All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Twice Covid-Infected Landlord! -Plaintiff former Michelle Spalding suing former landlord/defendant Kirk Wilterding for return of security deposit.  Plaintiff and family rented house from defendant, moved out on time, and did not return the $3900 to the plaintiffs.   

Plaintiff lived in the house for a couple of years, then rented to plaintiffs, defendant decided to move back to his home, and gave a 60 day notice to the plaintiff.  Plaintiffs moved out on time, and defendant didn't show up for the walk through (he claims he had Covid symptoms).   Defendant claims he had Covid, lost his sense of smell, and then when it came back he claims he could smell the previous tenants' dogs.  Defendant claims he had to change the carpet and pad after he could smell the dog leftover smells.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't even show up for the walk through, or call to say he wasn't coming.    

Defendant says it will

Plaintiff receives $3900. 

Dirt Bike Taken Hostage? -Plaintiff Charles Roberts suing defendant bike mechanic Bryn Patton for the return or value of a dirt bike.  Plaintiff wanted the non-running bike fixed, and plaintiff called to have dirt bike picked up, and repaired.    Defendant picked up bike for diagnosis, and an estimate, and he claims Mr. Roberts said whatever it cost to fix the bike was fine.

Defendant is counter suing for storage fees, and repair costs for the bike.

New cost for fixing the bike is $580.  Which was double the lowest estimate of $300.   Then defendant sent a text saying the bike was $1500.

Defendant's son wanted to buy the bike, but later decided not to buy it.

Plaintiff will pay defendant $600 for the bike, and pick it up with a marshal's help.

Pay a Little; Pay a Lot! -Plaintiff Doug Swenson suing defendant /ex-girlfriend Kathy Miller for an loan she didn't repay.     Just before the break up, plaintiff loaned defendant $1,000.   A while later the plaintiff went to defendant's house, and wanted $500.    Plaintiff says defendant gave him $500 after the big fight happened, when she moved out.   

Plaintiff receives $500. 

Second (2020)-

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, about July of 2019.   At the end of July 2020, the three got into a kerfuffle, between plaintiff and her 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 women 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.   Plaintiff's protection order request was dismissed by the judge. 

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 should drop contact, and never deal with so-called father, or his new family. 

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. (My opinion is that the AC guy that defendant had consulting on wine cellar wasn't right for the job.  Wine cellars, and the wine rooms are a specialty item, and you need to have someone who deals with that.    The equipment is super expensive too.    If the defendant spent $9k on purchases, where are the receipts and invoices?   Where is the equipment that he claims to have purchased?)

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[7EasyPayments]

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Twice Covid-Infected Landlord! -Plaintiff former Michelle Spalding suing former landlord/defendant Kirk Wilterding for return of security deposit.  Plaintiff and family rented house from defendant, moved out on time, and did not return the $3900 to the plaintiffs.   

Plaintiff lived in the house for a couple of years, then rented to plaintiffs, defendant decided to move back to his home, and gave a 60 day notice to the plaintiff.  Plaintiffs moved out on time, and defendant didn't show up for the walk through (he claims he had Covid symptoms).   Defendant claims he had Covid, lost his sense of smell, and then when it came back he claims he could smell the previous tenants' dogs.  Defendant claims he had to change the carpet and pad after he could smell the dog leftover smells.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't even show up for the walk through, or call to say he wasn't coming.    

Defendant says it will

Plaintiff receives $3900. 

 

At least Kirk had his wig tightened for the 9 or 10 million viewers JJ likes to crow about. 😁

[LetsStartTalking]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Twice Covid-Infected Landlord! -Plaintiff former Michelle Spalding suing former landlord/defendant Kirk Wilterding for return of security deposit.  Plaintiff and family rented house from defendant, moved out on time, and did not return the $3900 to the plaintiffs.   

Plaintiff lived in the house for a couple of years, then rented to plaintiffs, defendant decided to move back to his home, and gave a 60 day notice to the plaintiff.  Plaintiffs moved out on time, and defendant didn't show up for the walk through (he claims he had Covid symptoms).   Defendant claims he had Covid, lost his sense of smell, and then when it came back he claims he could smell the previous tenants' dogs.  Defendant claims he had to change the carpet and pad after he could smell the dog leftover smells.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't even show up for the walk through, or call to say he wasn't coming.    

Defendant says it will

Plaintiff receives $3900. 

Dirt Bike Taken Hostage? -Plaintiff Charles Roberts suing defendant bike mechanic Bryn Patton for the return or value of a dirt bike.  Plaintiff wanted the non-running bike fixed, and plaintiff called to have dirt bike picked up, and repaired.    Defendant picked up bike for diagnosis, and an estimate, and he claims Mr. Roberts said whatever it cost to fix the bike was fine.

Defendant is counter suing for storage fees, and repair costs for the bike.

New cost for fixing the bike is $580.  Which was double the lowest estimate of $300.   Then defendant sent a text saying the bike was $1500.

Defendant's son wanted to buy the bike, but later decided not to buy it.

Plaintiff will pay defendant $600 for the bike, and pick it up with a marshal's help.

Pay a Little; Pay a Lot! -Plaintiff Doug Swenson suing defendant /ex-girlfriend Kathy Miller for an loan she didn't repay.     Just before the break up, plaintiff loaned defendant $1,000.   A while later the plaintiff went to defendant's house, and wanted $500.    Plaintiff says defendant gave him $500 after the big fight happened, when she moved out.   

Plaintiff receives $500.

 

Judge Judy / RBG is at the bench.

1. CDC had such stringent regulations on COVID this summer, but if Judge Judy says you're fine to do  a walk-through with the tenants while infected with COVID, you best be there. Forget the CDC.  As far as he suggestion of sending someone else - your mom, your dad, your girlfriend, a friend - why should he ? He's the landlord. If he had a property manager, that's one thing. But to send someone else in his place who knew nothing about the property he rented ? Is she kidding ? I agreed with the defendant - she didn't want to hear his side of the case. She had her mind made up to side with the plaintiff.

2. In the bike case, she asked the defendant how much he was getting as an appearance fee (he wasn't sure, because every time he gets sued and goes on TV courtrooms, the fees change).  Judy tells him they will hold his fee 'hostage' until the bike is returned to the plaintiff in the condition it was turned over to him. Defendant agrees.

Just a second - that's called a bribe, Judy. Holding something over someone's head until they do something to your satisfaction is illegal. His fee is not 'collateral', it's a payment for an appearance. He gets it no matter what. She has threatened this in the past with litigants - someone needs to let her know in front of 10 million viewers that she is in violation of the law. Just like when an employer withholds an employee's last paycheck until the employee turns over belongings (tools, keys, etc) back to the employer. Judge Judy says "You can't do that, it's illegal".

Edited February 11, 2021 by LetsStartTalking

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess in the landlord/Covid case is that defendant didn't show, but only blamed it on Covid that he had twice.   I wonder if there's any confirmation he actually had it?     I didn't catch how long the house was rented to plaintiff and family, but if it was more than a few years, and also was the same carpet when defendant lived in the house, then it was due for replacement.     What I find interesting about the walk-through no show of defendant is that he didn't tell plaintiff he was sick and couldn't do the walk through, or try to reschedule either.      He could have called or sent a text saying he was sick, and then rescheduled the walk through with the tenant, unless they were moving a long distance.   She should have taken a video showing damages on move in, and anything on move out too.   

For the appearance, and expense fees, I'm sure there is something in the litigant agreement that covers JJ holding onto money until her ruling is carried out.     The dirt bike case was so strange, I really wondered if the defendant was sick or something, because he seemed very confused in court.  

I have to laugh at litigants who lose, and then say in the hall-terview that "this isn't over", yes it is over.   The agreement for court says this is the only decision they will get, it's binding arbitration.      What I wonder about is when litigants come on the judge shows, and the case has already been decided in another court, but they try to get JJ, or the other judges to rehear the case, and that's not happening.   Some litigants, one in particular from Compton, the "this isn't over" does seem to be a threat, but I think some of the litigants think they can endlessly file for the same case, and that simply isn't legal. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

53 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

I agreed with the defendant - she didn't want to hear his side of the case. She had her mind made up to side with the plaintiff.

Yes, she was quite intransigent and unreasonable in that case. This was another instance where she decided from the start she did not like the defendant and she would jump through every possible hoops and make every contorsion she can still achieve at her age to rule against him.

53 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

His fee is not 'collateral', it's a payment for an appearance. He gets it no matter what.

Actually, it depends on the terms of the contract litigants sign before they even come before the cameras. There must be provisions in there which state that they agree that they will live by the terms of JJ's ruling and that this is their final legal kick at the can; the arbitrator's decision is final and binding. If they do not behave according to it, they may lose their fee.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Florinaldo

[LetsStartTalking]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Yes, she was quite intransigent and unreasonable in that case. This was another instance where she decided from the start she did not like the defendant and she would jump through every possible hoops and make every contorsion she can still achieve at her age to rule against him.

Actually, it depends on the terms of the contract litigants sign before they even come before the cameras. There must be provisions in there which state that they agree that they will live by the terms of JJ's ruling and that this is their final legal kick at the can; the arbitrator's decision is final and binding. If they do not behave according to it, they may lose their fee.

Judge Judy's words were to the plaintiff, "We will hold his [appearance] fee hostage." That was a threat of blackmail on television, in front of 10 million viewers.

 

[Florinaldo]

57 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Judge Judy's words were to the plaintiff, "We will hold his [appearance] fee hostage." That was a threat of blackmail on television, in front of 10 million viewers.

Not in my view. It was a reminder that he has to live by the provisions of the binding agreement he has signed with the show; including an obligation to abide by all the terms of her decision. This is the one certain way to make sure her judgments have concrete consequences and can be made to stick. A contract of that nature can make the appearance fee conditional.

JJ wields that contractual reality rather brusquely at times, but she is simply making sure her decisions get implemented once litigants leave the hearing room.

[configdotsys]

 

On 1/27/2021 at 9:35 PM, DoctorK said:

If I followed this case correctly, all of the sons (including the defendant) got one car for free as a gift. The defendant wanted to lease a nicer car (a dubious decision) and asked Mom to help him out with the down payment. I was on Mom's side, defendant was playing the "you're not fair, you gave my brother more than me", an argument that grates on my nerves. If Mom fronted another sibling for a down payment for a leased car (after the free one from Mom) I missed it. Was the other son's lease down payment not a loan?

It sounded like the defendant was keeping track of what everyone got and maybe was a little bit entitled, but I totally believe that he got the short end because mom was pissed that he moved to dad's. That, to me, is not right. 

On 2/1/2021 at 5:53 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Last Will and Testament Surprise- Plaintiff Thomas Reilly suing his cousin, defendant Anna Wells for legal fees due to false allegations by her.    Plaintiff's sister died in California, had cancer, and plaintiff and wife moved from Florida to California, However, plaintiffs are working on a contracting job in California, and still are, and didn't just move to help sister.    Plaintiff says he did move with the wife, to help the sister, and are originally from California.      (I hate plaintiff's witness/wife's hair bow).    There were six siblings of the sister and plaintiff.   Plaintiff and wife took care of the sister, for a long time.    

I thought the defendant was piggish, but plaintiff gave me a raging lunatic crazy person vibe. He could barely stand still he was seething so much at the fact that the defendant got everything. I could see him trashing the place. Again, the defendant was definitley no prize, but I could see why she would not want him to be contacted by the police or whatever becuase he looks like he'd be banging on her door like a maniac. His wife gave me weird vibes too. Totally don't get why the insurance company paid the defendant.

On 2/2/2021 at 6:47 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

We Hate Your Boyfriend! -Plaintiffs Alyssa Galindo, and Arenia Robinson suing defendant Jazmin Linden, and they were all roommates.   Plaintiffs say defendant's boyfriend was a virtual resident of the apartment, and it is claimed the boyfriend posted bad pictures on the internet, to strike back at the plaintiffs.   After defendant moved out, she paid rent except for the $5660 owed for damages, and $400 for the last month's pro rated rent.    Landlords charged for carpet, door, trim and other replacement.    

Counter claim by defendant is for damages to her couch by plaintiff's cats, and burn marks from cigarettes.   Defendant's counter claim dismissed.

The reason defendant moved out was she claims Arenia sent her a text that defendant's boyfriend was no longer welcome at the apartment.   

JJ asks what boyfriend did to them, that made them say he was unwelcome in the apartment.   JJ says that plaintiff's needed a reason to ban the boyfriend.   Plaintiffs say boyfriend was there for multiple days in a row.

Plaintiff and defendant cases dismissed. 

Weird case. "We don't like him," was their only complaint. He never did anything to them, or the girlfriend. After seeing the text when one of them was telling the defendant that she was abandoning her friends "who have always stood by you" or some such claptrap, for a guy she knows for six months told me all I needed to know. These gals were jealous that the defendant got a boyfriend and that her attention was off the "do every single thing together" friends so they thought by saying he couldn't come there, that what? she'd break off with him and they'd be the Three Musketeers again? 

 

On 2/3/2021 at 7:11 PM, Florinaldo said:

Didn't plaintiff describe him as an "inspiring rapper" when asked about his profession? What a silly mark who was such an easy and willing target for beng played.

I totally agree, JJ actually said she was ruling in favour of the plaintiffs because the wedding could not take place in light of of the state's restrictions, but when defendant pointed out those restrictions came into effect after the date in question, she still ruled for capricious and stubborn snowflakes Ps.

So she preferred going against her initial reasoning rather than admitting on camera that she made a mistake in her ruling. Typical of Her Majesty.

 I thought that the defendants came across as quite capable of doing the alleged damage and being the most likely culprits. But JJ so disliked plaintiff and took so much gratuitous glee in humiliating him, she would not explore that possibility in the least. Granted he was a dislikable person, but I do not think it warranted her going overboard to such an extent.

Yes! I had to delete a quoted post here because I was going to say that the plaintiff described him as an "inspiring" rapper.

