RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
Detachment_Result,
Plaintiff,
v.
AlexanderLuthorJr,
Defendant.
Case No.: RSC-CV-5938
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Detachment_Result (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully submits this response opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rid. Civ. P. 12(a)(5). For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be denied in its
entirety.
INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTION
This is a civil tort action alleging Wrongful Death under 1. R. Stat § 3109 and
Trover under 1 R. Stat. § 3113. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss argues that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim for these torts, pursuant to Rid. Civ. P. 12(a)(5). However, when
viewing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and accepting all
well-pleaded facts as true-as required under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)—the
Complaint satisfies the pleading standard under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). The Complaint alleges a plausible unlawful death and an unlawful taking of
property, neither of which is legally justifiable based on the facts presented. The
defendant's claims of "self-defense" and "necessity" create factual issues that are not
sufficient grounds for dismissal. under Rule 12(a)(5). For these reasons, the Motion must
be denied.
This Court exercises original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article V, Section
IV of the Constitution of the State of Ridgeway, which provides jurisdiction over all civil
and criminal cases or controversies under the rules set by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, this case is governed by the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure.
1
LEGAL STANDARD
A Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rid. Civ. P. 12 challenges
the sufficiency of a complaint, not its evidentiary support. Under Rid. Civ. P. 8, a
complaint need only provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” It is not required to set out detailed facts or preemptively
negate defenses. See Rule 8(a); Rule 8(c).
In ruling on a Motion to Dismiss, the Court must assume the truth of all
well-pleaded factual allegations and construe them in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff. Rule 8(f) requires that all pleadings “shall be so construed to do substantial
justice.”
Affirmative defenses, such as self-defense or necessity, must be affirmatively
pleaded by the Defendant. See Rule 8(c). A Plaintiff is not required to anticipate and
negate them in the complaint. The Motion to Dismiss must be denied unless the
complaint’s own facts clearly establish a complete legal justification for the alleged
conduct.
ARGUMENT
01. The Complaint States a Plausible Claim for Wrongful Death
a. Plaintiff alleges that while performing a lawful duty as an RCU Corporate
Security employee, they were spotted, approached, and ultimately shot and
killed by the Defendant at point-blank range.
b. Plaintiff further alleges that this shooting occurred without legal cause or
justification, satisfying the elements of Wrongful Death under 1 R. Stat. §
3109, which states: “[A]ny individual who causes the death of another
without legal cause or justification shall be wrongful death and liable…”
c. Defendant’s argument relies entirely on a mischaracterization of the term
“confront” to infer aggression or provocation. However, courts must
2
interpret pleadings in the Plaintiff’s favor on a Motion to Dismiss. See
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The Complaint does not
allege that the Plaintiff brandished a weapon, made threats, or engaged in
unlawful conduct. Rather, the term “confront” merely describes an act of
verbal or physical (not-violent) engagement, which may be wholly lawful
and peaceful. There is no allegation in the Complaint that would permit this
Court to conclude-on the pleadings alone-that the Defendant acted in lawful
self-defense. Plaintiff had a justified reason to exit their company vehicle
and to “confront” Defendant.
d. Indeed, self-defense is an affirmative defense that cannot serve as a basis
for dismissal unless it is established on the facts of the complaint. See
Richmond Steel Inc. v. Legal & Gen. Assur. Soc’y, 821 F. Supp. 793, 797
(D.P.R. 1993); Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980) (“Since qualified
immunity is a defense, the burden of pleading it rests with the defendant.”).
The Plaintiff is under no obligation at the pleading stage to negate
hypothetical justifications not supported by facts in the Complaint.
e. Moreover, Rule 8 does not require the Plaintiff to anticipate and rebut
affirmative defenses. Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640. Whether the Defendant was
actually justified in using deadly force is a matter of fact not suitable for
resolution on a Motion to Dismiss.
02. The Complaint States a Plausible Claim for Trover
a. Under 1. R. Stat. § 3113, Trover requires a wrongful taking of personal
property without legal justification. The Complaint alleges that after
Plaintiff was killed, Plaintiff’s lawfully possessed firearm was taken by the
Defendant without permission, and without returning it to the Plaintiff’s
estate. That is sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
b. Defendant argues that securing the weapon was a justified act of necessity.
But again, that is a factual defense, not one that can be adjudicated at the
pleading stage. Courts routinely hold that the doctrine of necessity involves
3
questions of fact inappropriate for Rule 12 dismissal. See United States v.
Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992); People v. Gray, 150 Cal. App.
4th 379, 385 (2007) (necessity is a jury question unless clearly established
on the pleadings).
c. Even if a necessity defense could hypothetically justify momentary seizure
of a weapon, the Complaint alleges no facts showing that the Defendant
returned the property to law enforcement or the Plaintiff’s estate. Thus, the
taking is not justified on its face, and the element of Trover remains
plausible.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's Motion requests that the Court accept disputed inferences in his favor
and resolve affirmative defenses on the pleadings, which is inconsistent with
well-established pleading norms. Plaintiff has made sufficient factual allegations to
support claims for Wrongful Death and Trover. As a result, the motion to dismiss must be
refused in its entirety. Ultimately, this case has the power to create significant case law
within this community, considering that previous case law was not carried over in the
transition. This case will be built on necessity and self-defense, and could have incredibly
influential rulings, should it continue, which it must.
Dated: July 19th, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Detachment_Result
Detachment_Result (State Bar No. 11103)
4
