Lawsuit: In Session UnknownWithAB v. loxuk_ [2026] DCR 36

BennyBoi2187

BennyBoi2187

Citizen
Aventura Resident
Health Department
6th Anniversary
.BennyBoi2187
.BennyBoi2187
Barrister
Joined
Mar 3, 2026
Messages
12

Case Filing




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


UnknownWithAB (Represented by .BennyBoi2187)
Plaintiff

v.

loxuk_ (Represented by DaanBanaan5673)
Defendant


COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

[“On or about April 11th, 2026, it was around 2:15 in the afternoon (CST), I was at spawn and going into the train tunnel. He (luxok_) shot me, and it told me that he started a fight with me in chat. He had put the gun away by the time I had turned around, but he then pulled out a gun again and pointed at me, and then put it away. Then he pulled out a guitar as if he was mocking me in some way. I thought he was taunting me before he was going to finish me off. Now I’m nervous that I’m going to get jumped again anytime I go into the spawn train tunnel.”]
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES

1. UnknownWithAB / .BennyBoi2187 (Plaintiff)

2. loxuk_ / DaanBanaan5673 (Defendant)


II. FACTS

1. On or about April 11th, 2026, the Defendant shot the Plaintiff at spawn while the Plaintiff was entering the tunnel to get to the Capitol Train Station.

2. Immediately following the incident, the Plaintiff had turned to see what the person that shot them looked like, as they had been told the name in chat. They saw the Defendant, who at that point had put away the gun, staring at.

2. loxuk_ has been a member of the server since January 20th, 2024, so they have no excuse to not know the laws.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Assault: According to the Criminal Code Act, Assault is, relevantly, defined as “intentionally hits another player, causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts.” The Defendant shot the Plaintiff one time, causing damage less than 3 hearts.

2. Punitive Damages
Defined by RCCA Part III, Section 3, punitive damages may be awarded if “the defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience a player.” The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff, shown in Exhibit B. This is an intentional violation which is defined in RCCA Part II, Section 7 as “a violation where the violator acts with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm will result from their conduct.” If the Defendant had not intentionally attacked the Plaintiff and can prove such, this would then be a negligent violation, which is defined by RCCA Part II, Section 7 as “a violation where the violator fails to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another.”


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Punitive Damages: R$2,000 pursuant of RCCA Part III, Section 3, for the Defendant knowingly acting in a way meant to cause harm. If it is proven by the Defendant that they had merely committed a negligent violation, we would like to pursue punitive damages amounting to 50% of the previous (R$1,000)

2. Lawyer fees amounting to 30% of the case value.


Evidence:

P-001: Proof of representation for .BennyBoi2187 representing UnknownWithAB.

P-002: Screenshot of chat showing UnknownWithAB was attacked by loxuk_ at spawn.

P-003: Screenshot of luxok_’s background information.


Witnesses:
UnknownWithAB


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 17th day of April 2026





 

Attachments

  • IMG_7419.jpeg
    IMG_7419.jpeg
    62.6 KB · Views: 17
  • 2026-04-11_14.14.05.png
    2026-04-11_14.14.05.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 17
  • IMG_3409.jpeg
    IMG_3409.jpeg
    105.4 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@loxuk is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Unknownwithab V Loxuk_ [2026] DCR 36.

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 Honour, I am representing the Defendant. Proof of representation is attached below, the Answer to Complaint will be filed shortly.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-04-24 222735.png
    Screenshot 2026-04-24 222735.png
    176.7 KB · Views: 13

Answer to Complaint


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

UnknownWithAB (represented by .BennyBoi2187)
Plaintiff

v.