I was confused with the wedding case and thought JJ was very hard on the defendant. Even if it was announced on November 1st that "As of November 15th, you can't have any indoor parties," that did not stop the plaintiff from having the 50 person gathering on the 8th. JJ seemed hung up on the fact that it was "announced" before it took effect. Very weird.

On 2/5/2021 at 7:06 PM, Florinaldo said:

Deendants mentioned the SMOG receipt would have been in the glove compartment. Is it standard practice in the US to leave important documents like that in the car? I know many people mention leaving the registration inside, which I think only makes the job easier for people who steal the car. Is it a legal requirement or just laziness on the part of owners? If there are multiple drivers, surely it is possible to get extra copies of the registration, although there must be a small administrative fee which some people would prefer not to pay.

I don't think it's lazy or people being cheap. That has always been the way it has been done, at least throughout my lifetime (I'm in my 50s now). Since I was a kid, I always remember that registration and insurance was always in an envelope in the glove compartment in the car so when I grew up and got a car, I did the same thing. I have an envelope in my car's glove box with a copy of the registration and insurance. It's just what I was taught growing up. Of course, in today's identity theft world, it might not be the best plan, I guess but having them there ensures that if you lose or forget your wallet and are in an accident, you have the info available. 

On 2/9/2021 at 6:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I’ll Take the Shotgun, Not the Wedding! -Plaintiff Leslie Orm is suing defendant Lori Mosley, his ex-fiance, for unpaid loans (a cruise deposit of $300, and for two airline tickets for defendant's son and daughter in law), and a shotgun.    Defendant lied to plaintiff and said her son has the shotgun, but then defendant fesses up, and says she sold the shotgun.  

Wow. The plantiff in this case was Baby Huey. I pictured him standing there in a big diaper throwing a tantrum. He just seemed like such a crybaby crank. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by configdotsys
LOL I had a quote from the Commercials forum in here...

[Back Atcha]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I have to laugh at litigants who lose, and then say in the hall-terview that "this isn't over", yes it is over.

Often, there's no reason to laugh.  It's a THREAT ... Too often I'm concerned about harm to the person who won the case.

[Florinaldo]

4 minutes ago, Back Atcha said:

It's a THREAT ... Too often I'm concerned about harm to the person who won the case.

Yes, especially when the dumb losers discover that contrary to their shouts of "I will appeal this" the agreement they signed with the show, which most of them probably did not bother to read (and they would not understand it even if they did), means that the decision is final and binding. It's a valid contract and I am sure that over the years the production companies of all those court shows have learned how to plug any possible loopholes.

You are correct: considering the behaviour and character often displayed by litigants in the course of the hearing, those comments often sound like real threats, if not of violence at least of harassment or stalking.

[LetsStartTalking]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Not in my view. It was a reminder that he has to live by the provisions of the binding agreement he has signed with the show; including an obligation to abide by all the terms of her decision. This is the one certain way to make sure her judgments have concrete consequences and can be made to stick. A contract of that nature can make the appearance fee conditional.

JJ wields that contractual reality rather brusquely at times, but she is simply making sure her decisions get implemented once litigants leave the hearing room.

Let's take another look at a 'binding agreement' with a similar structure to which Judge Judy has said repeatedly in the past, "That's illegal".

A person opens a hair salon, and enters into a binding agreement (lease) with the landlord to rent commercial space out for one year. This person now becomes a tenant, and the agreement to pay rent each month for 'X' dollars is in effect. Salon owner agrees to live by the binding agreement (lease) she has signed with the landlord, including an obligation to abide by all the terms of the lease agreement. 

Hair salon owner realizes business isn't great in that location, and finds a better place on the other side of town in her sixth month. At the beginning of her seventh month, she decides to move out, considered breaking her lease. The landlord wants rent for the remainder of her lease, in accordance with their binding agreement of her paying rent for twelve months. Otherwise, she will keep her salon equipment in storage, 'held hostage', as a reminder she has to live by the binding provisions she has signed with the landlord.

Judge Judy tells the landlord 'Can't do that. That's illegal.'  We have seen this a thousand times on her show. Nothing different with the defendant and the appearance fee.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Creepy Jacuzzi Offer?!- Plaintiff /former landlord Walter Danalevich is suing defendant/former tenant Issa Forrest, for breaking the lease.   Rent was $745, and a six month lease.   Defendant was new to California, and worked part time.   Defendant found a full time job close to plaintiff's condo, and still works at the same place, and moved to her new apartment, where she still lives.   Plaintiff wants six months of rent.     

Defendant says landlord kept inviting her to join him in the hot tub jacuzzi for the complex, and claims plaintiff asked her out for drinks, and to go on a date.   Defendant denies she owes him rent, or broke her lease, and gave him 30 days notice, and five possible tenants.    Plaintiff had the $900 security deposit, and defendant gave 30 days notice, and found five possible tenants for the room, to take over the lease, but he found reasons that none were suitable.    (I find plaintiff quite creepy.   I also find his reasons not to bring the replacement tenants in shaky, since he only wanted a single person, and rejected couples).   Plaintiff sent an email to defendant, saying he wanted four months rent, and now he wants six months rent.

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Pay Me for Gardening! -Plaintiff/former tenant Gene Lopez suing defendant /former landlord Chester Woods for landscaping he did at the rental property, window treatments, and return of his security deposit.  Plaintiff lived there for three years, and then defendant informed plaintiff that he would not be renewing the lease.  

JJ dismisses landscaping fees, Window treatments are rejected too, they're attached to the property, and stay, unless it's in the contract that landlord will pay for window treatments.     Security deposit is next.   JJ wonders why defendant told plaintiff that he wasn't renewing the lease.  

Defendant landlord says there are substantial damages, and the security of $2700, and $300 pet deposit were not returned.    Pet fee not returned.   There are before and after photos of the property submitted by plaintiff.    Plaintiff move in photos show some dirt.    Carpeting was disgusting in the photos on move out, and JJ thinks the $300 pet deposit will cover it (In my opinion, pet waste in a carpet requires replacement of carpet, padding, and sometimes subfloor or other replacement or cleaning and sealing).    Plaintiff claims the damage all existed before he moved in.

Plaintiff gets $2700 security back.  Counter claim is dismissed.

Second (2018)-

Writer vs. Magazine Owner- Plaintiff/writer Sherri Daley suing defendant/online magazine owner Jordan Rizza for not publishing plaintiff's articles, and refusing to pay her.  Defendant says articles weren't good enough to publish, and not factual.   Defendant says plaintiff's articles were not factual, poorly written, and required major rewriting, and work.     Writers are 1099 independent contractors, paid by the word (20 cents a word).    Plaintiff wanted to invoice for stories for mileage, and 50 cents a word.   

Plaintiff seems rather confused about prior payments, topics, and terms of assignments.     JJ sends the litigants out to discuss payment, and to try to come to an agreement. 

There were eight articles, and plaintiff will receive $1800. 

Act of God Tree Fail! – Plaintiff /home owner Benny Fiorino suing defendant/tree owner Harold Baerg for damage from defendant's tree falling on their property, and damaging a fence and gazebo.   The property in question is an acre and a half, and one tree fell over, and crashed through plaintiff's gazebo and fence.    This all happened almost two years ago.   Defendant owns the home, but it's rented to tenants, and defendant inspects the property once a year.   

Defendant claims the tree was in good shape, and not diseased.    Defendant also claims plaintiff had a tree trimmer come on defendant's property, trimmed the tree with defendant's permission, and an Act of God took the tree down. 

 Defendant's witness is his sister/property manager, who simply won't stop interrupting.  So she gets booted out. 

Defendant claims he paid to fix the fence, and remove the tree.    Receipts are submitted.   JJ says the invoice only covers the part of the tree on his property, but defendant disputes that.   Defendant says his witness can verify that plaintiff sent the tree trimmer, and tree trimmer had to come two times to remove tree.   Fence repair photo isn't good.   (My guess is plaintiff, as he said in hall-terview, refused to deal with defendant's sister who is defendant's property manager.   He wanted to handle it "Man to Man".    I find that disgusting).

Plaintiff receives $1800

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

20 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Nothing different with the defendant and the appearance fee.

Nope, entirely different. An appearance contract is not the same as a business contract between two parties; the latter would be regulated by extensive local, state or federal laws and regulations. Statutes striclty regulating such business relationships are multiple and complex.

The JJ production team would have much more freedom in drawing up their appearance fee contract and enforcing it because the legal framework around those is looser since legislators and regulators have looked at them much less attentively. Which why it would be much easier for JJ to say "it's illegal" in your example since a statute would clearly say so because of the specific nature of the relationship. Not so much in the relationship between the show and the litigants.

At least in my experience and knowledge.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich?!-Plaintiff Jill Zimmerman, mother of student, suing former Geometry tutor David Kaspar, for return of fees she paid him to tutor her daughter.    Defendant tutored daughter for freshman year, high school geometry, one or more session a week.   Defendant charged $90 per session, and extra sessions during a week were paid also.    Fees were paid at the end of each session, on check.    Plaintiff mother claims they didn't meet every week, about 25 times per year.   Defendant is no longer tutoring.   Plaintiff didn't 1099 the tutor either.  No taxes were reported by either party, or income.  

Defendant will show JJ how much he reported to the IRS last year as income.   JJ is figuring out how much tutor earned, so his reported $42000+ was more like $100k+, thanks to Officer Byrd.   I'm hoping this tape will be forwarded to the IRS, for audit.

Defendant certainly loves the sound of his own voice.  I absolutely hate his voice.  JJ still says his income was more like $80k minimum. (I agree with JJ, in the areas he worked in, no amount of money is too much to get someone to do the work for their entitled kids.   I’m sure the tutoring included a lot of work by him, that students were supposed to do themselves). 

Defendant decided to go back to school, and sent a letter to the tutoring clients, to dump them.    Then defendant offers the clients a way to invest in his academic bills, (he already owes $9,000, and anticipates more), and he will do sessions with their child from April 2019 to graduation.   Who says these kids will graduate?   

Defendant is being very rude to JJ, and I really hope the IRS saw this case.   

Plaintiff was going to pay $3,000 and get tutoring until graduation (in plaintiff daughter's case, May of 2022).  Defendant says that's the end of the year, and plaintiff says it's until her daughter's graduation.    

(I loathed the nasty comments by the defendant in the Hall-terview, about how rich the area the plaintiff lives in.   That's not a reason that he should rip people off, especially when he's not paying taxes, or getting a 1099 from customers that spend thousands with him.     I hope some enterprising students at Univ. of Washington set up a tutoring website, so they can offer their services, and I bet they would make a nice living tutoring, and wouldn't be claiming that ripping off clients was some kind of Robin Hood move.    I hated that the defendant was trying to talk over everyone, and justify his attitude). 

Defendant tutored daughter five times after paying $3,000, so plaintiff gets $2500.    

I Hate You! Here's Your Marijuana!-Plaintiff Ciera Otte suing her ex-boyfriend Michael Davis for a loan to have his legal record expunged.    Defendant was arrested in after an argument at plaintiff's apartment.   Defendant was found with a pen filled with marijuana, and he claims this was the first arrest.  Money wasn't for bail, but plaintiff paid for pre-trial diversion, and an attorney to expunge defendant's record.    Defendant tries to make a ridiculous excuse about why he paid small amounts to plaintiff after they broke up.    Plaintiff paid $5400 for the expungement, and repaid $1,424, leaving $3976,

I wish Officer Byrd would wipe that stupid grin off of defendant's face. 

Plaintiff receives $3,976.

Second (2020)-

Marriage Certificate Extortion?!-Plaintiff James Potts suing former landlord April McDermott for a car, and security deposit ,$1200 (this was paid by VA).    VA paid for 5 month’s rent for plaintiff, and security to defendant, for her guest house he was renting.   Defendant also says plaintiff was an online minister, and performed her marriage ceremony, but refused to file the certificate.    Rent was 1200 a month, but only paid $150 in January.   Plaintiff brought a friend over, friend met defendant, fell in love, and wanted plaintiff to be ordained online, and perform the ceremony, in January.  

Plaintiff has a certificate from Universal Life Church, and performed the ceremony in January.    Plaintiff bought a used car from defendant for $1,000.      Plaintiff paid to renew defendant's car registration, and purchased car for $1,000.   Defendant says VA paid the $1200 security deposit, and she deducted the $1050 he didn't pay for rent in January.     After defendant wouldn't sign the bill of sale for car, plaintiff refused to certify the wedding license.    

So now plaintiff has Bill of Sale, and can register the car at DMV.   

Plaintiff still owes $1050 for the shortfall in the rent.  Why does defendant think she should keep the VA security deposit? Defendant is counter suing for performing a fraudulent wedding, and a parking ticket. 

Plaintiff would have received $785 for security deposit back, but not after the marriage certificate issue is decided.   

Parking ticket was $200, is unpaid after a year, but it's in the defendant's mothers name, so defendant can't sue for it.   There's no proof plaintiff committed the offense.   

Defendant will be remarried in November in Vegas, and it will be performed by a licensed officiant.  Plaintiff didn't pay for the cruise following the marriage.  Fraudulent wedding allegation is that plaintiff refused to sign marriage certificate, in return for car title.   

Plaintiff found out he had to pay a one-day fee to San Diego County to perform marriages, and therefore, he didn’t legally have the right to perform marriages, so the plaintiff couldn't sign the marriage certificate.   

JJ missed the point, because the plaintiff didn't pay a one-day registration fee to the county, he couldn't legally perform marriages or sign marriage certificates, because it's fraud if he signs.   Any marriage he performed as officiant wasn't a legal marriage, so the marriage certificate was worthless.    

Plaintiff case dismissed for not signing the marriage certificate. 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 2/10/2021 at 5:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ also tells defendant that you don't try to teach a pig to sing, it doesn't work, and annoys the pig.  

Obviously she never mat Arnold Ziffel!

eta: After yesterday's show we found out, in addition to all her other knowledge, she's an expert when it comes to wine cellars!

