Bazinga

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 31, that was originally aired October 16, 2017. Discussion Link: "Shared Driveway Dilemma" Case titles: 1) Not Sharing; 2) Unloading A Poor Puppy; 3) Handing Off A Hoopty. Google's case summaries: "A crumbling shared driveway becomes the focus of a neighbour dispute. Then, a couple sue a dog breeder after they buy a puppy with what they believe to be existing health problems." Thank you for next week's listings, CrazyInAlabama. Have a nice weekend, everyone.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 30, that was originally aired October 13, 2017. Discussion Link: "Dog Fight Fiasco" Case titles: 1) A Doggie Dust Up; 2) Refusing To Give A Refund; 3) Tripping Out On A Tran-ny. Google's title case summary: "A man claims a woman's unleashed dog began fighting with his dog, which led to ligament damage. She says the two dogs never had any contact." Warning #1 - Case 1 is another dog attack case. Warning #2 - NYGirl wrote the following: "Today's cases were so boring."

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 29, that was originally aired October 12, 2017. Discussion Link: "Truck Driver Tussel" Case titles: 1) Trucking Around With A Driver; 2) Taking His Sweet Time; 3) Not Getting It Right. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims he was hired to drive a truck for the defendant and hasn't been paid, but the defendant says that on the first delivery the goods were damaged and on the second the driver disappeared for three days."

It is easier to know which episode will air when the episodes are shown in order. Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 28, that was originally aired October 11, 2017. Discussion Link: "Victim of a Vicious Dog" Case titles: 1) My Dog Did Nothing; 2) Fleas, Fleas, Everywhere Fleas; 3) Weaseling Out Of A Deal. Google's title case summary: "A woman sues for money she believes she's owed for vet bills following a dog attack. The defendant says there were no witnesses of any attack and he's never seen a vet bill." Warning - If the title and summary didn't clue you in, case 1 is a dog attack case.

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 27, that was originally aired October 10, 2017. Discussion Link: "Beer Can Battle" Case titles: 1) Charging For A Beer Brigade; 2) Not Getting The Picture; 3) What A Couple Of Lug Nuts. Google's case summaries: "David takes Bill to court when his rental security deposit is not returned to him. Then, Dawn takes video editor Michael to court, for outstanding costs after she was forced to redo his work." Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama.

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 26, that was originally aired October 9, 2017. Discussion Link: "Phone Fight Ends Friendship" Case titles: 1) A Phoner Fight; 2) Not Giving Anything Back; 3) Being A Drag. Google's case summaries: "Tyler is taken to court by Kayla, for an unpaid loan, and a replacement phone. Then, Paul sues his former landlords for not returning his property or security deposit." Have a good weekend, everyone.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 25, that was originally aired October 6, 2017. Discussion Link: "Taking Out an Opponent" Case titles: 1) Taking Him Out; 2) An Embroidery Error; 3) Not Fixing Things Right. Google's case summaries: "Mike decides to sue his opponent in a soccer match, for a malicious physical assault. Then, James takes Joseph to court for ruining his shirts when adding monograms to them."

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 24, that was originally aired October 5, 2017. Discussion Link: "Playing Dirty" Case titles: 1) Playing Dirty; 2) Taking A Fall; 3) Unloading On A Friend. Google's case summaries: "Jason sues a customer of his mobile detailing company, for unpaid services. Then, a woman is sued four outstanding payments after purchasing a boxing club."

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 23, that was originally aired October 4, 2017. Discussion Link: "Exes Bicker Over Belongings" Case titles: 1) Give Me My Stuff Back; 2) Wrecking The Joint; 3) Taking Advantage Of A Brit. Google's case summaries: "A couple has a disagreement about their belongings, after a friend interferes in their relationship. Then, a woman sues her tenant for unpaid fees."

Thank you for the week's listings, CrazyInAlabama. Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 22, that was originally aired October 3, 2017. Discussion Link: "Model Mayhem" Case titles: 1) Not Snapping Enough Pictures; 2) A Canine Caper; 3)Misrepresenting. Warning - Case 2 is a dog attack case.

