Lawsuit: In Session ItsStormcraft v. Crown of Alexandria, Case X (2026)

[TheStormcrafter]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCELLERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
CASE NO. X
ENTREATY TO DISMISS - No progress clause pursuant to A.P.01.007 § 8(1)

Your Honors,

The Crown seeks dismissal of the entire case as the Plaintiff has failed to meet their obligation to take steps in furtherance of the case after 7 days. Section 8 of the Statute of Limitations Act clearly mandates that this case be dismissed. See id.

The last step Plaintiff had taken in any furtherance of this case was on October 6th when they responded to the Defence’s Entreaty to Strike and Objection. Furthermore, the Court on October 10th gave the Plaintiff 72 hours to submit their Opening Statement. The Plaintiff had 7 days to ask for a continuance or for more time, and they did not. See ItsStormcraft v. Crown, Case X (Ch. 2026).

While the Plaintiff has brought up that their Counsel was in-fact deported, they were not deported until October 15th (As Discovery has now closed, the Crown does not feel comfortable submitting evidence of this. However, if the Court wishes we can provide that information). This was 9 days after the last instance of furtherance taken in this case, and 2 days after the 72 hour deadline to submit their Opening Statement.

The Crown acknowledges that the Plaintiff did edit their complaint on October 12th, however the Crown does not believe this constitutes a furtherance of the case as this was simply complying with the Court’s previous order on October 3rd and the Court’s reminder on October 10th under duress of Contempt. This is merely a delayed compliance with a previous action, not an overt act of furtherance as is required under §8 of the Statute of Limitations Act.

Respectfully submitted,
bloodyrebals
Minister of Justice

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
Re: Entreaty to Dismiss

Your Honours,
I oppose this Entreaty to dismiss on two grounds:
First, if a Mistrial is granted, the Entreaty would be moot.
Second, Plaintiff Abandonment requires more than just inaction on the side of the plaintiff, it requires the plaintiff to not take action while having reason to do so. Otherwise the court simply deliberating for a week would mean a case is dismissed—this proposition is untenable. Further, just the option to take an action cannot be construed as sufficient for the time to be ticking—a party may oppose any filing for that matter and may entreat for reconsideration of every decision and motions can be filed without prompting as well—voluntarily abstaining from these options as one does not believe them required is not the same as abandonment and should not be treated as such. Otherwise, plaintiffs in the future will have to file frivolous motions or objections to reset the clock with cases in the past having gone on for over half a year at times (with long periods of what can only be described as "undeclared recess").
Plaintiff provides that demand to take action was only provided on the 12th of October, so no seven days where elapsed when Counsel was deported. As Plaintiff had no specific reason to act prior to the 12th, it cannot be construed for the case to have been abandoned. Dismissal is therefore unwarranted.

So petitioned before this honourable court,
Kaladin Stormblessed