Edited February 12, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[Carolina Girl]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich?!-

One of the most insufferable defendants ever.    I hope the IRS was watching, too, since he committed tax fraud.  It would not surprise me in the least if he requested that his clients SPECIFICALLY not to 1099 him.  I'd love to see his supporting income documents when he submitted his tax return, since I'm pretty sure it isn't the policy of the IRS to say "yeah, okay, we'll take your word for it.   $10 says he had a some sort of regular salaried tutoring job at one of those organizations and did the $100/hour side work in the evenings and on the weekends.  

I get it, you think those RICH people should pay you more because they have more money.  Note to the parents - there are plenty of graduate math students at U-Dub (University of Washington) who would charge you far less and be grateful for the income.  And wouldn't ask for a $3000 thank you for their time.  

[KittyMom4]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:50 PM, configdotsys said:

Wow. The plantiff in this case was Baby Huey. I pictured him standing there in a big diaper throwing a tantrum. He just seemed like such a crybaby crank. 

This is exactly what I thought! I can totally see the control issues the defendent mentioned, this guy was a big fat baby when he didn't get his way.  One thing I see a lot on JJ and PC, women/men who claim they want nothing to do with 'crazy ex' yet they continue to hold on to items they were given/loaned/borrowed. If I were the defendent in this case I would have eagerly handed over whatever was his and blocked his number on my phone! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

BMW Vandal?! – Plaintiff Anashia Goldsmith suing defendant Bianca Foster for vandalizing plaintiff's newly purchased, used BMW 2002.   Car was bought from  De'Anthony Thomas, plaintiff's witness for $500, worth $2500 on KBB.   Defendant says BMW was purchased De'Anthony from money he earned by pimping defendant out.    Defendant claims De'Anthony abused her, and bashed her head into the wall.   Bianca Foster was 17 at the time of her relationship with plaintiff witness, and is now 18.     No medical records exist, and no police report was made, even though the police came to De'Anthony's twice after defendant called them.   

Plaintiff and her witness weren't together for long.   Plaintiff says her car was vandalized in August, and by defendant, but there are no witnesses to the vandalism.     Plaintiff also paid her witness for $500, but is suing for $5,000.   There are text messages from defendant to plaintiff, admitting the vandalism.    Plaintiff has no proof of what was paid for the car, and JJ says plaintiff that De'Anthony should pay her for her broken windows.    Plaintiff admits BMW was very cheap, because it had been vandalized before she bought it. 

Plaintiff's sordid case dismissed. 

– Plaintiff Joseph DeMars (father and car co-owner), daughter Emma DeMars suing defendant JonathanNakamura for hitting her while she was driving her car, and defendant was riding a bicycle.    Plaintiff driver, daughter was going straight in a parking lot, when defendant came out from plaintiff's right, and defendant hit plaintiff's car   

Defendant admits he couldn't see around a dumpster in the parking lot, and then hit plaintiff's vehicle.

Defendant actually tried to put it through his  insurance, and they denied his claim.

Plaintiff receives her $1,000 deductible. 

Ex-Boyfriend Damage Control   -Plaintiff Eddie Dennis suing defendant, Melissa Cole, for his couch, and 65" TV he left in defendant's apartment.     The litigants say they were never romantic, just friends.   Plaintiff says he had friends storing items for him, and defendant.

JJ rules in five days, plaintiff can pick up his couch, and TV, or they will be the defendant's to dispose of.   Defendant claims plaintiff slashed her tire, and broke her windshield, however, she doesn't have a police report.   

Couch and TV to plaintiff within five days, everything else dismissed. 

Second (2018)-

Classic Truck Fail! – Plaintiff Brandy Clayton and son, Brody Gendron suing defendants Troy Holliday and wife Sheila over a classic truck sold to defendant, and plaintiff claims was never paid off.   However, defendant claims she traded an antique oak table, and a side-by-side refrigerator to plaintiff for the truck.  Officer Byrd says truck is worth $5650 (It's a classic, and has a liftgate on the back).  Defendant husband hasn't registered truck yet, he needs to have more VIN number certifications, and then he can register it.

Plaintiff says table is in bad condition, and not worth what defendant says it's worth.   Defendants received the refrigerator free, and traded something for the table a year or before.    

JJ gives table back to defendants, and truck back to plaintiffs.  JJ tells defendants to sign the title over, or no show money to them 

Gambling, Tax Refunds and Murder? – Plaintiff  Casey Morris suing defendant/ex-boyfriend, Thomas "TJ" Ruppel for money she loaned him for a trip to Laughlin, NV for gambling.     Plaintiff, defendant, and two others went to Laughlin.   The murder of defendant's previous wife is brought into the case.  Everyone shared a room, and the friend drove.   Plaintiff loaned defendant $200 for rent, and the second time $300.   Usually this wouldn't be considered a loan, because defendant never paid plaintiff back, and she had no agreement with him to do this.  However, defendant sent plaintiff texts that say he'll repay the loans when his unemployment arrives. 

Loans were $200, and $360.    

Plaintiff claims she has proof this was a loan, not a gift.   Defendant claims he only sent the texts acknowledging the debt because plaintiff harassed him.    He says he'll repay plaintiff, and bail and other bills. 

Defendant's past history includes the murder of his wife, and never took off from work, but eight months later he was overwhelmed, and quit working for six months, and then went back to the same company.     Wife was shot and killed a year before this case.     Then litigants were dating for the first three months of 2017, and then broke up. Then he took six months off, and then went back to work.   

$560 to plaintiff. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)- (Notice how many new cases this season are people in show business, and seeking publicity for their ‘talent’, or people trying to promote something?)

Homeless Rapper Robbed and Beaten?! -Plaintiff Travis Jones Jr (Aspiring rapper), suing defendant Travis Grisham, for an assault, and his stolen laptop.    Plaintiff wants to be a rap star, but has no recordings, or studio.    Plaintiff's recording equipment is $8k to $10k.    Plaintiff is homeless, and lives in his 2003 Mustang, and sometimes stays with his estranged wife.    Plaintiff has another child coming, and one or more other children.     Defendant invited plaintiff to his apartment to use plaintiff's equipment to record music.    When they argued, plaintiff went to leave, and claims defendant punched him.   Plaintiff took most of his equipment,  and then plaintiff wanted his laptop back out of defendant's place.   Defendant tossed the backpack, and camera out of the back window, but not the laptop.

Plaintiff called the police about defendant's assault and theft.  Plaintiff submits the police report.   JJ asks the plaintiff how much the computer costs, and he says $2089, for the laptop.   Defendant claims he didn't throw the backpack, and camera, but set them on the porch outside.   Defendant claims he doesn't have the laptop belonging to the plaintiff.

$2089 to plaintiff for the laptop. 

Ex-Lover Battle- Plaintiff Devin Harris suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Jasmine Penn for a rental car and loan.  Defendant is counter suing for unpaid rent, and lease breaking fees (she couldn't afford the rent by herself).     Litigants were living together, but plaintiff didn't pay rent or utilities.    Plaintiff claims he made a loan of $ , and he rented a rental car for defendant that was damaged, for $1500.    They only lived together for two or three months.   

When defendant broke the lease, both litigants moved to his parent's house.  Defendant didn't mention the shacking up at plaintiff's mom's house after the lease was broken.   Defendant also had a young child in this messy relationship.   Defendant

$200 to defendant for utilities.  This is crossed out, because she was supposed to pay his mother for utilities, when defendant and child lived with his mother, but only paid for one month.     Rental car was for three months, used by defendant while they were at plaintiff's mother's house.  Defendant claims she was just an additional driver on the rental, and plaintiff drove it while his was in the shop.   

Plaintiff receives $1510 for the rental car, 

Second (2020)-

Waking Up to Car Nightmare?!-Plaintiff Reanna Collins received a call at 4 a.m. from defendant Nicholas Brown, telling her that her car was on top of a chain link fence.   Defendant is alleged to have taken car without permission, but he says he had permission, and didn't wreck her car.   Plaintiff claims she gave man a ride to her home, and fell asleep putting her kids to bed.   Then came the ominous phone call.    Defendant called her at 4 a.m. saying he wrecked her car, and she needed to pick up car before the tow truck came.    This was in Moses Lake, Washington. (My questions are, how did the stranger know her phone number, and why did she give him a ride to her home? That's how you end up dead, and on an ID channel documentary)

Plaintiff took significant other's car, left the kids with him, and went to the accident site.   Car was on top of nine chain link fence posts, and chain link fence mesh, and defendant was standing there, saying he was sorry.   Tow truck was needed to tow car off of fence, for $350 to get it home.   There is no accident report, and she didn't claim on insurance.  She claims the police were at the scene, but they didn't do a report, or take down any information, and there were three officers at the accident.   

JJ is dismissing the case without prejudice, until plaintiff sends a police report indicating who was driving, and if it says the defendant was driving, then she will get the $3,000 she's requesting.   

 (My guess, the payout never happened, because there was no police report, and no police officers on site of the accident).

Earnest Carpenter or Broke Hustler?!-Plaintiff Rosie Watson suing defendant / carpenter Keilon Young over a refund for construction of steps for her rental property.  She paid him $800, another man showed to do the work, and job was never finished.  

Defendant says he was to replace some stairs, paint them, replace some rotten wood.   Defendant says the litigants went to Home Depot for supplies together, from the $800 deposit.     Supplies were about $300, but plaintiff claims he's lying about the purchase of supplies, and trip to Home Depot. 

Plaintiff claims defendant is a hustler, cheats people constantly, and only went to Home Depot and purchased one can of paint with her, three days after the deposit was made.    Rosie Watson claims some man named Charles showed up, did an hour's worth of work, and never came back, and Keilon Young never showed up either.    Picture of steps shows one railing sanded, about 1/10 of stairs were primed and that's the only work done ever on the stairs.   

Defendant claims they purchased a lot more than one can of paint, and he worked a lot longer on the stairs, and claims they were more finished than the plaintiff photo shows, but has no proof.

$800 to plaintiff. (Plaintiff's hall-terview is hysterical). 

 

[Blissfool]

On 2/12/2021 at 5:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Plaintiff called the police about defendant's assault and theft.  Plaintiff submits the police report.   JJ asks the plaintiff how much the computer costs, and he says $2089, for the laptop.   Defendant claims he didn't throw the backpack, and camera, but set them on the porch outside.   Defendant claims he doesn't have the laptop belonging to the plaintiff.

$2089 to plaintiff for the laptop. 

I think she gave him too much. Not only did she not consider the depreciated value of the laptop, I noticed on the receipt, it said $2089 was the total for 12 month finance. It was $999 for 3 month finance. The cash value was undoubtedly lower than that.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is the laptop case will result in the man replacing the laptop by financing it again.   With that amount of payment for a laptop that costs half of what he finally paid, it sounds like rent-to-own high interest payments, and they don't care about your credit or income history.   Or one of those finance anyone places, that make rent to own sound cheap.     

I hope appearing on this show, will inspire someone to mentor the plaintiff, and he can get somewhere to live that's secure, and be able to work on his music.   I totally loathed the defendant, and I believe he tossed everything out, just the way the plaintiff says he did.    

Edited February 14, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

On 2/12/2021 at 6:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Earnest Carpenter or Broke Hustler?!-Plaintiff Rosie Watson suing defendant / carpenter Keilon Young over a refund for construction of steps for her rental property.  She paid him $800, another man showed to do the work, and job was never finished.  

Defendant says he was to replace some stairs, paint them, replace some rotten wood.   Defendant says the litigants went to Home Depot for supplies together, from the $800 deposit.     Supplies were about $300, but plaintiff claims he's lying about the purchase of supplies, and trip to Home Depot. 

Plaintiff claims defendant is a hustler, cheats people constantly, and only went to Home Depot and purchased one can of paint with her, three days after the deposit was made.    Rosie Watson claims some man named Charles showed up, did an hour's worth of work, and never came back, and Keilon Young never showed up either.    Picture of steps shows one railing sanded, about 1/10 of stairs were primed and that's the only work done ever on the stairs.   

Defendant claims they purchased a lot more than one can of paint, and he worked a lot longer on the stairs, and claims they were more finished than the plaintiff photo shows, but has no proof.

$800 to plaintiff. (Plaintiff's hall-terview is hysterical). 

 

It kept sounding to me like the announcer was calling the defendant "Kellogg." The plaintiff reeked of someone who totally micromanages every little thing and would be a nightmare to work with.

I am way off time on my DVD watching so I have no idea when this episode aired or if it was a repeat but it was about a husband and wife who hired someone to build a bar for them with two wine refrigerators based on an image they saw. The contractor sketched it out and the husband told the guy to "go with white" so that is what the defendant did and the wife "went crazy" because I guess it did not match exactly what they had. So they sued for their money back. Thankfully, JJ ruled for the defendant because it was totally on the plaintiff for choosing the color.

JJ said something to the defendant like, "The plaintiff had to decide what side to choose after this mess and chose hers." What the hell was that all about? The husband told the contractor to go with white. The wife was not happy so they blamed the contractor? And expected a refund? Was this lawsuit some weird way of the husband showing his wife that he is on her side by suing the contractor as if it's his fault? What?

If the wife is that distraught, where was she when the husband gave the "go with white" message to the contractor? Did they not have a conversation after he ordered it and she asked: what color did you tell him? Last I looked, cabinets and things can be painted. So if your spouse makes a mistake and you can't cancel it, spend a few bucks more and get it painted. Don't treat him like he's a moron and "go crazy." The wife needs to get a grip.

[LetsStartTalking]

On 2/12/2021 at 6:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)- (Notice how many new cases this season are people in show business, and seeking publicity for their ‘talent’, or people trying to promote something?)

