Fede & mypenjustbroke v SD 2025 Civ 34
fede & mypenjustbroke v SD [2025] Civ 34
| Date of judgment | 3rd November 2025 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Grounds |
|
| Verdict | Defendant found liable of 2 counts of Wrongful Dismissal (Article 22 of the Civil Code 2025) |
| Result |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] This is a civil action by fedecreeper and mypenjustbroke against the State of SimDemocracy for two counts of Wrongful Dismissal arising out of terminations on 21 October 2025. The original complaint prayed for 5,000 tau per count and an apology.
[2] In pre-trial, the State moved to dismiss; Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. The dismissal motion was denied for want of any statutory stay pending criminal proceedings and because the pleadings disclosed probable cause.
[3] The Court twice invited the State to answer the summary-judgment motion. The State ultimately did not contest it. Under CPA Art. 18, once the plaintiff’s application is “made out,” the defendant must disprove any one of the 3 factors, or show that there must be a trial for some other reason. No such showing was made.
[4] Accordingly, summary judgment on liability was granted on both counts. The matter proceeded to written submissions on remedies/quantum.
Considerations
[4] Plaintiffs each seek 3.57 tau as compensatory damages for time without employment with the State, additionally urged punitive/exemplary damages per plaintiff of 2,496.43 tau.
[5] The State argued there was no actual loss (reinstatement/permissions unaffected; “non-operative” firings and immediate mitigation), and in any event punitive damages were unwarranted and disproportionate.
[6] Article 22 of the Civil Code 2025 defines the damages head as “payment for any salary or business lost.” It contains no punitive component. Plaintiffs’ attempt to re-characterise punitive damages as “equitable relief” fails: Article 19 of the Civil Code distinguishes between damages and injunctions. Punitive awards are damages, not equitable relief, and are unavailable under the pleaded Article 22 head.
[7] Plaintiffs satisfied CPA Art. 18 §1; the State offered no response meeting §1.1 once the application was deemed made out. Liability for both wrongful-dismissal counts therefore stands.
[8] The statutory measure is the salary/business actually lost. Plaintiffs particularised 3.57 tau each as salary foregone between dismissal and reinstatement. The State’s position that the firings were “non-operative” does not displace the finding already made on liability and, on this record, does not negate the short window of salary loss quantified by Plaintiffs. On the balance of probabilities, I accept 3.57 tau per plaintiff as proven loss under Art. 22 §3.
[9] Because the defendant is the State, the Government Proceedings Act requires that, in lieu of granting damages or orders, the Court makes a declaration that Plaintiffs are entitled to them. I declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3.57 tau each.
[10] No costs were argued in the hearing, as such, no costs shall be granted.
Verdict
[11] The State is found liable for two counts of wrongful dismissal.
[12] The plaintiffs fede and mypenjustbroke are entitled to 3.57 tau each, to be paid out by the State of SimDemocracy. It is so ordered.