Lawsuit: Dismissed Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 55

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Yeet_Boy (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On July 21, 2022, the Plaintiff was informed by DCT Secretary deadwax that he is not to rent the food truck beyond the date of 7/30, since the DCT was going to move the truck.

I. PARTIES
1. Yeet_Boy
2. Department of Construction and Transportation

II. Facts
1. The Plaintiff bought the rights to rent the food truck from OverlordofPeonys for $10,000.
2. The Defendant has informed the Plaintiff that he cannot rent the truck past the date of 7/30.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DCT does not have the power of Eminent Domain.
2. It follows thereafter that the DCT is violating Clause XV of Section IV of the Constitution: “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The DCT does not take the food truck (worth at least $10,000 - this is why we are in the Federal Court)
2. $1000 in punitive damages.
3. $800 in legal fees.

Evidence:
1. Conversation between Plaintiff and DCT Secretary deadwax [Exhibit A]

Additionally, we would like to request an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION to prevent the DCT from seizing the food truck as this case is specifically about the legality of the DCT seizing this property.

Consent to Represent:

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.​

 

[Nacho]

Recusing myself from this case for a possible coi

 

[Banana]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 55.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Banana]

With respect to the injunction I will be granting the request. I hereby order that the DCT not seize the disputed property for the duration of this case.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your honour I would like to ask the court to clarify. The Department of Construction and Transportation had no plans to seize the property. Seize means: take hold of suddenly and forcibly. The Sign simply asked the plaintiff to stop extending the rent on the property. This does not constitute a seizure of any property. The plaintiff is not evicted from the property either. (Which would still be in the government's right to do so.)

Tenant Rights Act​

4 - Public Renting
When a player is renting from the Government, they are entitled to the rights listed in this section:
(1) Tenants must be given 48 hours' notice from the Government before they are evicted from a rental region, excluding a report made by a building inspector.
(2) Tenants must be given a full refund of the rent they have pre-paid if evicted.


My question to the court is if the injunction applies to the seizing / evicting of the property or if the court is granting Yeet_boy the right to keep extending the rent contract for the duration of the trial.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, we have just discovered new evidence showing a conversation about this truck between Milkcrack and deadwax and would like to share it with the court.

 

[Admin23]

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

Yeet_Boy
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The DCT is not exercising Eminent Domain, as Eminent Domain is the seizing of private property to convert into public use. This is a rental property and is not the private property of the Plaintiff.

2. The eviction notice was a notice to not rent past July 30th was posted on July 21st, a whole 9 days before the given deadline. Clause XV, Section VI in the Constitution does not apply here as this is not a seizure and this is not unreasonable. This is no different than a renter giving a deadline to leave the property, and the Government has given 9 days notice of such eviction and as such had fulfilled their duty to give 48 hours notice to the tenant under the Tenant Rights Act, 4.1.

3. The Plaintiff did not pay the Government for the Rental Property and had paid OverlordofPeonys for their rights to use the property, and as such, the Government has no duty to give a refund to the Plaintiff for the Rental Property.

4. The Government is not responsible for how much an individual pays for rental rights of a Public Rental Space. That is a private business transaction between the Plaintiff and OverlordofPeonys, not between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

5. It seems that the Plaintiff was under the impression that he could rent the food truck indefinitely. This, however, is not the case. The Plaintiff should sue OverlordOfPeonys and not the Government. The Plaintiff should have been informed by OverlordOfPeonys that he was purchasing OverlordOfPeonys’ rental time and not his own. This failure to communicate is not the fault of the Government, but rather is the fault of OverlordOfPeonys.


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 July, 2022

 

[Banana]

Does the Plaintiff wish to make a rebuttal to this motion to dismiss?

 

[Dartanboy]

Yes, we would like to respond. We will post our response shortly.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

In response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

1. According to the Tenant Vibes Act, "The Tenant … is afforded the same rights as the Landlord" and "When renting … that person is subsequently owning that area." Thus, although a rental property, the Tenant is to be treated as the owner of the region and is entitled to defend against seizure of the property/eviction in court.

2. The Defendant claims that because they gave 9-days notice for eviction, it is justified. This is a defense and not a reason to dismiss the case. For this reason, I will refrain from rebutting until our Opening Statements.

3. The Defendant mentions the payment to OverlordofPeonys and claims the Government has no duty to refund that payment. We do not dispute this, and this lawsuit never asked for such a refund.

4. Very similar to #3… this lawsuit is about the seizure of the property/eviction of the tenant, not the money paid to rent the space.

5. While of course indefinitely renting is never guaranteed, it is understood that having a rental sign is consent to a rental contract, and eviction by the DCT requires specific criteria to be met. Throughout this case we will show the DCT does not have the right to go through with this operation.​

 

[Banana]

Verdict

I will accept the motion to dismiss, and I am doing so on the following grounds:

- This lawsuit takes into account, and is even arguably based on, the fact that the Plaintiff paid $10,000 for the right to rent the truck out. If it were irrelevant, it would not be listed in the Prayer for Relief as pertinent. It follows, then, that the Plaintiff is asking the court to hold the DCT responsible for agreements made between two private individuals, not the government’s own policy.
- The court has no jurisdiction to force the government to be liable for agreements made without its knowledge or agreement. There is no grounds for the Plaintiff to seek compensation from the government based on a private agreement that the government was not party to.

This case is hereby dismissed. The court thanks both parties for their time.