Homeless Rapper Robbed and Beaten?! -Plaintiff Travis Jones Jr (Aspiring rapper), suing defendant Travis Grisham, for an assault, and his stolen laptop.    Plaintiff wants to be a rap star, but has no recordings, or studio.    Plaintiff's recording equipment is $8k to $10k.    Plaintiff is homeless, and lives in his 2003 Mustang, and sometimes stays with his estranged wife.    Plaintiff has another child coming, and one or more other children.     Defendant invited plaintiff to his apartment to use plaintiff's equipment to record music.    When they argued, plaintiff went to leave, and claims defendant punched him.   Plaintiff took most of his equipment,  and then plaintiff wanted his laptop back out of defendant's place.   Defendant tossed the backpack, and camera out of the back window, but not the laptop.

Plaintiff called the police about defendant's assault and theft.  Plaintiff submits the police report.   JJ asks the plaintiff how much the computer costs, and he says $2089, for the laptop.   Defendant claims he didn't throw the backpack, and camera, but set them on the porch outside.   Defendant claims he doesn't have the laptop belonging to the plaintiff.

$2089 to plaintiff for the laptop. 

 

 

It appears that there is a segment in society in which every unemployed male 35 and under is an over-confident  'rapper' or a 'music producer'.  They appear on just about every TV court show.

[KittyMom4]

3 hours ago, configdotsys said:

I am way off time on my DVD watching so I have no idea when this episode aired or if it was a repeat but it was about a husband and wife who hired someone to build a bar for them with two wine refrigerators based on an image they saw. The contractor sketched it out and the husband told the guy to "go with white" so that is what the defendant did and the wife "went crazy" because I guess it did not match exactly what they had. So they sued for their money back. Thankfully, JJ ruled for the defendant because it was totally on the plaintiff for choosing the color.

I really wish JJ had given the wife an earful, this lawsuit was ridiculous. If the wife had an issue with the color she should have taken it up with the man who made the decision: her husband, not the defendant. Talk about frivolous, And the husband needs to grow a pair.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Teen Boys Looking for Trouble?! -Plaintiffs mother Dr. Barbara Irish, and son Nicolas Hoberg, his buddy Matthew Magruder (witness)  suing defendants father Craig Garland, and son Max over plaintiff mother's car damage.  Plaintiff mother is blaming the defendant son, Max for her car damages.    Both plaintiff idiot sons were dating the same girl, and I think Max is still dating her.    Plaintiff Nicolas says Matthew texted him, and wanted to hang out.   Then both boys got into Matthew's car, and called Max (defendant son) about Natalie (she's dated everyone in the case, and still is dating one plaintiff)).   Plaintiff mother's statement makes Nicolas and Matthew as perfect angels, who did nothing wrong. 

Matthew called Max, and then Max was told to come to an address. Then Nicolas, Matthew, and another henchman, went to Max's house, and parked a block away from Max's house.       Then when Max came out of the house, plaintiff mother claims that Max hit her car with a baseball bat, to drive off the plaintiff hooligans.    

Self defense to me.    I don't care about the spoiled brats car, or the mother's whining over the car.  (Audience applauds, and no one shushes them). 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   JJ says plaintiff son, and his friends should pay for the car damages. 

You Shouldn’t be on TV! -Plaintiff Deneane Ratchford  suing defendant Eric Miller for unauthorized use of her credit card.   Plaintiff claims she only made one charge, a plane ticket for her mother, and defendant racked up a lot of charges in 30 days.   JJ points out that she could rack up a tremendous amount of charges in 30 days on a credit card.  Sadly, another desperate plaintiff who is willing to try to buy a romantic partner.  

Defendant says he didn't use plaintiff's credit card.   Plaintiff produces a list of defendant's charges, as he was an authorized user.   JJ has to circle defendant's name on the credit charge list.   Defendant tries to deny charges to a card in his name.  

Plaintiff receives $3100.

Second (2018)-

Victim Payback for Towing Scam?! -Plaintiff Hershel Jones suing defendant/mechanic Dennis Musgrave over repairs to his car, fraud, and vandalism to his car.     Plaintiff's truck broke down, and he called for a tow truck.   AAA towed his truck, and the tow driver, needed gas, so they stopped at a particular gas station, and then tow driver made a long phone call.   Then defendant drives to the gas station, and says he wants to buy the truck, but plaintiff doesn't want to sell.   Then defendant said he could replace the transmission, for $500 labor, and parts, and plaintiff paid $485, and then defendant said truck needed more work, and parts, so it cost $125 more.   Then defendant said plaintiff needed to buy another transmission or drive shaft, and plaintiff opted for the drive shaft.     

Mechanic never fixed the plaintiff's truck, and then put a lien on the truck.  Plaintiff's witness is defendant's future daughter-in-law, and defendant claims another man put the lien on the truck, and this man was a friend of Samantha the future daughter-in-law.  The defendant's buddy put a lien on the truck, the same day the mechanic took it.    This was all such an obvious scam.          

$485 to plaintiff.

Beach Day Turns Violent?! -Plaintiff Amanda Roeske suing defendant Tommy Baker, for a false arrest, harassment, an assault, and car value for the gap on her car loan from when he totaled her car.   The plaintiff, and defendant went to the beach, and they got into an argument.   Plaintiff was arrested, kept at the police station overnight, but no one ever came to sign a complaint.  Plaintiff was previously arrested for possession of Ecstacy (the drug which is misspelled), and armed, defendant has several arrests in his past too.  Defendant says plaintiff is harassing him.  

Defendant claims someone ran him off the road, and it wasn't his fault.  Accident reports says defendant wasn't speeding, suspended, drunk or high, was not given a traffic citation, and it wasn't his fault (a state trooper witnessed the accident).

The accident was on the way to the Daytona Jailhouse, where the arrested plaintiff was being taken, and then the accident happened, with plaintiff's permission.  There was a no contact order against plaintiff, from the defendant.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Edited February 15, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Steph J]

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Boys Looking for Trouble?! -Plaintiffs mother Dr. Barbara Irish, and son Nicolas Hoberg, his buddy Matthew Magruder (witness)  suing defendants father Craig Garland, and son Max over plaintiff mother's car damage.  Plaintiff mother is blaming the defendant son, Max for her car damages.    Both plaintiff idiot sons were dating the same girl, and I think Max is still dating her.    Plaintiff Nicolas says Matthew texted him, and wanted to hang out.   Then both boys got into Matthew's car, and called Max (defendant son) about Natalie (she's dated everyone in the case, and still is dating one plaintiff)).   Plaintiff mother's statement makes Nicolas and Matthew as perfect angels, who did nothing wrong. 

Matthew called Max, and then Max was told to come to an address. Then Nicolas, Matthew, and another henchman, went to Max's house, and parked a block away from Max's house.       Then when Max came out of the house, plaintiff mother claims that Max hit her car with a baseball bat, to drive off the plaintiff hooligans.    

Self defense to me.    I don't care about the spoiled brats car, or the mother's whining over the car.  (Audience applauds, and no one shushes them). 

"But my sweet baby shouldn't be responsible just because his aggressive actions provoked an aggressive reaction." - that mother, probably.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

The Handyman Who Knew Nothing?! -Plaintiff Logan Garringer suing defendant Colton Wallace over his failure to install flooring in her house.   $315,000 was the house, in Idaho, purchased from her mother.    Plaintiff wanted to put new flooring in the house before move in, and her dad would purchase the flooring, and for $1800 the defendants would install it.    Plaintiff paid defendant $500 deposit, and then defendant wanted $1300 up front to finish the job, and she paid him in cash, totaling $1800.    (I hate the defendant's ridiculous hair do).    Defendant admits he's only installed Clip On floors.   Plaintiff's father (Matthew Garringer) bought the materials, and delivered them to the house.   

The flooring wasn't Clip On, but defendant claims he knows how to do the installation, but only in theory.  The plaintiff's floor was a glue down, not a clip installation, and defendant didn't know how to do it.   Defendant claims he never receives $500 deposit in cash for supplies.    Defendant's witness Aiden lies in support of defendant.   Defendant now says he received $500 (I really loathe him).    The other $1300 was supposed to be paid after the installation was finished, but before that defendant asked for the rest of the money.   Plaintiff says defendant and his witness were together when she was asked for the $1300, and she paid the $1300 cash.

The defendants were supposed to do the entire house, but only completed two rooms, and there is video to show the completion, and the fact that edging, quarter round, and undercuts were never done, and the other rooms are still without flooring.   One room had to be ripped up, because it was a bad installation.     Defendant never finished the floor installation, and refused to return any of the deposit, and final payment. Plaintiff wanted $800 back, and defendant refused to return any money. 

$800 to plaintiff

Illegal Driver (2014 ?)-Plaintiff Laura Bare suing defendant Matthew Pyles for driving her truck while he had a suspended license.   Pyles was going on a test drive, claims he was going to buy the truck, was pulled over by the police.   Since defendant's license was suspended for multiple DUI's, the truck was impounded, and has racked up more than $8,000 in storage fees, and fines.   

Plaintiff claims defendant was going to buy the truck, defendant says he borrowed the truck to pick up his girlfriend.   JJ says the day after the accident, when the cost for the car was only $100, and defendant gave that to her, she should have rescued the car out of impound, but she didn't.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant's ridiculous counter claim dismissed even faster. 

Second (2020)-

TV Appearance Fee Held Ransom?!-Plaintiff Chloe Raymond-Smith (a very young age 19) suing Alphonso Cruz for return of money she paid him for a car, $3200, and he resold to someone else.   Car was listed on Facebook Marketplace.    The bill of sale was written by a friend of plaintiff, named Nick, but she can't remember his last name (it's Koe or Poe).    Plaintiff paid $3200 for car through payments, on Venmo, and another app.   When plaintiff took tow truck, and went to pick up car, defendant said car was gone, and hung up on her. 

JJ askes defendant what's wrong with him, apparently terminal gall, and stupidity.    JJ tells defendant that when he pays plaintiff her money, he will receive his $500 appearance fee.   If no money is paid to plaintiff then show will pay plaintiff $3200, but defendant will receive nothing.   (Officer Byrd is really enjoying JJ's ruling).  

(I agree with other posters, sleazy Mr. Cruz will never give up the $3200, in return for $500.   I hope his car engine grenaded on the middle of the freeway on the way home, and the transmission fell out at the same time.  Someday Mr. Cruz will pull this scam on the wrong person, and someone will show him that he's being naughty, and really hurt him.   I want the video of that one.).  

Freeway Pile Up!-Plaintiff  Paulo Recio  suing fellow motorist Jerome Joseph (driver of car #3), plaintiff was first car in three car pile up, and is suing the driver of the  last car. #3 for car damages.  Defendant says police came to accident, but only asked people in first car (Recio) and second car, for their proof of insurance, but didn't ask him.    Defendant was driving his grandmother's car (since totaled in another accident), and wasn't insured, and police failed to cite him for that.   Defendant claims grandmother had the title and registration, but insurance was in defendant's name.   Defendant claims grandmother was driving, and had an accident that totaled the car.  

Traffic was stopped, Car #1 Recio was fully stopped, and car #2 was also stopped, and Car #3 Joseph wasn't paying attention, slammed into the back of Car #2, and pushed that into the rear of Car #1.    Defendant Joseph was speeding at the time of the accident, failed to stop in time, slamming into the rear of Car #2, and causing that car to hit Car #1.   

Defendant was on his phone at the time of the accident, in addition to having no insurance, and speeding.   Defendant was driving for Postmates at the time, looked at his phone for the map, and hit the plaintiff's car #1, and the car #2.   I wonder if defendant's car was insured, but he wasn't a legal driver for that car? 

Cause of collision on police report is defendant, speeding, and looking at his phone while driving.

Plaintiff receives $1200 (or he can get it fixed, and come back to court with the actual costs). (Plaintiff says defendant was trying to leave the scene before police got there, and failed).

(I think someone should explain to JJ that some states don't even respond to accidents unless there's an injury, and if it's on private property, can't, and don't write tickets.  Other places they're overwhelmed, and leave accident investigation to the insurance companies, and that way the officers don't spend endless days testifying in court about some fender bender.   I hated the defendant, he could have killed people, and doesn't even care.   I'm betting that he was driving grandma's car when it was totaled after this accident too.    ) 

 

 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ tells defendant that when he pays plaintiff her money, he will receive his $500 appearance fee.   If no money is paid to plaintiff then show will pay plaintiff $3200, but defendant will receive nothing. 

JJ probably thought herself quite clever but if she had the ability to actually do the math, she would have seen that defendant had no real incentive to give back the money since he largely comes out ahead, even more so if he still gets a share of the balance of the award kitty.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Homeland Security Homeschooling?! -Plaintiff Paul and Fabiola Doyle/former tenants suing former landlord/condo owner David Seidman over access to the pool for their three children because they are home schooled, vexatious litigation, and being a big jerk.   They rented for two years.   Plaintiffs moved to another rental in the complex.    After plaintiffs moved out, they filed to get their $3500 security deposit and that was resolved in housing court (or something similar).   Plaintiff contacted a person with the HOA to get a pool key, and it's a $500 stipulated judgment for the plaintiffs.    Plaintiff claimed defendant violated some tenet of the ADA because his special needs home schooled children didn't have pool access (plaintiff claims he needed access to both pools for his children's needs for physical education credit).  Pool keys are issued to owner, and defendant man didn't have it (his wife did), and three months later still didn't have the pool key.   So as guardian ad leitum for his children he filed against defendant wife for the pool key, and received $500 judgment.     Plaintiffs were given a 60 day notice to vacate, because defendants were moving back to their condo, and then sued for the pool key issue after they moved out.    

Plaintiff is actually suing defendant for harassment, and defendant is counter claiming for the same thing, plus a false police report, and something else I don't care about.        

