All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Reason Judge Judy Never Goes to Dog Parks!

It seemed clear early on that this was going the way of "assumption or risk/shared liability". During the hallterview, both litigants showed they did not learn a single thing from the case and will probably continue to be as negligent and careless when they take their dogs out for a walk.

 

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(The giggling by the defendant is very irritating, and makes him sound guilty)

Plaintiff's proof was iffy at best, but defendant's demeanor did make him look guilty, a type of behavioural circumstancial evidence if you will.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Florinaldo

[VartanFan]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff (Derrick Anders Jr) suing his former friend for stealing his stimulus money from his bank account. 

And he can’t tell JJ what he does for work (entrepreneur you know...).  He can’t say who he lives with...family....you know, people.?

[zillabreeze]

11 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

both litigants showed they did not learn a single thing from the case and will probably continue to be as negligent and careless when they take their dogs out for  walk.

 

They are the poster kids for the definition of insanity -"doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results".

But doesn't that cover about 95% of our litigants?  "Yeppers, I squirted out one kid with Prince Charming that he hasn't spent one dollar or one hour on, so I'll drop another and THEN PrCh will magically become Pa Ingalls.

[Burning Rubber]

Band case: Faith checks... OMG religious people can be so ridiculous! It was hilarious how he bristled at the word "bounced" - God forbid that his felony be called out for what it is. 

Stimulus check: i bet the defendant did steal the money.

Dog park: "Lab mixes" from rescues are almost always deceptively labeled pit bulls. The fake lab mix had the other dog in its mouth... that's a pit alright. With a typical pit owner avoiding responsibility. That mauler had a history if the rescue made them have 9 trainibg sessions. Victim dog had crushed ribs. It drives me nuts when JJ compares dogs to children. "Dog parents" pffffft

 

 

[parrotfeathers]

22 hours ago, VartanFan said:

And he can’t tell JJ what he does for work (entrepreneur you know...).  He can’t say who he lives with...family....you know, people.?

And says "please don't say bounced check." 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Biker Tackled by Raging Motorist-Plaintiff (Joseph Connelly) bike rider suing motorist (Christopher Hope) for medical bills, bicycle damages, and an assault.    Incident happened almost two years ago in July 2015.  Plaintiff was riding in the bicycle lane, and plaintiff hired and attorney, who quit (not enough money in the case).   Plaintiff was riding in the bike lane, defendant stopped his car in the parking lane, adjacent to the bike lane.   When defendant exited the car through the driver's door, door went into the bike lane, and when driver went to get back in his car, the door opened into the bike lane again.   Plaintiff was in the bike lane when defendant opened the car door into the lane, plaintiff was going the same direction as the car was parked.   

Plaintiff says defendant made eye contact with the defendant, who opened his door on the car, with door into the bike lane.   Plaintiff sarcastically said, "Thank you" (Yes, I read minds now), because he had to swerve into the car driving lane to avoid the car door.    

Defendant decided the sarcastic, Thank You from plaintiff was insulting the advocacy of bikers everywhere, and would end bike riding as we know it, so defendant followed biker, to corner him at a red traffic light, to berate him on his behavior.     

They're stopped at the red light when defendant started berating plaintiff, after defendant go out in the traffic lane at the light.    Plaintiff says it is 1.3 miles from the initial incident, to the traffic light, and plaintiff says defendant cut him off six times.    Then at the traffic light plaintiff says driver stopped his car resting on bike's back tire.   A policeman showed up, said resolve it yourself.

When plaintiff went down a narrow path to get away from defendant, maybe nudging car mirror, and then defendant tackled plaintiff into a parked car, injuring his arm.  (My guess is attorney dropped case because defendant's assets are in an LLC or a cash only business, so no assets to go after).    Defendant claims plaintiff threatened his life at the stop light.   

(Sadly continued tomorrow on entire first 30 minute episode).

Second-

Groom Gets Cold Feet on Wedding Day!-Plaintiff prospective bride suing prospective (Carl vanEtten) groom for wedding dress, and expenses, plus a kayak.      Litigants knew each other for years, became romantic, and groom called wedding off day before wedding.  They were to go on a kayaking honeymoon, and plaintiff claims defendant still wanted to go on the kayak trip after calling the wedding off.    Groom / defendant only showed up the next day for his property.  Defendant admits he took her kayak, but put it on the porch.     He says plaintiff had his two kayaks, a paddle, and his work clothes.   Plaintiff/dumped bride, claims he had nothing at her home, no kayaks, no clothes, and nothing else.      Plaintiff has a tracker on defendant's phone (and apparently the entire free world also), so she found where defendant was the day that was supposed to be their wedding day.   

Plaintiff says defendant gave a kayak to her daughter, but defendant says it was loaned to daughter, not a gift.  Defendant says he did live at plaintiff's house, but she denies it.     Plaintiff says defendant shacked up with his ex-girlfriend after calling wedding off.   Police report says they saw defendant putting the kayak back on plaintiff's lawn.   Plaintiff claims she bought a kayak for $4,000, but has zero proof, and no bill of sale. 

Claim, and counterclaim both dismissed. 

Landlord Game Changer-Plaintiff room renter, wants his security deposit back from defendants, $250.     Defendants say plaintiff broke the lease, (90 day lease, and then month-to-month). Defendant claims he was working on a business from home (who cares), and took the house apart (supposedly he took two doors down, and put them back in place with the pins in before he moved out).   

$250 to plaintiff. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a very recent rerun-

First (New)-

Social Media Oblivious to Pandemic!-Plaintiff (Keshwan Clark) suing over a Youtube channel she wanted, over the cost of props to start her Youtube channel.  Plaintiff purchased a camera, lights, and props.  Plaintiff claims defendant (Kory Ingram) had the idea of the Youtube channel, but defendant says the channel was always only plaintiff's idea.   (What a shock, plaintiff is an aspiring actress and model, and a fitness model).  They stopped filming videos in June 2020.    The litigants had a major disagreement over the work plaintiff wanted defendant to put into the video channel.  

JJ tells plaintiff to sell equipment if she wants money for the props, and equipment.  

Case dismissed.    

Eyelash Heist-Plaintiff (Carina Schumacher) suing for a security deposit, eyelashes and other property stolen.  Plaintiff claims defendant picked up her package of eyelashes, and she's returning them to her in court (after some JJ minion fetches them).     Plaintiff claims defendant's dog chewed plaintiff's vacuum cleaner cord.   

Defendant claims plaintiff brought two rats into the apartment, and one died on defendant's pillow.   

Security deposit was $ each, but every tenant lost their security deposit (there were two dogs, and four roommates), and two rats.    Plaintiff claims the carpet damages were the reason for the security deposit loss.  

Eyelashes are returned to plaintiff, and everything else is dismissed.  

Second (Rerun)-

Death Threat and Racial Profiling-Plaintiff's (Hani Bargout) car was towed by the two defendant's company, when he parked in an apartment parking lot (he doesn't live there, or have the person who gave him permission to park there in court).   

Defendant man says it was the Salvation Army's permit only parking lot.  In the morning plaintiff discovered his car had been towed.   

Defendant claimed the plaintiff threw a rock at their tow yard the night before.   Defendant's witness claims he saw plaintiff too, and case was dismissed after defendants didn't show up for trial.  

Plaintiff was arrested when he went to retrieve his car, after the defendant wife called him a crazy Islamic guy when he called the tow yard, and arrived with cash in hand to pay for the tow.   Defendant wife also claims between the first visit to tow yard, and the next day  the plaintiff changed his beard, The second time defendant wife claimed he threatened her on the phone several times, and made a police report again that was false. 

 At the first report of rock throwing, the plaintiff was arrested, and the case was dismissed.     Second case didn't even go to trial, because defendant lied about her name on police report (She had a different name on the first police report, than the name the show put under her photo on the show, Nicol Nolin of Denver-she looks very familiar to me, I used to live near there). 

I find it strange that a Denver tow company drives two hours south to Pueblo to tow cars.  

Six months later the plaintiff was arrested because the defendant wife claims he threatened her when he picked up his car at the first incident (report date was January, arrest at gun point was in June).     That case was dismissed also.  

JJ is right, car tow was legal.   

However, two false arrests are exactly what happened. (Audience erupts in applause at this verdict),  (and I call the second police report by the defendant wife to be totally despicable).     (I used to live near Denver, and the plaintiff is lucky he survived two arrests, especially the second one where he was claimed to be making death threats against defendant). 

 $5,000 to plaintiff. 

Check Bouncy House-Plaintiff (Elinor Zetina) suing former friend for two bad checks she cashed for defendant.     Defendant had done some remodeling for plaintiff several years before, and he needed a place to stay, and she offered to cash a large cashier's check for defendant. $2750 was the first check, but credit union said it was an altered or bad check.     

Then plaintiff cashed another check for him.     He gave her a bad check, and then she cashes another one for him!      Second check will not be paid by the show.   How stupid can a plaintiff be?    Bet she's waiting for her deceased uncle in Nigeria to send her millions too.  

$2750 to plaintiff for the first check, but nothing for second check.   

[Florinaldo]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Social Media Oblivious to Pandemic!

Another airhead who thinks she is going to make a financial killing by becoming an instant Internet celebrity, with not much to offer as far as marketable appeal (unless ugly tattoos count).

 

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I call the second police report by the defendant wife to be totally despicable

These defendants gave slime a bad name.

[parrotfeathers]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, two false arrests are exactly what happened. (Audience erupts in applause at this verdict),  (and I call the second police report by the defendant wife to be totally despicable). 

I was thrilled.  JJ acted as a true judge should act.  Glad she took this case seriously.  I hope the tow people reap what they sowed.  Bet the Salvation Army terminated their contract.

 

[seacliffsal]

Just watched the rerun of a truly classic episode.  Defendant in the first case parked in a stranger's driveway and when she came back to get her car, the plaintiff had parked behind her and left.  The defendant then entered the home, took the car keys moved the plaintiff's car and took her own.  However, before she left, she put the keys back and locked both doors so that the plaintiff could not enter her own home.  The entitlement of the defendant was off the charts.  JJ tried to tell her that she committed several felonies but the defendant would not have it.

