L O R W Y N:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALLYRUSH

MARY PANTS, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. 2021-293007

SUN’S CHAMPION, )

Defendant. )

ANSWER TO HURT FEELINGS REPORT

COMES NOW, the Defendant, SUN’S CHAMPION (hereinafter “Defendant”), by

counsel, and for his Demurer and Answer to the Plaintiff’s, MARY PANTS (hereinafter

“Plaintiff”), Hurt Feelings Report, Defendant states as follows:

1. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be brought.

Plaintiff cites as authority “12 C.F.R. 216” as the basis for Plaintiff’s motion. However, 12

C.F.R. 216 was removed and reserved on May 29, 2014. See 79 F.R. 30708, 30709.

2. Defendant denies the specific allegations of Plaintiff’s Hurt Feelings Report as

follows:

a. Defendant admits in part the allegation in Part II, Section A. Defendant

admits that he and Plaintiff were in contact on September 15, 2021. Defendant cannot admit nor

deny whether Plaintiff’s feelings were hurt as a result of Defendant’s actions, as Defendant has

no personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s state of mind, but avers no reasonable person’s feelings

would be hurt by any actions taken by Defendant.

b. Defendant admits in part and denies in part the allegation in Part II,

Section B. Defendant admits that he and Plaintiff were in contact on between 17:30-20:00 on

September 15, 2021. Defendant denies that any “hurtfulness” occurred.

 c. Defendant admits in part and denies in part the allegation in Part II,

Section C. Defendant admits that he and Plaintiff were in contact via the application known as

Spelltable. Defendant denies the characterization of the encounter between Plaintiff and

Defendant as a “hurtful incident”.

d. Defendant denies the allegations in Part II, Section D. Defendant avers

that Plaintiff’s mommy is not Plaintiff’s manager. Defendant further avers that Plaintiff’s

mother is not sympathetic to Plaintiff’s claims.

e. Defendant admits in part the allegations in Part II, Section E. Defendant

admits that his name is Sun’s Champion. Defendant cannot admit nor deny whether Plaintiff’s

feelings were hurt as a result of Defendant’s actions, as Defendant has no personal knowledge as

to Plaintiff’s state of mind, but avers no reasonable person’s feelings would be hurt by any

actions taken by Defendant.

f. Defendant cannot admit nor deny the allegations in Part II, Section F as

Defendant has no personal knowledge as to whether Plaintiff is a banker, nor what position of

banker Plaintiff might be.

g. Defendant admits in part and denies in part the allegation in Part II,

Section G. Defendant admits that he and Plaintiff were in contact via the application known as

Discord. Defendant denies the characterization of Discord as a “Branch/Dept.”.

h. Defendant admits in part and denies in part the allegation in Part III,

Section A. Defendant admits that he and Plaintiff communicated both orally and via writing.

Defendant denies any of his correspondence communicated “hurtfulness”.

 i. Defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations in Part III, Section B

as Defendant has no personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s current state of mind. Further, Plaintiff

fails to space with specificity whether any “permanent damage to [Plaintiff]’s feelings” occurred.

j. Defendant cannot admit nor deny the allegations in Part III, Section C as

Defendant has no personal knowledge as to whether Plaintiff does or does not require a tissue.

k. Defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations in Part III, Section D

as Defendant has no personal knowledge of whether Plaintiff has suffered a “traumatic emotional

injury”. Defendant avers no alleged action of defendant could result in a reasonable person

suffering a “traumatic emotional injury”.

l. Defendant admits the allegations in Part IV, specifically the allegations

that Plaintiff is thin skinned and Plaintiff’s feelings are hurt easily.

m. Defendant admits in part the allegations in Part V. Defendant admits he

removed the Plaintiff’s Domen Gate on two occasions. Defendant cannot admit nor deny

whether Plaintiff “really wanted it” as Defendant has no personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s state

of mind. Defendant avers that removing Plaintiff’s Domen Gate on two occasions is insufficient

to hurt the “poor little ittle bittle feelings” of a reasonable person.

3. As Plaintiff’s action is not grounded in either law or fact, this Court should

dismiss Plaintiff’s motion with prejudice.

4. Defendant incurred attorneys fees as a result of Plaintiff’s frivolous motion.

WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Dismiss this matter for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cause of action upon which

relief may be brought.

 2. Dismiss this matter for Plaintiff’s failure to state factual allegations on which any

relief could be granted.

3. Deny Plaintiff any relief sought in Plaintiff’s pleading.

4. Award Defendant his reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the bringing of this

motion.

5. Award Defendant any such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary

and just.

SUN’S CHAMPION
By Counsel

THE AZORIUS LAW FIRM, P.C.

By: Caerwyn
Caerwyn, Esq. (LSB No. 256)
256 Wanderwine Hub
Lorwyn 10127
Counsel for Defendant

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s Answer to Hurt Feelings report
was tendered on this 16th day of September, 2021 to the Defendant, Mary Pants, pro se, via
skyrunes.

/s Caerwyn
Caerwyn, Esq.