Tenant claims that tenant and wife have full time jobs, and his is for Homeland Security working from home full time, and still homeschool their children.      Whatever plaintiff does for Homeland Security, it must not be high level or it couldn’t be done from the home computer full time.   I bet the plaintiff is exaggerating his importance, and actually works for a contractor, and isn’t a government employee (this is a contractor position).  I find it amazing that plaintiff is suing over amenities, and other items after they moved out of the rental property.   Supposedly, defendant reviews immigration cases, as a contractor, according to the wife.    Since the plaintiff received $3500 judgment about the security deposit, and another judgment over the pool key issue, $500 (no, I don't know or care what they received), this shouldn't be litigated by JJ again, but she is going to stick her two cents in about the security deposit.   If only landlords would document damages, and send the certified letter list within the required number of days of a tenant leaving, then they could keep more of the security deposit.    

Defendant says plaintiff and wife were nightmare tenants, and the HOA fined him over their rule breaking.   

Defendant says he gave a 60 day notice because tenants were consistently late with the rent, (I've seen leases that said if rent not received by the 5th of the month, you were getting evicted).    Defendant says male plaintiff was overbearing, and harassed himself, and his wife.   Defendant mentions that the plaintiffs moved into the neighboring townhouse, but it's in foreclosure, which doesn't matter to this case.   A court said defendant has to pay the plaintiffs the $3500 security deposit, and lost the appeal.    However, defendants haven't paid the security yet.   (Why is JJ litigating the security deposit case?   It's been litigated before in another court).   There is a superior court lawsuit from defendant, served on plaintiff for damages to the rental property.  

Plaintiff claims to have a video of defendant throwing dog poop at his house.   I hope defendant had good aim.   I also find it interesting that the plaintiffs moved two doors down to another rental in the complex, since they claim everyone was so mean to them.     I wonder why someone is allowed to take applications files home to review?     Those have a lot of private information in them, so I would wonder why he was working on them from home.  

(Some landlords where I live also rent the townhouse to the tenant, but only include amenities, such as the pool, if the tenant pays the landlord an amenity fee.   Others near me have a limited number of access keys, or cards to amenities, so the tenant only gets access if the landlord doesn't keep the key for their own use.     Unless it is in the lease that tenant gets amenity access, it's not required.)   

JJ dismissed everything, and tells plaintiff and defendant to add harassment to the superior court case. 

Second (2018)-

The Anti-Sleepover Landlord?! -Plaintiff Julia Fahrer suing defendant/former handyman Michael Tabaranza for vandalism, suing for $5,000   Plaintiff rents six bedrooms in her seven bedroom house, she lives upstairs, and tenants are all on the first floor.    Then defendant developed a relationship with one of the tenants, and defendant would visit his girlfriend, and claims he rarely stayed overnight.   Then plaintiff found out about the relationship between defendant, and his witness/girlfriend.   

When defendant tenant Ms. Earhart, moved out, she moved her own stuff, and plaintiff had a restraining order against the defendant man, so defendant woman had to move stuff by herself.   Plaintiff alleged in court that defendant, and girlfriend assaulted plaintiff/landlady.     Plaintiff received a restraining order against both defendants, and changed the locks on defendant woman.    There is a lot of damages alleged.  Plaintiff's new handyman, William Jackson, testifies about damaged to defendant/former tenant's room.  Plaintiff claims defendant man damaged the gate locks, and a window screen damages by defendant.   

  Plaintiff case dismissed.  No proof of anything, and no police report. 

Heavily Fogged Motorist?! -Plaintiff Cassandra Stewart suing defendant Lisa Parker over a car accident.    Plaintiff says defendant failed to stop at a Stop sign, and hit her car.    Defendant did not have insurance, plaintiff did.    Plaintiff only had liability, not comprehensive/collision insurance.  There is a police report, and plaintiff stopped, and then turned left, and (it was a 4 way stop), so defendant ran the stop sign, and hit the plaintiff.

 Defendant claims it was foggy, so accident wasn't her fault.  Defendant also claims plaintiff had her cell phone in hand after the accident, (it's called calling 911 for help), and thinks that means the plaintiff was on her phone while driving.     This ridiculous excuse, doesn't even match what the defendant said in her statement.     

$1354 to plaintiff

Edited February 17, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Illegal Food Operation During Pandemic! -Plaintiff Colleen Fuller suing defendant Moneshay Platt for slander over a posting about plaintiff's home food sales, and plaintiff says it cause her to lose business from her highly illegal home kitchen food sale business..   This is in California, where indoor dining was prohibited, and plaintiff claims that she was going to turn any indoor dining rule breakers in to the authorities.   Then plaintiff called and told the reporting of illegal food operations to defendant.  Plaintiff claims her sister, and defendant's sister were best friends many years ago.  Then plaintiff decided to have a fund raiser, so she cooks out of her home kitchen, for commercial sale, for profit.    However, plaintiff started cooking and selling food out of her home kitchen,

Then, defendant found out about the illegal food sales, and said on her social media what plaintiff was doing with the home food issue.   Defendant also posted that plaintiff has a serious, blood transmitted condition that is contagious.     The name of plaintiff wasn't posted, but plaintiff's picture.

Plaintiff is suing for lost of business, which is dismissed. 

Defendant claims plaintiff wrote a posting on plaintiff's FB page, calling defendant the b-word, and nasty text messages.   Another twist is plaintiff lives with defendant's uncle.

JJ tries to call the defendant's uncle, but can't reach him.  Plaintiff claims her employer, isn't defendant's uncle.   Plaintiff is defendant uncle's home health aide.    JJ also says plaintiff "Doesn't have a love affair with the truth".   As JJ says, plaintiff was breaking the law during a pandemic. 

Everything dismissed. 

Second (2020)-

Red Light Crash?   Emergency Room Dash! - Plaintiff  Cherise  Riley suing other driver, Ziro Leyva over a car accident.    Plaintiff had liability insurance, but defendant had no insurance.    Defendant ran a red light, and was driving a co-worker's car, and the car was uninsured at the time of the accident.   Plaintiff's insurance paid $5,000 to her for bodily injuries, but nothing for her car.    Plaintiff's insurance company, and attorney said there was no insurance on the car.  JJ calls plaintiff's attorney to ask about the insurance issue.   Attorney won't talk to JJ, so JJ claims there was no answer at the law firm (not likely). 

Defendant has a counter claim for the value of the car, that he didn't even own on the night of the accident, he bought the car the next day, but the car was already totaled.     However, I bet they thought they would pull a fast one, and get paid for the car by plaintiff's insurance.   That doesn't work when you run a red light, and crash into someone the way defendant did.    I bet defendant wasn't covered by the car owner's insurance, and he wasn't a valid driver.  

Plaintiff ended up in hospital, and needed physical therapy for quite a while.   

It was a four-way intersection, and when signal turned green plaintiff turned left, when defendant hit her car. while running a red light.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

(I believe nothing the defendant said.   Who the hell buys a totaled car the day after they hit another car, and totaled both cars?   The answer is no one.    My guess is that defendant thought he could buy the co-worker's car, and then sue the plaintiff's insurance company with the help of one of those personal injury accident attorneys, and make big bucks.  By the way, the TV commercial attorneys only take your case when the other driver has insurance, and you are not at fault in the police report)

Softie or Sucker?!-Plaintiff Carmen Vera Melgar suing Michael Reshad Hardman ex-boyfriend over an unpaid loan.    Defendant co-signed for loan for school tuition, and later to get her car out of impound.    Tuition loan was paid off by plaintiff long ago, no payments by defendant.    When defendant lost his job, plaintiff loaned him money over a three-month period.    Plaintiff didn't add up the amounts she loaned defendant, and considers paying for dinner a loan.  Sworn statement by plaintiff says $3500, but only can estimate how much she loaned him in each of the three months. 

Defendant is smart, he doesn't recall any loans.    I think I like that, because I loathe the plaintiff.   Notation on plaintiff's withdrawal shows the defendant's middle name, and look faked to me.  

Plaintiff receives $1288

 

[Selena]

On 11/17/2020 at 9:03 AM, DoctorK said:

To each their own, but he struck me as a smarmy dishonest person who tried to pull a scam by claiming that he bought the car the day after he totaled it. Also, police reports that don't identify who is at fault seem to be cases where they have no way to determine it, then the insurance companies fight it out. Also, the police do not verify insurance coverage at the time of the accident, it can be expired, cancelled or something else which the cops have no way of knowing. I also suspect that at times, they will just take someone's word for it that they have insurance with [fill in the name of some insurance company you last saw an ad for]. I wish JJ had followed up on the insurance status of the defendant so we would know one way or the other. As always, YMMV.

Hello, I'm his wife! 🙂 We payed $800 to the owner the day after (a coworker) and then called pick apart to take it away. She did have insurance on it. I was supposed to be the one driving that night since I was buying the car for myself but our baby was not feeling well and that's why I sent him out to get water for formula. I wasn't there during the accident but he said that there actually was a witness who was there but he left before the police got there because he was high and didn't want to get in trouble. /: We had been fighting this chick for over a year now because she was desperately trying to get money from us and couldn't win anything since it was he-said she-said (she tried to take my brother in law's car too lol). We're just glad it's all over now. Maybe this will give a little more insight!

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I bet the plaintiff is exaggerating his importance, and actually works for a contractor, and isn’t a government employee (this is a contractor position)

That's what I thought based on the way his wife waffled on the question. For thirty years I worked on DoD contracts but that didn't mean I was a government employee. There was something about the guy that raised my hackles, if he really was HSA, he was either senior level Civil Service or just a mid or low level contractor. I would go with low level contractor employee. His wife was worthless as a witness, couldn't even say what her husband did for a living and he didn't come across as a high level spook. The guy was an asshole.  

[Florinaldo]

9 hours ago, DoctorK said:

There was something about the guy that raised my hackles, if he really was HSA, he was either senior level Civil Service or just a mid or low level contractor. I would go with low level contractor employee.

It would have to be a low-level job if he is allowed to bring files home and work from his own computer, as he mentioned, on Homeland Security business no less. Perhaps some basic administrative work, or drafting and reviewing general content documents. He did come across as a dick and quite capable of exaggerating the nature of what he does.

JJ once again displayed how behind the times she is. Working from home and going into the office once or twice a week was concept a totally foreign to her and she thought it was a scheme to lounge at home doing nothing. She would not even hear the argument about how telework brings about savings in office space costs; if people behaved the way she indicated, no useful work would be delivered and the employee or contractor would quickly be called on it and even be disciplined. Teleworking has been around for decades, well before the pandemic, but she obviously could not wrap her crotchety mind around it.

She can learn however. After all, she used to think that everyone doing business on the Web was a scammer, but she has softened that stand.

That being said, if you work from home, you work and do nothing else; people are strongly discouraged from doing other activities like home schooling because the work part will suffer.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Chihuahua Nabbed by Dog Through Fence?! -Plaintiffs Nathan and Hannah McDaniel  suing defendant/neighbor  Steven White for their Chi's vet bills.    Plaintiffs claim the defendant's dog came into their yard, and attacked the Chi, and claims he witnessed this.   There is no way the defendant's Australian Shepherd got under the fence, or could get their mouth or head under the fence.  

However, defendant says he has video of plaintiff's Chi's coming into defendant's yard around his Australian Shepherd, and his much smaller dog.    Plaintiff saw Chi's paw in defendant's Australian Shepherd's mouth.   Plaintiff claims the privacy fence is bad, and defendant's dog reached under and nailed the Chi's paw.   Plaintiff claims he saw the Shepherd squeeze his mouth under the fence, and grabbed the dog's paw.   What a bunch of horse pucky. 

Then plaintiff went next door, with the vet bill in hand, and confronted defendant demanding money.   Defendant's wife Shannon White,  says that the defendants have told plaintiffs many times that their dogs were trespassing in their back yard, and plaintiffs did nothing.  There is a video of the plaintiff's two Chi's in defendant's back yard, and defendants say the plaintiff's dogs trespass in his back yard many times.    I agree with JJ, that Chi went under the fence into defendant's back yard, and somehow the plaintiff's dog was injured.     In the past three years, the plaintiff's dogs had trespassed frequently, and plaintiff did nothing to fix the fence.    The defendants say they have told the plaintiffs several times about the plaintiff's dogs in defendant's back yard, and right up to the back door of defendant's house.     Plaintiff says he put up more wood to stop his dogs from going under the fence, so why didn't they do it before this happened. 

Defendant is counter claiming for plaintiff's assaults, fence repairs, and harassment.   Defendant says plaintiff man came to his front door, was demanding money for vet bills, and  Defendant brought a neighbor who witnessed plaintiff going to his car, getting a gun, and posing on the front door with his gun, and police were called.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Let Me See My Dying Father! -Plaintiff Keith Pavlik suing defendant/sister Christine Ross over restricting him from visiting his dying father, and wants funeral expenses for the late father.       Defendant inherited the house, and lived there for over five years caring for the father.  Defendant also said there was no insurance, and the furnishings in the house were combined between her furnishings, and what her father already had.    Plaintiff paid $1145 for the funeral, and defendant paid $1600 for the funeral portion.     Defendant is counter suing for harassment from plaintiff, and  .    Plaintiff claims father had a $10k policy, but has no proof, and defendant says she had no insurance proceeds.   Administrator of the estate was the Guardian ad Litem.      JJ says funeral bill is defendant's responsibility, and the trustee for the estate (I know that's not the right term, but wouldn't that be changed by a Guardian at Litem being appointed?).    

(My guess is the brother/plaintiff was estranged, volatile, and wanted everything even though he did nothing to help the father.   Daughter / defendant lived in the home for at least five years, and was full time care for the father,   Amazing how the vultures circle when someone dies, when they hadn't seen the person in a long time, and did nothing to help them.    I wonder if father wanted to see plaintiff?    I bet plaintiff will never leave defendant alone).   Plaintiff's witness (I'm guessing girlfriend or wife) keeps trying to butt in.  

JJ dismisses the visits by plaintiff to dying father, plaintiff already tried to sue for access to father, court said no.  So that's dismissed.   There was a guardian who allowed a few visits. 

$1145 to plaintiff for funeral costs. 

