All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns probably from 2016-

First-

Slander and Cheating-Plaintiff says ex owes her for a loan for a motorcycle, and legal fees after motorcycle was impounded.   Defendant says he caught plaintiff in bed with someone else, and he moved out.   He says she gave him the motorcycle as a reunion present.   Motorcycle was pulled over for expired plates, and impounded because defendant didn't have a motorcycle endorsement.    There were legal fees involved with the motorcycle impound.  Plaintiff gets $300 legal fees, but not the motorcycle cost (apparently motorcycle is in impound), and he doesn't have the pink slip.    The only one who can get the bike out of impound is the plaintiff, so she can sell it.  

Plaintiff had nasty postings about defendant, but JJ didn't know about Plenty of Fish then (I only know about it from TV court cases).    Plaintiff says she wanted to warn other women about the defendant.  $300 for legal fees to plaintiff, nothing for defendant. 

The Vanishing Tax Refund-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan to fix his car.   The loan was while they were cohabiting.    The loan was $1800 for the car down payment.    Plaintiff claims man would pay her back when he received his tax refund, but he claims he wasn't expecting a refund, and didn't get one.    $1800 for plaintiff. 

Second-

Bailiff Caught in the Middle-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for stealing her property, and setting her clothes on fire.    The two litigants were living on a stepfather's property, in an RV purchased by the defendant, and plaintiff kept it.    Plaintiff also is alleged to be back with her former boyfriend.    Defendant says he tossed the clothes out of the RV.   Plaintiff's stepfather says he saw defendant burning plaintiff's clothes when she was away with the previous boyfriend.      Plaintiff's witness is a buttinsky, and so is her stepfather.    $500 to plaintiff for her clothes.    Litigants are told that they will all be ejected if they keep interrupting.     Plaintiff says she doesn't have the RV, and claims defendant sold it.    Defendant says he doesn't know where the RV is, and he didn't sell it.  

Plaintiff step father says defendant has trailer, but has no proof.  Because plaintiff keeps shouting out, she's not getting $500 for her clothes.   Defendant case dismissed, for lack of proof, and lack of sense.       What is the plaintiff on in the hall-terview?

The adorable Officer Byrd stands between the litigants when they refuse to respect courtroom rules, and I only hope someday he puts a couple of rule breakers in head locks. 

Boyfriend Beatdown-Plaintiff claims her ex-boyfriend broke her laptop, and she was falsely arrested for an assault on the boyfriend.   Defendant says plaintiff did hit him in the face, and clawed his face.    They had lived together for five years, without a police visit before this fight.    The night of the fight, they met at a bar, she went home, and when he arrived home they argued.   Plaintiff hid the computer, and claims defendant threw the computer against the wall.    Plaintiff grabbed defendant's phone, and he got it back in one piece.   Plaintiff will get $1099 for the computer.       Plaintiff called police, she told them she hit defendant in the struggle, in the face.  Police report says plaintiff admitted hitting defendant in the eye before the fight started over the computer.      Plaintiff was arrested for domestic assault.    It sounds like they were both drunk.   Nothing in the police report says man attacked first.    $1099 for computer to plaintiff. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun (and it's about a fatal pit bull attack) -

First (New)-

To Restrain or Not to Restrain-Plaintiff suing her former girlfriend/roommate for return of rent, and moving costs.    Plaintiff moved into defendant's apartment, renting a room ($400 a month).   Three weeks later plaintiff claims defendant threw her out of the apartment.   Defendant says she did tell her to leave, because she has a restraining order against a former girlfriend (GF), and plaintiff invited the ex-girlfriend into the apartment/house.   Plaintiff says ex-GF followed her in the front door.       

  Defendant had restraining order for over six months before this fight with plaintiff.    Plaintiff claims the second time the ex-GF was in the apartment when she came home, and there was a fight earlier in the day.     Plaintiff claims ex-GF, and witness were hanging out together the night before.   

