Thegoldenfish v SD 2026 Civ 7
thegoldenfish v SD [2026] Civ 7
| Date of judgment | 11th March 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Mypenjustbroke |
| Grounds |
|
| Verdict | Matter dismissed with prejudice for being a frivolous and vexatious claim. |
| Result | Left blank, see #Conclusion |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | A collateral attack on a lawfully rendered judgment is generally frivolous and vexatious, see [10]. |
JUDGMENT by Judge Mypenjustbroke
Cause of Action and Procedural History
[1] Plaintiff .thegoldenfish filed this suit on March 9, 2026 alongside a simultaneous injunction motion. The causes of action that Plaintiff alleged were:
- [1.1] Violation of Privacy (Civil Code 2025, Art. 26, § 1),
- [1.2] Uncompensated Expropriation (Civil Code 2025, Art. 27),
- [1.3] Abuse of Process (Civil Code 2025, Art. 31), and
- [1.4] Administrative Misuse of Power (Civil Code 2025, Art. 32).
[2] The facts in this case are not disputed. On March 9, 2026, the Treasurer of SimDemocracy, Democracy-foryou, initiated an auction on behalf of the State called the "Golden Fish Fire Sale.” Complaint, .thegoldenfish v. SD, [2026] Civ 7, p. 1 (Inferior Court; March 9, 2026). The auction listed its first item as “House of Central Investigation Bureau (CIB).” Id. The Plaintiff alleged that the State admitted on record that the CIB "never registered . . . as a non-profit (business)" and that they have no "records for it." Id. at p. 2, ¶ 1. The next item was entitled “Literally Everything Golden Fish has written on this server.” Id. The State’s agents explicitly stated in Discord logs that the purpose of the auction was to satisfy a debt from thegoldenfish v. SD, [2026] Civ 1, [17]–[18].
Amendment of Complaint
[3] In the beginning of the pre-trial proceedings, the State moved to dismiss on grounds of the Plaintiff’s procedural defect. The State alleged that Plaintiff did not comply with the Subreddit Utilization Act 2026 §6, which relevantly states:
§6. All court filings, including but not limited to criminal and civil complaints, petitions for judicial review, requests for writs, and appeals, shall not be considered properly filed unless they are also posted to r/SimDemocracy using the flair “Legal Filings.”
We did not make a finding of fact as to whether the complaint was defective. Instead, we deferred this finding and asked the State sua sponte if they would agree to allow Plaintiff to amend their complaint so as to extinguish any potential grounds for its motion. Upon lapse of adjournment or completion of the amendment, we stated that we would then rule on the State’s motion. The State agreed, and Plaintiff timely amended. We thank the State for being amenable and agreeing to this amendment, and we thank the Plaintiff for its timely amendment. Because no defect was found after amendment, we denied the State’s motion to dismiss.
State’s First Motion to Dismiss
[4] After Plaintiff stated the cause of action and amended, the State moved to dismiss all four causes of action. In response to the motion to dismiss the cause of uncompensated expropriation, Plaintiff withdrew the claim. Therefore, we struck this claim from our further analysis.
[5] The state first asked to dismiss the cause of Violation of Privacy, as it contended that the Treasury was only selling public information. However, this is an argument of fact and not an argument of law. Each further cause elaborated in the State’s motion to dismiss was similarly situated as arguments of fact. As such, we denied it in whole.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction
[6] Alongside the complaint, Plaintiff attached a simultaneous motion to enjoin the State of SimDemocracy from performing its expropriation as alleged. Upon the motions phase of the pre-trial proceedings, we considered this injunction. See Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 Art. 20, § 1.5. In order to analyze this request, we utilize the seminal proportionality test affirmed in Ed (Appellant) v. State of SimDemocracy (Respondent), [2025] SDCR 12, [4]. For a motion for injunction to survive this analysis, it must survive the four elements illustrated in that case. See id. at [5].