Second (2108)-

Leaks, Mold and the Illegal Tenant -Plaintiffs/renters Jessica Davis and Melissa Rose suing defendant/landlord Marcelino Ortiz for return of deposit, $1250.    The lease is submitted.    It was a three bedroom house, and right after move in, plaintiffs moved in another tenant, Miss Russ, and her child.    Plaintiffs didn't have extra tenant on the lease, was living there for three months, and paid nothing.   Then defendant found out about the illegal tenant and made her sign the lease, and pay $312 a month, she claims she only visited, and was paying rent elsewhere (no she wasn't).     The plaintiffs didn't pay for three months, and moved out 1 August.   Plaintiffs claims they were month-to-month, but lease doesn't say that.   

Lease says one year, not month-to-month.    Also, unauthorized tenant paid nothing, so plaintiffs don't get $1250 deposit back.   A couple of months before plaintiffs moved out, they called the city inspector (city of Sacramento) alleging mold, leaks, exposed wiring, sewage issues, and city inspector took photos, and never talked to plaintiffs again.   Plaintiff Davis statement is that defendant kept trying to date her (not happening).   Plaintiff says defendant intruded often, and left a refrigerator in the home when they were out.

Plaintiff's ridiculous allegations dismissed. 

Drunk and Racist?!   No Way! -Plaintiff Jaman Swearingen suing defendant Tiffany Farlow for rent, living expenses, and a bed,   Counter claim by defendant is for property defendant left behind in a house she was living in/renting in Arizona from plaintiff, and plaintiff packed it up,   Defendant has five days to pick up her property from plaintiff's property.   

Plaintiff says defendant was supposed to pay $400 a month, stayed for six weeks, and never paid any money.   Defendant claims plaintiff wanted her to live in the house to make it look occupied.    Defendant claims plaintiff was a drunken, bigoted jerk so she moved.   Plaintiff says defendant stayed two months, not six weeks.   He also says he repaired her vehicle.  Plaintiff says car repair was $990, and defendant paid him a little in cash, but never received a money order, or Western Union payment from her.   

Defendant claims to have a 501 (c)3, but yet doesn't have record of money she paid plaintiff, because she thought Western Union was safer (and you can't prove who it went to either).   90% of charity money goes to a tiny home community, for seniors or homeless.    Defendant witness keeps trying to interrupt. 

Plaintiff receives $990 for the car repairs.

Edited February 17, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

JJ once again displayed how behind the times she is.

Also her believing that in order to home school, the parent has to be a certified teacher.  Apparently she in unaware that there has been a plethora of credentialed on-line teaching programs for parents who wish to home school their children for several years now.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

From Boyfriend, to Prison, to Restraining Order! -Plaintiff Cherie Zarate suing ex defendant Daniel Siple for an assault, and not rehabbing the house, $5,000.   Plaintiff and defendant were a couple from 2007 to 2008, but kept in touch.   After defendant got out of jail (for 4 months in 2019), and plaintiff moved defendant into the house, and pay either $400 a month, or rehab the house.  There was a court hearing for the order of protection for plaintiff, from an August 2019 assault by defendant, and supposedly plaintiff received one, but defendant was never served because he was in jail, the TRO was for harassment, and the second arrest was for assault in November 2109. 

Plaintiff confronted defendant over non-payment of rent, and code enforcement was going to fine her for stuff in the yard that was defendant's property.    Plaintiff lives on the property in a mobile home or RV, not the house.    Defendant was in the home on the property, for a year.    When plaintiff told defendant to move out, police came by the next day.   Defendant only came by the house with a police escort to get his property.  

$1500 to plaintiff for her injury.  

Parking Lot Accident (2013)-Plaintiff Brittnee Koska  suing defendant for a parking lot accident, saying defendant Sabrina Zarate  damaged plaintiff's car by opening her door in the parking lot.    Plaintiff was pulling into the parking space next to defendant, who was parked.   Then defendant opened her car door, plaintiff hit the car door.    Defendant says it wasn't her fault, so she shouldn't have to pay for the damages.    This was at a Cal Poly parking lot.    Plaintiff acknowledges that she saw defendant in the car, but says she didn't know defendant was going to get out of her car. 

Defendant, as usual, had lapsed insurance, but didn't know it was lapsed.  It never occurred to plaintiff to wonder if person in car would be getting out of the car.  

However, defendant wasn't looking out for people pulling into the space next to her car.   JJ says both parties were not vigilant enough.  

Now JJ goes step-by-step with the defendant's story, a sad attempt to make the accident the plaintiff's fault.  

Plaintiff receives $2565 to fix her car.  JJ is getting nasty looks from defendant. 

Second (2020)-

Covid Inspired Start-Up Turns Violent?!-Plaintiff Chantea Jackson-Washington decided to start a mobile beauty salon because of Covid, and is suing her former employer (chair rental at salon), defendant Lucretia (Cree) Munns.  Salon owner Munns leases the salon from the shopping center owner.   Plaintiff wants hair extensions that she left behind at Munns’ salon when the salon shut down because of Covid, but defendant says she doesn't have them.     Plaintiff is suing for defamation from defendant on Facebook.   Plaintiff says defendant owed her $1200 on FB for booth rent, this is the period when the salon was shut by Covid, and defendant didn't pay up rent until after salon reopened.    FB postings weren't done until September.   

Defamation by plaintiff dismissed, hair extensions are gone.   Counter claim by defendant is for plaintiff filing a restraining against defendant for a threat to put gun to plaintiff's head, and other nasty statements (18 pages of statements from FB).  Defendant claims plaintiff took wigs, and blow dryer, and they are returned in court, but defendant wants the money, not the items back.   Defendant claims she should pay her $1200 rent for when salon was shut down. 

Both Cases dismissed.   (My question is does plaintiff owe the chair rent, when the salon was closed?    The salon owner did receive the government aid, and paid her lease, but why should she get chair rent from the other beauticians when they couldn't work at her facility?) 

You Ate the Steak: Now Pay for It!-Plaintiff Michael Taylor (I'll call him Man Bun) suing for return of rent, for a time when plaintiff and his mother lived in defendant, Lucy Wilde's,  rental property.  Lucy Wilde is the landlord.   Plaintiff wants return of rent, moving costs, and damages for an illegal lockout (It's legal because defendant wasn't supposed to be renting it, according to the Housing Authority).   

 The plaintiff and mother moved into a place that defendant owned, and $1400 a month was the rent.    Plaintiff paid rent until December, when he complained to Housing Authority, when Housing Authority said it was uninhabitable.     

However, defendant wants back rent for the time plaintiff didn't pay the rent, but still lived in the home.   Plaintiff will not be getting rent back, because he ate the steak by living there.   Defendant will not get unpaid rent, because it wasn't a legal rental.  

Cases dismissed. (I agree with defendant, that plaintiff and his mother are professional squatters). 

 

[LetsStartTalking]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

From Boyfriend, to Prison, to Restraining Order! -Plaintiff Cherie Zarate suing ex defendant Daniel Siple for an assault, and not rehabbing the house, $5,000.   Plaintiff and defendant were a couple from 2007 to 2008, but kept in touch.   After defendant got out of jail (for 4 months in 2019), and plaintiff moved defendant into the house, and pay either $400 a month, or rehab the house.  There was a court hearing for the order of protection for plaintiff, from an August 2019 assault by defendant, and supposedly plaintiff received one, but defendant was never served because he was in jail, the TRO was for harassment, and the second arrest was for assault in November 2109. 

Plaintiff confronted defendant over non-payment of rent, and code enforcement was going to fine her for stuff in the yard that was defendant's property.    Plaintiff lives on the property in a mobile home or RV, not the house.    Defendant was in the home on the property, for a year.    When plaintiff told defendant to move out, police came by the next day.   Defendant only came by the house with a police escort to get his property.  

$1500 to plaintiff for her injury.  

Parking Lot Accident (2013)-Plaintiff Brittnee Koska  suing defendant for a parking lot accident, saying defendant Sabrina Zarate  damaged plaintiff's car by opening her door in the parking lot.    Plaintiff was pulling into the parking space next to defendant, who was parked.   Then defendant opened her car door, plaintiff hit the car door.    Defendant says it wasn't her fault, so she shouldn't have to pay for the damages.    This was at a Cal Poly parking lot.    Plaintiff acknowledges that she saw defendant in the car, but says she didn't know defendant was going to get out of her car. 

Defendant, as usual, had lapsed insurance, but didn't know it was lapsed.  It never occurred to plaintiff to wonder if person in car would be getting out of the car.  

However, defendant wasn't looking out for people pulling into the space next to her car.   JJ says both parties were not vigilant enough.  

Now JJ goes step-by-step with the defendant's story, a sad attempt to make the accident the plaintiff's fault.  

Plaintiff receives $2565 to fix her car.  JJ is getting nasty looks from defendant.

 

 

And just how long did it take the producers to find the 2013 case in which the defendant's last name was ZARATE to match up with the 2021 case in which the plaintiff's last name ZARATE ? Very clever...

 

From Boyfriend, to Prison, to Restraining Order!

RBG / Judge Judy presiding...

Dear Cherie Zarate,

WTH was going on with that photo you posted for 10M viewers to see ? A close-up of your face ? You looked like a circus clown from a horror movie. This episode should have come with a warning for a disclaimer - may not be suitable for viewers who have a weak stomach. Please stop spending your monthly income in the cosmetics aisle at Walgreens! Enough is Enough! Invest that money in a clean-up crew to clear out that junkyard you call 'the front of your mobile house'.

 

Parking Lot Accident (2013)

Estelle Getty / Judge Judy presiding...

 

If the defendant Zarate was standing where her car door was open ajar, and the plaintiff hit her and knocked her down, would JJ still say it was the defendant's fault for being hit ? The plaintiff was turning into a parking spot between two other cars - she needs to use caution, as she has no idea if a door is opening, if a person is standing there, if one of the cars are going into reverse. Plaintiff has the moving car - plaintiff is the one who needs to be most responsible, not the woman getting out of her car.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by LetsStartTalking

[bad things are bad]

Quote

she thought it was a scheme to lounge at home doing nothing

Pfft. I wish. Took my laptop home last March for "two weeks" and here I still am. Not much lounging at all. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Attorney Pleads His Case! -Plaintiff /attorney David Harsch suing defendant/landlord Domingo Pena, for $1116 in unpaid legal fees, fees were for legal proceedings  to evict tenant from defendant's rental properties.   Plaintiff was briefly disbarred for six months in 2016.    Plaintiff specializes in evictions.     Defendant paid $150 for the notice to quit to tenant (by letter).   Then defendant paid $430 for further legal action to evict tenant, when tenant refused to leave.   Plaintiff went to court in the case.   Tenant's answer was to claim there were clogged lines in the bathroom, and rats, so she should have only owed $700 less from the $3300.   

Plaintiff went to mediation with tenant, and they came to an agreement with tenant.   There is a retainer agreement between the litigants calls for $450, but doesn't mention an on-going retainer agreement for $200 an hour, the way the plaintiff alleges.   Then defendant paid $580 more, when plaintiff went to court, and mediation.   Tenant finally left, but never paid the back rent, and it took over three months to get tenant out, when sheriff's office evicted her. There is no retainer agreement between the litigants.    Defendant is suing because he wants the tenant's unpaid rent from the plaintiff.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Dad, You Drink Too Much! -Plaintiff Sadae Gant suing defendant/father Bobby Gant, for getting drunk, and throwing a bottle at her TV, breaking the TV.  Plaintiff says father only comes to her place occasionally.    Father wasn't drunk when he arrived, but was drunk after dinner.   

Defendant says plaintiff grabbed the bottle, and it slipped out of her hand, and hit the TV.   Plaintiff claims defendant drank two bottles of liquor, and then the argument happened.   Plaintiff claims when she told drunk defendant to leave he tried to hit her with his bag, and then hit the TV with the bag, that had the bottle in it.    Defendant was on a medication that said no alcohol while on medication, JJ reminds him that was dangerous, and wrong, and the audience applauds.  

$600 to plaintiff for the TV. 

Second (2018)-

Young Parents Bitter Break-Up -Plaintiff Anna Soiza (Sainted Single Mother of One-SSMOO) suing defendant/father of her child, Henry Zamora, over an early termination of an apartment lease.    Plaintiff moved out two days after baby was born, and no discussion about terminating the lease.   Two months later defendant moved to Korea Town, and plaintiff didn't have a chance to move into the apartment.   Plaintiff came once a week to the apartment, and moved the furniture out too.      Defendant tried to get a restraining order against plaintiff.   

There was disagreement about who owned the furniture, and other belongings.   When plaintiff and family came to pick up her furniture, there was a police standby on site.   Defendant agreed to pay $1691, and apartment management would let him out of the lease.  Plaintiff submits the apartment management bills for breaking the lease, and fees, $1675.  

$1675 to plaintiff.  Defendant's counter claim for harassment is dismissed.   Defendant says every time he has custody visits, plaintiff would call for a welfare check from the police.   JJ tells defendant to take her back to court about the welfare checks.   

Judge Judy Calls a Witness! -Plaintiff Shadorian McIntosh suing defendant Michael Freeman over a car accident.   Plaintiff's car was insured, and defendant's car wasn't.     The two vehicles were going the opposing directions, plaintiff was going straight,  in an intersection, when defendant turned left in front of plaintiff's car without the left arrow, and the collision happened    Defendant says he didn't need insurance, because accident was plaintiff's fault (No, it wasn't her fault).   Defendant claims to have a green arrow, but there was a witness (a witness who is not connected with either litigant) who saw the accident.    JJ gets the witness number from the police report, and goes to use her Phone of Justice.

Witness Ms. Denim, says she was in the left turn lane waiting, and defendant went around the witness car, and he hit the plaintiff's car.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Edited February 18, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Surprise You’re Living in an AirBNB? (2021)-Plaintiff/tenant Jacob Berke suing defendant/AirBNB landlord Joshua Taxson for his security deposit, and rent.    The apartment/ half of house, lower level, was what the plaintiff rented, he paid $3928 for security, and a month and a half rent.  