However, plaintiff witness (another roommate) says she knew about the restraining order, and testifies that defendant still has ex-GF in her room, and bed.   Plaintiff says ex-GF sleeps over, had her own key to the apartment.   There are texts submitted by plaintiff showing texts and pictures of defendant, and her ex-GF.   Poor JJ has to get Byrd to translate the text speak, and he keeps giggling (that's when Byrd says he's bi-lingual because he can translate text speak).    Pro-rated rent back to plaintiff, and that's all. 

Ungrateful Surrogate Son-Plaintiff suing former friend, and his girlfriend for the value of two vehicles.    The cars were an 83 Mighty Max pickup truck, and another vehicle.  However, plaintiff says the vehicle was purchased from plaintiff's witness, and plaintiff only financed them ($4500).  The second vehicle was purchased from the plaintiff directly by the defendant.     Defendant doesn't seem to understand anything about the entire case.  Defendant's witness keeps butting in, and she's the one who was driving without a license, and that's why the vehicle was impounded.  Plaintiff repo the truck, and needs to sell it to a bona fide buyer, and the short fall is what he can sue for.    Plaintiff case on the Mighty Max is dismissed.

Plaintiff is still suing for the second car (1996 Toyota 4Runner) for $2150, that he sold to defendant directly, and that defendant's witness was driving without a license, and it was impounded.   Plaintiff says he's still owed $1690.   Neither defendant or his witness have a driver's license, and couldn't get it out of impound.  Car was sold at auction, so plaintiff is still owed $1690.   Defendant witness claims the defendants live in their cars, and have no mailing address, so they don't have license, or registration.    Defendant witness license was suspended for an incomplete registration.     $1690 for plaintiff.     

Second (Rerun)-

People Who Own Pit Bulls Are Crazy and Stupid-

Plaintiff dog owner suing pit bull (claims dog is half Lab) owning fool for the mauling death of her leashed terrier, by the defendant and her boyfriend's dog.   Defendant is a pit bull denier, who claims her and boyfriend's dog is always under her control.   Defendant's boyfriend owns the dog, but lives in a studio apartment, and defendant walks the dog constantly.  Defendant was walking the dog, and defendant blames everything on the Yorkie.  Counterclaim for quarantine fees, etc. because it was the Yorkie's fault, are dismissed.   

Defendant picked up the dog, brought the dog in the car to her house, and an hour later she was walking the dog.   (I bet her insurance doesn't allow pits, and it always lives there).   Defendant is renting, and only her dog is allowed, not the pit that obviously lives there.   (Interesting tidbit, boyfriend of defendant has a new baby with another woman).   The defendant actually claims she drives 30 minutes to an hour, each way from her boyfriend's place to walk the dog at her house.   (In my opinion, that dog is zero Labrador).  

Plaintiff was walking terrier on leash, when pit pulled leash out of defendant's hand, and pit attacked Yorkie.  Plaintiff pulled her dog up by the leash, and pit chomped on her dog, and defendant finally tried to get dog off of Yorkie.   Defendant had no hands on dog rope leash, and was tying poop bag, when attack happened.   Defendant says her dog only nipped the Yorkie, and Yorkie bit the pit, causing a fatal attack.   

Plaintiff's witness heard screaming, and saw pit chomping on Yorkie's neck, and he hit the dog with his broom,  until the broom broke.   Defendant dog owner claims the dog is 25 pounds (no, there isn't a mini Pit, ), and defendant is lying through his teeth. 

 JJ now talks about pit bull and cross bite records, from an Akron newspaper from May.   Doctor who did the 15 year study says the #1 bite dog is actually pits and crosses, but people who are in permanent denial about pits lie about the breed or breeds in their dog.   (Pit defenders often claim the dog is a Lab cross, just like the defendant does.   I've known of a local rescue where I live that called any animal with a block head a Lab cross, until they got caught).   

