Lawsuit: Pending Nimq_ vs Crown

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATIES TO COMPEL
​

The court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Entreaties to Compel (#11, #12 and #13) and the Defendant's Submission of Discovery (#14).
The Plaintiff asked the court to compel the Defendant to produce three different pieces of information in three separate Entreaties. The Defendant did not oppose these requests for discovery and produced the information requested in their Submission of Discovery. As the information requested has already been provided and the Defendant did not oppose the request, there is no need for the court to compel the Defendant to produce the information.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's three Entreaties to Compel are hereby DENIED.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ENTREATY TO DISMISS
​

The court has reviewed the Defendant's Entreaty to Dismiss (#16) and their request to amend the Entreaty (#18), Plaintiff's Response to the Entreaty to Dismiss (#17), Plaintiff's Entreaty for Clarification (#19) and Plaintiff's Entreaty of Prompting (#20)

The rules of this Court clearly state that any Entreaty to Dismiss should specify the dismissal rule under which it is submitted. The Entreaty made by the Defendant did not specify any dismissal rule.
The situation caused by the recent change to the court rules and procedures, which happened in between the submission of the Entreaty to Dismiss and this ruling on it, is a unique one. This court's rules initially did not include a clear way for the Defendant to reach the result that it appears they intended to reach through their Entreaty to Dismiss. However, the change to this court's rules has specified an Entreaty to do exactly that. This resulted in the Defendant requesting to amend their Entreaty, which them resulted in the Plaintiff's Entreaty for Clarification. The Plaintiff raises valid issues that may arise if the court were to let the Defendant amend their Entreaty to an Entreaty of a different type. The Court does not find it just or in line with the court rules and procedures to allow the Defendant to amend their Entreaty significantly, when the Plaintiff would not be able to alter their response in return. The Court will not accept the amendment to the Entreaty which the Defendant requested and will rule on the Entreaty as it was originally submitted. If the Defendant wishes their Entreaty to be considered as an Entreaty for Removal, the Defendant may resubmit it as such, which would give the Plaintiff the proper ability to respond to the Entreaty as defined in this Court's rules and procedures.
The Plaintiff in their Entreaty for Clarification requested the Court to issue a ruling clarifying whether Entreaties can be amended or not in general. The Court will not grant clarification on this, as it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to set precedent regarding the general application of the court rules and procedures.
The Plaintiff's Entreaty of Prompting simply requested the Court rule on the pending Entreaty for Clarification, which the court has hereby done.

Accordingly,
Defendant's Entreaty to Dismiss is hereby DENIED;
Plaintiff's Entreaty for Clarification is hereby DENIED;
Plaintiff's Entreaty of Prompting is hereby GRANTED.

 

[Gribble19]

Discovery has ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Opening Statement.

 

[Nim]

ENTREATY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Nimq_, respectfully moves this Honorable Court for Summary Judgment against the Defendant, the Crown, pursuant to the General Court Rules and Procedures. This motion is based on the grounds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact necessary to establish the Defendant's liability for negligence, and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery, and admissions on file show that there is "no genuine dispute of material fact" and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Based on the Defendant's own Answer to Complaint (filing #6), the following material facts are not in dispute:

1. Plaintiff was traveling along "The Unnamed Big Road" (Answer #6, Point 1).
2. The road contained an unmarked cliff edge, approximately 7 meters high (Answer #6, Points 2 & 3, Plaintiff's Amendment #10).
3. There was a lack of signage or barriers, and the cliff edge was difficult for the Plaintiff to see (Answer #6, Point 3).
4. Plaintiff fell from this cliff edge (Answer #6, Point 4).
5. Plaintiff's fall and subsequent injury were caused by the Defendant's failure to remove or mark this abnormality in the road (Answer #6, Point 4).
6. The Defendant was a part in causing the Plaintiff's injury (Answer #6, Point 7).
7. The Plaintiff sustained injury, specifically the loss of two hearts of health, as a result of the fall (Answer #6, Point 4 & 8).

