Case: Pending Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 28

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Your Honor,

The defense has provided evidence for the submission of D-003; the screenshots may take a minute to load. Additionally, D-003 is providing contextual evidence to support comments made by the government. The Defense asks that the motion to suppress evidence be denied.

Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like the court to remind the defendant, this case is about whether the plaintiff (Biscuit Cookie) was slandered by the defendant (Azalea Isles). The plaintiff doesn’t understand how this evidence is relevant to the case.

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like the court to remind the defendant, this case is about whether the plaintiff (Biscuit Cookie) was slandered by the defendant (Azalea Isles). The plaintiff doesn’t understand how this evidence is relevant to the case.

Your Honor,

The defense is well aware of why we are here and what the purpose of the case is. The Plaintiff made an allegation, the defense disagreed with their allegation, and attached evidence to support our disagreement with the allegation. The evidence is relevant to the case because it supports a disagreement the defense has with an allegation made by the plaintiff. The defense once again asks that the evidence not be suppressed, as it is relevant to the case at hand, and it relates to an allegation made by the plaintiff.

 

[MilkCrack]

RULING ON EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff is correct that the case does not need to be fully proven in the initial filings. However, the Plaintiff is still required to allege all elements necessary to establish a claim for slander.

The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not explicitly stated that the statements in question are false. The burden is on the Plaintiff to properly plead the claim. Because the factual allegations do not sufficiently support the claim of slander, and because the constitutional claims have not been argued in the legal claims section, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, the emergency injunction is denied.

 

[MilkCrack]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE #1
(By the Plaintiff)

The Defendant was correct in pointing out that the Plaintiff was late. Therefore, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS #1
(By the Plaintiff)

The photo is relevant to proving the Defendant’s statement that the Plaintiff was active in other areas. This is relevant when considering why the Plaintiff did not respond within the required timeframe. Therefore, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE #2
(By the Defendant)

Because the Plaintiff missed the deadline by only a short amount of time, and because the mistake appears to have been made in good faith, the Court will allow the statement to be considered. Therefore, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE #1
(By the Plaintiff)

Parties are allowed to introduce relevant evidence. Because the evidence at issue is relevant, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE #2
(By the Plaintiff)

The motion to suppress evidence argues that “the Defendant has not provided any evidence to submit D-003.” After later clarification by the Plaintiff, it has become apparent that this was intended to mean that “the Plaintiff does not understand how this evidence is relevant to the case.”

The Court finds that the answer to the complaint clearly and explicitly states why the evidence was introduced. As such, the Court finds no basis to grant the motion to suppress. Therefore, the motion is denied.

 

[MilkCrack]

ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Following the Defendant’s arguments, the Court finds that the complaint, as currently pleaded, is legally deficient. The Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the factual elements necessary to support a claim for slander, including that the statements in question were false. The Plaintiff has also not properly argued how the Defendant’s alleged actions infringed upon the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

However, the Plaintiff has the right to bring an action if the claim is properly pleaded. Therefore, the Plaintiff is granted 48 hours to file an amended complaint in a new post. The amended complaint must properly allege all factual elements necessary to support a claim for slander and/or clearly explain how the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were infringed.

If the Plaintiff fails to file a sufficient amended complaint within 48 hours, the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice.

The Court also issues a general admonishment regarding motion practice in this case. The number of motions filed is approaching an excessive level. At this time, the Court will not restrict either party’s ability to file motions. However, the parties are reminded that the judiciary of the Azalea Isles recognizes a minimum legal cost of $1,000 per week for parties represented by counsel in trial.

The parties are further reminded that the presiding judge may revise this amount upward for any specific week of trial if a significant amount of legal work was required. Accordingly, if the volume of filings continues at this level, the Court may recognize legal costs exceeding $1,000 per week.

Finally, if the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the Defendant will be permitted to file a new answer. In that answer, the Defendant may request payment of court costs and court-recognized legal fees, as allowed under the Damages Reform Act.