There is a video (police cam) of defendant saying she lost control of the leash.   Defendant lies about the boyfriend's name, address, claims she can't reach him, and lies about the dog attack.  She claims the dog pulled her down.     She also said boyfriend dropped the dog off, and she's just a dog sitter.  

Sadly, apparently the defendants have the dog back.  Defendant now says she lied to the police, not JJ.   I hope the Santa Monica police have her prosecuted, and animal control also.   (I hope the landlord saw this, and evicted her)

The poor little 12 year old Yorkie died from the attack.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

Edited January 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 1/17/2020 at 1:09 PM, AlleC17 said:

I hope she is hard on him.  The plaintiff kept her cool really well I thought.  JJ definitely took a huge dislike:  can't tell if she read something in the paperwork that we haven't seen that caused it, or if she is just being a bitch.  Its hard to tell. 

This was regarding the guy who supposedly opened the car door on the mother-in-law. I know that JJ is able to watch the litigants from the back while she's getting ready for the case, and she also gets to review all the paperwork. I've read she gets a read on the litigants' demeanor from the back even before she comes out.  Plus, have you ever read those litigant statements? It sounds like they are dictating them to some producer over the phone and it gets typed up and signed ahead of it. Some of them sound like total idiots or wackadoodles with gigantic chips on their shoulders. 

The younger woman plaintiff in the paper signing case has unfortunately taken on a lot of the mannerisms and attitude of KFC Mother-In-Law. Oh, and as a much larger woman with a bleeding disorder, I've had SUV car doors closed on me with great force before and never bruised up quite as bad as KFC MIL. I wonder if she made that bruise line with eye shadow. 

Giant Misfit, I also have a pic of Senor Wences in my phone. I texted it to my daughters and also to a friend who always texts me weird hairstyles. And I just can't delete it cos even on a bad day, I just look at it and laugh and laugh, and laugh some more. . . . 

Edited January 21, 2020 by ItsHelloPattiagain

[bad things are bad]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing former friend, and his girlfriend for the value of two vehicles.    The cars were an 83 Mighty Max pickup truck, and another vehicle. 

I work in the auto industry and it took me a while to recall what a Mighty Max was. Not a big seller for Mitsubishi

What a confused and sad couple of people. Please for the love of GOD, do not reproduce! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016 or so-

First-

Charity Singer Gets Shafted-Plaintiffs are suing concert promoter for a fee for singing at his charity benefit concert.   Defendant finally gives them a check, but it bounces.  Another wrinkle is the plaintiff singer is related to defendant by marriage.   The charity benefit raises money for challenge coins he gives to first responders, and veterans.   This was the first concert put on by the defendant.    Concert tickets were $20, and a cash bar, only 55 people came to the event.  It cost the plaintiffs $900 for staging, lighting and sound.   The normal fee for the plaintiffs, for 350 people (event capacity) is $3,000, split between six band members.     Plaintiffs told defendant the cost for their performance.     The entire concert performance had been booked, and planned for months.   $900 to plaintiffs for their performance. 

Handyman Drama-Plaintiff suing handyman for his shoddy work painting her condo.   Plaintiff says defendant did a bad job, didn't finish the job, and claims she was scammed. Defendant was paid $3600 for the job.  The defendant claims he actually came back and patched and painted areas again.   The plaintiff's father actually circled areas he was unhappy with using some kind of pencil or pen, and it would be hard to cover that up.   The plaintiff has interrupted the defendant , and JJ multiple times, and I wish her case would be dismissed for her rudeness.   Plaintiff's father repainted.    Plaintiff paid $450 for the touch ups.       Plaintiff gets $450, and that's it. 

Second-

Semi-Automatic Street Fight-Plaintiff suing cousin for vandalizing his car when defendant came to plaintiff's home looking for a fight (JJ can't understand the plaintiff's lingo, and neither can I).  Plaintiff did some jail time for this incident.   The defendant was upset about plaintiff dating his girlfriend's best friend, and said plaintiff is shady.   The two men, and defendant's girlfriend started fighting.    Plaintiff's jail sentence was a plea deal, and he was blamed for defendant's friend pulling out a Tech-9 machine gun (actually a Tech-9 and ammo were found in the plaintiff's car trunk).  Plaintiff got out of jail after four months of an eight month sentence.    

