Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

2,320 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY CITATION: epidermisgupta69 v. BetaTheWolfGamer, RSC-CV-841 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: January 20, 2023 BETWEEN: epidermisgupta69 Plaintiff and BetaTheWolfGamer Defendant ORAL REASONS ON MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE KOALA4IIFE [1] The motion to dismiss purports to be alleging a failure to claim, but it does not do so because the argument is based on the assumption that plaintiff is suing under the "first part" of the official misconduct tort because defendant has no right to dictate to the plaintiff what "part" of a tort to sue under. Moreover the official misconduct tort is not sectioned into 2 parts; it plainly says that an act or omission (one or the other) is a wrong. In fact, I do not accept that the plaintiff stated on the record that he is suing under the former or latter half of the tort. In any event, a defendant cannot instruct a plaintiff that he or she must sue under one specific part of a tort if that tort has multiple parts that, if one is satisfied, creates liability. [2] The point made about "bypassing" the statute should borderline be struck: it is not appropriate for defence counsel to critique the way plaintiff has chosen to advance their claims. More to the point, the law only requires that a sufficient claim be made, not that the claim was made in a manner that they would have liked it to be made. [3] But all this is not to say that the complaint is necessarily sufficient either. I noticed plaintiff alluded to the claim that he died under the custody of defendant at para. 15, but that is not clearly connected to the elements of the tort. As a result, I am unable to make a rational connection between the facts and the tort because para. 21 is vague to the point of disbelief. The latter half of the paragraph appears to be one of those carbon copy recitals of the statute. [4] There are just a many holes as there is substance in both these submission. I will deny the motion to dismiss for now and direct plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before January 21, 2023. Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway this 20th day of January, 2023. “koala4Iife” Judge koala4Iife Counsel for the plaintiff epidermisgupta69: HolyRomanRyan, Ridgeway. Counsel for the defendant BetaTheWolfGamer: totoro987123, Ridgeway.

MotionRuling_RSC-CV-841_2339-012023.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record