III. ARGUMENT: LIABILITY IS ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF LAW

The undisputed facts establish the necessary elements for the Defendant's negligence:

1. Duty: The Crown, as the governing body responsible for public infrastructure, owes a fundamental duty of care to maintain public roads in a reasonably safe condition for those traveling upon them. This duty exists irrespective of the specific interpretation of §22 of the Constitution. Maintaining a major road with an unmarked 7-meter cliff edge falls below any reasonable standard of care.
2. Breach: The Defendant explicitly admitted the hazardous condition (unmarked cliff), the lack of warnings or barriers, and the difficulty in visibility (Answer #6, Points 2 & 3). This constitutes an undisputed breach of the duty of reasonable care.
3. Causation: The Defendant explicitly admitted that its failure to remove or mark the hazard was the cause of the Plaintiff's fall and resulting injury (Answer #6, Point 4). Causation is therefore undisputed.
4. Damages: The Defendant explicitly admitted the Plaintiff suffered injury (loss of 2 hearts) as a direct result of the fall caused by the Defendant's breach (Answer #6, Points 4 & 8). The *existence* of damages is undisputed.

IV. DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS DO NOT CREATE A GENUINE DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY

The Defendant raises two primary defenses in its Answer (#6), neither of which creates a genuine dispute of *material fact* sufficient to deny summary judgment on the issue of liability:

1. Constitutional Interpretation (§22 and Citizenship): The Defendant argues §22 protections do not apply or only apply to citizens, and claims Plaintiff is not a citizen.
* This is fundamentally a question of *law* for the Court to decide, not a dispute of *fact* requiring trial. The Magistrate can interpret §22 based on the undisputed circumstances.
* Furthermore, the Defendant's argument regarding citizenship leads to an untenable position. As established in Plaintiff's Response (#3) and unrebutted by Defendant, citizenship/residency plots have not been formalized or made available. If Plaintiff is not a citizen entitled to basic safety protections on public land due to this administrative delay, then *no one* currently residing in the Kingdom is, potentially including the Defendant's own representatives. To argue that the Crown owes no basic duty of care regarding dangerous hazards on public roads to *any* inhabitant until formal citizenship is granted is contrary to fundamental principles of governance and safety. The Crown has also failed to provide *any* evidence supporting its assertion that Plaintiff lacks the requisite status for protection.
* Even setting aside §22, the fundamental common law or general legal duty of a governing body to maintain public ways safely remains, and the breach thereof is undisputed.

2. Severity and Valuation of Damages: The Defendant disputes the *severity* of the injury ("minor inconvenience") and the *monetary value* of the damages (£0.40-£1.00 vs. £1,100), including denying compensation for mental distress and the appropriateness of punitive damages (Answer #6, Points 4, 8, 9).
* While the *amount* of damages is disputed, this does not negate the undisputed facts establishing the Defendant's *liability* for causing *some* damages through negligence.
* Summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of liability, even if the precise calculation of damages requires further argument or determination by the Court. The Defendant's admission of causing 2 hearts of damage provides an undisputed baseline of injury.

V. CONCLUSION

The material facts establishing the Defendant's duty, breach, causation, and the existence of damages are undisputed based on the Defendant's own admissions. The Defendant's arguments regarding constitutional interpretation and the precise value of damages are either matters of law for the Court or do not preclude a finding of liability. There is no genuine dispute of material fact remaining regarding the Defendant's negligence.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nimq_ respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Grant this Entreaty of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
2. Enter a judgment finding the Defendant, the Crown, liable for negligence.
3. Award the Plaintiff damages as sought in the Amended Complaint (filing #10) in the amount of £1,100 (representing £100 compensatory and £1,000 punitive damages), or alternatively, enter judgment on liability and schedule further proceedings solely for the determination of damages if the Court deems necessary.
4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
April 25, 2025

 

[Greenish9]

ENTREATY TO POSTPONE
In the Magistrate's Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria

The Defendant supplicates the Court to grant the Defendant an additional forty-eight hours to respond to the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgement. This is because the Defendant is currently busy with his IRL studies and will not be able to complete a response to the Entreaty without compromising his academic success.
4/25/25​

 

[Gribble19]

The Court hereby extends the formal expiration date for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgement (#24) by 12 hours from the original deadline. This ensures that the Plaintiff has the proper 24 hours to respond to Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone, while also ensuring that the deadline, which Defendant has requested to be postponed, has not passed by the time the Court may rule on the Entreaty to Postpone.