 Plaintiff claims ammunition was put in his car trunk by defendant's friends, and since he's a convicted felon (7-8 assault felonies), he was charged with felon in possession.   Defendant claims plaintiff was swinging a pipe at him, and broke his own car window.    Defendant claims the people who plaintiff says attacked plaintiff, were actually the plaintiff's friends.    

Everything dismissed.   

 

 

[AlleC17]

6 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

This was regarding the guy who supposedly opened the car door on the mother-in-law. I know that JJ is able to watch the litigants from the back while she's getting ready for the case, and she also gets to review all the paperwork. I've read she gets a read on the litigants' demeanor from the back even before she comes out.  Plus, have you ever read those litigant statements? It sounds like they are dictating them to some producer over the phone and it gets typed up and signed ahead of it. Some of them sound like total idiots or wackadoodles with gigantic chips on their shoulders. 

The younger woman plaintiff in the paper signing case has unfortunately taken on a lot of the mannerisms and attitude of KFC Mother-In-Law. Oh, and as a much larger woman with a bleeding disorder, I've had SUV car doors closed on me with great force before and never bruised up quite as bad as KFC MIL. I wonder if she made that bruise line with eye shadow. 

Giant Misfit, I also have a pic of Senor Wences in my phone. I texted it to my daughters and also to a friend who always texts me weird hairstyles. And I just can't delete it cos even on a bad day, I just look at it and laugh and laugh, and laugh some more. . . . 

Oh, I have little sympathy with the Plaintiffs, really, but the constant interruptions and belittling and badgering of JJ was just really irritating me.  Didn't care much for the smirky defendant either.  JJ even wanted to make fun of the 19 year old son who moved back in with Mom, yet in other cases doesn't think 19 years olds should be held responsible for anything, because they are children.  At least this one (may have) actually had a job.  She is just so inconsistent.  Please share with us WHY all the badgering so we are (or at least me, lol) can be entertained.  Plus this case was just so boring.  Why was it 2 episodes?  I just deleted it partway through the start of day 2.  Maybe I was just not in the proper mood, but JJ was just way to annoying to watch.

 

[7isBlue]

4 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

I work in the auto industry and it took me a while to recall what a Mighty Max was. Not a big seller for Mitsubishi

What a confused and sad couple of people. Please for the love of GOD, do not reproduce! 

Girlfriend looked pregnant to me 😕

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Ex-Con Eats All the Leftovers-Plaintiff is an ex-con, and is suing his former landlords (mother and daughter) for unlawful eviction, return of rent, and return of belongings.    Plaintiff went to high school with defendant's son, and they were in jail together (son was in jail for agg. murder, not sure what the first part is).    Plaintiff needed an address for his parole, after his 16 month sentence, and mother offered a place to rent.   Defendant's evicted plaintiff, after he ate the leftovers, (JJ says that's the worst charge), and was disrespectful.   Defendant didn't follow legal eviction procedures.    After daughter told plaintiff he needed to do more, the plaintiff said he was leaving, and would tell the authorities about defendants' drug use.  

Plaintiff was afraid moving was going to violate his parole.   Plaintiff's witness is his boss, and says told plaintiff to call the police about the eviction.   Then defendants packed his things, and put it outside.   Defendant's said they were filing a restraining order, and told him he couldn't come in the house.(Defendants didn't get a restraining order).    Plaintiff's boss says he saw the money the plaintiff was saving.   Plaintiff claims the women kept his money.       Since defendant's didn't do a legal eviction, then $2500 for plaintiff, and nothing for defendants. 

Worst Stock Picks in the United States-Plaintiff suing his brother, for an unpaid loan and an assault.   Litigants moved in together (in plaintiff's home), and defendant paid six months rent up front, and plaintiff gave defendant $5,000 as a business investment.    

