Lawsuit: Dismissed steveshat v. Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings [2024] FCR 49

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

steveshat is a man who was having a good time, and tried his luck at several casino games within Keystone Holdings. He deposited over $900k, and when making his last bet before running out of gambling money, he won big: winner winner chicken dinner. To be exact, he won over 1.8 million dollars, doubling what he invested. The casino didn't like this, however, and flat-out refused to award this payout when the plaintiff requested a withdrawal. The reason? Betting limits that should have been there but weren't as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant offered the plaintiff a disgusting $265k, a total insult considering this results in a huge net loss. It is time to teach businesses accountability. It is time to get justice for a wronged victim of contract breach.


I. PARTIES
1. steveshat (Plaintiff)
2. Keystone Holdings (Tortfeasor)
3. wetc (Agent and Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
4. Vanguard (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
5. supersuperking (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
6. The Exchange (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
7. HenryDz5 (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)

II. FACTS
1. On February 15th, 2024, steveshat deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).
2. On the same day, this money was gambled extensively with onlookers commenting on the gambling. To their shock, steveshat won $1,800,000.00 in a game of roulette (Exhibit B).
3. Keystone Holdings refused to pay out the winnings, offering to resolve the matter for a mere $265,000 under the reasoning that there was a max bet of $5,000 in place (Exhibits C and D).
4. Keystone Holdings had no posted policy of a max bet posted as of the 15th of February, 2024. Their gambling bot also did not have the feature of max betting properly configured, leading it to accept a higher bet (Exhibit E).
5. The plaintiff offered for the defendant to pay the 1.8 million dollars (and less in some offers) out overtime in a payment plan to protect their interests, but the defendant denied this request multiple times.
6. Keystone Holdings subsequently dissolved to avoid liability and distributed assets to its former shareholders (Exhibit F).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The casino receives actual monetary bets in return for the expectation of that money returned on a win. This constitutes a contract under the Foundation of Contract Law (link) as it satisfies all the necessary elements, while maybe not as explicitly as other contracts. Whether or not this legally stands, that expectation still exists and is represented by the casino's posting of odds on specific games. Representing those odds is also backing the outcome of the bet, whether a win or loss. To misrepresent these facts constitutes gambling fraud under the Commercial Standards Act (link). These odds were misrepresented when the casino refused to compensate the plaintiff his winnings, and thus is grounds for damages under the Legal Damages Act (link).
2. The two factors described in fact four combine sum up to negligence on Keystone Holdings and no reasonable assumption of any risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his full earnings, and the excuse of a max bet holds no legal water.
3. Keystone Holdings dissolved, leaving liability for its actions to its shareholders. The plaintiff will be using discovery to find out how much liability is attributed to each shareholder and how much money should be clawed back from each. For now, the prayer for relief comprises a total amount of money owed collectively by all of the shareholders.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,800,000 in compensatory damages - the duty to mitigate was satisfied as described in fact five of this filing.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages for grossly and outrageously denying the plaintiff his winnings and having the audacity to strongarm and lowball him to a tremendous degree.
3. 5% of $1,800,000 is $90,000 and this would be the monthly interest steveshat would earn if he stored his winnings in banks that offer 5% interest such as Atreides, S-Capital, etc... Therefore, each day of not having this money loses the plaintiff $3,000 in opportunity costs. The plaintiff therefore requests $3,000 each day starting from the 16th of February 2024 until the 1.8 million dollars is finally paid to the plaintiff. At the time of this posting, that total is 51 days = $153,000.
4. $50,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont as $1,800,000 can buy a lot of things, things that the plaintiff cannot enjoy for as long as he is denied his winnings.
5. $50,000 in punitive damages for attempting to launder this money by dissolving and distributing it to shareholders / other parties.
5. $585,000 + 30% of the award of prayer for relief 3 in legal fees, awarded to Dragon Law Firm (a recent amendment to the Legal Damages Act increases legal fees to 30%).

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

VI. PRELIMINARY WITNESSES
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

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 7th day of April 2024

 

[steveshat]

Your honor,

The plaintiff humbly requests a trial by combat.
We request that the shareholders of keystone choose 1 player to fight steveshat to the death.

Accepted

The honor accepts this request thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@wetc , @HenryDz5 , @supersuperking , @Stoppers and @Nexalin is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Steveshat v. Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings.

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.

Should any of the parties not agree to having the same attorney, this case will be split up into separate cases.

​

 

[Nexalin]

Present

 

[a_guy_name_henry]

Present

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor, the 72-hour timeframe allotted to all the defendants has elapsed. With Wetc, Supersuperking, and Stoppers absent, we respectfully request that you hold these three individuals in contempt and issue a default judgment on 3/5 of the damages concerning them. As Nexalin and HenryDz5 are present, we propose that after the default judgment for the other three, we proceed with these two individuals for the remaining 2/5 of the damages.

As you mentioned, Your Honor, after the 72-hour timeframe, a default judgment will take place, and in this instance, we request it be applied to those who failed to appear in court.

Thank You.

 

[SumoMC]

I hereby charge @wetc , @Stoppers and @supersuperking with one count of contempt of Court and direct the Department of Justice to fine/jail them accordingly.

Furthermore, before I made a decision on a default judgment I need to know if @Nexalin and @a_guy_name_henry share the same legal council.

 

[MegaMinerM]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, sorry for the delayed response as a reverse class action of this size has never been instituted before. The only clients we represent at the moment are Nexalin and Wetc as such not all parties called have agreed to the same representation nor should they be required to as set in precedent in the Lawsuit:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche and Keeerun [2023] FCR 84
Therefore, we motion to dismiss under rule Rule 5.7 in which the plaintiff has joined too many parties to a single case without consideration of their legal representation.

DATED: This 14th day of April 2024

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, sorry for the delayed response as a reverse class action of this size has never been instituted before. The only clients we represent at the moment are Nexalin and Wetc as such not all parties called have agreed to the same representation nor should they be required to as set in precedent in the Lawsuit:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche and Keeerun [2023] FCR 84
Therefore, we motion to dismiss under rule Rule 5.7 in which the plaintiff has joined too many parties to a single case without consideration of their legal representation.

DATED: This 14th day of April 2024

What party do you represent?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor, the opposing counsel seeks to have this case dismissed under Rule 5.7, citing an alleged joining of too many parties. Rule 5.7 specifies that "A Motion to Dismiss can be filed for the plaintiff’s failure to join all appropriate parties to the case." We contend that all necessary parties have been included in this case. Additionally, Your Honor, you previously mentioned that whether the defendants retain the same lawyer would determine the necessity of separate forums for each, a notion with which we concur. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed via a motion to dismiss, as it was initiated due to an appeal.

Your Honor, the opposing counsel claims to represent Nexalin and Wetc. While Nexalin's representation is acknowledged, we maintain our request for default judgment regarding Wetc, given that the 72-hour timeframe has expired. The excuse presented, "as a reverse class action of this size has never been instituted before," is a sloppy reason for ineffective legal aid.

We respectfully request that you reject the motion to dismiss and allow us to proceed with this case, focusing on Nexalin and HenryDz5, while simultaneously issuing default judgments for the other defendants who either failed to appear or were tardy.

Thank You

 

[MegaMinerM]

Lovely law firm represents wetc and nexalin, but none of the other parties in this case your Honor.

 

[SumoMC]

The Court will be accepting the defenses Motion to Dismiss biased on the fact that the court can not force all the party's to share legal representation. The Plaintiff my refile with the cases being broken up.

With that, the Federal Court thanks all party's for their time.