STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Tomskipetski5
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-379
Plaintiff
v.
zac2524
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
ARGUMENTS
I. A CLAIM IS STATED
As the defendant said in his motion to dismiss per Rid. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides that the civil complaint
must “[set] forth a claim for relief... shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems
himself entitled.” When a civil complaint does not “state a complaint upon which relief can be granted”.
In the civil complaint submitted it’s clearly stated in statements 3 & 6 that I was supposed to get relief
for the actions of zac2524 when he was employed in SPS. It does in fact state a claim as I was supposed
to receive an apology letter that I’m still waiting to receive. Though in certain civil litigations apology
letters cannot be requested which is why I request money in compensation for the damages.
Moving on, as I said in statement point 8 allowing zac2524 to leave before 24h is a violation of policy
thus a violation of the handbook which is the de facto contract that all employees abide by. The
statement line 5 doesn’t make a legal conclusion it can be seen Goodstein v. Bombardier Capital, Inc.,
(D.Vt. 1995) and Goodstein v. Bombardier Capital, Inc. (21 F.3d 649 5th Cir. 1994) that employers can
be held personally liable for harassment. In this case, we can consider zac2524 as an employer as a
manager he had the ability to demote and promote individuals in the company and plays a significant
administrative role being second in command of the company. This is highly relevant to the case as the
reason why zac2524 was subject to sanction partly because “Employees may not harass individuals, or
other employees while representing the company.” this is a citation from the SPS Case report.
Further, the defendant claims that “Plaintiff does not support, by factual allegations in his complaint,
that Plaintiff’s supposed injury is the result of Defendant’s unlawful or tortious conduct. Furthermore,
Plaintiff would fail to show how the relief requested would satisfy the injuries specified.” However, as I
said in statement point 6 he has a duty to provide relief for his behaviour in the workplace is in fact
harassment and is a violation of the SPS policy and ridgeway laws. The company allowed him to resign
earlier in an attempt to free him from his duty of writing and sending me that apology letter as I said in
my statement in point #8 (why I’m pursuing him for conspiracy). Even if zac2524 resigned this doesn’t
protect him from personal liability as I wrote previously.
Finally, in the Ridgeway CIVIL CLAIMS ACT Section 1 (f) it reads the following: “Any individual who
is prescribed a duty by statute or administrative policy, and that individual breached such statute or
administrative policy resulted in injury against another individual is negligence per se,” In this case,
zac2524 was found at fault for violating SPS policy and was requested to give to me an apology letter
which he never did and as such committed negligence per se thus entitling me to relief. As I said above
in my statement of facts point 6 he refused to write it which then causes me injury as I have a right to
compensation for his misconduct.
II. THIS CASE IS NOT VEXATIOUS IN NATURE
The defendant claims that “Plaintiff initiates this manner contemporaneously with another manner. The
alleged claims, facts, and allegations are nearly identical. See Tomskipetski5 v. StudsPerSecond
(RSC-CV-380).” This case is not vexatious, as to get relief for the harassment done I must sue zac2524
as an individual and not SPS. I’m suing SPS for a completely different set of reasons. SPS worked with
zac2524 to allow him to break policy and get away from fulfilling his duties before resigning. SPS Also
retaliated against me. Going back to this current case, yes the facts are similar because it’s the same
situation but taken from a different angle. I wouldn’t need to sue zac2524 personally if he had remained
in SPS but at this time his resignation was completed days ago and this is my only recourse to obtain
relief.
III. DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE WOULD BE DANGEROUS
If this court still finds that the civil complaints fail to state a claim dismissed with prejudice would be
setting a dangerous precedent. It would allow employers to harass their employees and get away by
resigning even if they break their own internal policies written in the handbook which act as a contract
in this case. This would open the door for other employees and command members in other companies
and departments to do the same.
CONCLUSION
We believe that we have strong grounds for a lawsuit, and for the reasons stated above, we firmly
OPPOSE any effort at this time by the defendant and/or defendant's counsel to dismiss the case. We
hope the Honorable Judge insertfailure will use good judicial discretion in comparing our arguments and
will see that the letter of the law favours the plaintiff.
Date: 25th of May
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiffs Tomskipetski5
/s/ Tomskipetski5
Tomskipetski5, RSB#17142