Defendant explains the 'investment' by the brother, and he took the $5,000 from plaintiff, and would receive 50% of the profits from the investments, and plaintiff would get 50%.   Plaintiff was paid $2500 of profits, during a boom stock market.   After the argument, defendant was given the $2500.  As JJ puts so well, either the defendant is the worst stock picker in 2019, and lost over half of his brother's money,  or he's a crook.    Note to defendant, in the hall-terview what the defendant says he did to plaintiff is assault (I'm not a lawyer, but I have graduated from the Law & Order, and L.A. Law school of law, and watch JJ a lot).  

Plaintiff receives $2500, the rest of his money back.  

Second (Rerun)-

The Diamond Quiz Show-Plaintiff suing ex-husband for the balance on a loan ($5,000) to purchase diamonds, and has a cancelled check to prove it.   Plaintiff says man was hard up for money, and was going to make money off of the diamonds, and pay her back with the profits.    Defendant repaid $1450, and that's all.   Defendant says money was an investment in his business.   On a prior occasion she gave him money, and profited very well.    The two litigants have had business deals for years.  Plaintiff receives $3,000.  

Basketball Team Hotel Rip-Off-Plaintiff suing co-worker for hotel charge on a credit card, and JJ will only consider the hotel charges.   Defendant has a womens basketball team, and when they went to an away game, the defendant needed to pay for rooms.  Defendant used the plaintiff's card.    There is no way the defendant doesn't owe the hotel money to the plaintiff.   $3,131 to the plaintiff.

High-End Shoes or Stinky Sneakers-Plaintiff suing business associate for breach of contract on a sneaker deal.    Litigants traded collectible sneakers online.   Defendant had some Kanye West Yeezys (spelling?), and traded them with the plaintiff.  Defendant didn't want the sneakers because they were very used, and were supposed to be new, but he didn't bring them to court, and won't say why.      The plaintiff traded for two other pairs, that he was swapping for the fancier shoes (Jordan 5s) with the defendant.      Defendant claims the stinky, used sneakers weren't his.    $390 to plaintiff. 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

I don't know about anyone else,but when JJ gave the texts to Byrd, saying I can't read this I lol'd when he said "I'm bi-lingual" and actually lost his composure for a bit

[littlebennysmom]

6 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

Oh, I have little sympathy with the Plaintiffs, really, but the constant interruptions and belittling and badgering of JJ was just really irritating me.  Didn't care much for the smirky defendant either.  JJ even wanted to make fun of the 19 year old son who moved back in with Mom, yet in other cases doesn't think 19 years olds should be held responsible for anything, because they are children.  At least this one (may have) actually had a job.  She is just so inconsistent.  Please share with us WHY all the badgering so we are (or at least me, lol) can be entertained.  Plus this case was just so boring.  Why was it 2 episodes?  I just deleted it partway through the start of day 2.  Maybe I was just not in the proper mood, but JJ was just way to annoying to watch.

 

I understand your point, ALLEC17.  It was a lot of time to spend on such a nonsense case.  However, I get why JJ kept interrupting and belittling those two moron plaintiffs -- because they came into court with an injured, smug attitude yet caused all the problems they were bitching about.  Young girl/mother/leech had all the smarts of a potato, and mother in law was a busybody with a capital B who kept interrupting the defendant's testimony and even said during the case her son was violent.  I actually thought JJ was restrained given her increasingly hair trigger temper lately.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016 or so-

First-

Sick and Kicked Out-Plaintiff suing her ex-boyfriend who was living with her for unpaid rent, utilities, and a loan.   She filed for a protective order, and changed the locks, while he in the hospital for a month.  Defendant was her boyfriend, and they were going to split the rent and utilities.   Then defendant had two surgeries, had to stop working, and plaintiff evicted him and wants rent for the month the defendant was in the hospital.     Loan was from plaintiff for car repairs, and only paid back $200 in cash.   $2200 in back rent, $872 for car loan, = $3072 to plaintiff. 