This happened two years ago, with plaintiff trying to get the money repaid to him.   Plaintiff only stayed on night, when he found defendant was actually living in the laundry room of the house, next to plaintiff's apartment.   Plaintiff says landlord was sleeping the laundry room next to plaintiff’s room.

After the plaintiff left, defendant plead poverty, and wanted plaintiff to help pay his electric bill.  Defendant never sent an itemized list of damages, or returned security deposit, or other funds to plaintiff.  

After the case, plaintiff says the house (lost to foreclosure) had been 'rented' to others, and they were also defrauded.  

$3,928

T-Shirt Rip-off?! (2021)-Plaintiff Jose Campos  suing defendant Francisco Enriquez ordered 125 t-shirts with plaintiff's logo on it.   $1,003 was the payment for the shirts, and plaintiff received 65 shirts, but the didn't have the logo on them.    Shirts aren't done by defendant, but ordered from Jiffy Shirts.   Defendant ordered 131 shirts to have a few spares.     When box arrived, defendant opened the box, and submits the packing slip.   I think defendant orders from Jiffy, and puts the logo on them.  Plaintiff received $450 worth of shirts, 65 shirts Championship brand.

Plaintiff had to get more shirts, and find another screen printer to do the logos.  Plaintiff didn't even open the t-shirt box from defendant for a month after he received them.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2020)-

Sister Sues Thieving Sister?!-Plaintiff Cheryl Culjat sister suing other sister Carla Young, who lives with her ex-husband she calls her "Was-band", for stealing her furniture out of a storage unit.  Plaintiff rented storage unit five years ago after moving back to Boise with her Was-band.   In December 2018 plaintiff sister needed a storage unit, and defendant put second unit in her name for sister.    Plaintiff says she used 2/3 of second storage unit, and defendant's furniture filled the other 1/3.     Plaintiff was evicted from previous temporary/transitional housing, and now lives with her father at his house, and gets disability, and takes care of father.      Plaintiff claims father is charging her rent.   

Defendant says father had a home nurse, and VA home care, then plaintiff moved in, and plaintiff's daughter lived there for a while too, but since moved.         Defendant says father isn't charging plaintiff rent, but she pays cell phone, and uses her food stamps for the household of the father's home.     Plaintiff says in lieu of rent she pays the phone bill, and food bills, including food stamps.   

Storage unit was $103 a month, and plaintiff only paid one month, $103 for the unit.    Plaintiff never paid for the storage unit except that one time.   Defendant told plaintiff to either pay the storage unit, or remove her furniture, told her in April that sister's stuff was moved to granddaughter's house (bed, various tables, dresser, etc.).    Defendant left everything else she considered useless stuff in storage unit.   In June of 2020 defendant delivered the rest of the plaintiff's stuff to father's garage for plaintiff, except for the few items in granddaughter's house.   Defendant also says the storage unit items were from another storage unit from before last eviction of plaintiff.    

Defendant counter suing for cost of storage unit.   

JJ says if plaintiff wants used furniture back from defendant's granddaughter, then she has to pay plaintiff the $1,100 for the storage unit.     When plaintiff pays defendant $1,100 (not from the show), then within five days defendant will rent a U-Haul, pick up the furniture from granddaughter, and leave it in father's garage for plaintiff.  (My guess, is that plaintiff never paid the bill, and so everything is still at defendant's granddaughter's place). 

Mercedes-Benz Meets Costco!   -  Plaintiff Martha Andrade suing other driver, Faribors Ettileiy  for accident in parking lot.     At the time of the accident plaintiff had no insurance.     Defendant  was sitting still in a red zone, waiting for a parking space when he was hit by plaintiff.,   JJ asks defendant why he was parked in a red zone, defendant was waiting for a space to open.    Plaintiff looks like she was turning right, and didn't cut across instead of making a square corner.  

Plaintiff is suing because she had no insurance, and received a collection notice from defendant's car insurance, Mercedes-Benz 2010 was undriveable, and defendant's insurance sent plaintiff a bill for the damages to defendant's car.        The picture shows plaintiff's minivan's passenger side hit the defendant's driver's side front headlight corner.       Plaintiff says she just barely scratched defendant's car, so she didn't total it.   $5500 to the body shop, and defendant paid another $2500.   Plaintiff never paid the bill to defendant's insurance company, so it was sent to collections.  

Defendant says he was standing still, trying to find a parking space, when plaintiff hit him.    Defendant failed to file a counter claim for rental or other charges.

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

 

[funky-rat]

On 1/21/2021 at 6:41 AM, nora1992 said:

But the plaintiff had a point when the defendant collected and kept the sales tax despite reversing the sale.  

Depends on the state.  Not all states refund sales tax.

We also don't refund shipping where I work.  If the item is returned for any reason other than defective/damaged, we may charge for restocking.  We have issues with people buying stuff for their kids then returning it when the kids lose interest 3 or more months later.

[LetsStartTalking]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Surprise You’re Living in an AirBNB? (2021)-Plaintiff/tenant Jacob Berke suing defendant/AirBNB landlord Joshua Taxson for his security deposit, and rent.    The apartment/ half of house, lower level, was what the plaintiff rented, he paid $3928 for security, and a month and a half rent.  

This happened two years ago, with plaintiff trying to get the money repaid to him.   Plaintiff only stayed on night, when he found defendant was actually living in the laundry room of the house, next to plaintiff's apartment.   Plaintiff says landlord was sleeping the laundry room next to plaintiff’s room.

After the plaintiff left, defendant plead poverty, and wanted plaintiff to help pay his electric bill.  Defendant never sent an itemized list of damages, or returned security deposit, or other funds to plaintiff.  

After the case, plaintiff says the house (lost to foreclosure) had been 'rented' to others, and they were also defrauded.  

$3,928

T-Shirt Rip-off?! (2021)-Plaintiff Jose Campos  suing defendant Francisco Enriquez ordered 125 t-shirts with plaintiff's logo on it.   $1,003 was the payment for the shirts, and plaintiff received 65 shirts, but the didn't have the logo on them.    Shirts aren't done by defendant, but ordered from Jiffy Shirts.   Defendant ordered 131 shirts to have a few spares.     When box arrived, defendant opened the box, and submits the packing slip.   I think defendant orders from Jiffy, and puts the logo on them.  Plaintiff received $450 worth of shirts, 65 shirts Championship brand.

Plaintiff had to get more shirts, and find another screen printer to do the logos.  Plaintiff didn't even open the t-shirt box from defendant for a month after he received them.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.

 

 

 

Surprise You’re Living in an AirBNB? (2021)

RBG / Judge Judy presiding...

 

$3,928 must be a record for the highest-paid 'getaway weekend' at an AirBNB in America. And he didn't even stay the weekend - just one night, according to him.

 

T-Shirt Rip-off?! (2021)

RBG - Judge Judy presiding...

 

Am I the only one who wanted to see Jose "CheeChee" Campos without his shirt on ? Guy was sexy and smart.

Does Judge Judy understand that when she clicks on to a website like Jiffy Shirts which both retails and wholesales to customers, that she will be looking at the retail site ? And no doubt, the retail home page will display the cheapest quality product with the cheapest price to grab your attention and entice you to shop (cause your only shopping for price at this point) ? 

Enriquez, who owns a T-Shirt printing business, obviously has a wholesale account set up with their site. He as access to the different shirts, different prices, different manufacturers, different qualities of the shirts for his business and his customers. Judy figured she had all the answers from a 'consumer' point of view, even though this had to do with 'wholesale'.

It was never addressed, though, why only half the order was delivered to 'Chee Chee' without the logo on them. JJ never asked Enriquez why he never printed the logo, and why he shipped any shirts without the logo. She never even asked what the logo looked like, or who designed it ('Chee Chee' or Enriquez) ? Something was odd with this case.

 

[Back Atcha]

On 2/17/2021 at 3:45 PM, Carolina Girl said:

On 2/17/2021 at 6:44 AM, Florinaldo said:

JJ once again displayed how behind the times she is.

Also her believing that in order to home school, the parent has to be a certified teacher.  Apparently she in unaware that there has been a plethora of credentialed on-line teaching programs for parents who wish to home school their children for several years now.  

AND that the man is "ripping off" Byrd, her, and the rest of the tax-paying residents (although she probably thinks only "Americans" are taxpayers) by loafing at home four days a week (he was pretty good at keeping his cool).  Homeland Security?  What?  NO!  What COMPANY does he work for.  Homeland Security. (Every wife knows exactly what her husband does in his job...step-by-step.)   JJ started off being cruel from the moment she looked at that couple.  And they SHOULD have the key to the pool from Day One; I'd bet the ad for the rental included pool use.

I've said too often...to my middle-aged sons, "What kind of mother do you think SHE was?"

Info on Byrd: 

• Is Petri Hawkins Byrd married?
• Petri is married to his wife Felicia and has a family of six including four children.  Dec 6, 2018

 

• Who is Petri Hawkins Byrd wife?
• Makita Bond Byrd
• Petri is married to a lady known as Makita Bond Byrd.
• The couple had their wedding on May 4, 2019, having met back in 2012.  Sep 22, 2020

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

How to Stop Your Dog from Killing You! -Plaintiff Michael Evans suing defendant /neighbor Brendan Boyle for vet bills, when plaintiff's Chow was attacked by defendant's Pit Bull.     Plaintiff says attack happened on the sidewalk, when Chow was on a walk, on leash with owner.      Defendant says not only that attack didn't happen, that plaintiff probably injured his own dog.    Photo shows a sidewalk area, with a 6 ft. cinder block wall between sidewalk, and defendant's house.    Defendant claims the fight was nothing, his dog is innocent, and anything happened in defendant's back yard, and claims plaintiff's dog was loose.  Defendant says attack was a mutual combat, and in defendant's back yard, and claims the Pit didn't bite.

Plaintiff was walking his dog, heard yelling, and then saw the loose Pit come out of the defendant's yard, and attack the Chow.   Plaintiff was wrestling the Pit and Chow apart, plaintiff punched the Pit several times, and Pit let go, and then attacked again.   Plaintiff claims defendant was lying on his own dog, and told plaintiff to get away because defendant couldn't hold his dog any longer.   Plaintiff went home, and then took his dog to the vet for bites.   Plaintiff said Pit chomped on Chow's ear and neck.   

 Plaintiff claims defendant said he had searched on line "how to stop your dog from killing you", and how to stop a dog attack.   Defendant claims plaintiff did nothing, and prevented the Pit from biting.    Defendant says he saw plaintiff's dog in his yard, leash trailing, and it went after his dog.   Defendant claims plaintiff injured his own dog, and says everything was fake. 

Plaintiff receives $1100 for vet bills.

Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow?!- Plaintiff Jasmine Wells, suing Kaleen Blount, defendant for travel expenses for the two photo shoots locations, and the hair plaintiff had already paid for.      Defendant does photo shoots, involving putting the hair on models, and models  are solicited to buy the hair from defendant.   There is a stylist doing the hair on the models, and models pay for the hair, but at a reduced rate.   Defendant sold the hair for the second photo shoot, shoot was scheduled on Dec 2, and Dec. 9, and plaintiff paid for the hair, $165.     Defendant claims there was a stylist, and they made the wig, using the hair plaintiff had purchased, and that's who has the hair.   

Defendant claims she texted plaintiff to cancel the two photo shoots, but has no proof.  

Plaintiff receives $165 for the hair, plus $40 for the two trips, $205 total.

Second (2018)-

Antique Gun Heist! -Plaintiff Martin Ratowski suing defendant Bettie Woody over the loss of an antique gun (for $4500), that was for sale at her antique shop.    Defendant has items for sale, at her antique shop, with plaintiff's booth of under 400 sq. ft., on the second floor of the store.   If a customer sees something in the loft, in the locked cabinet, they would come and get defendant, and she would take the cabinet keys to open the cabinet for perusal or sale.   Then defendant showed the gun to someone, and the next day the shopper broke into the cabinet, and stole the antique rifle.  Defendant was not with the shoppers on the second day.    

This was a crime, but not the defendant's responsibility.     Defendant says plaintiff sets the price, but the $4500 price plaintiff claims sounds very high to her.  Prices are set by plaintiff, not defendant.  Plaintiff claims defendant never called him about a price reduction.    Defendant discovered the rifle was gone, and called plaintiff.   The plaintiff's locked case wasn't secure, because the thief lifted the glass out, and swapped the rifle for a piece of similar shaped wood. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Ungrateful Goddaughter! -Plaintiff Delores Ballard suing defendant goddaughter Kelly Goolsby for charging too much on plaintiff's credit card.  Defendant was given the credit card by plaintiff with an agreed on amount to repair her car, and went over the limit.   Plaintiff obtained the credit card so defendant could charge the repair, and repay her too.   Defendant claims the repair shop estimated $1300, and defendant claims she had that amount.   Defendant paid the $130, and charged the extra $500. 

Defendant told plaintiff about her car costs, and that she couldn't pay for it.   Plaintiff gave defendant the credit card, with a $500 limit on it's use.   Defendant used the credit card, charged $530 , and never paid plaintiff back.  Defendant only paid $30.

$500 to plaintiff

Edited February 19, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Brutal Towing and Loss of Vehicle?! -Plaintiff Reginal King suing defendant Mark Mathis (Mr C's Towing) over the towing of his vehicle, and the property lost when vehicle was sold at a lien sale.  Plaintiff parked in front of his residence, in front of a business.   He lives in a gated community next door, and parked in front the of business for about seven hours.    Plaintiff parked near the business, so his car wouldn't be broken into.   Plaintiff claims parking isn't restricted, and is for residents, and businesses.    Plaintiff's property included a taco cart in the back seat, and other property.