 

[Nim]

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ENTREATY TO POSTPONE

Plaintiff, Nimq_, hereby responds to the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (filing #25) regarding the deadline for responding to the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (filing #24).

1. The Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (filing #25), requesting an additional 48 hours to respond to the pending Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) due to the Defendant's Counsel's real-life academic commitments.
2. The Plaintiff also acknowledges the Court's interim Order (filing #26) extending the response deadline by 12 hours to allow for this response.
3. The Plaintiff understands the pressures of real-life obligations and therefore does not object to the Defendant's request for a 48-hour postponement of the deadline to respond to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24). Plaintiff consents to the Court granting this extension.
4. However, Plaintiff notes that this postponement will necessarily delay the resolution of the pending Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) and potentially subsequent stages of this case.
5. Should the Court deny or partially deny the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), thereby requiring the Plaintiff to proceed with submitting an Opening Statement as per the Court's Order (filing #23), Plaintiff respectfully requests that a new deadline be set for the Opening Statement. Specifically, Plaintiff requests 24 hours, commencing from the time the Court issues its ruling on the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), to submit the Opening Statement. This ensures the Plaintiff has a defined period to prepare the statement after the outcome of the Summary Judgment motion is known, accounting for the delay introduced by the Defendant's requested postponement.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (filing #25), extending the deadline for the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) by 48 hours from the originally scheduled deadline.
2. Order that, should the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) be denied or partially denied, necessitating the submission of an Opening Statement, the Plaintiff shall have 24 hours, starting from the time the Court issues its ruling on the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), to submit said Opening Statement.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
April 26, 2025

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF CONTINUANCE
​

The court has reviewed the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (#25). The Court has not considered the Plaintiff's Response to the Entreaty, as it was not submitted within 24 hours from the submission of the Entreaty.

The Court postpones proceedings for 48 hours, or until the Defendant submits their response to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment in case this happens before the end of the 48 hours. Defendant's deadline to respond to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment is hereby set 48 hours from now. The Court would once again like to remind all parties to please make use of the entreaties that are defined in this court's rules and procedures if one exists that exactly fits their request, such as an Entreaty of Continuance would have in this situation.

Accordingly, Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone is hereby GRANTED.

 

[Greenish9]

RESPONSE TO ENTREATY OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
In the Magistrate's Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria


- The Defendant does not contest the facts of what occurred to the Plaintiff in relation to his fall and the ensuing injury, nor the causes for the fall and ensuing injury.
- The Defendant does contest the Plaintiff's statement that "liability is established as a matter of law." The Plaintiff is incorrect when he claims that the Defendant "...owes a fundamental duty of care to maintain public roads in a reasonably safe condition." This is because no law or statue establishes this duty and no claim of this being a "reasonable standard of care" possibly establishes this as a material fact.
- The Defendant agrees that there is no dispute of material fact about the status of what occurred to the Plaintiff in relation to his fall and the ensuing injury and its causes, however disagrees with the Plaintiff's statement that "[t]he Magistrate can interpret §22 [of the Constitution] based on the undisputed circumstances." As established in the General Court Rules and Procedures, only the Chancery can decide upon Constitutional matters.
- The Defendant denies that the alleged "fundamental principles of governance and safety" would be breached by a lack of citizenship law. A failure of the Legislature to establish certain law is not something that the Court action up on, regardless of its opinion on said law. The Court only interpret the law, not create it. The Court can use this power to decide that a certain law violates the Constitution, among other things, but it cannot itself violate the Constitutionally established status of the Parliament as the sole progenitor of law. Therefore, the Court cannot compel the Parliament to pass any law; which includes enacting upon it punitive measure for the lack of said law because that is inherently a compelling of the Parliament to enact said law.
- The Defendant denies that it needs to provide "evidence supporting its assertion that Plaintiff lacks the requisite status for protection" because, at the time of the filing of the complaint, there was no definition for what falls under citizenship. The Defendant finds it unreasonable to ask it to provide evidence of something that did not exist.
- The Defendant denies the existence of a "fundamental common law or general legal duty of a governing body to maintain public ways safely remains..." as this cannot be derived from any pre-existing law or judicial precedent and therefore does not provably or reasonably exist.
4/27/25​