loxuk_ (Represented by DaanBanaan5673)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that on or about April 11th 2026, the Defendant shot the Plaintiff at or near spawn while the Plaintiff was entering the tunnel to get to the Capitol Train Station, NOTING that “at or near” is subjective.
  2. DENIES that the Defendant “put away the original gun, pulled out either another gun or the same one and pointed it at the Plaintiff, but quickly put it back away.”, NOTING that there is no evidence attached about this “fact” with the case filing and that the Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof, FURTHER NOTING that the Defendant is sceptical about the truthfulness of this written statement as the Plaintiff mentions only turning around after they "had been shot", after which the weapon was no longer visible according to the Plaintiff, which means there would have been no way for the Plaintiff to know for sure they were shot and not attacked with another weapon, if this was the case.
  3. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Defendant “After putting the second gun away, the Defendant pulled out a guitar and began to play it.”, NOTING that the fact about the “second gun” is not presented anywhere in the evidence, FURTHER NOTING that the Defendant affirms that the Defendant pulled out a guitar and began to play it.
  4. AFFIRMS that the Defendant has been a member of this server since January 20th 2024.
  5. Except as hereinbefore expressly affirmed or expressly neither affirmed nor denied, every other factual allegation is DENIED as if set out herein.

II. DEFENCES
Defendant asserts these defences in the alternative and reserves the right to amend/add defences as facts and discovery develops.
  1. Lack of Damages: The Defendant does not dispute that the alleged conduct, if proven, may fall under the definition of Assault given by the Criminal Code Act. However, this is a civil proceeding, and the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any actual damages resulting from the incident. As such, even if all alleged facts are accepted as true, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief for assault can be granted.
  2. Assumes facts not in evidence: Plaintiff’s second claim for relief relies on allegations unsupported by any evidence in their filing. As such, it improperly assumes facts not in evidence and should be disregarded.
  3. Consequential Damages not warranted: The Redmont Civil Code Act defines Loss of Enjoyment as “Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.” The Defendant playing the guitar near the Plaintiff does not fit this description, as the Plaintiff has not lost nor had their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that they did before the incident be diminished.

III. EVIDENCE

IV. WITNESSES
  1. UnknownWithAB

V. ATTESTATION
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 27th day of April 2026

 
Your Honour, the Plaintiff would like to request to amend the complaint in both the claims and prayers for relief.
 
Apologies, Your Honour.
We would like to remove the second assault and loss of joy from the claims for relief. In addition to that we would like to remove prayers for relief 1-3.

We would like to add to the claims for relief the following:
Punitive Damages
Defined by RCCA Part III, Section 3, punitive damages may be awarded if “the defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience a player.” The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff, shown in Exhibit B. This is an intentional violation which is defined in RCCA Part II, Section 7 as “a violation where the violator acts with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm will result from their conduct.” If the Defendant had not intentionally attacked the Plaintiff and can prove such, this would then be a negligent violation, which is defined by RCCA Part II, Section 7 as “a violation where the violator fails to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another.”

We would like to add to the prayers for relief the following:
Punitive Damages: R$2,000 pursuant of RCCA Part III, Section 3, for the Defendant knowingly acting in a way meant to cause harm. If it is proven by the Defendant that they had merely committed a negligent violation, we would like to pursue punitive damages amounting to 50% of the previous (R$1,000)


We also request to edit the labels of the evidence so that they are in accordance.
 
BennyBoi2187 said:
Apologies, Your Honour.
We would like to remove the second assault and loss of joy from the claims for relief. In addition to that we would like to remove prayers for relief 1-3.

We would like to add to the claims for relief the following:
Punitive Damages
Defined by RCCA Part III, Section 3, punitive damages may be awarded if “the defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience a player.” The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff, shown in Exhibit B. This is an intentional violation which is defined in RCCA Part II, Section 7 as “a violation where the violator acts with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm will result from their conduct.” If the Defendant had not intentionally attacked the Plaintiff and can prove such, this would then be a negligent violation, which is defined by RCCA Part II, Section 7 as “a violation where the violator fails to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another.”

We would like to add to the prayers for relief the following:
Punitive Damages: R$2,000 pursuant of RCCA Part III, Section 3, for the Defendant knowingly acting in a way meant to cause harm. If it is proven by the Defendant that they had merely committed a negligent violation, we would like to pursue punitive damages amounting to 50% of the previous (R$1,000)


We also request to edit the labels of the evidence so that they are in accordance.
Click to expand...
You are free to do so. As a further note, you do not need permission to amend your complaint during discovery. You just need to declare what you changed and that you are doing so (Rule 3.3 of Court Rules and Procedures)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top