Lawsuit: Pending Steveshat v. supersuperking [2024] FCR 63

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

supersuperking (Shareholder 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. supersuperking (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deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).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 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. 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.

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.

6. $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 25th day of April 2024

 

[SumoMC]

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

@supersuperking is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Steveshat v. supersuperking.

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.​

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has recently retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has recently retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 43242

Granted

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

---

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

Within the Commercial Standards Act, it is stated as following;

19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company.

Therefore, as a distinct legal entity from the one in a business relationship with the plaintiff, the case has no standing. Even if this case can be argued to incurred damages, the defendant had not occupied a management position in the company, and was simply a shareholder.

DATED: This Second day of May, 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor,
This case revolves around fraud. The individual in question served on the Board of Directors, which opted not to compensate my client, thus holding a managerial position. The BOD's decision to withhold payment upon the victory led to the fraudulent dissolution of the company to evade payment.

The defense neglected to specify the rule under which they seek dismissal. Per Rule 5.1, a Motion to Dismiss must clearly indicate the Discovery Rule the counsel intends to rely upon. Their failure to adhere to this requirement warrants denial of their motion to dismiss, in addition to the aforementioned grounds.

Thank You

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

---

I apologise for my mistake in the Motion to dismiss (failure to adhere to Rule 5.1), and due to the mistake, I do withdraw it. My apologies to the plaintiff, their legal counsel, and the honourable court.

Steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

supersuperking
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We affirm the deposit was placed. We neither affirm or deny the balance could be withdrawn at any time.
2. We affirm the plaintiff's victory. We neither affirm or deny the details stated.
3. We affirm that the full winnings was refused due to the cap.
4. We dispute the configuration of the bot not being proper.
5. We dispute the offers, there is no evidence submitted of such, nor details.
6. We dispute that the company was dissolved in order to avoid liability.

II. DEFENCES
1. While it is true that this may constitute an implicit contract, the contract was a business relationship between the company and the plaintiff. Shareholders are protected from such situations, by the fact that they are a distinct legal entity. There is no reason why the dissolution of the company would remove such a protection.
2. Additionally, it is not the casino's fault that the bet limit did not work on the bot. Both the fact that the bet limit did exist on the bot, and that it was not the fault of the Casino was previously proven in a Federal Court of Law. (Link to case)


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 Second day of May, 2024.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

---

I would like to retract and request the strike of the second part of the defence, as mentioned below, off of the Answer to Complaint. It has come to my knowledge that the lawsuit had indeed been appealed and declared a mistrial. I apologise and recognise this to be an unprofessional conduct, but there has been some in real life circumstances that caused the situation to spiral into a rushed defense. It is no excuse, but a reason. I apologise again to the plaintiff, their legal counsel, and the honourable court.

2. Additionally, it is not the casino's fault that the bet limit did not work on the bot. Both the fact that the bet limit did exist on the bot, and that it was not the fault of the Casino was previously proven in a Federal Court of Law. (Link to case)

 

[SumoMC]

We will now move into the 7 day discovery period.