日本語 / English

← Back to projects

BlackPrince Lawsuit — Overview & History

In litigation

A pro se damages claim over a former employee's unlawful conduct, with several cases pursued in parallel.
* Party names, case numbers and similar identifying details are withheld (●) so as not to affect the ongoing litigation.

A message — why I'm taking legal action

We strictly complied with the entertainment-business laws and built our store rules so that no employee would ever be put at a disadvantage. Despite that, a former employee's unlawful act drove the store to closure, and to this day there has been no apology and no contact whatsoever from that person.

At the time of the arrest, we ourselves gave the person advice and even handled communication with their family (their mother). Even so, we have heard nothing back.

The minor in question entered the store while filming a video, stayed about 30 minutes, paid 1,700 yen, and left. Our records also captured the minor and the former employee appearing friendly with each other in front of the elevator. We cannot rule out the possibility of a coordinated attempt with a competing store to shut us down, and we are currently pursuing the truth.

To establish responsibility for the unjust loss of a legitimate business, I am pursuing several cases as a pro se litigant.

Overview

Plaintiff
Our company (Representative Director: Kazutaka Yamamoto)
Defendant
●●●● (stage name "●●" / former part-time employee)
Core facts
On (date ●), a minor was knowingly admitted as a customer to our store "●●●●●●" (●● ward, ●●●●), violating Article 22(1)(v) of the Entertainment Business Act; conviction finalized by summary order (Exhibit Ko ●).
Claim
Damages for tort (Civil Code Art. 709): lost operating profit, vacating penalty, etc. Liability is essentially undisputed; the issues are the amount of damages and comparative negligence.
Defense counsel
●●●● Law Office, attorney ●●●●

Case map

Case no. Subject Amount Status
Reiwa ● (Ha) ●●●●●Lost business, 7/14¥521,560Dismissed at first instance → on appeal
Reiwa ● (Re) ●●●Appeal of the above (District Court, Civil Div. ●●)Pending
Reiwa ● (Ha) ●●●●●Lost business, 7/17¥521,560Briefs in progress
Reiwa ● (Ha) ●●●●●August damages¥145,489Deemed withdrawn → to be refiled
Reiwa ● (Ha) ●●●●●September damages¥892,788Deemed withdrawn → to be refiled
Reiwa ● (Wa) ●●●●October damages (transferred from Summary to District Court)¥669,631Pending
Reiwa ● (Wa) ●●●●Vacating penalty (the key case)¥1,600,000Plaintiff's 1st brief filed
Sender-info disclosureIdentifying an anonymous SNS attacker (@●●●●●●)In progress

History

Reiwa ●

The defendant's violation of the Entertainment Business Act (admitting a minor into the store).

Reiwa ●

Conviction finalized by summary order (Reiwa ● (I) ●●●●●), Exhibit Ko ●.

Reiwa ●

Two Summary Court cases — both parties absent (→ deemed withdrawn)

No request to set a hearing date within one month. Code of Civil Procedure Art. 263, second sentence.

Reiwa ●

First-instance judgment in the leading case (claim dismissed) → appeal.

Reiwa ●

Confirmed the appeal case number and assigned division by phone with the court.

2026-06

Decided to prioritize filing the 2nd fiscal-year accounts

To be done ahead of the store-damage claims. The filing delay was caused by the harm from the defendant.

Ongoing

Centering on the vacating-penalty case (¥1.6M), keeping the arguments consistent in parallel with the appeal.