Lawsuit: Dismissed Volt Bank v. Panipal_M_B_123 [2025] FCR 41

dodrio3

dodrio3

Citizen
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Construction & Transport Department
Health Department
4th Anniversary 6th Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker
Dodrio3
Dodrio3
Inspector
Joined
May 15, 2021
Messages
612

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION

Volt Bank
Plaintiff

v.

Panipal_M_B_123
Defendant

COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 06/03/2026, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with Volt Bank. This loan was for the principal sum of $44,000. The Defendant has failed to make any payment towards the debt since the loan was taken. The Defendant's first payment was due on 06/04/2026. They failed to make the payment on this amount within 30 days of the due day, triggering a “Default” in the contract. Giving the Plaintiff permission to initiate legal proceedings “to collect amounts due”.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES

  1. Volt Bank - Plaintiff
  2. Panipal_M_B_123 - Defendant
II. FACTS

  1. On 06/03/2026, the defendant agreed to Volt Bank's loan contract for a loan of $44,000.
  2. The Defendant failed to make any payment of “principal, interest, fees, or other amounts” for more than 30 days after the due date.
  3. The Defendant put up Plot RH032 as collateral on the loan agreement.
  4. The Plaitiff contacted the Defendant on 23/03/2026 and 10/04/2026 to inform them that their loan payment was overdue.
  5. The Defendant has failed to respond to any collection notifications.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

  1. Breach of Principal The Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to repay the funds provided by the Plaintiffs' Loan.
  2. Accured Interest Per Article 4.1 of the loan agreement, the Defendant agreed to pay 10% monthly interest on top of the amount loaned from the plaintiff.
  3. Penalty for Late Payments. Per Article 4.3 of the loan agreement, the parties agreed to a 3% daily late fee.
  4. The Defendant’s continued non-payment of this clause Collateral Per Article 7.1 of the loan agreement, the Defendant granted the Plaintiff a security interest in the collateral.
  5. Due to the Event of Default, the Plaintiff is legally entitled to the immediate possession of said collateral.
  6. Bad Faith Per Article 9.1(10) and Article 13.8 of the loan agreement, the total lack of communication and payment from the Defendant suggests a fraudulent and bad faith entry into the contract, justifying punitive measures.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

  1. $44,000 as compensatory damages for the outstanding principal.
  2. 10% of the $44,000 ($4,400) per month since 06/03/2026 as compensatory damages for the interest the loan would have matured.
  3. 3% of the $44,000 ($1,320) for every day since 06/04/2026 as compensatory damages for the late payments.
  4. The auction income generated from RH032, for the collateral.
  5. $20,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's bad faith actions.
  6. 30% of the value of this case in legal fees.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 14th day of May 2026

P-001
Kingofpanda1 Mortgage RH032

P-002
1778786839009.png

P-003
1778786839021.png



Motion



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

You Hounor,

The Plaintiff requests that all DCT Eviction action currently being taken on the plot RH032 be halted for the duration of this trial.

 
Last edited:
dodrio3 said:

Motion



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

You Hounor,

The Plaintiff requests that all DCT Eviction action currently being taken on the plot RH032 be halted for the duration of this trial.

Click to expand...

Granted.
 

Writ of Summons

@Panipal_M_B_123 is hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case Volt Bank v. Panipal_M_B_123 [2025] FCR 41

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:
The Emergency Injunction is released, the plot is presumed lawfully in the possession of the DCT.
Click to expand...

Motion



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff moves to reconsider the order releasing the Emergency Injunction on Plot RH032. Releasing the injunction allows the Department of Construction & Transport (DCT) to proceed with eviction actions, creating an imminent threat of irreparable harm to the core subject matter of this lawsuit. Because Plot RH032 serves as the explicit contract collateral under Article 7.1 of the loan agreement, any immediate seizure, clearing, or transfer of the property by the DCT will permanently destroy or alienate the primary asset securing the Defendant's $44,000 debt before the merits of the case can even be heard.

 
dodrio3 said:

Motion



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff moves to reconsider the order releasing the Emergency Injunction on Plot RH032. Releasing the injunction allows the Department of Construction & Transport (DCT) to proceed with eviction actions, creating an imminent threat of irreparable harm to the core subject matter of this lawsuit. Because Plot RH032 serves as the explicit contract collateral under Article 7.1 of the loan agreement, any immediate seizure, clearing, or transfer of the property by the DCT will permanently destroy or alienate the primary asset securing the Defendant's $44,000 debt before the merits of the case can even be heard.

Click to expand...

Can you point to any law that would permit me to undo an eviction? This isn’t pre-eviction, it’s post-eviction. I understand the plot is collateral, but what would permit me to tell DCT to Honour that collateral agreement.
 
Muggy21 said:
Can you point to any law that would permit me to undo an eviction? This isn’t pre-eviction, it’s post-eviction. I understand the plot is collateral, but what would permit me to tell DCT to Honour that collateral agreement.
Click to expand...

