Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,739 characters extracted
—
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
Countharebourg2,
-against
Hersofius,
Defendant.
Case No. __________________
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Presiding Judge: ______________
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
I. Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Claim for Assault
On July 18, 2025, Defendant Hersofius entered Bloxmart, equipped a firearm, and aimed
without provocation at Plaintiff Countharebourg2. Pl's. Comp. at ¶ 1-3 (“Defendant Hersofius
entered Bloxmart ... [and] equip[ped] his ... firearm of choice, and aimed without provocation at
[Plaintiff Countharebourg2]”) Defendant then shot and killed Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 5 (“The plaintiff
was then shot and killed by the defendant, ending the incident.”)
This suit followed. Plaintiff’s Complaint properly brings claims for Battery, Assault, and
Wrongful Death. Id., at ¶ 14.
Nonetheless, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for Assault for failure to state
a claim. That dog won’t hunt. In his motion, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff [has] fail[ed] to
allege any imminent apprehension of harm or any violational act by Defendant that rises to the
level of assault …” Def’s. Motion to Dismiss, p. 1. But the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint
easily state a state tort claim for Assault under 1 R. Stat. § 3103.
To state a claim for Assault under § 3103, Plaintiff must allege that “[Defendant] caused
reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact[.]” Id. Here, Defendant
caused Plaintiff to reasonably apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact by pointing
his firearm at Plaintiff before viciously shooting her dead in a Bloxmart.
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to dismiss.
Alice Cain
Countharebourg2
Plaintiff
