IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THR33SIX8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-6949
JUDGEMENT ON DEFENCE’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff
v.
DOMINODOWNLOAD, ET AL.
Defendant
JUDGEMENT ON THE DEFENCE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND
On July 4th, 2026, Defendant, through their Counsel, Solicitor General Hecxtro, submitted a motion for
summary judgment in conjunction with their response to Plaintiff’s civil complaint. Plaintiff submitted a
response to Defendant’s motion to this court on July 5th, 2026. Defendant submits within their motion that they
acted in self-defence.
STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment is appropriate where there is an issue of liability alone, Rid. R. Civ. Pro. 38(c).
Where there is a genuine dispute of fact, a motion for summary judgment cannot succeed, provided the dispute
demonstrates that a genuine factual issue for trial remains, Rid. R. Civ. Pro. 38(c). Where there is no factual
dispute, a party must only prove that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. This is satisfied
if the party shows, on the legal merits, that their case succeeds.
APPLICATION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
I. The statutory authority invoked by Defendant is not clearly established
The use of force standard which Defendant invokes is unclear; the Court shares the Plaintiff’s
dissatisfaction with Defendant’s motion in this respect and would expect an established attorney, like
General Hecxtro, to explicitly provide the legal authority for their submissions. If Defendant was
intending to invoke 6 R. Stat. § 122.206, potentially in conjunction with 6 R. Stat. § 122.211, then
Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant doing so would be well-placed. The evidentiary value of the
aforementioned standard, without further authority to support its application in civil proceedings, is
negligible, per 6 R. Stat. § 122.002. If Defendant intended to invoke a different statute, then they should
have referenced the applicable standard in their motion. The Court shall not consider any common-law
justification for Defendant’s actions as they explicitly invoke statutory authority alone within their
motion.
II. Plaintiff does not establish a clear factual dispute
While Plaintiff alleges a factual dispute based on Defendant’s response to the civil complaint and their
motion, this would not appear to be the case. The contentions mentioned by Plaintiff are purely legal.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s failure to outline the statutory use of force standard which they rely upon means that their motion is
too inadequate for this court to determine liability. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
denied.
DATED this 10th day of July 2026. SO ORDERED,
EffortlessBrit
Superior Court Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
