11 June 2026 Case Updates

We'll have to wait a little longer for news on some big cases, but we do get some fun in civil/criminal blurring cases. Beyond that, we have a year-old criminal case that's finally coming before the courts.

Industry News

RBA elections are still open until midnight UTC. Go vote!

Now onto the cases.

District Court

MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10, 2026 DCR 67.

In this action for wrongful death, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, citing Rules 5.5 and 5.12. The Lack of Claim argument argues the RCCA is exhaustive, and no claim not explicitly enumerated therein can stand. The defendant does acknowledge the common-law provision of the RCCA but argues plaintiffs have to point to specific Redmont precedent if they wish to plead an unenumerated claim. Defendant also eviscerated plaintiff's alleged misapplication of the "civil damages for criminal conduct" provision. Defendant also attacked the damages claims, which simultaneously seek nominal, punitive, and consequential damages. Finally, defendant went after the loss of enjoyment claim, which is predicated on the temporary respawn.

On Rule 5.12, defendant argued plaintiff did not have any injury under the RCCA, nor do CCA-based claims create a cognizable legal injury.

Counsel: MMiqa, plaintiff pro se; CreeperTD for defendant ZachOfPotatoes10

T3rrarian V. Alexotto09

Legal newcomer pizza at law breaks on the stage with this complaint for breach of contract and assault. There are some real ?? moments throughout the complaint, but the gist is that defendant allegedly offered an elytra for $999; after the plaintiff paid, the defendant shot plaintiff multiple times. The case seeks damages for the assault, loss of profit, and the original purchase (under the CCA?). The bones are there; we'll see if counsel can get some meat on them soon enough.

Counsel: gamerpizzaplayz of pizza at law for plaintiff T3rrarian

catguy666 v. -ThatBritishGuy-

On the other end of experience is this claim over a hood ornament. Plaintiff alleges defendant took the materials to craft a hood ornament after the two parties agreed defendant would craft the ornament. Defendant crafted the hood ornament but demanded $500 "for the service" even though neither party mentioned payment. Defendant then left with the ornament. Plaintiffs requested damages and moved for an emergency injunction ordering DHS to seize the hood ornament and the value of the materials used to craft the ornament.

Counsel J0kesOnU of Theory, Talion & Partners for plaintiff catguy666

Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c

The Commonwealth alleges defendant attacked a detective with a knockback item in February 2025 to keep the detective from investigating a murder. The Commonwealth seeks a total of 60 minutes in jail and a $450 fine.

Counsel: Amity Justice for the Commonwealth

3mkTalal v. legoear, 2026 DCR 52.

This case started with a murder, includes a frivolous-lawsuit counterclaim, and is now on a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Counterplaintiff moved to strike the MTD's contention that because counterplaintiff's counsel is appearing pro bono, there is no burden of defending the allegedly frivolous lawsuit. Counterplaintiff argued there is nevertheless a burden of continuing to fight this case.

Counsel: Anthony-Org for defendant-counterplaintiff legoear; 3mkTalal, plaintiff-counterdefendant pro se

Federal Court

ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont, 2026 FCR 39.

The Commonwealth filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the claim Judge Muggy21 reinstated yesterday. The Solicitor General argued the plaintiff did not coherently state a separate voting-rights claim distinct from the equal-access claim. Pushing back on the government's assertions will be a tall order. Let's see if ko531 is up to the task.

Counsel: ko531, plaintiff pro se; Solicitor General ameslap for defendant Commonwealth of Redmont

Commonwealth of Redmont v. Luke201556, 2026 FCR 15

Judge ko531 granted the Commonwealth its requested extension for closing statements. The Commonwealth laid out the case for each charge. On ownership structure fraud, the prosecution argued there is no evidence the company was ever registered, so Royal Dragon & Shell could not have legally held itself out as an LLC. On Exchange Rate Fraud, because CityRP does not exist, any economic assets the company held in that fictitious place cannot justify a valuation, and the Commonwealth compared the exchange rate to transacting with "Monopoly Money." This, the Commonwealth argued, further supports the Market Manipulation charge. Finally, on False Advertising, the Commonwealth argued the disclaimer on which RD&S relied to avoid liability was not a valid contract.

Counsel: Novakerbal for the Commonwealth; Dartanboy for defendant Luke201556

Supreme Court

**[Yeet-Boy v. Town of Oakridge and Commonwealth of Redmont, 2026] SCR 13.](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/yeet_boy-v-town-of-oakridge-and-commonwealth-of-redmont-2026-scr-13.38481/)**

As we mentioned yesterday, the Commonwealth sought to stay this case pending the resolution of _in re_ 2026 FCR 20, 2026 SCR 12.. The court chose to hold Yeet-Boy's case in abeyance until the other pending case is resolved. (Full disclosure, the author is amicus in 2026 SCR 12).

Counsel: Dartanboy for plaintiff Yeet-Boy; Solicitor General ameslap for defendant Commonwealth of Redmont

That's all for today! Come back tomorrow for the latest updates from these and all Redmont's cases.