Lawsuit: Pending Wayne_Kerr12 v. Beloitte [2026] DCR 38

[dodrio3]

Case Filing​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Wayne_Kerr12 (Represented by Lex Titanum)
Plaintiff

v.

Beloitte
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 3rd March 2026, the Plaintiff reached out to the defendant to enquire about services (P-002). The next day, the defendant and plaintiff agreed to a $10,000 retainer, and the Plaintiff paid the fee of $10,000 before the defendant had completed any work (P-003). This agreement was under the pretext that the defendant would do $10,000 worth of work for the fee.

On the 4th of March, the defendant completed one contract for the defendant, but it was agreed that no funds would be subtracted from the retainer due to an alternate agreement(P-004).

On both the 15th, 16th and 30th of March, the Plaintiff reached out to the defendant enquiring about more work that needed to be done, but was met with no response from the defendant(P-005).

I. PARTIES

1. Wayne_Kerr12 - Plaintiff
2. Beloitte - Defendant
3. Musa096 - Beloitte Managing Partner (P-01)
4. nick (XDBH)- Beloitte Managing Partner (P-01)

II. FACTS

1. On the 3rd of March, the Plaintiff reached out to the Defendant, requesting services. (P-002)
2. On the 4th of March, the Defendant Agreed to a $10,000 retainer. (P-003)
3. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant $10,000 for the retainer on the 4th March. (P-003)
4. The Defendant agreed not to take any money from the retainer for the contract completed on the 4th March (P-004)
5. On the 15th,16th and 30th of March, the Plaintiff contacted the defendant, asking about more work and got no response (P-005)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. On March 4th 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a legally binding agreement, where the defendant agreed to provide $10,000 worth of work to the plaintiff in a retainer. On March 4th 2026, the Plaintiff paid the full sum of $10,000. The Defendant breached this contract by failing to provide any services.
2. The Defendants' conduct demonstrates a “substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour" by accepting a large sum of money and not completing the work that they agreed upon. This qualified the plaintiff to punitive damages against the defendant.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $10,000 In Compensationary Damages for the Fee paid for unfulfilled services
2. $15,000 In Punitive Damages for the outrageous actions of the defendant
3. 30% of the cases value or $3,000 which ever is higher, in legal fees paid to Lex Titanium

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 20th day of April 2026

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

 

[dodrio3]

Proof Of Representation

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

xbdh (@nick) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Wayne_Kerr12 v. Beloitte [2026] DCR 38.

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.