In all of the following cases, an emergency injunction has been granted on plots that are already evicted or undergoing auction.

YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76​

12700k v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 110​

epecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100​

 
dodrio3 said:
In all of the following cases, an emergency injunction has been granted on plots that are already evicted or undergoing auction.

YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76​

12700k v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 110​

epecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100​

Click to expand...

The collateral agreement does not bind the DCT. In the above mentioned cases, I had presided and I can speak to each of them.

[2025] FCR 76, the Court found that the evictions were the result of illegal acts on the part of a Govt agent.

[2025] FCR 110 and [2025] FCR 100, the DCT was ordered to seize the properties for safe-keeping.



Reconsideration denied.
 
Muggy21 said:
The collateral agreement does not bind the DCT. In the above mentioned cases, I had presided and I can speak to each of them.

[2025] FCR 76, the Court found that the evictions were the result of illegal acts on the part of a Govt agent.

[2025] FCR 110 and [2025] FCR 100, the DCT was ordered to seize the properties for safe-keeping.



Reconsideration denied.
Click to expand...

Permission to update the original filing to include the monetary value of the plot, as we will not be able to secure it as collateral.
 

Answer to Complaint



I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. AFFIRM On 06/03/2026, the defendant agreed to Volt Bank's loan contract for a loan of $44,000
  2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The Defendant failed to make any payment of “principal, interest, fees, or other amounts” for more than 30 days after the due date.
  3. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The Defendant put up Plot RH032 as collateral on the loan agreement.
  4. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The Plaitiff [sic] contacted the Defendant on 23/03/2026 and 10/04/2026 to inform them that their loan payment was overdue.
  5. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The Defendant has failed to respond to any collection notifications.

II. DEFENCES
1. Exhibit P-001 is not valid evidence (it is not an immutable format).
2. The Plaintiff has failed to show evidence of lack of payment.
3. The Plaintiff has not shown evidence of contacting the Defendant after the signage of the contract.


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 May 2026.

 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Exhibit P-001 is a Google Doc, which is not valid evidence.

Click to expand...

Sustained, P-001 should be submitted as a PDF if available.


Discovery is now open, it'll close on May 30th at 9pm EST.
 
Seeing no witnesses, the Court doesn't see a need for Opening Statements or testimony.

Parties will proceed to provide a closing brief.

@dodrio3 You shall have until June 7th, 2026 at 9pm EST to provide that brief. @Dartanboy You shall have 3 days afterwards to submit the same.
 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Your honor,

The Plaintiff failed to show, under any standard of proof at all (in this case the requirement is a balance of probabilities), that the Defendant did not make payments as required by the contract allegedly signed.

As such, this case must be dismissed for Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

There is simply no evidence and no witnesses.

 
Omegabiebel said:
Your honor, pardon this interruption. My lawyer has disappeared and left all DC discords. His legal firm discord is gone and he hasnt responded to my messages.

I’d like to request dismissal without prejudice or to pause the case since i now need to find a new lawyer.
Click to expand...

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Volt Bank should have been paying attention to their case. It is the Plaintiff's responsibility to pursue their case. They chose not to and allowed the deadline to expire.

Had Omega come prior to the deadline and requested an extension, this would be an entirely different situation.

We ask his comments be struck and the Motion to Dismiss ruled upon.

 
Muggy21 said:
Proceed.

Also, is Volt Bank still around? I don't remember your dissolution schedule.
Click to expand...
Volt bank is indeed still around. A dissolution resolution was posted so we are winding up. There is no specific schedule as of yet and no public notice has been posted yet. Additionally we are a far cry from posting the Certificate of Dissolution which dissolves Volt Bank, Inc. from existence.

On to the actual response of the objection:

Volt Bank had hired Dodrio to handle this case. It had the implicit trust and faith in Dodrio to handle this case based on his extensive legal experience. Unfortunately out of nowhere, without any notice whatsoever (I cannot underline more how random this is), Dodrio and his legal firm have disappeared.

I regularly checked in with dodrio, and checked on the case in the forums. However I think it is reasonable to assume that if you hire a lawyer with significant experience on a seemingly simple case, you do not have to watch over them like a hawk. The schedule for me checking in was every now and again, which is not the same schedule as actually handling the case as counsel. As a result I didn't catch the deadline being breached.

I would like to request a dismissal without prejudice to get the affairs of this case in order. Either I'll get a new lawyer or I'll sell the debt to someone else, so they can persue it.
 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Your honor,

The Plaintiff failed to show, under any standard of proof at all (in this case the requirement is a balance of probabilities), that the Defendant did not make payments as required by the contract allegedly signed.

As such, this case must be dismissed for Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

There is simply no evidence and no witnesses.

Click to expand...
Partially granted,

The action is dismissed without prejudice. The Court didn't reach nor adjudicate any facts in this case. Even if the evidence presented by dodrio3 was massively deffiicent, the Court can't permanently close any avenue for relief unless it makes a final order doing so. I"ve not done so, so that isn't possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top