Lawsuit: Dismissed ToadKing v. Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07 [2025] DCR 87

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Between 14 October 2025 and 01 November 2025, I was repeatedly and deliberately stepped on by the Defendants. These incidents occurred after I had publicly filed a lawsuit on 7 October 2025 (ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82) making clear that I did not consent to being stepped on and found such conduct distressing. Despite this public notice, the Defendants deliberately engaged in a sustained campaign of harassment by repeatedly stepping on me over a period of seventeen days.

This sustained harassment over seventeen days, involving twelve separate incidents by four different individuals, constitutes Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act. Each Defendant knew or should have known that their conduct was unwanted and distressing, yet they continued anyway. Their actions have made it impossible for me to peacefully enjoy public spaces on Redmont.

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Sofia2750
3. EATB
4. RealImza
5. RaiTheGuy07

​

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 07 October 2025, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the District Court (ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82) alleging that he had been stepped on in August 2025, causing him distress and humiliation.
2. The filing of this lawsuit was public.
3. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff made clear that he did not consent to being stepped on and that such conduct caused him distress.
4. On or around 19 October 2025, instruments were introduced to Redmont, allowing players to play music.
5. Following this introduction, the Plaintiff spent considerable time at the spawn playing music to entertain other citizens. (P-057)
6. The Plaintiff is significantly smaller than the average player on Redmont, a fact established in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82
7. On or around 14 October 2025, at approximately 18:22, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. This incident was witnessed by at least one other player. (P-055, P-056)
8. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:52, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-001, P-002, P-003, P-004)
9. At the time of the 25 October 2025 incident at 20:52, the spawn had at least five other people present. (P-005)
10. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:54, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. Defendant EATB was present and witnessed this incident. (P-006, P-007, P-008, P-009, P-010)
11. On or around 28 October 2025, at approximately 20:52, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-028, P-029, P-030, P-031)
12. On or around 31 October 2025, at approximately 20:56, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-037, P-038, P-039, P-040, P-041, P-042)
13. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:55, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-011, P-012, P-013, P-014)
14. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:58, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-015, P-016)
15. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:59, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn while stating "im trying to get a lawsuit." (P-017, P-018, P-019, P-020, P-021, P-022, P-023, P-024)
16. On or around 28 October 2025, at approximately 20:52, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff. (P-025, P-026, P-027)
17. On or around 31 October 2025, at approximately 17:04, the Plaintiff explicitly told Defendant EATB that he was going to be taking legal action against everyone who ever stepped on him. (P-049, P-050, P-051, P-052, P-053)
18. Immediately after the Plaintiff's statement in Fact 17, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff in the polling place. (P-054, P-055)
19. When the Plaintiff responded "why :/" and stated "I don't like being stepped on," Defendant EATB responded with "lol". (P-056)
20. On or around 01 November 2025, at approximately 20:06, Defendant RealImza stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-032, P-033, P-034, P-035, P-036)
21. While stepping on the Plaintiff, Defendant RealImza claimed to have "tripped" on the Plaintiff, stating "SORRY," "TRIPPED," and "TRIPPING SO MUCH".
22. On or around 01 November 2025, at approximately 16:48, Defendant RaiTheGuy07 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff in the polling place. (P-043, P-044, P-045, P-046, P-047)
23. When asked by the Plaintiff why he had stepped on him, Defendant RaiTheGuy07 stated: "it was a leprechaun ritutal [sic] to find the pot of gold " (P-048)
24. Defendant RaiTheGuy07 then gave the Plaintiff 1 gold ingot, apparently believing this somehow excused or compensated for the unwanted physical contact.
25. In total, over a period of seventeen days (14 October 2025 - 01 November 2025), the Plaintiff was deliberately stepped on twelve separate times by four different Defendants.
26. All of these incidents occurred after the Plaintiff had publicly filed a lawsuit, making clear that being stepped on caused him distress and was unwanted conduct.
27. The Defendants' repeated conduct, despite knowledge that it was unwanted, constitutes sustained harassment of the Plaintiff.
28. This sustained harassment has interfered with the Plaintiff's ability to peacefully enjoy public spaces on Redmont, including his ability to play music for other citizens at spawn.
29. The District Court issued its verdict in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, finding that the Defendant in that case had committed Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1. The Court awarded $5,000 in consequential damages for the violation of the Criminal Code Act

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

The Defendants' conduct constitutes Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1, which states:

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.

In ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, this Court found that Disturbing the Peace occurred based on two key factors: (1) the August 2025 stepping incident itself, and (2) the October 2025 statements that demonstrated the harassment was sustained and intentional rather than accidental or playful.

The Court ruled:

The October behaviours were not accidental, incidental, or playful; it was directed at the Plaintiff as an act of harassment. A reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position would experience harassment, as the conduct involved both unwanted physical contact and verbal fixation.

While the present case lacks the verbal harassment element present in [2025] DCR 82, it far exceeds [2025] DCR 82 in other critical respects that demonstrate sustained harassment:

First, the public lawsuit served the same function as the October statements in [2025] DCR 82. Just as the October statements in [2025] DCR 82 proved the August conduct was intentional harassment, the public filing of [2025] DCR 82 on 07 October 2025 put the entire community on notice that stepping on the Plaintiff was unwanted, distressing, and legally actionable. Every incident after 07 October 2025 occurred with knowledge that such conduct, in the eyes of the Plaintiff, constituted harassment.

Second, the frequency and sustained nature far exceed [2025] DCR 82. The case involved a single stepping incident in August with later verbal references. This case involves twelve separate stepping incidents over seventeen days by four different perpetrators - all occurring after the public lawsuit made clear such conduct was unwanted. This is sustained harassment, not a momentary interaction.

Defendant RealImza repeatedly stepped on the Plaintiff while claiming to have "tripped," stating "SORRY," "TRIPPED," and "TRIPPING SO MUCH." The repetitive nature of the stepping - captured across multiple pieces of evidence (P-032 through P-036) - proves this was not accidental. RealImza's need to fabricate an excuse demonstrates he knew the conduct was wrongful and attempted to disguise deliberate harassment as an accident. People do not repeatedly apologise for and explain accidental contact unless they know their conduct appears intentional and improper.

The Court in [2025] DCR 82 found that "a reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position would experience harassment, as the conduct involved both unwanted physical contact and verbal fixation" Here, the unwanted physical contact was repeated twelve times over seventeen days, despite public notice that it was unwanted. Any reasonable person would experience harassment, alarm, and distress under these repeated circumstances.

If a single incident with later verbal references constitutes Disturbing the Peace under [2025] DCR 82, then twelve deliberate stepping incidents by four individuals over seventeen days, occurring after a public lawsuit made clear such conduct was unwanted, clearly constitutes Disturbing the Peace.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

In [2025] DCR 82, the District Court awarded $5,000 in consequential damages for a violation of the Criminal Code Act's prohibition on Disturbing the Peace. The Plaintiff seeks damages calculated based on that precedent, multiplied by the number of times each Defendant stepped on him:

1. Sofia2750: 5 incidents x $5,000 = $25,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

2. EATB: 6 incidents x $5,000 = $30,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

3. RealImza: 1 incident $5,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

4. RaiTheGuy07: 1 incident $5,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

5. 30% of the total case value in legal fees

EVIDENCE:​

Spoiler: Cannot attach more than 30 images

ToadKing v. Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07

Evidence P-001 P-002 P-003 P-004 P-005 P-006 P-007 P-008 P-009 P-010 P-011 P-012 P-013 P-014 P-015 P-016 P-017 P-018 P-019 P-020 P-021 P-022 P-023 P-024 P-025 P-026 P-027 P-028 P-029 P-030 P-031 P-032 P-033 P-034 ...

docs.google.com

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 1st day of November 2025

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Sua Sponte Dismissal

For the purpose of the Order, the Court accepts all Plaintiff's arguments and facts on a prima facia basis (assume its all true on its face).


With respect to @Sofia2750, the Court dismisses the Complaint insofar as damages against this defendant for Failure to State a Claim. This District Court found that merely stepping on a player is not harassment, "verbal fixation" was required. The facts of the Complaint don't support that this Defendant said anything to Plaintiff (see Verdict II. (3) of [2025] DCR 82).


With respect to all other un-named defendants, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Court sees no nexus between parties that would justify their inclusion in a single action. Absent a conspiracy, the Court will not entertain a reverse class-action. (see [2025] FCR 21 )


So ordered,
Magistrate Mug