Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
2,998 characters extracted
—
IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
MITHUANGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONICACULTURE,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-2516
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
COME NOW, Monicaculture, through the undersigned counsel responds to the civil
complaint submitted by the plaintiff.
INTRODUCTION
1. ADMITTED.
2. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we reject ‘casual travel’ was impeded
as the traffic light showed red and thus the plaintiff could not ‘casually travel’ anyway.
3. ADMITTED.
4. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we agree that the defendant opened fire
but contend that there was a lawful justification for such.
5. ADMITTED.
6. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we suggest that language used in the
complaint is inflammatory rather than objective and is prejudicial.
PARTIES
7. ADMITTED.
8. ADMITTED.
9. ADMITTED.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. ADMITTED.
11. ADMITTED
FACTS
12. ADMITTED.
13. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we reject ‘casual travel’ was impeded
as the traffic light showed red and thus the plaintiff could not ‘casually travel’ anyway.
14. ADMITTED.
15. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we agree that the defendant opened fire
but contend that there was a lawful justification for such.
16. ADMITTED.
17. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we suggest that language used in the
complaint is inflammatory rather than objective and is prejudicial.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18. ADMITTED.
19. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: we agree that the defendant opened fire
but contend that there was a lawful justification for such.
20. DENIED.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21. ADMITTED.
22. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
23. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24. ADMITTED.
25. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
26. DENIED.
27. ADMITTED.
RELIEF
28. The defendant requests that the court grant leave for the plaintiff to amend their
complaint and specifically align their requested relief (overall $8,000) to actual, punitive
and compensatory damages.
29. The defendant also requests that the court grant leave for the plaintiff to amend their
complaint to address how much of the $8,000 total is attributed to each cause of action.
Currently, the complaint fails to state a cause of action and $8,000 in punitive damages is
simply an unacceptable award for punitive damages. See State Farm Mut. Automibile
Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003).
30. Currently the relief outlined is not redressable and "[i]t is the role of courts to provide
relief to claimants [...] who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm", Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343. 349 (1996). The plaintiff only suggests that there are punitive
damages in which the court cannot provide relief above a single digit factor to the actual
harm suffered. Because there is no alleged actual harm and only request for punitive
relief the complaint is not compliant with the Twombly rule.
SIGNED: /s/ Alex J. Cabot
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Counsel of Record
DATED: 25 March 2024
Document record
File size
75.8 KB
Uploaded
Mar 21, 2024 12:00 PM
Filed
Mar 21, 2024 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
mithuangel
Notes
Mithuangel v Monicaculture RESPONSE.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/Z1y131nf)
