decided in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, but in this case there is no civil tort for animal murder in the RCCA.
2. The second claim of “property loss” has no legal backing in either the RCCA nor the CCA. The RCCA does set out a list of property offenses in Part VII; however, the Plaintiff has not cited a specific one of these nor why their claim of property loss would fall under one of these.
3. Finally, emotional harm is not a recognized injury nor claim in Redmont. There is no recognized damage for emotional harm in the RCCA nor the CCA.


2. The Plaintiff lacks the personal jurisdiction to pursue this case.

Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:

1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...

The Plaintiff’s first claim of animal murder fails the third element, as the Court decided in [2026] DCR 67 that there can be no applicable remedy for a claim that does not have basis in the RCCA nor Redmont common law.

For the second claim, there is no crime or civil tort that has the basis of property loss. There is conversion in the RCCA and theft in the CCA, but the Plaintiff does not claim either of these. Because there is no law, the Plaintiff fails the second element.

Finally, in UnderRatedXD v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 48, the Court decided that emotional distress is not cognizable in Redmont, and the Court cannot grant a favorable decision for it. The third claim fails the first and third elements.

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 12th day of July 2026

 

Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.12, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. LACK OF CLAIM
The Plaintiff brings up three claims in this case: animal murder, property loss, and emotional harm. However, all three of these claims are not valid in a civil case.

1. In MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, the Court decided that there is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.” Animal Murder is a crime under the Criminal Code Act, which contains a list of crimes that the Commonwealth can bring forward, not a civil Plaintiff. The CCA can be used when both the CCA and Redmont Civil Code Act reference the same underlying claim, as decided in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, but in this case there is no civil tort for animal murder in the RCCA. Claim I should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.
2. The second claim of “property loss” has no legal backing in either the RCCA nor the CCA. The RCCA does set out a list of property offenses in Part VII; however, the Plaintiff has not cited a specific one of these nor why their claim of property loss would fall under one of these. Therefore, Claim II should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.
3. Finally, emotional harm is not a recognized injury nor claim in Redmont. There is no recognized damage for emotional harm in the RCCA nor the CCA, and Claim III should be dismissed.


II. LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:

1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...

The Plaintiff’s first claim of animal murder fails the third element, as the Court decided in [2026] DCR 67 that there can be no applicable remedy for a claim that does not have basis in the RCCA nor Redmont common law.

For the second claim, there is no crime or civil tort that has the basis of property loss. There is conversion in the RCCA and theft in the CCA, but the Plaintiff does not claim either of these. Because there is no law, the Plaintiff fails the second element.

Finally, in UnderRatedXD v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 48, the Court decided that emotional distress is not cognizable in Redmont, and the Court cannot grant a favorable decision for it. The third claim fails the first and third elements.

The entire case should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.12.

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.

 
Well you said you did not kill my dog so what is this
 
Sophiethesage said:
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, all evidence submitted in a case must use the proper formatting, including labeling evidence using the correct P-### formatting. This evidence has failed to follow the requirements, and the Defense respectfully requests that the evidence be struck for improper formatting.

 
greymc said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, all evidence submitted in a case must use the proper formatting, including labeling evidence using the correct P-### formatting. This evidence has failed to follow the requirements, and the Defense respectfully requests that the evidence be struck for improper formatting.

Click to expand...

@Sophiethesage Fix the issue, delete the evidence, or respond to the objection.
 
greymc said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, all evidence submitted in a case must use the proper formatting, including labeling evidence using the correct P-### formatting. This evidence has failed to follow the requirements, and the Defense respectfully requests that the evidence be struck for improper formatting.

Click to expand...
Your Honor,

The Defense withdraws this objection as the Plaintiff has deleted the evidence.
 
greymc said:

Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.12, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. LACK OF CLAIM
The Plaintiff brings up three claims in this case: animal murder, property loss, and emotional harm. However, all three of these claims are not valid in a civil case.

1. In MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, the Court decided that there is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.” Animal Murder is a crime under the Criminal Code Act, which contains a list of crimes that the Commonwealth can bring forward, not a civil Plaintiff. The CCA can be used when both the CCA and Redmont Civil Code Act reference the same underlying claim, as decided in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, but in this case there is no civil tort for animal murder in the RCCA. Claim I should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.
2. The second claim of “property loss” has no legal backing in either the RCCA nor the CCA. The RCCA does set out a list of property offenses in Part VII; however, the Plaintiff has not cited a specific one of these nor why their claim of property loss would fall under one of these. Therefore, Claim II should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.
3. Finally, emotional harm is not a recognized injury nor claim in Redmont. There is no recognized damage for emotional harm in the RCCA nor the CCA, and Claim III should be dismissed.


II. LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:


The Plaintiff’s first claim of animal murder fails the third element, as the Court decided in [2026] DCR 67 that there can be no applicable remedy for a claim that does not have basis in the RCCA nor Redmont common law.

For the second claim, there is no crime or civil tort that has the basis of property loss. There is conversion in the RCCA and theft in the CCA, but the Plaintiff does not claim either of these. Because there is no law, the Plaintiff fails the second element.

Finally, in UnderRatedXD v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 48, the Court decided that emotional distress is not cognizable in Redmont, and the Court cannot grant a favorable decision for it. The third claim fails the first and third elements.

The entire case should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.12.

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.

Click to expand...


@Sophiethesage You have 48 hours to respond.
 
Your Honor,

The Court has given the Plaintiff 48 hours to respond to this ruling. At the time of this post, it has been almost 72 hours. The Defense humbly requests that the Court no longer wait for the Plaintiff's response, and for a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
 
greymc said:
Your Honor,

The Court has given the Plaintiff 48 hours to respond to this ruling. At the time of this post, it has been almost 72 hours. The Defense humbly requests that the Court no longer wait for the Plaintiff's response, and for a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
Click to expand...

Granted, the Court will adjudicate the pending motion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top