Yes, the request for attorney fees was denied because she was her own lawyer. My point was that JM's original intent was to award the plaintiffs attorney fees. But car owners didn't get the requested fees and JM was acting like they were overreaching even though two cars were totaled. Alternatively, the stepfather was awarded attorney fees. Why two plaintiffs got/or were going to be awarded attorney fees and the third request was denied? The outlier reason was that JM did not think the car owners needed to hire an attorney but I don't see why stepfather and furniture owner needed to hire attorneys. I see this as inconsistency; just my opinion. As an aside regarding your accurate comparison to landlords doing repairs themselves, I think landlords forced to repair and clean up after tenants do deserve to be compensated for their time and effort but Judge Milian and Judge Judy disagree. Yes, I remember the dog cases. They made no sense, either.

I hate MM's inconsistencies, especially with similar cases, particularly those shown close in time. We have three recent cases with different results as to attorney fees. Case 1, the sort of stepdaughter a few days ago, who was willing to pay back the loan to the sort of stepfather until the plaintiff charged her with late fees, also had to pay plaintiff's attorney fees when plaintiff hired a lawyer to write her a threatening letter. He knew her and could have just spoke to her about the situation instead of going to the mattresses. Why did he deserve attorney's fees? In my experience, unless the original loan agreement allows for attorney fees, like in mortgage documents allowing the bank to charge attorney fees for foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff does not recover attorney fees. Obviously, this was a person to person loan and no way she would have agreed to pay attorney fees when she borrowed the money. Same reason she was objecting to the late fees; he knew her and was not an institution like a bank for him to be charging late fees in the stepdaughter's opinion. The ruling as to attorney fees bothered me then and bothers me in comparison to the two cases shown yesterday. Case 2, the couch case, JM was willing to award the plaintiff's attorney fee until the attorney in question turned out to be the wife. Case 3, the car accident case, JM blew off the plaintiff's request for attorney fees because she decided he didn't need an attorney to respond to the court documents he received. The judge barely bothered to understand what papers led plaintiff to think he needed a lawyer, somehow concluding that since he initiated the lawsuit, he didn't need a lawyer; easy for a lawyer to say. Why would the criteria for awarding attorney fees be whether the plaintiff needed to hire the attorney rather than the fact that the plaintiff hired and paid for an attorney? Did the stepfather really need to hire an attorney to write a $500 letter to his own stepdaughter? I don't think so, especially as she was willing to pay the original loan and was only objecting to his tacking on late fees. Did the original loan agreement provide for attorney fees? I doubt it. Was whatever the wife did in the couch case not something that could be done by a non-attorney? Yet JM was willing to grant them attorney fees. Were the car accident victims, faced with daunting legal papers about depositions, discovery and, though JM didn't care to listen, the wife said language about plaintiff having to pay defendant's attorney fees, really not justified in hiring an attorney, just as stepfather and couch couple were justified according to JM? I just don't like inconsistencies in the judge's rulings (and treatment of certain litigants*, too). *Compare the way JM treated the innocent car owners, the actual victims, to the teen who most likely was reckless in causing an accident that damaged three cars, could have killed himself and his passenger. JM was annoyed the plaintiff, in anger at his parked cars being damaged, called the defendant an a$$hole. She was so defensive of the defendant that she even tried and failed to show the plaintiff's daughter had a car accident because accidents happen and it is not really the poor defendant's fault.

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 21, that was originally aired October 2, 2017. Discussion Link: "Greedy Girlfriend" Case titles: 1) You're Outta Here; 2) Taking Shoddy Shots; 3) Misleading A Mitsubishi Buyer.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 20, that was originally aired September 29, 2017. Discussion Link: "Couch Catastrophe" Case titles: 1) Couching The Issue; 2) Cracking Up; 3) Cooling Off A Tenant.

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 19, that was originally aired September 28, 2017. Discussion Link: "Romance Rent Rage" Case titles: 1) Skipping Out; 2) Cleaning Up; 3) Cracking A Guy Up.