ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
StudsPerSecond
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-523
Plaintiff
v.
BPD_edgar
Defendant
ORDER
WHEREAS the defense has entered a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff’s have been offered the
opportunity to respond and such opportunity has been taken,
WHEREAS the defense’s motion to dismiss has contained compelling arguments that outweighed the
opposition filed by the plaintiff’s letter in opposition,
BACKGROUND
In the defense’s motion to dismiss, counsel asserts that Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) and
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 190 establish grounds
for dismissal of this claim. The defense claims that owing to the defendant’s termination from SPS, the
controversy has been mooted by this subsequent development. The defense also asserts that the allegedly
wrongful behavior could not be expected to occur, as the defendant no longer has access to the apparatus
required to steal equipment.
Furthermore, the defense cites Already, LCC v. Nike, Inc. 568 U.S. 85 (2013) to claim that the
aforementioned facts declare the plaintiff was “once bitten”, and that “there is no justiciable controversy in this
case due to the doctrine of mootness”. As prescribed by Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 788 (1969), the
courts must act only when there is a justifiable controversy. This court sustains these claims and is in agreement
with the facts as presented.
In their response, the plaintiff’s assert that “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” as prescribed by Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
560-61 (1992). However, at this juncture, this court does not believe that it is not likely that injury will be
redressed by a decision in this court. Monetary claims found in the civil complaint have been previously
dismissed by this court owing to unsubstantiable values such as monetary values of items that can be infinitely
dispensed (with no “street value” prescribed by game mechanics, such as the illegal gun dealer).
While the plaintiff’s fervor and knowledge rang clear in their opposition, this court holds that the
defendant’s assertions as found in their aforementioned motion to dismiss outweigh the value of the arguments
made by the plaintiff’s in their response.
CONCLUSION
This court sees fit to dismiss the complaint with prejudice so as to allow for the defense to continue forth
unencumbered.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 22nd day of July, 2022.
/s/ tripnixon
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
