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

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for Continuance

Your Honour,

it appears my Counsel was deported. I am currently out of Country until Monday and am unable to engage with this case past this posts, including looking for potential new Counsel.
I therefore ask for all (potential) deadline towards me to be tolled until Wednesday EOD, so I have sufficient time to search for Counsel or otherwise to evaluate the case at hand once I am home again.

So petitioned before this honourable Court,
Kaladin Stormblessed

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for Mistrial

Your Honour,
first: I have been unable to secure Counsel at this time and will proceed on my own for the time being.
Now to the main part. Looking over the actions of Counsel, while they did provide with a wonderful service while working on this case, it appears they departed from this server even before being deported. During the course of this proceeding, Counsel opened a Minecraft server of their own and guided it through server start. Two filings Counsel promised me in communications to submit where never filed.
Looking at it, with time now on my hands again, it appears that due to the failings of Counsel deadlines where missed, but I plead the court to not count this against my person but said counsel. I therefore entreat for a Mistrial to be diagnosed and a renewed option for opening statements (and potential other responses to motions) to be given.

So petitioned before this honourable court,
Kaladin Stormblessed

I am not familiar with this any writ of mistrial. While indeed our rules do specify that writs listed are not exhaustive, any unrecognized requests must come "with a thorough explanation." I do not particularly understand what is being asked for, or why it should be granted.

I understand it has something to do with opening statements. Your opening statement was due on the 13th, eight days ago. You requested an extension three days ago, a full five days after the opening statement was due. Public records show your former counsellor was deported two days before that, or three days after opening statements were due.

Now, today, you ask for something, the purpose of which I assume is to get more time to create the opening statement. Why did you not check up with the case periodically? Yes, your counsellor was entrusted to manage it, but you are not only an actual party that any judgment impacts, but also the claimant who brings suit in the first place. Assuming you only became aware of your counsel's deportation when you requested the extension—three days ago—you still have had three days fully knowing you had a pending opening statement due. Neither too did you seem to check any of the previous five days.

What is it, exactly, you want to do? Why do you not already have an opening statement ready? Why are you asking to me to give you more time to write one, instead of asking to post something you already have? I understand your lawyer was deported. But you are the party, and you are the filing party. Why did you not pay more attention to the action you initiated, and why should this not be dismissed for want of prosecution?