Defendant says his towing company was called by the security company that patrols that property, and says car was illegal to be parked there.  The tow driver, Hector Echevaria testifies about the tow.   Driver claims there is a sign at the driveway from the street saying "Private Parking Only".    Plaintiff did not bring the police station about the car disappearance, or records about contacting the towing company, the same day his car disappeared.    Plaintiff saw the sign with the tow company phone number on it, and called them.    Dispatcher claimed they didn't have plaintiff's car, the same day as the tow.

In March, after SUV was sold, plaintiff was sent a bill for storage.   72 hours after tow, lien company takes over the vehicle and do paperwork processing.   The tow company does no paperwork after towing, have no one from the paperwork company, and are SOL.   

Sounds like a profitable scam for the towing company to me.  

Plaintiff receives $2,000 for the Chevy Trailblazer.    

Runaway Truck Destroys Property?! -Plaintiff Nishan "Nick" Khatcherian  suing defendant SteveHubbard for the damage defendant’s truck caused when it rolled down hill, and across the plaintiff’s yard.    Defendant's property is uphill from plaintiff's property, was working on his old truck, brake failed, and rolled downhill, and through plaintiff's yard.    Truck had to be towed out of plaintiff's yard, causing damages to landscaping from the tow, and the truck.   Plaintiff is suing for his $1,000 deductible from his insurance, for the landscaping damages, and for damages to his car..  

Defendant claims nothing happened to plaintiff's landscaping, and that defendant committed insurance fraud..   Photos of extensive damages are submitted by plaintiff.   The truck went through a very nice, healthy looking boxwood hedge.    The estimate from the landscaper is submitted, $3230.   Defendant says his has homeowner's, but won't claim on it because nothing happened. 

$1,000 to plaintiff

Second (2020)-

Be Quiet, You're Winning!-Plaintiff Val McLemore, suing her former landlords Vincent and Elizabeth Saldias, after the walk through with the rental.   Plaintiff rented the two bedroom, one bath for three years, with a one year lease, converted to month-to-month.   Plaintiff wants her $900 security deposit.    Vincent Saldias did the walk through with plaintiff.   (I love the plaintiff's lovely blue hair).     Defendant didn't point out damage written or verbal to plaintiff at the walk through, on 12 March 2020.   

Defendant sent an itemized list (they vacated on 30 March), on 20 April 2020 after plaintiff asked where her security deposit was?   

Defendant claims tenants didn't pay their last 13 days of occupancy.    JJ asks for photos of damages.   Plaintiff claims walk through was 12 March, but 30 day to leave notice from plaintiff is dated 13 March.     The back yard weeds are at least two feet high, and didn't grow in a couple of weeks.        JJ alleges that the friend of defendant that parked a trailer at the house wasn't paying rent, and the friend also parked the trailer there (quoting the defendant) to make the vacant house look occupied.  

$900 to plaintiff.

Grocery Store Slam Scam?!-Plaintiff Jaymes Smith suing Gary Maxwell Jr over defendant backing into plaintiff's car in the grocery store parking lot, plaintiff is suing for $1,000 deductible.   Defendant car was owned by his girlfriend, and he's asked if it was insured at the time of the accident, Debbie Antou is car owner, and car wasn't insured.        Plaintiff was coming from Stater Brothers grocery, driving a big pickup truck with a full passenger area, stopped for pedestrians to clear the parking lot, and was ready to make a right turn after pedestrians moved.   

Defendant claims plaintiff hit the side of his car (not possible the way he describes accident scene and damages).     Plaintiff shows where he was parked, went to the end of the parking lane, and defendant was parked, and backed out into the side driver's plaintiff's truck.   Car damages were $2500, with $1,000 deductible paid by plaintiff.   

At the accident scene, the plaintiff and defendant exchanged information, including insurance.   When defendant's car was found to be uninsured at the time of the accident, the police called him about the car not being insured (it lapsed by two days, and owner was shocked.  Yes, that's sarcastic).   

Don't uninsured drivers, and car owners get tickets, or cars impounded any more?   Actually, I've lived in states where parking lot  accidents, or other private property wouldn't have a police response unless someone was injured.  

Damages to defendant's car was to his rear bumper, obviously it was defendant's fault.

Plaintiff receives $1,000.   

 

 

[Florinaldo]

2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Brutal Towing and Loss of Vehicle?!

 

3 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Runaway Truck Destroys Property?!

Two cases in which JJ demonstrates her frequent arbitrariness in deciding what it worth her deigning to compensate plaintiffs for.

In the first case, a taco cart and golf clubs may seem silly to many, but they have real monetary value and therefore represent a financial loss for the plaintiff.

I would however have liked to see written proof that tenants are allowed to park in that commercial space. Defendant certainly came across as running a scam.

In the second case, why was plaintiff not compensated for the estimate of work needed to repair the damage to the landscaping? I may have missed a mention that it was paid for by his insurance, otherwise he would be allowed to fully collect on that.

Like the defendant, JJ has her own very big and obvious blind spots.

At least plaintiffs got their share of the award kitty's balance.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The landscape was only going for $1,000 deductible, since his insurance paid for the repairs.    I couldn't stand the defendant in that case.  The plaintiff wanted to be paid for another small palm tree, that was under the truck.  There was no separate line item for it, and no picture or anything.  

In the towing case, I would like to see proof that plaintiff and others, could park in that business lot too.   My guess is that the sign at the parking lot entrance had some kind of limit on parking.  Also, it was a commercial space, so why should someone be allowed to park right in front of it all day?    Also, plaintiff couldn't sue for the golf clubs, he didn't own them.     However, the taco wagon confused me.  Even if it comes apart to a certain extent, would it really fit?    I didn't like the way the towing company went about the liens, but I do think someone from the lien company should have testified.    I wasn't convinced that plaintiff was following the rules, and my guess is the barber shop or another business didn't like the plaintiff's vehicle parked in their front door all day.   

I've never seen a commercial business lot like that allow residents to park there all day too.  I wonder if the plaintiff was parked there a lot longer than a few hours?  The next subdivision one street over from where I live has guest parking, (no street parking there), and a big sign that any vehicle parked in their lot for more than 48 hours will be towed, and they mean it.  

Edited February 22, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The landscape was only going for $1,000 deductible, since his insurance paid for the repairs.

Then what more money did he seem to be wanting JJ to award him, as she kept saying "we're done!" ?

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I didn't like the way the towing company went about the liens, but I do think someone from the lien company should have testified. 

Also, even though towing company was abusive, JJ should not have readily dismissed the documents from the company they use to process and send claims to defaulting drivers on the arbitrary grounds of it being "hearsay"; it is common practice for small businesses to use third-party companies to look after such tasks. Of course, a live witness would have been even better but could they be enticed to fly to LA in these pandemic times?

Edited February 20, 2021 by Florinaldo

[LetsStartTalking]

On 2/19/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Brutal Towing and Loss of Vehicle?! -Plaintiff Reginal King suing defendant Mark Mathis (Mr C's Towing) over the towing of his vehicle, and the property lost when vehicle was sold at a lien sale.  Plaintiff parked in front of his residence, in front of a business.   He lives in a gated community next door, and parked in front the of business for about seven hours.    Plaintiff parked near the business, so his car wouldn't be broken into.   Plaintiff claims parking isn't restricted, and is for residents, and businesses.    Plaintiff's property included a taco cart in the back seat, and other property.

Defendant says his towing company was called by the security company that patrols that property, and says car was illegal to be parked there.  The tow driver, Hector Echevaria testifies about the tow.   Driver claims there is a sign at the driveway from the street saying "Private Parking Only".    Plaintiff did not bring the police station about the car disappearance, or records about contacting the towing company, the same day his car disappeared.    Plaintiff saw the sign with the tow company phone number on it, and called them.    Dispatcher claimed they didn't have plaintiff's car, the same day as the tow.

In March, after SUV was sold, plaintiff was sent a bill for storage.   72 hours after tow, lien company takes over the vehicle and do paperwork processing.   The tow company does no paperwork after towing, have no one from the paperwork company, and are SOL.   

Sounds like a profitable scam for the towing company to me.  

Plaintiff receives $2,000 for the Chevy Trailblazer.    

Runaway Truck Destroys Property?! -Plaintiff Nishan "Nick" Khatcherian  suing defendant SteveHubbard for the damage defendant’s truck caused when it rolled down hill, and across the plaintiff’s yard.    Defendant's property is uphill from plaintiff's property, was working on his old truck, brake failed, and rolled downhill, and through plaintiff's yard.    Truck had to be towed out of plaintiff's yard, causing damages to landscaping from the tow, and the truck.   Plaintiff is suing for his $1,000 deductible from his insurance, for the landscaping damages, and for damages to his car..  

Defendant claims nothing happened to plaintiff's landscaping, and that defendant committed insurance fraud..   Photos of extensive damages are submitted by plaintiff.   The truck went through a very nice, healthy looking boxwood hedge.    The estimate from the landscaper is submitted, $3230.   Defendant says his has homeowner's, but won't claim on it because nothing happened. 

$1,000 to plaintiff

 

 

 

 

Brutal Towing and Loss of Vehicle?

RBG - Judge Judy presiding...

Once again, Judge Judy demonstrates why she went to post-graduate school for us: to drag out a case that could've been decided in five minutes or less. One question she had to ask: 'Was there a sign where you parked prohibiting you from parking there ? Yes or No ?' and the case would've been solved. We didn't need to know how he spent his whole day to determine whether the car should have been towed.

Runaway Truck Destroys Property?!

RBG - Judge Judy presiding...

First, I need to address the plaintiff, Nishan "Nick" Khatcherian :

Dead actor Robert Goulet called from 'the other side'. He wants his trademarked look from 'Camelot' back, please. Thank You. It really doesn't work off the Broadway stage, especially in 2021.

 

Second, I need to address the defendant, Steve Hubbard:

Since March, 2020 you have been taught the mask goes over your nose and mouth. It does not go over your left eye. And maybe you can have your polo shirt cleaned and pressed  and the collar starched, so you don't look like you've just fallen out of your tree house ? And keep your mouth closed, not agape when the camera is on you.

Was Judy trying to be funny when she asked Mr. Huber - who had a patch over one eye - 'Didn't you see the photos?' Ummm, maybe he saw half of the photos, and it wasn't the half which had the forestry mowed down by the truck. Did you ever consider that, Judy ?

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Rough Playground Plight! -Plaintiff Cathy Asprea is suing defendant/handyman Charles Dichirico over the concrete work defendant did for her playground improvement at her home daycare.   Plaintiff has a home daycare, and she wanted to change the entire back yard from mulch to concrete and pavers.   Plaintiff just decided to replace soft mulch with hard concrete and pavers, and she wanted a rough concrete top, so a soft rubber topper would adhere to the concrete.   Concrete was $3466.   Defendant says he would put a skim coat on the top to level the concrete out.      

Defendant said he was hired by the plaintiff to three more jobs for plaintiff, including a driveway slab, the concrete pavers, and another job for her too, after the backyard patio area for the playground.    Plaintiff submit the skim coat for the patio estimates.    Plaintiff is lying about how defendant did the work. 

Defendant isn't getting anything for his tools, and the skim coat materials he left behind.

JJ says defendant's concrete work is bad, and she's giving plaintiff $1500.

Dueling Traffic Violations! -Plaintiff Lynise Payteon suing defendant Jerlisha Drake over a 2003 Chevy Impala plaintiff bought from defendant, for $750.     Defendant didn't have the title to give with the car sale, but claims it was licensed, and registered for the vehicle.   However, defendant had an outstanding warrant, plaintiff hadn't registered the car in her name yet, (no title in hand), police pulled plaintiff over because the warrant was tied to the car.   Plaintiff also had a suspended license, and warrant, so car was impounded.    Plaintiff had a suspended license, and defendant's warrant was for traffic violations.    When defendant got the car out of impound, after she got out of jail, she gave keys to plaintiff.  Defendant keeps the car. 

Plaintiff is told car was basically rented for $350.

Case dismissed, because it's stupid.

Second (2013)-

Rental Car Rip-Off! -Plaintiff Audrey Pate suing defendant Michael Holcombe  over rental car that plaintiff rented for defendant, it was on plaintiff's credit card, defendant never paid, and he wrecked the car.   Plaintiff works at Avis, and defendant was going to get a rate of $22 a day, and maybe less, after his car broke down.     At the day of car rental, defendant brought a debit card, and you can't rent with that card (it was prepaid, and over the limit).     So plaintiff said she would use her card, and defendant could pay her back.  Defendant never took his credit card to get car charged to him, and then defendant had an accident after having the car for a month.    So he owes $1400 for the car rental, and damages.    After the accident defendant left the car at another Avis outlet (plaintiff manages the one Avis outlet).  Then defendant called her to say where car was left, and where it was.  Contract is in defendant's name, and plaintiff's credit card was used.  

Defendant claims he owes nothing on the car.    JJ mentions that she looks at the sworn complaints, and answers from the litigants before coming to hear the case, and defendant's response is stupid.  

$1484 to plaintiff.

Good Samaritan Payback -Plaintiff Jeree Webster suing defendant Toshiba Bennett over the $600 plaintiff paid for a car repairs for car defendant loaned her.  Litigants were friends, plaintiff went to work for defendant, and defendant offered a car she had, in return for paying the insurance, and maybe buying the car someday.   After six months plaintiff still had car, but didn't pay for the last two months insurance, and then defendant repo'd the car.     When car needed repairs during the 'loan' period, plaintiff had to pay $600 for repairs, and now is suing for the $600 in car repairs.   What a lot of gall plaintiff has.

Since plaintiff was working for defendant, plaintiff was fired too.

JJ calls plaintiff an ungrateful brat, who had a free car for just paying the insurance.   I would say ungrateful brat.   Defendant had to pay for a parking ticket that plaintiff received, but plaintiff didn't pay, and also didn't appear in court, $57 for the ticket, and two months insurance that plaintiff didn't pay.  Defendant says plaintiff didn't do routine oil changes, and damaged the bumper, and disconnected a speaker.  

$211 to defendant.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama