Lawsuit: In Session TheVeryBoredCat v. Town of Aventura [2026] DCR 56

Cat Oakridge

Cat Oakridge

Citizen
Aventura Resident
TheVeryBoredCat
TheVeryBoredCat
Barrister
Joined
May 24, 2026
Messages
10

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


TheVeryBoredCat
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Today, I was walking along Anchor Drive in Aventura, when suddenly, I fell into a hole in the pavement and got stuck inside with no way out. The road is owned by the Town of Aventura, and neglecting the safety of any person traveling by foot along the road is the responsibility of the Town itself.

I believe these actions are negligent and dangerous and constitute deprivation of liberty. The Town of Aventura has proven its negligence to the safety of its residents and visitors alike, and such a threat sets bad precedent for towns to neglect simple duties such as road maintenance.

I've been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident, even avoiding walking on any roads in Aventura because I'm afraid I may fall into a deeper pit where I could fall to my death. The situation was extremely annoying and what's worse was the humiliation I was subject to when a staff member teleported to me while I was stuck in the pit, damaging my reputation to the staff as a new member of the server.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. TheVeryBoredCat (Plaintiff)
2. Town of Aventura (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. TheVeryBoredCat was running east on Anchor Drive in the Town of Aventura after fishing.
2. TheVeryBoredCat stumbled into a 3-block long, 1-block wide hole in the road which he was not able to see, centered on or around 2011, 1317
3. TheVeryBoredCat was stuck with no path to escape the pit.
4. Staff member Eenza teleported to TheVeryBoredCat to respond to an unrelated ticket.
5. Staff member Eenza discovered that I had been trapped in the pit, teleported me out, and sealed it shut.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
2. The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer loss of enjoyment due to their neglect of town maintenance, losing the faith of the plaintiff in Aventura’s ability to follow its own constitutional duties.
3. The defendant caused the plaintiff to be humiliated in front of a staff member as a result of their negligence in road maintenance.
4. The defendant failed in their public duty to protect people in public spaces, as understood through common law as a major responsibility of the government.
5. The Town of Aventura's Office of Development is obligated under the Town of Aventura's constitution to be "responsible for the town's... infrastructure" and did not fulfill its constitutional duty to maintain Anchor Drive properly.
6. Most critically, the Town of Aventura is setting a dangerous precedent that may lead to distrust in the town government, through neglecting players' safety while on public infrastructure in three ways: by leaving holes in the road with dangerous pits directly underneath them, refusing to take any precautions to fill in the land under the road, or even at the very least providing a way to escape from said pits.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1 in nominal damages for deprivation of liberty and governmental neglect.
2. $15,000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment and humiliation.
3. An order to the Town of Aventura to immediately inspect all of its public infrastructure and make repairs to any of it that may result in other players' deprivation of liberty.
4. Legal fees in accordance with the Court's discretion.

V. EVIDENCE

1779850517654.png

1779850914086.png

1779851009537.png

1779851310946.png

1779851493654.png

VI. Witnesses

1. Eenza

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 26 day of May 2026

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@Anthony_Org @Budgiebud is hereby commanded to appear before the District Court for the above entitled case.

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.

 
Muggy21 said:

Writ of Summons


@Anthony_Org @Budgiebud is hereby commanded to appear before the District Court for the above entitled case.

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.

Click to expand...
Aventura is present your honor
 
Your honor, I wish to amend my filing by splitting my consequential damages into both loss of enjoyment and humiliation.
 

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss this complaint under Rule 5.12 and Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Plaintiff has no standing to pursue the case​

Plaintiff alleges that their rights were broken due to the alleged neglect on side of Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that they were deprived of their liberty by falling inside a pothole. This is shown in P-001 through P-003.

In order for anyone to pursue a case, they have to have standing.
Rule 2 of the Court Rules & Procedures defines standing as follows:

Rule 2 (Standing)​

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
  1. 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.
Failure to meet all parts of Rule 2.1 can be grounds for a Sua Sponte dismissal.
Click to expand...
Plaintiff fails to prove he actually suffered an injury despite his claims of loss of enjoyment.

Now we must ask ourselves:
What would a reasonable person do in this situation?

The answer is to try to get out of the pothole by either running /trapped, /aventura or teleporting somewhere else. If the person would not know how to run these commands, they could ask in chat. Plaintiff's novel legal theory about deprivation of liberty fall flat on all legal grounds when there are more than one means of exit.

Plaintiff proves this by citing Part IV § 5 of the Criminal Code Act, which defines deprivation of liberty as "unlawfully confines a player or tamed pet without consent or means of exit."

Therefore Plaintiff could not have sufferred an injury by Defendant as there were multiple means of exit and Plaintiff by not using them only aggrevated their own situation.

Plaintiff also fails to prove they sufferred loss of enjoyment or humiliation by any degree as Plaintiff has alleged no grounds to support this fact.

II. Conclusion​

Defendant therefore respectfully requests that the Court:
  • dismiss this complaint with prejudice;
  • fine Plaintiff 10% of the relief requested for filing a frivolous case; and
  • grant legal fees to Defendant.

 
Last edited:
Muggy21 said:
Granted. Please outline your changes in a new post, then edit the complaint.
Click to expand...

Thank you, your honor. I have amended the filing by making the following changes:

A. Update the last paragraph of the personal statement as follows:

"I've been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident, even avoiding walking on any roads in Aventura because I'm afraid I may fall into a deeper pit where I could fall to my death. The situation was extremely annoying and what's worse was the humiliation I was subject to when a staff member teleported to me while I was stuck in the pit, damaging my reputation to the staff as a new member of the server. "

B. Add two new claims of relief immediately after point 1, moving previous point 2 to point number 4.

"2. The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer loss of enjoyment due to their neglect of town maintenance, losing the faith of the plaintiff in Aventura’s ability to follow its own constitutional duties.
3. The defendant caused the plaintiff to be humiliated in front of a staff member as a result of their negligence in road maintenance."

C. Amend point two of the prayer for relief as follows

"2. $15,000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment and humiliation."
 
Johnes said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss this complaint under Rule 5.12 and Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Plaintiff has no standing to pursue the case​

Plaintiff alleges that their rights were broken due to the alleged neglect on side of Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that they were deprived of their liberty by falling inside a pothole. This is shown in P-001 through P-003.

In order for anyone to pursue a case, they have to have standing.
Rule 2 of the Court Rules & Procedures defines standing as follows:

Plaintiff fails to prove he actually suffered an injury despite his claims of loss of enjoyment.

Now we must ask ourselves:
What would a reasonable person do in this situation?

The answer is to try to get out of the pothole by either running /trapped, /aventura or teleporting somewhere else. If the person would not know how to run these commands, they could ask in chat. Plaintiff's novel legal theory about deprivation of liberty fall flat on all legal grounds when there are more than one means of exit.

Plaintiff proves this by citing Part IV § 5 of the Criminal Code Act, which defines deprivation of liberty as "unlawfully confines a player or tamed pet without consent or means of exit."

Therefore Plaintiff could not have sufferred an injury by Defendant as there were multiple means of exit and Plaintiff by not using them only aggrevated their own situation.

Plaintiff also fails to prove they sufferred loss of enjoyment or humiliation by any degree as Plaintiff has alleged no grounds to support this fact.

II. Conclusion​

Defendant therefore respectfully requests that the Court:
  • dismiss this complaint with prejudice;
  • fine Plaintiff 10% of the relief requested for filing a frivolous case; and
  • grant legal fees to Defendant.

Click to expand...

Your honor, this motion to dismiss is unserious and ignores the fact that the Town of Aventura neglected its own constitutional duty to maintain its public infrastructure, and downplays the fact that the pit left under the road was much more than a simple pothole. Although I did have means of exit through teleportation, the law states that deprivation of liberty is when one party "unlawfully confines a player or tamed pet without consent or means of exit." Clearly, I was confined without consent under the road, even though I did have means of exit, still constituting deprivation of liberty as the word "or" indicates two possibilities that can both independently constitute deprivation of liberty.

Opposing counsel argues that "Plaintiff fails to prove he actually suffered an injury despite his claims of loss of enjoyment." while ignoring my personal statement which clearly indicates how I suffered both loss of enjoyment and humiliation. Opposing counsel further inaccurately adds that "Plaintiff also fails to prove they sufferred [sic] loss of enjoyment or humiliation by any degree as Plaintiff has alleged no grounds to support this fact."

I'd like to point out that even before I amended the personal statement, the sentence "I've been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident, even avoiding walking on any roads in Aventura because I'm afraid I may fall into a deeper pit where I could fall to my death." has been included, and clearly shows a basis where I allege I have been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident.

In regards to standing, it is clear that I satisfy all three necessary aspects of standing.

As plaintiff, I
1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law. (Loss of enjoyment and humiliation due to negligence of Town of Aventura)
2. The cause of injury was against the law. (Deprivation of liberty and failing to follow town's own constitution are both against the law)
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision. (If I receive a favorable decision I may receive consequential damages due to the injury.)

Your honor, due to the misrepresentation of the simple factual basis of the case and my claims for relief as allegedly lacking standing according to opposing counsel, I humbly request that this motion be denied.
 
Cat Oakridge said:
Your honor, this motion to dismiss is unserious and ignores the fact that the Town of Aventura neglected its own constitutional duty to maintain its public infrastructure, and downplays the fact that the pit left under the road was much more than a simple pothole. Although I did have means of exit through teleportation, the law states that deprivation of liberty is when one party "unlawfully confines a player or tamed pet without consent or means of exit." Clearly, I was confined without consent under the road, even though I did have means of exit, still constituting deprivation of liberty as the word "or" indicates two possibilities that can both independently constitute deprivation of liberty.

Opposing counsel argues that "Plaintiff fails to prove he actually suffered an injury despite his claims of loss of enjoyment." while ignoring my personal statement which clearly indicates how I suffered both loss of enjoyment and humiliation. Opposing counsel further inaccurately adds that "Plaintiff also fails to prove they sufferred [sic] loss of enjoyment or humiliation by any degree as Plaintiff has alleged no grounds to support this fact."

I'd like to point out that even before I amended the personal statement, the sentence "I've been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident, even avoiding walking on any roads in Aventura because I'm afraid I may fall into a deeper pit where I could fall to my death." has been included, and clearly shows a basis where I allege I have been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident.

In regards to standing, it is clear that I satisfy all three necessary aspects of standing.

As plaintiff, I
1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law. (Loss of enjoyment and humiliation due to negligence of Town of Aventura)
2. The cause of injury was against the law. (Deprivation of liberty and failing to follow town's own constitution are both against the law)
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision. (If I receive a favorable decision I may receive consequential damages due to the injury.)

Your honor, due to the misrepresentation of the simple factual basis of the case and my claims for relief as allegedly lacking standing according to opposing counsel, I humbly request that this motion be denied.
Click to expand...


Where do you see the following statement: "the Town of Aventura neglected its own constitutional duty to maintain its public infrastructure" be supported in any Constitution?
 
Muggy21 said:
Where do you see the following statement: "the Town of Aventura neglected its own constitutional duty to maintain its public infrastructure" be supported in any Constitution?
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

According to the Aventura Constitution Act, "The Office of Development is responsible for the town’s expansion, infrastructure, and management of existing plots." The Office of Development is a part of the Town of Aventura's government.
 
Johnes said:
We'd also like to request that the deadline to post our answer is tolled.
Click to expand...
I request that the deadline to post the answer of the defendant shall be un-tolled on the basis that my amendments have been made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top