Docket NO: RSC-CV-2815
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
______________________
STEMPIEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRUNOMONTIEL1,
Defendant.
______________________
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
Plaintiff Stempiee, proceeding pro se, opposes Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rid. R. Civ.
P. 7.1(4) as follows:
COUNT I – ASSAULT
1. Rule 9(9)(1) requires a plaintiff to plead that the defendant "intentionally and
voluntarily caused the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive
contact." The Complaint pleads exactly that. Compl. ¶¶ 17–18. A pleading cannot fail for using
the words the Rules require.
2. "Harmful or offensive" is one element, and the motion concedes that "either" kind
of contact is enough. Mot. ¶ 8. Alternative statements in one count are also expressly allowed.
Rid. R. Civ. P. 8(5)(2). Here the contact Plaintiff feared was being shot (Compl. ¶ 12), which is
plainly harmful.
3. The motion demands that Plaintiff specify the contact the discharge "caused."
Mot. ¶ 11. Contact is an element of battery (7 R. Stat. § 121.002), not assault. Assault requires
only apprehension of contact. If Defendant truly could not answer, his remedy was a motion for a
more definite statement under Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(6), not dismissal.
COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE PER SE
4. Rule 9(9)(12) requires four things: the statute, its breach, the injury, and that the
statute was intended to prevent that injury. The Complaint pleads all four. Compl. ¶¶ 9–14,
21–23. Defendant does not dispute breach. Mot. ¶ 19.
1
Docket NO: RSC-CV-2815
5. Defendant's "individual versus public" test comes from Pennsylvania law (Mest v.
Cabot Corp., 449 F.3d 502). It is not Ridgeway law. Ridgeway requires only that the statute "be
intended to prevent the injury suffered." 7 R. Stat. § 121.302(a). Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 8(3)(2)(7),
any claim that it was not is an affirmative defense for Defendant to plead in his answer, not a
ground for dismissal.
6. R.C.C. § 2.33 is not a "general statute for an entire State." Mot. ¶ 22. It applies
only "within city limits or in residential areas," where people are present, and it protects the
people within range of gunfire. Plaintiff was one of them. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 10–11, 21.
7. The motion says Plaintiff's injuries are "not recognized by State law" but cites
nothing for this. Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1(2)(1). Section 121.302 requires "injury" without limiting it to
bodily injury, and Ridgeway law recognizes fear for one's safety as harm. See R.C.C. § 3.12.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court:
a. Deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety;
b. Direct Defendant to answer within twenty-four (24) hours after notice of the ruling, per Rid.
R. Civ. P. 12(5)(1); and
c. In the alternative, dismiss without prejudice with leave to amend, per Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(10)
and 16(3).
Dated: 10/01/2026 Respectfully submitted:
/s/ STEMPIEE
___________________________
Stempiee
Plaintiff pro se
@virridity
2
