STATE OF RIDGEWAY
KHAZAIN )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-360
Plaintiff
v.
CLIFFORD02, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Ridgeway;
HITHERWGUYS
Defendants
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE PARTY HITHERWGUYS
I. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES NO TORT AGAINST THE PARTY OF HITHERWGUYS
The plaintiff while filing the suit, levies only one tort in the official filing. As per the initial in-game
filing, this tort is a “Systemic Rights Violation.” In the civil complaint, the plaintiff lists out the allegations, as
per usual, and prays for relief. There is no direct mention of torts in there, but it can be assumed that this is the
tort being levied against the defendants because it’s on the Trello card.
However, in this civil complaint, there is no allegation, or anything alike, that defendant Hitherwguys
committed this alleged “Systemic Rights Violation.” In the eyes of counsel, this is a case between Khazain, and
the Attorney General. The plaintiff makes no argument, nor allegation, that Hitherwguys committed the alleged
tort. This can be easily found in the civil complaint under the section “Parties,” where it lists the parties
involved. It describes Clifford02 blatantly as being “sued,” and makes no such mention of that when mentioning
Hitherwguys, instead of saying that Hither is an “interested party” in the matter. Thus, a defendant, in this case,
has no legal or applicable tort filed against him. Because Hitherwguys is never blatantly labeled as being sued,
nor is any tort filed against him, there is no reason to drag Hitherwguys into the case.
II. PLAINTIFF SEEKS NO DIRECT RELIEF FROM THE PARTY OF HITHERWGUYS
The plaintiff seeks no damages nor relief that Hitherwguys can provide. Prayers C, D, and E, all pertain
to the other defendant. Prayers for relief A and B ask for the court to cancel out the previous actions in a
separate case. While it is true that Hitherwguys would lose out on his $3,000 awarded to him through mediation
damages, that would simply be the court reversing the decision. There is nothing Hitherwguys did to influence
that, however. The plaintiff never alleges that Hitherwguys did anything illegal or wrong, he alleges that the
court and Attorney General did. Plus, the $3,000 damages were a profit to Hitherwguys. Should the court rule in
favor of the plaintiff in this case, Hitherwguys could pay them back and would suffer 0 monetary loss, he’d just
lose out on all profit. That just means he's back to where he was before the case. That’s just one big “no harm,
no foul.” Hitherwguys really doesn't lose here, either way, the court rules. Either he keeps his profit, or he loses
his profit, but he doesn’t go into a deficit.
III. JUST BECAUSE DEFENDANT HITHERWGUYS IS AN “INTERESTED PARTY ”
DOES NOT MAKE HIM A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE
There are countless cases in American history where a wide nation-defining precedent is set. Roe v.
Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545
U.S. 748 (2005). Was every “interested party” labeled as a defendant in the case? No. We’re they impacted by
the ruling of the case? Almost definitely. They were allowed to submit amicus curiaie briefs, yes, but they were
never directly labeled as a defendant. Remember, at the end of the day, a case is when a plaintiff alleges a
violation of law, seeks damages to compensate, and alleges a defendant who violated said law and must pay
damages.
Plaintiff alleged no violation of law against Hitherwguys. Plaintiff seeks no damages from Hitherwguys.
Even though the case will certainly impact him, he has no right to be labeled a defendant in this case. If every
“impacted party” could be labeled a defendant, could you imagine Miranda with all 50 states on the defense?
Same with Wade? Or in Town of Castle Rock literally every citizen of the United States? The reason we cant just
make every “interested party” a defendant is because it will cause a neverending backlog in the justice system.
They’re allowed to submit amicus, yes, but not everyone needs to be sued in order to contribute to the ruling of
the court.
For the reasons above we ask that the Superior Court dismiss defendant Hitherwguys from the matter,
and proceed with only Clifford02 as the defendant. This case is clearly between Khazain and Clifford02, and
while Hitherwguys may be an impacted party, he is not a defendant because no tort is levied against him and no
damage is expected of him, should the plaintiff win. Hitherwguys has no interest in this case. Please dismiss
him from it.
By and through the Defendant’s counsel,
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ OfficerVideoGame
OfficerVideoGame, RSB#17124