The second case was unemployed mother suing her ex who now has their son full-time.  No job, no support paid, etc.  Plaintiff got so incensed that she stormed off (stomped off) walking past JJ and out through one of the "fake" doors behind JJ.

It is rare that an episode has two classic cases in it, but this was definitely one.

[LetsStartTalking]

On 10/29/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes both new-

First (New)-

Scorned Lovers Gang Up on Cheating Boyfriend?!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend over his use of her credit cards for a business defendant was starting.   Defendant is living with Baby Mama #2, has another kid (11) with another Baby Mama.     Defendant has been living with Baby Mama #2 for 2 years, but has been dating plaintiff for a long time.    In last September defendant moved into the plaintiff's apartment, and lived there full time.   Then plaintiff was contacted by one of the other girlfriends (mother of 2 year old, Baby Mama #2).     Plaintiff and baby mama #2 met in person.   

Defendant claims he wasn't ever living with plaintiff, just Baby Mama #2.   He also denies buying anything for himself with plaintiff's credit card.  Plaintiff paid $3100 for defendant's insurance, but defendant claims he didn't ask her to.      

Plaintiff will get nothing, money wasn't a loan.

    

I'll state the obvious:  Defendant was damn cute and sexy !

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (continued from Part 1 yesterday-

(Part 1-from yesterday's show)

Biker Tackled by Raging Motorist-Plaintiff (Joseph Connelly) bike rider suing motorist (Christopher Hope) for medical bills, bicycle damages, and an assault.    Incident happened almost two years ago in July 2015.  Plaintiff was riding in the bicycle lane, and plaintiff hired and attorney, who quit (not enough money in the case).   Plaintiff was riding in the bike lane, defendant stopped his car in the parking lane, adjacent to the bike lane.   When defendant exited the car through the driver's door, door went into the bike lane, and when driver went to get back in his car, the door opened into the bike lane again.   Plaintiff was in the bike lane when defendant opened the car door into the lane, plaintiff was going the same direction as the car was parked.   

Plaintiff says defendant made eye contact with the defendant, who opened his door on the car, with door into the bike lane.   Plaintiff sarcastically said, "Thank you" (Yes, I read minds now), because he had to swerve into the car driving lane to avoid the car door.    

Defendant decided the sarcastic, Thank You from plaintiff was insulting the advocacy of bikers everywhere, and would end bike riding as we know it, so defendant followed biker, to corner him at a red traffic light, to berate him on his behavior.     

They're stopped at the red light when defendant started berating plaintiff, after defendant go out in the traffic lane at the light.    Plaintiff says it is 1.3 miles from the initial incident, to the traffic light, and plaintiff says defendant cut him off six times.    Then at the traffic light plaintiff says driver stopped his car resting on bike's back tire.   A policeman showed up, said resolve it yourself.

When plaintiff went down a narrow path to get away from defendant, maybe nudging car mirror, and then defendant tackled plaintiff into a parked car, injuring his arm.  (My guess is attorney dropped case because defendant's assets are in an LLC or a cash only business, so no assets to go after).    Defendant claims plaintiff threatened his life at the stop light. 

(Sadly continued on today's entire first 30 minute episode.   I'm so sick of both litigants, especially the defendant).

Part 2-Injured Cyclist Screaming Like a Maniac-Plaintiff bicycle rider (Joseph Connelly) suing an aggressive driver (Christopher Hope) who chased him down, and then attacked him.    Bike rider had a serious arm injury from defendant's assault.    Defendant claims plaintiff hit his passenger mirror, and then the assault happened on plaintiff.    Defendant paid for damages to parked car he threw the plaintiff into. 

Counter claim by defendant is dismissed, because it's ca-ca, and so is the defendant.  Defendant's witness in court is sitting there shaking her head like a bobble head doll.  Witness wasn't even in the car at the incident, but claims she witnessed the plaintiff screaming at the defendant, and saw the plaintiff, and screaming death threats.       

Defendant witness is as unbelievable as defendant is.    (I know they claim they don't know each other, who would witness someone yelling on a bicycle, and come to court to testify two years later?  I wouldn't be surprised if defendant and witness know each other.)   Defendant witness claims plaintiff was aggressive, and taunting the defendant, and caused the confrontation.    Wonder how many screen credits defendant witness has?    The woman who is defendant witness is not named or gave a statement to the police officer.     Defendant's statement to the police officer at the attack scene is very different from his testimony, and statement in court also. 

Police officer statement says a lot of different statements from defendant.   Police Report Witness #2 is an off duty police sergeant who witnessed the attack by defendant, and saw the argument as plaintiff says.         Plaintiff does know witness # 2 from being police officers at different stations for a long time.  

Plaintiff medical records are submitted.    $8500 are the out of pocket for plaintiff's arm to reattach something (trying not to picture that, it sounds awful).    (Tendons were ruptured off of bone, and had to be stapled back)

$5,000 for plaintiff.  

(My view is that one of these days one of the litigants will challenge the wrong person, and end up dead.   You never know who is armed, or seriously dangerous.     When someone follows another person with a car for 1.3 miles to confront them, there's something seriously off there.  Nothing in this case was worth dying for.   However, I think the aggressor was the defendant. But for his own safety, I wish the plaintiff had run far away from this confrontation).   

Second-

Teen's Crash Cover-Up Story?!-Plaintiff (Shane Chapman) suing father (Jose Diaz) of teenage driver over car damages due to a hit and run accident by defendant's son.  Plaintiff's car was parked when it was totaled by defendant son.  Plaintiff says defendant car had a lot of empty booze bottles in the back seat according to police.

Defendant son was driving the car registered to defendant.   Cadon Cargile (son of defendant) was the driver.   Car was hit at 6:20 a.m., by defendant's car, but plaintiff took until 4 p.m. at defendant's house, because police were looking for driver of abandoned car, abandoned a couple of blocks away from plaintiff's house, and the scene of the crime.    Neighbor of plaintiff caught the license plate of hit and run accident, and saw the aftermath of the accident, and saw the defendant son examining their car damages, and they took off.   

Defendant's son claimed he fell asleep at a party, and someone stole the car, and did the accident.   Defendant father believes the smirking, lying son.   So defendant reported the car stolen to police.  As JJ says, son was drunk or high, and plaintiff confirms car was full of empty booze bottles.  

$4,000 outstanding lien insurance didn't pay for.   

Plaintiff receives $4,000.  

Baby Daddy Called Home from Callie!-Plaintiff( Tawanna McCarthy-Long) suing father of her child (Levi Landrum).    Plaintiff is a SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One), and was unemployed for six months, and defendant was living and working in California and sending money to plaintiff.  Plaintiff says defendant sent $300 a month for child.    

Plaintiff claims she loaned defendant $650 , after they broke up.   Plaintiff claims the loans were never paid back, and then defendant claims plaintiff assaulted him.     There is a text talking about the loan from plaintiff, and saying it's a loan.    

Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted him in June.   Defendant claims he was living with his mother, but that his mother will deny it (No, I don't know why that's important, and really don't care).    During the argument, defendant was staying with plaintiff.

Cases dismissed.   

  

[LetsStartTalking]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a very recent rerun-

First (New)-

Social Media Oblivious to Pandemic!-Plaintiff (Keshwan Clark) suing over a Youtube channel she wanted, over the cost of props to start her Youtube channel.  Plaintiff purchased a camera, lights, and props.  Plaintiff claims defendant (Kory Ingram) had the idea of the Youtube channel, but defendant says the channel was always only plaintiff's idea.   (What a shock, plaintiff is an aspiring actress and model, and a fitness model).  They stopped filming videos in June 2020.    The litigants had a major disagreement over the work plaintiff wanted defendant to put into the video channel.  

JJ tells plaintiff to sell equipment if she wants money for the props, and equipment.  

Case dismissed.    

Eyelash Heist-Plaintiff (Carina Schumacher) suing for a security deposit, eyelashes and other property stolen.  Plaintiff claims defendant picked up her package of eyelashes, and she's returning them to her in court (after some JJ minion fetches them).     Plaintiff claims defendant's dog chewed plaintiff's vacuum cleaner cord.   

Defendant claims plaintiff brought two rats into the apartment, and one died on defendant's pillow.   

Security deposit was $ each, but every tenant lost their security deposit (there were two dogs, and four roommates), and two rats.    Plaintiff claims the carpet damages were the reason for the security deposit loss.  

Eyelashes are returned to plaintiff, and everything else is dismissed.  

 

First case:

Keshwan Clark was dressed for a cocktail party in her low-cut black cocktail dress. Why didn't JJ remind this one that she was not dressed appropriately for court? She does this to male litigants if they (God forbid!) show their chest with their shirt unbuttoned a bit. Tells them no one wants to see their chest (I do). Why didn't she do this to the plaintiff and have her 'go put on a sweater' ?

Second case:

The plaintiff watches too much 'Law & Order'. Twice she said "I object, your honor" - and there was nothing to object to. Oh, these fun millennials.

[LetsStartTalking]

Quote

First (New)-

Gay Pride Activist Denies Felony Charges!-Plaintiff suing event promoter for fees owed for a performance, and bank fees.  Plaintiff says he performed with band at event for defendant, and defendant paid him with two checks that both bounced.     Plaintiff says defendant paid his some money.    Performance was at event, and pay for staging, lighting, and sound, plus performance fees.     $1500 for bank, $4,000 for sound, and other things.   Defendant wrote two checks for $750 each, and they bounced at the bank.  

Defendant says checks were returned because his account had too little money, because he thought that the charity sponsorships would pay him enough to cover the checks.    Plaintiff says defendant eventually paid his $950, and there's another bad check from defendant too.   Third check was to sound guy for $2,000, and plaintiff covered the check to sound man with his own funds.

So $2550 remaining on balance due, plus bank fees.   Lawrence "LP" Lawrence stiffed the sound guy for $2,000 too, and admits that.  Defendant is lucky the two men didn't file criminal charges against him for check kiting, a felony.

Plaintiff receives $2550 for banks, plus fees of $10 totaling, $2560.

Covid-19 Stimulus Check Stolen?!-Plaintiff (Derrick Anders Jr) suing his former friend for stealing his stimulus money from his bank account.   Plaintiff received $1200 from IRS electronically.   Deposit was through "Cash APP" on plaintiff's phone, after he applied on the IRS website (what a shock plaintiff is a singer/songwriter, entrepreneur).   Defendant's bow tie is very crooked, and it's driving me nuts (yes, it's a short trip).