[7] First, we must analyze whether the injunction has a legitimate purpose. See id. at [4], sent. 1. The injunction, in effect, requested an immediate and urgent halt to the Treasury’s auction proceedings for the duration of this case. The Treasury was given the ability and obligation to enforce the judgment in [2026] Civ 1 through whatever necessary and lawful means. Because Plaintiff sought an injunction for a legal proceeding seeking to enforce a lawfully rendered debt, the injunction, as requested, sought relief that interferes with a lawful order and, thus, had no legitimate purpose. This Court goes not into its sibling court's room to meddle, and it will thus not extend its ruling to that court's judgment. The costs are to be paid pursuant to the terms outlined in that judgment. Because the motion failed this first element, we denied Plaintiff’s injunction motion.
State’s Sneaky Second Motion to “Dismiss”
[8] After our decision on Plaintiff’s injunction, the State brought forward a second motion to dismiss all—now three—claims. In effect, the motion alleges that Plaintiff’s claims “fail to establish the required elements of the alleged torts [and] challenge actions expressly authorized by a lawful court judgment[.]” Goldfish v. SD Motion for Dismissal, .thegoldenfish v. SD, [2026] Civ 7, p. 1 (Inferior Court; March 10, 2026). Upon reading this motion and its practical ambit, it is clear that this motion is a motion for summary judgment wrapped in a motion to dismiss. See id. at ¶ 7, sent. 2, cl. 1; see also Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 Art. 18, §§ 1–2 (a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a civil trial alleges “the same standards and procedure [against a plaintiff] as a motion against the defendant.”). After questioning the movant State, we will follow their request to treat the motion as a motion to dismiss.
[9] This Court disagrees with the State that Plaintiff did not state a claim in its complaints. The Plaintiff clearly stated its claims in both its Complaint and its show cause showing in pre-trial. However, we do find that the Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an effective injunction of a lawful matter of course. After our denial of the State’s first motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff erroneously thanked the Court for not finding its suit frivolous; however, we made no such determination there. We only made a determination as to the deficiency of the motion at law. Nevertheless, we make that determination of frivolity now.
[10] In all practical and effective elements, this matter epitomizes a collateral attack upon a lawfully rendered judgment. Precedent confirms the lawfulness of the judgment and its enforcement in Writ of Execution of "Lucas v Iaccp Bank & Trust [2025] Civ 37”, where Judge Brandmal ordered seizure and auction of all assets of a business entity, "including likeness, ownership and name in one bundle," to satisfy a 2,000 tau judgment. [2026] SDCR 9, Verdict, ¶ 4. If we are to agree with Plaintiff’s assertion that this motion and the State’s underlying enforcement action are “contrary to a higher law and order[,]” then we reject the “principles of judicial hierarchy” and stare decisis. See Appeal of SD v f3rr5_ [2025] Crim 30 [2026] SDCR 22, [20] (Mypenjustbroke, J., concurring).
[11] For those reasons, we agree with the State that this suit is without merit, frivolous, and vexatious. There is no judicial remedy upon a separate civil suit for dissatisfaction with a separate civil suit. If Plaintiff would like to seek judicial remedy for the execution of [2026] Civ 1’s judgment, then this court provides the following directions at law: take a left turn at an appeal, a right turn at an emergency interlocutory stay alongside such appeal, or a hop, skip, and jump down the boulevard of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025. For these reasons, we grant State’s second motion to dismiss.
Conclusion
[12] The Plaintiff’s entire claim, including the three standing causes of action, is dismissed with prejudice.
[13] Upon a costs hearing, this Court determined that maximum costs of one thousand tau (1,000t) were appropriate due to the costs of the attorneys themselves and the frivolity and vexatiousness of this case. Plaintiff shall pay the defendant a total of 1000 tau to cover the factors previously outlined.
[14] The department of the Treasury is authorized to execute this judgment against any accounts or assets held in the name of Plaintiff. Should such assets prove insufficient, further enforcement proceedings may be sought consistent with the civil code.
[15] It is so ordered.