Plaintiff claims defendant (Tevin Warfield) stole $1100 of the $1200 from the Cash App.      (The giggling by the defendant is very irritating, and makes him sound guilty)   Tevin is also known as "Little Poochy Daddy" online.

Personally, I think the defendant's laughing, and giggling is so irritating, he should be thrown out of court right now.  (I found both litigants so irritating that I wish Officer Byrd had taken the Fly Swatter of Justice to drive them out of the court room). 

Plaintiff case dismissed for lack of proof.     

First case -

Is the defendant for real ?  How did JJ keep a straight face without laughing ?

 

Second case -

See first case.

Note: Plaintiff was very cute, but there was something wrong with him 'For sure' (as he kept answering).

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first episode new, second episode a rerun-

First (New)-

Video Shoot Turns Violent?!-Plaintiff/landlord (Malek Hanna) suing former sublet for damages to his condo (he has a lot of corporate housing units in L.A.).     Plaintiff actually leases the properties from others, and releases them as short term or corporate apartments.    Defendant Ila Eaves checked in August 25 until August 27, including cleaning fee for two adults and two children.   Defendant was in town for an entertainment video starring her children.   3 Audio and camera people on crew for the songwriter defendant, and numerous other actors, artists, and children.   There were also a bunch of kids in the filming, and far in excess of the 2 adults and 2 children that were on the lease for the rental.   

Plaintiff has a police report, security videos, building manager messages, all on the 28 August.    Defendant claims she only booked for 25 to 26, but because unit was so disgustingly dirty, she could stay an extra day (Yes, that's what defendant said, and it makes no sense).   Defendant claims she actually left on the 28th.   Damages are to apartment building by elevator in photo, and video.   An outside entrance glass and metal commercial door is wrecked, and some metal thing pushed into the dry wall.    

Defendant claims she's being blamed for damages because everyone involved with her is Black.   

Plaintiff also tells JJ she's an exceptionally bright woman.   Greasing Judge Judy is not helping the case.  

Video shows an adult in the hallway (another music artist), and the same man is shown forcing the outside door back against the concrete.   Defendant admits the man is one of the artists in her video shoot.    Defendant refuses to say the name of the person who did the vandalism.  Sound on video has the defendant swearing and saying she wanted to get the groups of children out of the apartment before the police, and plaintiff arrive.   

Video shows the vandal, two other older teens, or 20's, and defendant and her three kids leaving the apartment.   I hope Airbnb, and VRBO, and the other short term rentals banned this woman from their properties.  

Defendant's daughter is brought in to testify.   Defendant keeps chiming in, and gives snotty attitude to Officer Byrd.    Promise Murray is the daughter, who gives the professional name of the vandal.    (Sorry, after the video, it isn't alleged vandal).   Daughter says vandal was locked out of his house, and that vandal could sit in the front lobby.  Daughter also let the vandal into the house. 

(Everyone on both sides of this case is some kind of performer.   So even if they lose, they get publicity, so they really win).   

 

Plaintiff receives $1841, in spite of the fact he just won't shut up.   

Second (Rerun)-

Young Girls Terrorized-Plaintiffs (John Bruno, and Janette Linder) suing the defendant (Tamara Mooney, aka Curl MD) over invading their home when she parked in their driveway, and then moved their car to get out of the driveway.   Defendant was going to work, no street parking available, so she parked in the driveway of the plaintiffs. leaving her car locked in the driveway.     Then at the end of the workday, defendant's car was blocking her car in, and defendant saw the car keys for plaintiff's car sitting on the table.   Back door was supposedly unlocked (burglary), took the keys, backed plaintiff's car out, got her car out, and put back plaintiff's car.   Then put keys to plaintiff's car in house, locked the back door from inside the house, and locked the front door on the way out.    Defendant left no note, or anything else.   

Because the license plate said "Curl MD" plaintiff said he thought the license plate was for a doctor's car.   Plaintiff called police about the burglary.  Plaintiff woman's two daughters were terrified about the burglary.  

Plaintiff woman went for a walk, found her car moved, and Curl MD gone, and home locked up, so she called the police, who crowbarred the front door open.    Everything was a mystery until a month or so before the case, when Tamara Mooney Curl Doc made a nasty remark about the plaintiffs. Witness is plaintiff's sister.     And defendant confessed the entire break in to witness.   

Plaintiff witness report was made to police, and D.A. about the case, and plaintiffs said they will try to keep on the D.A. to file charges against defendant.    Defendant says she was going to tell plaintiffs, but thought they were mean, so she didn't.   

Defendant is a disgusting excuse for a human being.     

$5,000 to plaintiffs

Unwed Parents Fight-Plaintiff (Anita Richards)is mother of son with defendant (Scott Booker)    Plaintiff is suing for first, last and security deposit on apartment move so son could stay in same school district.    Plaintiff hasn't had a job for many years, and claim defendant beat special needs son, and went to jail for it.    Plaintiff says she gave $800 from her brother to loan to the defendant.    Plaintiff loaned defendant more money, but defendant still owes $800.  

Plaintiff says defendant got full custody because, "he can teach his son to be a man", whatever the hell that means.   Son is 17 now, and has lived with the defendant full time since he was 9.   Plaintiff never paid one penny of child support.

   I feel so sorry for the son, and I'm glad his father has full custody.   

Defendant said plaintiff never paid child support, since she's never been employed.   

(This is aka the Devil in a Red Dress Case, where plaintiff wears a hideous wig, and gets mad, and exits through Judge Judy's office door.  The ever protective Officer Byrd just watched the plaintiff humiliate herself on national TV stomping out the wrong door, and show everyone what a fool she is.  I'm glad that this was an older episode, probably 2012, and that means the son is well old enough to never have to put up with that woman again). 

Plaintiff receives nothing, because she deserves exactly that.  

Edited November 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Video Shoot Turns Violent?!

Overeager plaintiff tried flattery on JJ , only to be smacked down. He should have known she does not tolerate being upstaged, in this case as the ultimate Self-Brown-Noser-in-Chief.

I am glad this did not lead to his case being dismissed as defendant and her witness were either obviously lying or totally incoherent. Daughter is well on her way to give her mother serious competition for the Big Scary Eyes hall of fame.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Florinaldo

[MerBearStare]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

It is rare that an episode has two classic cases in it, but this was definitely one.

I had somehow never seen this episode before and it was so good! I got the sense that the first defendant, the one who parked in the driveway, was the prettiest girl in a small town when she was younger and that's why she thought she could charm the judge with her potato chips story and seemed to think that it was cute that she broke into a home and stole a car.

I've seen multiple comments on here about Judge Judy seeming meaner and more over her job this year. That's not something I've noticed until this episode today, which I think was from 2012 (the dad defendant said something like "last year, in 2011"). She yelled, because that's her thing, but way less than she has in the newer episodes. She didn't repeat the same insults over and over. Her comments were still biting but much less mean-spirited. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by MerBearStare

[LetsStartTalking]

17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Overeager plaintiff tried flattery on JJ , only to be smacked down. He should have known she does not tolerate being upstaged, in this case as the ultimate Self-Brown-Noser-in-Chief.

I am glad this did not lead to his case being dismissed as defendant and her witness were either obviously lying or totally incoherent. Daughter is well on her way to give her mother serious competition for the Big Scary Eyes hall of fame.

He was quite handsome, and he knew it. He's also a professional actor in Hollywood and on stage - so he knew how to 'act for the camera'.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-(2017)

Drunk Man Rages Against Neighbor?!-Plaintiff (Lynn Svoboda)suing neighbor (Mario Rivera) for car damages, and for attempted battery.  Defendant lived in the building for three years, and was moved to another space at plaintiff's request for the last year (not parking next to her).

Plaintiff lived in the complex for two and a half years, and had the same parking space for the entire time.   Scratches on plaintiff's passenger door date to the time of the dispute, and police call by plaintiff.     Plaintiff says defendant scratched her car door, then plaintiff says while she was calling 911 the defendant put both hands on her window glass, trying to get to her in the car.    Plaintiff shows door dents by defendant's car door (he first says his car isn't black or dark, then says it is).     Plaintiff talked to defendant about passenger door dents, and then in March plaintiff came home at 11 p.m., and defendant was parked well over the line, and plaintiff couldn't get in her assigned parking space.  So she went to talk to him.   Defendant refused to move his car, said call the police.    Defendant tried to force the door glass down, and when he couldn't get to her, he was spitting on her car.   Defendant says it was his friend, and plaintiff was mean to him.   

If defendant calls JJ "Miss" one more time, I'm going to hope Officer Byrd punches him out.    While plaintiff is on the phone with 911, defendant claims plaintiff was yelling at him, and the friend, so she was confronting two drunks at 11 p.m.?   Nope.     

Defendant calls JJ "MIss" even more.   Plaintiff will sue the two witnesses for defendant for their part in the incident, and so JJ will give plaintiff their information, including Social Security number for the defense witness who hit plaintiff's car with his BMW.     

Plaintiff receives $570, and the information she needs to sue the BMW owner.    

Illegal Breeding?!-Plaintiff (Mark Anderson) suing (Jennifer Coughlin) over her breach of contract over a dog breeding contract.   Plaintiff is an animal control officer, former sheriff's deputy, and breeds Standard Poodles as a hobby.    The plaintiff has three females, and co-owns with his witness (Jill Hudson).    All dogs he owns were bought from other breeders.   In February 2015 defendant bought a puppy, and the signed contract is submitted.

Defendant signed a contract saying female puppy she bought was not for breeding, and needed to be spayed, but she's had two litters, at least that's all that defendant admits to.     Defendant owns the stud dog that sired both litters, and claims that both breedings were 'accidents'.   Defendant says the contract doesn't have a penalty for breeding the dog.   Dog was sold as a pet, not a breeding animal (price would have been a lot more than $800 if the puppy was a breeding animal.   Defendant says first litter was with her daughter's male dog, and the second breeding was also an accident, and all puppies were given away.  If you believe that story, then I have some great ocean front lots in Arizona for sale.   I bet that either the breeders were contacted by a puppy buyer from defendant's dogs, or someone contacted AKC about papers for the puppies, and then breeders of dog found out defendant was breeding and selling puppies).  

Plaintiffs will get dog back, so they can spay her.  Within 5 days plaintiff will pick up dog with a court order (since he worked for the sheriff's office for years, that will not be a problem).  (My guess is defendant thought breeding the dog would be a way to riches)

Second-(2017)

Make a Teenager Watch This Case!-Plaintiff (Amy Allen) suing (Joseph Bridgman, 18 ) for wrecking her car.    Defendant is a friend of plaintiff's son (owned by plaintiff, driven by estranged son).    Alex is the son, and defense witness.   In the early night, Alex was doping, and boozing, but defendant claims he wasn't using drugs or alcohol, and never does.    JJ tells the moldy blueberries story, how you end up in bad situations from associating with drunks, and dopers.     Defendant wanted a Polar Pop from Circle K, while Alex and friends were hanging out in the park on a very cold night.   Defendant Moldy Blueberry drove plaintiff's son's car at 10 p.m. , hit a patch of black ice, and claims another car coming the other direction without lights on, turned on the bright lights, causing defendant to slam on his brakes, go off the road, and wreck the car. 

Plaintiff's son, Alex moved out after plaintiff found out that defendant witness son was using dope, but he still had her car to drive, and he often stayed out at night.      Then plaintiff was told by son Alex the car was wrecked, and defendant wasn't covered by car insurance because he was driving without permission.         JJ explains if defendant had killed someone, it would be on plaintiff's head.    Defendant son claims he bought the car with his own money.    Defendant received two tickets for driving too fast for the conditions, and no proof of insurance.  That has not had a hearing yet. 

Defendant claims driving too fast ticket was dismissed.  Defendant claims he tracked down the truck, and the company told him to leave their premises.

Plaintiff wants $1786, and receives it.  

 Shot in the Arm While Driving!-Plaintiff car owner (Travis Boones) suing other driver (Marvin Barue?) for damages to his car, when he crashed into plaintiff's parked car.    Defendant says he was driving along after a brief call at a friend's apartment (yes, I suspect a booty call),  when someone shot the car up, wounding defendant in the arm, and he hit plaintiff's car.     Plaintiff's vehicle is a 1996 pickup truck (when they used to have real metal bodies), and was not totaled. 

Plaintiff's insurance company (Liberty Mutual) denied the two claims, and they claimed the shooter was the person at fault, so not their responsibility.    Letter denying claims from LiMu is submitted, and they blame the plaintiff for contributory negligence, even though his car was parked, and he wasn't in it.   I hope the NJ insurance commissioner saw this, and nailed LiMu's butt to the wall.   

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

 

 

   

Edited November 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a rerun-

First (New)-

Broken Nose Cat-fight!-Plaintiff (Silvia Marino) is suing her step-sisters (Julie and Clara Munoz)for assaulting her, and breaking her nose.   Plaintiff step-mother moved in when she was 6.  Plaintiff was living with her mother, and moved into her father's house, with step-mother, and two step sisters.   At the end of July 2020, the three got into a kerfuffle with the step-sisters.    Trial for protective order was denied by judge against defendants.

Plaintiff says Clara lured her out of her room, and the two confronted plaintiff over wine and other stuff.   Defendant tried to order plaintiff back to her room, plaintiff told her to stuff it.    Then, step-sisters started arguing with plaintiff again, claims Clara punched her a bunch of times in the face, breaking her nose.   Then Julie got into it, after Silvia defended herself against Clara, and started punching the plaintiff again.   

Clara claims Silvia stole her wine, and the fight was on.    Plaintiff witness split the woman up, and she filed for a protective order. 

Plaintiff moved out of the father's house, to a rented room, but the wicked stepsisters still live there in the father, and his wife/girlfriend's house.  .    Defendants are counter suing for a false restraining order. 

My guess is father sided with the wife/girlfriend, against his daughter.  I can only imagine what would have happened if the father sided with the plaintiff.  The father lived with stepmother since plaintiff daughter was six, and I'm guessing he never intended for daughter to move in, and wanted her out.    Another person who wants to erase a first relationship, and the children that result from it.  

Plaintiff receives nothing.    Defendants receive nothing. 

How to Build Your Own Wine Cellar-Plaintiff (Donald Bynum) suing contractor (Gary McCormick) over the construction of a wine cellar.    Plaintiff had dealt with defendant's services before, and was satisfied.     The litigants consulted on the wine cellar project, and plaintiff made a payment $7300 for the deposit for the wine cellar.  Plaintiff never had the wine cellar built.  

Three months later defendant actually ordered the wine cellar unit, which was cancelled, and then called an air conditioner buddy to look at the room.    A/C people are not wine cellar specialists.   So almost six months later, still no wine cellar, or unit ordered, and defendant still has the $7800 deposit.  

Defendant has no paid invoices for anything purchased for the wine cellar, and claims he spent over $9000+ for the wine cellar.

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Second (Rerun)-(2017)

Internet Obscenity Revenge?!-Plaintiff former tenants for damage to her home, harassment, and defamation.     There were six tenants at the end of the lease, and only three (Steven Reid, aka Idiot #1)  were left past lease termination.   Plaintiff gave 30 day notice to move out by 1 June, the two tenants were month-to-month tenants, but defendant idiot #1 (the one of the nasty texts to a 10 year old child) says he didn't want to move.   The third remaining tenant was also there until 11 June.       

When JJ sees the text on plaintiff's phone, she has Officer Byrd show it to defendant witness, tenant #3.    After seeing the nasty text sent by idiot #1 to a 10 year old child, says if someone sent that to a 10 year old in his family, that person wouldn't be sending any more texts.     After the notice was given (they had six months notice that plaintiff wouldn't be renewing the lease), idiot #1 started posting plaintiff's address, and other information on revenge sites.   

Brady Ulrich, witness and tenant #3 is now a Physician's Assistant, so he must be of a lot better character than Idiot #1.   Judging from his responses at seeing the texts, I bet idiot #1 is no longer his friend).   

Plaintiff informed the tenants in January to tenants to be out of the house by April 30, 2017.    Idiot #2 (Robert Turner) claims landlady said every year that she was thinking of dumping the tenants.  

The nasty ads show requests to call or visit the woman for various sex acts, and role play, all posted by Idiot #1.  They also included her phone number and address.   There is nothing the plaintiff sent to defendants that was nasty in any way. OK, one text refers to a Nigerian friend of Idiot #1 as Ratched, and a Princess, and she should stay out of the house (I'm wondering if the tenants were moving friends in?)     Defendant idiot #1 says it's harassment to tell them not to park on the lawn of a $2 million beach house. 

Idiot #1's texts could have resulted in the woman, and her daughter getting raped, or murdered.    I hope the show sent this tape to the D.A. and pressed charges. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

Wild Car Crash Caught on Tape-(I love cases with video that shows who is a liar)-Plaintiff suing her former friend, for totaling her car.   Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car (they are friends from church), running an errand stopped in at a store, left the motor running, and keys in the car, and the car was stolen.      When defendant realized car was stolen (like hell it was, you know he wrecked it), he called plaintiff, a police report was made.   

30 minutes later a fireman called plaintiff, asking if she was all right.   Car was found wrecked, crashed into a telephone pole, and with the keys on the driver's seat.  

Plaintiff had insurance, so that paid the car off, but there was a shortfall of over $1,000, which plaintiff has been paying off.    

There is a video of the car crashing in the telephone pole, showing defendant jumping out of the car, and jumping into another car (sounds like they were street racing).    The video is from a neighbor with security cameras, showing the race, the accident, and defendant running to the other car.   Defendant is such a liar, it's the same jacket he was wearing when he borrowed the car, and it is absolutely the defendant.  

$2800 for plaintiff to cover $1,000 deductible, and shortfall on car insurance.   

Edited November 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[nora1992]

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a rerun-

First (New)-

Broken Nose Cat-fight!-Plaintiff (Silvia Marino) is suing her step-sisters (Julie and Clara Munoz)for assaulting her, and breaking her nose.   Plaintiff step-mother moved in when she was 6.  Plaintiff was living with her mother, and moved into her father's house, with step-mother, and two step sisters.   At the end of July 2020, the three got into a kerfuffle with the step-sisters.    Trial for protective order was denied by judge against defendants.

Plaintiff says Clara lured her out of her room, and the two confronted plaintiff over wine and other stuff.   Defendant tried to order plaintiff back to her room, plaintiff told her to stuff it.    Then, step-sisters started arguing with plaintiff again, claims Clara punched her a bunch of times in the face, breaking her nose.   Then Julie got into it, after Silvia defended herself against Clara, and started punching the plaintiff again.   

Clara claims Silvia stole her wine, and the fight was on.    Plaintiff witness split the woman up, and she filed for a protective order. 

Plaintiff moved out of the father's house, to a rented room, but the wicked stepsisters still live there.    Defendants are counter suing for a false restraining order. 

My guess is father sided with the wife/girlfriend, against his daughter.  I can only imagine what would have happened if the father sided with the plaintiff.

Plaintiff receives nothing.    Defendants receive nothing. 

My sympathy is with the plaintiff.  Maybe because I’ve been where she is.  But it sucks when a parent, of which most people only have 2 at most, chooses a girlfriend (one of a dozen) over a child.  When kids have to compete with partners of the month for a parent’s respect/attention/time, it sucks.

[Carolina Girl]

I didn’t ‘t believe for one minute that the defendant in the poodle case didn’t sell the puppies.   The plaintiff gave her limited registration paperwork so she may not have received top dollar like he does, and if she “gave” them away it was because no one was willing to pay for them.   By the way, plaintiff should rewrite his contract, giving express penalties for breeding.  
 

I wonder how he found out that she had bred them.   

[LetsStartTalking]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a rerun-

First (New)-

Broken Nose Cat-fight!-Plaintiff (Silvia Marino) is suing her step-sisters (Julie and Clara Munoz)for assaulting her, and breaking her nose.   Plaintiff step-mother moved in when she was 6.  Plaintiff was living with her mother, and moved into her father's house, with step-mother, and two step sisters.   At the end of July 2020, the three got into a kerfuffle with the step-sisters.    Trial for protective order was denied by judge against defendants.

Plaintiff says Clara lured her out of her room, and the two confronted plaintiff over wine and other stuff.   Defendant tried to order plaintiff back to her room, plaintiff told her to stuff it.    Then, step-sisters started arguing with plaintiff again, claims Clara punched her a bunch of times in the face, breaking her nose.   Then Julie got into it, after Silvia defended herself against Clara, and started punching the plaintiff again.   

Clara claims Silvia stole her wine, and the fight was on.    Plaintiff witness split the woman up, and she filed for a protective order. 

Plaintiff moved out of the father's house, to a rented room, but the wicked stepsisters still live there in the father, and his wife/girlfriend's house.  .    Defendants are counter suing for a false restraining order. 

My guess is father sided with the wife/girlfriend, against his daughter.  I can only imagine what would have happened if the father sided with the plaintiff.  The father lived with stepmother since plaintiff daughter was six, and I'm guessing he never intended for daughter to move in, and wanted her out.    Another person who wants to erase a first relationship, and the children that result from it.  

Plaintiff receives nothing.    Defendants receive nothing. 

 

I was hoping the plaintiff Sylvia  would receive $5,000 and Judge Judy would have quipped 'Go get your nose fixed.'

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

When Friends Cut Friends-Plaintiff Dilante Moore suing former friend Randale Brown for cutting him with a knife.   Plaintiff Devante was cut with a knife by Rondell Brown.     JJ has to threaten defendant that Officer Byrd will put him out through the court exit.  Both men were getting haircut by plaintiff's witness Damon Sterns (a professional barber).   Both men arrived at the same time of evening.    Both men, plus defendant's girlfriend were hanging out at the barber's home, getting haircuts.   Plaintiff made a joke about political figures, and defendant didn't like the jokes, so defendant cut plaintiff on the arm.  Plaintiff needed surgery to repair his severed arm tendons.    

Defendant says he was working on some clippers,  Then claims plaintiff moved his arm in his way, and caused his own injury.   

$5,000 to plaintiff for his time off work because of his arm injury, and surgery.  (Plaintiff remediates mold and asbestos, so he had to stay off work for quite a while). 

Judge Judy's Big Emergency Account?!-Plaintiff  Karen Dixon is suing daughter Jaida Vassell for daughter depositing bad checks into a joint account with the mother, and the bank took the money from the mother's other account.    The bad checks amounted to over $4,000.   The mother wants the money back, and to know where the money went.    Checks were from defendant's school mate, a Junior, and defendant says she never deposited checks, but was cashing them, and going to meet her phony friends, for half of the cash.    Defendant Jaida gave her banking information to the scammers, and is so gullible she still thinks she'll get the money back.    Defendant says the banking information went to Joshua, and Lauren.    JJ says mother will have to report this all to the police.   

Mother's account was a side account, for emergencies, that her husband doesn't know about, but he does now.  

JJ has a huge emergency account, and it's all hers.  

Defendant gives phone numbers and names to mother for the police report.  Defendant says Joshua deposited the checks, and daughter received $4,000 cash for them, and gave the money to Lauren, and she says they were going to put half back into her account.    Guess what?  They didn't.   

Mother Karen Dixon says she's not putting money in the accounts with the daughter, because young woman is so gullible she'll do it again.   Also, if daughter's friends have the banking account information they can still rob the account.    Now this is a case I wish there was an update on what happened.    

Defendant's friend deposited two checks on the same day, JJ sees the deposit slips.    Since it was a custodial account, the mother got nailed for the money.  Why am I guessing that no one found the scammers, and daughter would fall for the same scheme again?   I bet if the police report was filed, that the investigation showed that the friends didn't exist?    

Plaintiff receives $4250, and will be paid when the police reports about the scammers is received by the court.   At that time the show will pay the award check. 

Second-

Homeless Ex Assaults TV?!-Plaintiff (Allen Cox) suing former girlfriend (Stephanie Glover) that he allowed to move in with him, and says defendant stole his cash, $2700 and broke his TV.   Plaintiff let homeless defendant move in to help her out.  During an argument plaintiff says defendant broke the TV, other property, and stole $2700 cash.   Defendant and plaintiff lived together, and then when he moved he took defendant back to her mother's home.  Two weeks later, defendant was kicked out by her mother, and she stayed with plaintiff for a while.   Defendant also has a drug problem.   A few days later they had an argument over defendant's drug use.    

Defendant threw bottle at TV, now has no picture.   But defendant slept in same room as plaintiff.    Next morning the defendant went to her meeting, and the transit company that escorts her called asking where she was.    Plaintiff went looking for her, and didn't find her, and his cash was missing.   Defendant's sworn statement, and testimony keep changing.  

Plaintiff has a property investment business, and sells leggings online. and he's also a student with loans and grants.    

Police report shows the cash theft right after the theft.   Text messages from defendant admit the theft of the cash.

$2700 to plaintiff.   

Massage Therapist Payback-Plaintiff (Debra Sams) is suing former employer (Amanda Docksteader) for nonpayment of wages.   Plaintiff claims one check bounced, and then another two checks that couldn't be cashed because funds weren't available.    (Defendant's Bozo red hair is hideous).   As JJ says, the existence of the checks proved plaintiff worked for defendant, and if she had any problem with the quality of work, she shouldn't have continued to employ her, and should have paid her wages that she owed her.   Defendant is counter suing for lock changing fees, and some other garbage.

Defendant claims she told plaintiff not to cash the check yet.    $1824 is the first check amount, which bounced.    Then plaintiff worked for defendant for one more week, and that's when she received the other two bad checks.   Plaintiff's mistake was not taking the first check to the police, and continuing to work for defendant. 

$2380 to plaintiff. 

Edited November 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 11/2/2020 at 6:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Social Media Oblivious to Pandemic!-Plaintiff (Keshwan Clark) suing over a Youtube channel she wanted, over the cost of props to start her Youtube channel.  Plaintiff purchased a camera, lights, and props.

I was a little skeeved out about the "props" part - didn't she say something about a "massage wand"? (did I not hear that correctly?)  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Lane-Splitting Scooter Collides with Pedestrian?!-Plaintiff (Linus Lee) was driving Uber, and is suing defendant (Christopher Peterson) for his electric scooter cutting between lanes, hitting a pedestrian and the scooter flipped and then bounced off the pedestrian, and hit the plaintiff's car, damaging the car.     Defendant claims a jay walking pedestrian downtown San Francisco street after dark, so he's blaming the pedestrain,  Defendant was sick of the traffic jam, so he was 'lane splitting' the opposite direction of traffic, straddling the double yellow line, and looked like he was on the left side of the oncoming traffic lane, according to the video.  He hit the pedestrian, scooter flipped, and hit the plaintiff's car.    

Defendant estimates he was going 15 mph on the electric scooter, and pedestrian was going about 2 mph when the accident occurred.    Electric scooter has a top speed of 38 mph.    There is a video of the defendant's lane splitting, and it's terrifying.     Good thing there wasn't a little kid, or animal in defendant's way.  Heaven forbid that defendant would have to wait like everyone else.   Defendant says plaintiff should have found the pedestrian, and sued him for causing the accident.    

My guess is not only is lane splitting illegal, because the video showed the scooter clearly on the wrong travel lane, over a double yellow line.   He was filmed from the travel lane going the other direction.    

Defendant is responsible for the damages to plaintiff's car. Plaintiff grosses $250 to $300 a day driving Uber, and that's his only job   Repairs will take five days to complete.  

$2500 to plaintiff for car damages, and lost wages for two days.   (I would have given the man $4,000 for lost wages included too). 

Coronavirus Strikes Again!-Plaintiff (Ted Barnett, and daughter Claire Barnett) suing (Lisa Brown)defendant over a room rental in defendant's home, $1300 a month.     It was a one bedroom, so plaintiff used the bedroom, and defendant lived in the dining room.   Defendant's daughter came home from school, with her dog, and moved back into defendant mother's apartment.  Defendant, and daughter lived in a portion of the dining room.      Plaintiff suing for return of security deposit, and defendant wants unpaid rent.   Daughter of defendant moved back into apartment from December through the rest of 2020.   This is a one bedroom apartment with three people, a dog, and one bathroom.   

Plaintiff moved home the end of March, taking all of her stuff with her.   Security deposit paid by plaintiff was $1300.     Defendant says there was a lease breaking fee of $1300 for leaving early.  

$1300 to plaintiff, defendant's garbage claim dismissed. 

Second (New)-

Deal Making with Perfect Strangers 101!-Plaintiff (Carol Althoff) suing (Tracy Johnson) defendant for unpaid car sale.   The 12 year old Jetta was $3,000, defendant paid $1,000 down, and wanted to make payments, but didn't pay the $2000 balance to plaintiff.  Car belongs to plaintiff daughter.   Car didn't pass smog, and defendant claims she put a lot of money into car, and doesn't want car.     Plaintiff will get car back, because car can't be smogged, and can't be registered for that reason in California.

Plaintiff has a stupid reason about not taking car back, and just won't shut up.   Defendant denies having title to car, but plaintiff claims defendant has the car title.   

Plaintiff is getting car back, and defendant gets $1,000 back.

Brutal Euthanization of a 15-Year-Old Dog?!-Plaintiff (Kendra Pezanowski) suing (Meghan Morgan) defendant  Plaintiff had three Chihuahuas, and could only take two with her to the new apartment.   So plaintiff decided to give the 15 year old Chihuahua away to defendant.   Plaintiff messaged on FB messenger if she could take the older dog.  Plaintiff had credit issues, and couldn't qualify for a place that would allow three dogs.  Plaintiff took 15 year old dog to defendant, and left dog.  Defendant has five other Chihuahuas.   (I'm not sure about the plaintiff's name spelling). 

Defendant had the dog, and Tater was fine, but then neighbor texted defendant that Tater was whimpering, and had a gash.     Defendant left dog in shade with X-pen for plaintiff to get dog to vet while defendant took her kids to school.   However, defendant was legal owner of dog, and was responsible for dog care, not former owner plaintiff.

Plaintiff wants vet bills, but defendant said that if plaintiff had told her what the vet said, she would have made a decision for the dog's welfare.   However, plaintiff never told defendant anything until after the dog was put down.      

Then when dog was at vet, defendant claims plaintiff had dog euthanized instead of $3,000 of surgery.     Plaintiff claims she tried to contact defendant about dog, but was unable to reach her.   Plaintiff is told to show on her phone that she called defendant on the morning from the vet.     JJ says if plaintiff had dog put down without dog's owner, defendant's permission, then plaintiff won't get vet bills, (bills were over $700). Plaintiff has no proof she contacted the defendant from the vet's office.     

Tater was also incontinent, and JJ asks if plaintiff told defendant about that, and plaintiff says she doesn't have incontinent dogs, and doesn't seem to know what incontinent means.  (I bet plaintiff didn't get her security back from previous apartment, because of dog floor damages).   

Defendant said she eventually had to block the plaintiff's calls, texts, etc.    Defendant says the first time that she heard from the plaintiff was the evening after the dog was put down.       Then the evening of  the vet visit when the dog was euthanized, the plaintiff made cruelty allegations to animal control, that defendant is a neglectful dog owner, and had too many animals.    

Plaintiff has zero proof she let defendant know that the dog was either to be euthanized, or paid for surgery $3,000.

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

16 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I was a little skeeved out about the "props" part - didn't she say something about a "massage wand"? (did I not hear that correctly?)  

Yes, massage wand was a prop mentioned.   The woman does have a Youtube channel if you want to find it, and look at her videos.   

Edited November 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Burning Rubber]

Is lane splitting even legal? 

The scooter dude said he expected to be a witness haha.

[Burning Rubber]

The old dog story was weird, in the sense that the good Samaritan who took an incontinent, 15 yr old dog, having 5 dogs and two young children herself, would be stuck with a $340 euthanasia bill. Or a $3000 vet bill!

The plaintiff was in tears for the whole case, she needed to get a grip. She was a little... irrational.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Burning Rubber said:

Is lane splitting even legal? 

The scooter dude said he expected to be a witness haha.

Haven't watched this one yet. They had a recent lane splitter case on, I believe, Hot Bench. At the time I checked and learned that it IS legal in California - but only California in the US. Of course the caveat is that you can only lane split when it is safe, and then only at a safe speed. So, any accident may result in lane splitter having to prove he/she was doing it in a safe manner for the circumstances.

[bad things are bad]

There used to be a subblog of Jalopnik called Lanesplitter, and it is indeed uniquely legal in California. Still think it's not a great idea. 

[khyber]

I believe that lane splitting is only legal between lanes that are traveling in the same direction. He had different direction of travel on either side.  I've seen plenty of lane splitting in Cali, but always with the flow of traffic. Still its pretty terrifying when suddenly a motorcycle zips by you on the freeway unexpectedly. He was so lucky the pedestrian wasn't hurt and didn't want to sue him.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Car Sale Gets Personal!-Plaintiff (Keadra O'Neal ) suing defendant / car dealer (Anthony Bowers) for repo'ing  a car he sold her, property left in the car, punitive damages.  Car was repo after payments were late, and not even the full amount, and as usual plaintiff has no receipts.    Car was collected at plaintiff's work place.   In retaliation plaintiff called defendant's wife, and alleged that defendant was making sexual advances to her.   Contract says when a payment is 7 days late, car will be repo'd.    Plaintiff only paid $300, not the $600 she was supposed to pay.   Car was purchased from a used car dealership, and she claimed she couldn't find his office to pay the second payment.    

JJ says the $300 plaintiff is out for one payment, and $1100 down, equals a rental.   $1100 has no receipt or bank proof, so it didn't happen.  Defendant says woman paid him $1,000 down, but was over 7 days late for the second payment.    JJ gives plaintiff her $1,000 down back for the car, and throws out plaintiff's phony property claims of what was left in the car.    Plaintiff made a police report about the money in the missing purse, and medication that were supposed to be in the car, and weren't returned to her.

Defendant claims car was not resold, because it's totaled (he claims car was stolen and totaled by a car thief).    Plaintiff claims car was in perfect condition, and is for sale on the car lot.  

$1,000 back to plaintiff.    Now we discuss the text plaintiff sent to defendant's wife, dismissed.

Father-to-Be Cheating on Mommy-to-Be?!-Plaintiff (Patina Saul) suing former boyfriend defendant (Hakeem Franklin) suing for unrepaid loan for a car, and money taken from her without permission.   Salesman said down payment was $1400 and he had that, but he needed to put down $900 more, so he borrowed it from the plaintiff.    Plaintiff loaned defendant money for a car down payment, $900, but he claims it was a birthday gift.     Meanwhile, defendant's other girlfriend was pregnant, a fact not disclosed to plaintiff.     

In January was the car deal, and a couple of months later he dumped her for his pregnant girl friend.  A $600 insurance payment came out of plaintiff's account in February.    

So plaintiff gets the $900 loan, and $600 insurance payment, so total is $1500.  

Second-

Don't Trust Men You Meet in a Supermarket?!-Plaintiff (Ghandia Johnson ) suing defendant (Nicholas Francis ) for payment for lawyer for defendant.    Litigants met in supermarket, struck up a relationship, but only online, never in person until court.    Defendant was arrest with in a month, in Florida, and he reached out to plaintiff by text.  Defendant was in jail in Florida, and plaintiff sent him a letter to jail from Colorado.    So how did plaintiff find defendant?    Defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, after he was 'profiled' and pulled over, but drugs were found in car.  Drug case was dropped (no it wasn't, States Attorney is still looking at drug case), and suspended license case is still pending.    There was a previous case for suspended license in another Florida county at the same time.  (Ghandia Johnson is a former survivor contestant, I knew that name sounded familiar).

$1500 for attorney to plaintiff. 

Flim Flam Car Sham?!-

Plaintiff (Doreen Washington) suing defendant/her son's fiance (Elizabeth McDonald ) over a car sale to defendant where car was repossessed.    When plaintiff and husband were divorcing he had the car in his name, and that's the car that plaintiff sold to the defendant (not legal at all), not the car that plaintiff had the legal right to sell.     Plaintiff and ex bought car together, and when they separated, no court ruling was made on ownership of the car.   During the divorce plaintiff paid the $9,200 on the car, owned by ex-husband, that was in plaintiff's possession, and she got car titled in defendant's name.   

Car was purchased in husband's name, and title was never signed over to plaintiff, but he signed car into Elizabeth (defendant).   Plaintiff couldn't title car in her name, because she had a car registration/licensing issue.    Then car was titled to defendant, both litigants went to title loan company, got the money for the loan, and defendant was supposed to pay for it.    However, defendant paid nothing on car loan, so car was repossessed.   Defendant was counter suing over repossession fees, and ruined credit.   Plaintiff was driving the car when it was repossessed. 

Coming to court with dirty hands will not lead to a good result for the plaintiff.    

Counter claim from defendant is dismissed, because she spent the money from the loan. 

Everything dismissed. 

Mom Bails on Bail?!-Plaintiff (Christopher Madron) suing mother ( Dolly Dale) for unpaid bail bond after she was arrested on drug charges in 2013.  Defendant claims the weed case was dismissed.    Defendant claims she called son after the arrest, but she didn't ask to be bailed out.   Bail bondsman Fletcher is plaintiff's witness.    Bail bondsman is pursuing the unpaid bail bond after 4 years.    Bondsman is selling business, and needs to clear up the bonds still on his records, so plaintiff paid $5500.   Because of threat of a lien on plaintiff's home he paid the loan off. 

$5000  to plaintiff for the bond fees.

Edited November 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

FIrst (New)-

Demolition Disaster!-Plaintiff (Soraya Cassis) had a house that burned down, and insurance gave her $210,000 to rebuild the house,  Defendant Tony Duarte was hired to demolish the house, and he's being sued for $5,000 for non-performance of their contract.    Plaintiff can't even remember how much insurance paid her to rebuild the house.   When house burned down in November 2017, she claimed for $230,000 for cost to rebuild house.     Insurance paid $90,000 for fire house property inside, and $120,000 for the house (She did not rebuild).  

Plaintiff didn't rebuild, but bought another house.   Current house is going to be put into trust for her daughters, and she's also suing a former business partner over a deli business.     Defendant's bond company is being sued by plaintiff, for $15000, but she only received $4800.   Plaintiff paid previous mortgage off, paid cash for the townhouse she's in now. 

Plaintiff claims she paid $4500 in advance to defendant to demolish, and rebuild house.   Bond company for defendant paid her $4800 for the house demolition rebuilding that was never done.     I wonder what her legal bills look like for all of these lawsuits?

Plaintiff claims demolition will cost her $8,000 for the burned home.   

Defendant claims contract wasn't to demolish the home, but clean out, and dispose of contents.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.     

(The woman sued and received every penny back from the defendant through his bond company already, so this was a pointless case.   She also had already received every penny from the insurance company for the house (minus $20,000 because she wasn't rebuilding), and her story kept changing.    First she was rebuilding, then she wasn't and bought another place (the townhouse for cash), and then claimed the defendant cheated her out of the demolition money she paid him.    Except he was only cleaning the house out of any items left, so demolition could happen, according to the defendant.   Then she was claiming to be broke, but had received money for house contents, the house, demolition on the house, but claimed to not know what caused the fire.   

Her stories were totally implausible.   JJ sent her back to local court, so they could call the fire investigators to testify, the insurance people.     Plaintiff had already been made whole over the clean up part she was suing defendant for, because she sued his bond company, and they paid her.   I found it amazing that plaintiff claimed to not really know anything about how the fire started, or the cause.   The woman was not out any money for anything, because the bond company, and insurance company paid her everything she had paid the defendant, and insurance paid for the house, and contents.    The deli investment was another lawsuit she filed, and had nothing to do with the case at hand, or the house fire.    I really hope the insurance and fire investigators did a full investigation on the house fire origin, and causes.  I really wanted to see the full fire report, and insurance adjusters reports. )  

(Just because it was electrical doesn't mean that it didn't have help happening.     Or it was bad electrical work by an amateur.      With full replacement, you get paid as you rebuild, up to the full replacement, but that mean it replaces the house you had, in size, and other features, not just the cost of exactly replacing the previous home.   That's why with full replacement you have to document a lot more to the insurance company.   I suspect she had full insurance to the market value of house and contents, not full replacement value, because that would have been paid as the house was rebuilt.    

   A friend had that, and if they didn't rebuild, then they would have received the value of the property, and house that they lost, minus demo costs.   Because they chose to rebuild, they had to submit different invoices, for labor, supplies, framing costs, etc., since they were their own General Contractors.    It came out to way more money from the insurance company, than the house they lost would have netted them.  However, full replacement insurance costs more than regular homeowner's insurance. )

Don't Make This Courtroom Blunder!-Plaintiff (Jorge Reyes Ruiz ) suing defendant/body shop/mechanic  (Jorge Linarez )  Plaintiff's car was rear ended, and then hit with a hit and run accident, and plaintiff told defendant to not fix the rear end damages from accident #2.    Rear of car from accident #2 was fixed anyway, and plaintiff is unhappy about the repair, but brought no proof to court (As JJ says, he thought he was going to the beach today).   

Plaintiff says defendant tried to fix the damage from the other accident, which he wasn't supposed to.   Plaintiff says the damage from accident #1 wasn't up to his standards, and it cost $4,000 for plaintiff to fix bad work. However, accident #2 damages were repaired satisfactorily.

Then pictures of damages are submitted showing driver's side, and repair shows the passenger side, so the photos are useless too.  

Case dismissed, because it's stupid. 

Second (New)-

Pandemic Free - Time for a Lawsuit-Plaintiff (Meredith Less) suing other driver defendant (William Frankie  ), a year after the accident when the pandemic gave her the time to put the case together, and sue.  Both exchanged information at the accident site.     Within a month plaintiff received a check for the car damages, from defendant's insurance company for $715 for half of the repair (50% at fault).    Plaintiff didn't cash the check, because cashing it is acceptance of the settlement.    Remaining amount of the claim is $715, but plaintiff is suing for entire amount of $1430, because she says defendant is 100% at fault.     

Both litigants were going the same direction.   Defendant says he was in the left lane, going to the left turn lane.    Defendant was actually in the middle lane, turned to go into the left turn lane, but he tuned into plaintiff's right side of her car.   Defendant claims plaintiff was going too fast, and was going straight in the middle lane.   Defendant doesn't have a clue about what he did, and that the fault in the accident was all his. 

Plaintiff receives $715 for the other part of her car repairs.  

Fishy Boat Transaction-Plaintiff (Amir and Susan Vossoughi) suing defendant /boat seller (didn't get defendant's name) over a pontoon boat purchase, parts, engine costs. etc.   Plaintiffs claims they paid defendant for boat motor he never installed, and claim they can't register the boat, and never received a valid title.    Boat is a 1989 model, paid $6500 cash for boat, and almost $1,000 for DMV registration fees.   Pontoon boat is $1,000 over a comparable boat available on the internet.   They spent a total of $16,000 with defendant for the boat, registration fees, and new motor.   JJ has an excellent question, why did they spend three times what a comparable boat would cost?   

Purchases included patio furniture for $3500, $6500 for boat, new top on boat,  Plus, the motor they bought from defendant, and wanted installed on boat $6100.    So over $16,000 on a boat worth less than $5000.   

Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, to go back to the local courts, and prove their case there.   (I still question why they didn't spend the equivalent money on a boat with a good motor, it would have needed less work than the 30 year old boat the plaintiffs bought.   There was some very shady stuff going on with that case with the plaintiffs.    I still didn't catch why defendant didn't install motor either, or what the title problem was.   

(I think the new case Monday is a horrible dog attack, from the previews). 

Edited November 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Demolition Disaster!-Plaintiff (Soraya Cassis) had a house that burned down, and insurance gave her $210,000 to rebuild the house,  Defendant Tony Duarte was hired to demolish the house, and he's being sued for $5,000 for non-performance of their contract.    Plaintiff can't even remember how much insurance paid her to rebuild the house.   When house burned down in November 2017, she claimed for $230,000 for cost to rebuild house.     Insurance paid $90,000 for fire house property inside, and $120,000 for the house (She did not rebuild).  

That was a very confusing case.  Still don't quite understand how much money she put in the deli business.   JJ seemed to imply (to me) that it was not an accidental fire.

[Burning Rubber]

What was the deal with the pontoon people? Why didn't JJ grill the defendant as to why he didn't give the title, stic, etc?

[parrotfeathers]

7 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

What was the deal with the pontoon people? Why didn't JJ grill the defendant as to why he didn't give the title, stic, etc?

JJ was in a particularly witchy mood on that episode.  

[SRTouch]

40 minutes ago, parrotfeathers said:

JJ was in a particularly witchy mood on that episode.  

So it wasn't just me. Some days I just can't watch as she seems to attack with little to no reason.

[LetsStartTalking]

11 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

That was a very confusing case.  Still don't quite understand how much money she put in the deli business.   JJ seemed to imply (to me) that it was not an accidental fire.

I have this on my DVR and so far, I've tried to follow this four time. I still can't understand this mess. I think much of it has to do with 'editing' for a fifteen minute time frame. This should have been an hour episode because too much was going on in this three-ring circus. Plus, the plaintiff's "Tina Turner wig" from 1990 was very annoying.

What is 'creative financing' for the mortgage ?

I didn't understand the insurance settlement, the mortgage, the money invested in the deli (where did that come into play?) , the condo, the cash, the bond settlement ? WOW !

Then she stormed out of the studio and started yelling at everyone behind the scenes. She was a delight.

 

If anyone can pick through this and let us know what we saw and why her case was dismissed, please let me know !

[SRTouch]

55 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

I have this on my DVR and so far, I've tried to follow this four time. I still can't understand this mess. I think much of it has to do with 'editing' for a fifteen minute time frame. This should have been an hour episode because too much was going on in this three-ring circus. Plus, the plaintiff's "Tina Turner wig" from 1990 was very annoying.

What is 'creative financing' for the mortgage ?

I didn't understand the insurance settlement, the mortgage, the money invested in the deli (where did that come into play?) , the condo, the cash, the bond settlement ? WOW !

Then she stormed out of the studio and started yelling at everyone behind the scenes. She was a delight.

 

If anyone can pick through this and let us know what we saw and why her case was dismissed, please let me know !

I share your confusion....... made worse as JJ was in one of her moods and in attack mode out the gate. First off, one of JJ's buttons is anyone making money in a real estate deal besides herself. Here lady bought a house, had it insured for replacement value, house burned to ground, and lady received more more than she paid. Apparently JJ decided it must be some insurance scam and grilled Lady about cause of fire..... several other irrelevant items, but really what case was about was Lady wanted a return of money paid to defendant for site clean up - but we heard very little about that until he butted in at the end after case was over...... if i heard correctly amid all the irrelevant distractions, it was a simple case - the woman had already collected what she paid D from his bonding/insurance and now expected D to pay more because she lost time and hired someone else who charged her twice as much

[Ashforth]

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

So it wasn't just me. Some days I just can't watch as she seems to attack with little to no reason.

This was one of the JJ episodes that makes me think I may just stop watching.

[LetsStartTalking]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I share your confusion....... made worse as JJ was in one of her moods and in attack mode out the gate. First off, one of JJ's buttons is anyone making money in a real estate deal besides herself. Here lady bought a house, had it insured for replacement value, house burned to ground, and lady received more more than she paid. Apparently JJ decided it must be some insurance scam and grilled Lady about cause of fire..... several other irrelevant items, but really what case was about was Lady wanted a return of money paid to defendant for site clean up - but we heard very little about that until he butted in at the end after case was over...... if i heard correctly amid all the irrelevant distractions, it was a simple case - the woman had already collected what she paid D from his bonding/insurance and now expected D to pay more because she lost time and hired someone else who charged her twice as much

Thank You - that makes some sense now. The woman insured it for today's value (2019-20) rather than what she paid for it in 2007. It did look suspicious that the fire happened shortly after, yet she had proof from the FD report it was an electrical fire. What the woman ended up doing with the money is really no concern to this case. So she didn't rebuild ? She bought a condo at half the price of the settlement ($115,000) ? So what ? Many people who have their car totaled in an accident get money from the inusrance company, but don't spend all of it on a new car of the same amount of the settlement.

[Red Bridey]

I am hot and cold with JJ. I have been recording only new shows and I think she is past her sell-by date. Honestly, the way she treats people is disgusting. I have noticed she asks a question, jumps all over the poor person when they start to answer her, asks the question again three or four times getting more argumentive as she goes on. I get that plaintiffs and defendants can be frustrating, believe me, but I was hating JJ more that the litigious Ms. Cassis. And I really dislike people who sue sue sue so I was predisposed to dislike Ms Cassis. One of the problems is JJ doesn't shut up so she disorients the petitioner who then flails around throwing word salads until so much time is wasted we the viewers are more confused than when the case started. I think I am out. JJ needs to stop pretending she's Ruth Nader Ginsburg and realize that $100 to a poor person is equivalent to $2000 to an middle class person and poor people look to Small Claims Court as a redress for injustices done to them, even when the amounts are inconsequential to the Very Important Legal Arbiter Judge Judy. Retire, just retire, you cranky old bat.

[SRTouch]

7 hours ago, Red Bridey said:

I am hot and cold with JJ. I have been recording only new shows and I think she is past her sell-by date. Honestly, the way she treats people is disgusting.... Retire, just retire, you cranky old bat.

Here locally we only get 2 episodes a day, and both are from the current season. So, even our reruns are the current season.  My hope is that once she does retire we'll start to see some of the older reruns. She's always been quick to snap at people, but, at least in my memory, she USED to be entertaining whereas now she's often just mean

Edited November 8, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I get the 4 p.m. reruns, mostly 2017, but some recently have been as old as 2011 and 2012.   Then I get the new or recent reruns that most people get, at 5 p.m.   Since it's sweeps month (where they do 24/7 ratings on all channels), we've been getting the more lively  reruns, and either one or two new episodes.   (Monday's new episode is a brutal dog attack, and Wednesday a veterinarians office is accused of losing a client's dog for a week.)  

The pontoon boats, like the one in the case, are very popular.   JJ owned one, the plaintiffs in the Fishy Boat case did, but what they spent on a boat before registering it was very strange.   It was also over priced for others available.    There was something very strange with the entire case.   

Edited November 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[LetsStartTalking]

I've been watching her regularly since January, 1998 when she first started airing in my area as a mid-season replacement (I know she's been on since 1996, but for some reason she wasn't airing in my area the first 18 months).  I remember the days when she didn't understand the fairly new eBay, and would laugh at people who had 'online auto insurance' and think it was some kind of scam.  I hope they start re-airing those again ...they were fun.

[One Tough Cookie]

On 11/6/2020 at 7:07 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

ishy Boat Transaction-Plaintiff (Amir and Susan Vossoughi) suing defendant /boat seller (didn't get defendant's name) over a pontoon boat purchase, parts, engine costs. etc.   Plaintiffs claims they paid defendant for boat motor he never installed, and claim they can't register the boat, and never received a valid title.    Boat is a 1989 model, paid $6500 cash for boat, and almost $1,000 for DMV registration fees.   Pontoon boat is $1,000 over a comparable boat available on the internet.   They spent a total of $16,000 with defendant for the boat, registration fees, and new motor.   JJ has an excellent question, why did they spend three times what a comparable boat would cost?   

And don't you know her Highness told them she'shad boats herself......😉

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-(20)

Teenager Challenges Judge Judy!-Plaintiff (Sierra Pearson), suing defendant (Jenny Soto), and her daughter (Makayla Allen) for keying her car.   Plaintiff was living in friend's house (Nick age 20), with several other people, after a rift with her family.    Then plaintiff's friend Nick starts dating defendant daughter Michaela.    Nick and Makayla had a falling out (Makayla Allen is 16).    Jenny Soto (defendant mother) says she can't do anything about daughter Makayla's behavior   Defendant mother says she's tried therapy, etc. but nothing helps daughter.    Defendant mother knew her 16 year old delinquent daughter was living with Nick, and the others, but mother never told Nick's mother that Makayla was 16.      

Plaintiff found the car keying a few days later, and there is a witness (Bryton O Wells, age 19).    Witness was helping Makayla move out, and she didn't see the keying, but she heard it, and said Makayla boasted about keying the car.    Witness and Makayla had a falling out a month later, and witness said Makayla stole from her and her father, so Makayla was told to leave the house.     Plaintiff has a text from Makayla Allen admitting the keying.  Plaintiff was smart, she told Makayla she had video of the keying, and it was going to the cops.    So defendant confessed via text. 

Because daughter is 16, mother is responsible.    Then it turns, when JJ says she can lecture her or not, and then Mikayla Allen gets nasty, and asks JJ why she's bothering to lecture the little criminal.   Mikayla has a nasty little attitude.

$428 to plaintiff.      

Car Sale Fiasco-(Very strange, not listed in the cable guide or online)-Plaintiff Cameron Jacobsen sold a car to defendant Nichole Megeterian  for $2,000 down, on a car for $11,000+, but he paid her directly for her previous car.   Plaintiff is a car dealer, but doesn't do his paperwork right.   Plaintiff actually took the car, plus $300 for the $2,000 down.    Case is over, plaintiff received the $1700 car, plus the $300 cash, so plaintiff is whole.   

Defendant didn't sign title over to plaintiff.   Plaintiff will have to handle this through the lost title process. 

Case dismissed. 

(?????-Stolen Service Dog?!-This case was listed, about a woman suing her father for keeping her service dog (she has seizures), but father says daughter hasn't seen dog in years, and never took care of it.   This never aired, and I'm wondering if it's a boo boo, or something bad happened so they chose not to reshow it?) 

Second-(2017)

It's All Very L.A.!-Plaintiff (Kathryn Kolouch) suing defendant/ mechanic (Andreas Cardini) over car repairs that she says were fraudulent, and not done well.  Car is a 2003 Honda Element, inherited from her parents, car had over 200000 miles on car.  Plaintiff claims she took inherited in for a wellness check, but mechanic said it needed shock.    Plaintiff claims it was for an oil change, but defendant says it was for a strut change, and defendant/mechanic worked on the same car before.    

After defendant worked on car, and then took it to the Honda dealer three months later.    Defendant said he quoted $800, and plaintiff paid that, and replaced struts.    Honda replaced the struts, and the receipt is submitted.  Honda dealer also replaced the rear stabilizer/sway bar, but that wasn't part of the defendant's work.   Adam Timm, plaintiff witness, motorcycle mechanic says the shock absorber broke.   Why am I listening to a motorcycle mechanic?    Shock worked for three months, then failed.   

Mechanic, plaintiff witness says the rear stabilizer bar that wasn't replaced by defendant makes a bad sound, and can also impact other part.   Also, apparently strut/shock worked fine for three months.    No problems for three months, until plaintiff took car to Honda. As defendant says, he didn't make the shock, and she never brought it back with any complaints.    

Case dismissed.

Mother Daughter Hair Care Fiasco-Plaintiff (Carey)suing (Rene Richardson)defendant hair client over fraudulent charged, bank fees, a bad check.     Defendant says salon was actually in plaintiff's home, on some back road,  and she was uncomfortable with plaintiff's boyfriend being in the home, but she had plaintiff cut her daughter's hair the same day after her service was completed.   

Defendant left check for $180 was for services rendered, plus $20 tip, and the check bounced.    Plaintiff completed the defendant, and her daughter's services, and then stopped payment on the check.    Service on defendant took four hours.  Wendye Macabe, defendant's sister is the witness, and has the same hairdo as defendant, but with more frosting,    

Ate the steak, comes to mind.  

Plaintiff says she filed for the principal of the case, not the money only.   

Plaintiff receives $835

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a rerun-

First (New)-(JJ must be doing her own hair, it's not up to her standard).

Operation Death to Pit Bulls?!-Plaintiff (Sarah Gordon) suing Pit Bull owner (Michael Roston)for vet bills after his dogs attacked and killed her dog.   Chihuahua / terrier mix was about 16 lbs.    Defendant's two dogs are mother and daughter, and he owned them their entire life.   Defendant's girlfriend was walking the two dogs.  On August 7 plaintiff was walking her dogs, when defendant's witness lost control of the dogs, the Pits attacked, and one Chi died after surgery.     

Defendant is suing because San Diego Animal Control declared his two Pits a nuisance, and then defendant has to muzzle dogs outdoors, and had to get special renter's liability insurance on his dogs.   Defendant claims plaintiff campaigned to have his dogs killed.    Defendant claims his dogs are harmless, and if he blames the small dogs for the attack, I'll puke.   Defendant's stupid claims are dismissed.   Defendant claims plaintiff woman called his dog 'murderers' on social media, and claims it was plaintiff's social media storm, to get her friends to call the Humane society complaining about his dogs.   

Defendant says his girlfriend will never walk the dogs again, because she can't control them.   Defendant's girlfriend comes back in to testify.  Girlfriend says she doesn't know if plaintiff's dogs were on harness, but claims the pit bulls were.  Whitney Falk, defendant's witness was walking dogs after dark, dogs were on harness, when dogs stopped, and claims noise startled the dogs.    Then the dogs met in mutual combat, and she's blaming the Chi cross for the attack.   Two 60 pound dogs, vs. a 16 pound dog.    Statement by defendant is garbage.  Defendant is still enraged that his dogs have to be muzzled.    And I hope when they're out without it, someone notifies the authorities. 

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

You're Suing the Wrong Person-Plaintiff  (Sean Badiian) suing appliance repairman  for damage to his home.    There is a home warranty contract with an annual payment, for repairs.  Plaintiff called about a refrigerator leak, it took two trips to fix it, and floors under fridge were damaged, and plaintiff wants $3700 to fix floors.   However, his contract is with company, not the repairman.    Plaintiff didn't have homeowner's insurance at the time of the leak, and that is the appropriate place to file a claim.

When plaintiff told contract company and said he wanted $3700 for the floors, they told him that they're not responsible. So he sued the defendant repairman.  Defendant never says a word. 

Case dismissed. 

Second (Rerun)-

Video of Assault While Holding a Baby!-Plaintiff (Amanda Ward ) and Grandfather (Lawrence Ward) suing ex-boyfriend (Jason Enright ) and baby daddy, for legal fees and a loan to move, suing for $5,000.    There is a video of an attack on him in his home, while he was holding their baby.    The video of the attack is appalling.  Defendant has another boy and girl, and both litigants lived with the three kids, in Fontana, with a platonic roommate.   Then they moved to Rancho Cucamonga (I love that name).     Plaintiff's grandfather claims he made a loan to defendant for first, last month, and security deposit to defendant.     

Grandfather made loan to both for $4800.   So it would be combined debt.   Defendant still lives in home, but plaintiff only lived there for six months. No repayment by either party during the six months of shacking up. 

Grandfather case cut in half, $2400 awarded.

Plaintiff Amanda Ward claims the assault resulted in her arrest, and restraining order, and attorney's fees.   $1,000 for attorney fees are claimed.   Plaintiff was arrested at the home the night of the assault by police, after plaintiff hit and clawed the defendant.   Plaintiff and two girlfriends were over, defendant was out.   Plaintiff heard noise at front door, then back door was broken to get into the house by defendant.    You could only get in if the inside deadbolts were unlocked, but keys wouldn't work from outside.   The video shows the drunk plaintiff attacking the defendant's back,  while he's holding the baby in his arms.  She actually is clawing at his arms and back, punches him in the head.  .   Plaintiff claims defendant was belligerently drunk, but plaintiff looks drunk on the video.    Plaintiff and defendant hadn't shared a bedroom for three months, of the six month tenancy.    

The only belligerent person I saw was the plaintiff.    Defendant says plaintiff and friends ignored the doorbell, and knocking.    Plaintiff seems to think it's funny that she's committing an assault on a man holding a baby.   She actually hits him twice, and jumps on his back.    The plaintiff thinks what she did on film is funny.   

Case dismissed, except for $2400 to grandfather for half of loan.   

   

Edited November 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The only belligerent person I saw was the plaintiff.

My momma would say about this girl--"common as pig tracks."

[VartanFan]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant is still enraged that his dogs have to be muzzled. 

This is crazy to me.  He was so angry when he looked at the P in the roomterview...."it was an ACCIDENT".  Yeah, nobody says it was on purpose.  Now that you know, however, you should muzzle the dogs and cut your mullet.