 When defendant went out of town for two days, plaintiff filed for protective order, and lock out order, this was because he owed her money.  (Since when is that a reason to grant a protective order?).   The lockout happened without any legal right by plaintiff.  The man had been living there for almost two years, and was a legal tenant.  Defendant gets $3072 on his counter claim, and that means the plaintiff gets nothing, which she deserves for filing a false protective order.

Child Attacked by Out of Control Dog-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her son's medical bills after the neighbor's dog bit the child.    Defendant says son's behavior caused the bite.  Dog is Boxer/Mastiff mix, was off leash, and there is no bite history (dog was put down).   Bite happened on plaintiff's property, and was out of defendant's control.   Plaintiff has two pit bulls by the way.    Plaintiff sons were on a trampoline, with their two dogs, the defendant dog joined them, started fighting, and plaintiff son was bitten trying to separate the dogs.   Bite scar on plaintiff's hand looks bad.    Out of pocket medical expenses for plaintiff were $4,000, and they had no health insurance.  

Friends Don't Loan to Friends-Plaintiff loaned money to defendant to buy a truck ($1700).     (defendant is a total Smart Ass, and a pain in the fanny).  Defendant's response is it was a gift, and he never asked for money.   Defendant says plaintiff gave him the money to fix the van he used for DJ work, and plaintiff would get 25% of the DJ gigs.   Defendant is such a liar.     $1700 to plaintiff.

Second-

Uber Affair-Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-girlfriend for unpaid rent, assault and a broken computer.   They met on an adult website several years ago.  Litigants lived together for a while, and then were evicted from the apartment, and they moved in with his parents for a couple of weeks, before she left.   Defendant left after she told plaintiff that she sold her sexual favors to one of her Uber passengers.   Rent is cancelled, because they reconciled after this rent demand.    After the argument, and his computer was broken, they still reconciled, that's forgotten too.    Assault and harassment is the counter claim by defendant, and they reconciled again after this.    Everything dismissed.  

Wedding Vows and Alcohol-Plaintiff is suing banquet hall owner, because defendant wouldn't let them drink alcohol outside.    The plaintiff wants rental fee, and $300 security deposit back.     The contract says plaintiff and guests could have alcohol inside the venue, and no alcohol use was allowed outside.        Defendant can't prove the plaintiff and friends were drinking outside, except his own wife's testimony.  Plaintiff now claims that his guests were told to leave early, and that wasn't in the filing.   $300 in security deposit returned to plaintiff, and that's all 

[AlleC17]

22 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I don't know about anyone else,but when JJ gave the texts to Byrd, saying I can't read this I lol'd when he said "I'm bi-lingual" and actually lost his composure for a bit

I loved and lol'd at that too!  Best part of the episode. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Dogs Get Drunk on Vodka-Plaintiff suing her nephew for vet bills, lost wages, and punative damages after one of his guests filled her dog's water bowls with vodka, during a family party.   (Wow! Defendant's witness forgot her pants, she's wearing a black lace dress, very short, and with high boots).    Idiot defendant says he loves Miss Judy, I bet Byrd tossed the crossword today.    Plaintiff says after a few hours at the party, her three dogs were laying down, seemed shaky, and she went to empty the dog's water bowls out, and discovered they had favored vodka in them.    Both defendant and his trampy looking witness were standing there with vodka bottles in hand, and giggling about the vodka.   Defendant's witness won't stop smirking.     

Plaintiff took the three dogs to animal ER.   Vet reports say all three were treated for alcohol toxicity.  Defendant's witness rooms at cousin's house.   Witness says they were drinking Tequila, not flavored Vodka.  She's 20, so drinking underage.   Idiot witness doesn't even realize JJ just called her an idiot.   $1500 to plaintiff.  

Baseball Tournament Ringers-Plaintiff suing baseball tournament organizer for entry fees .   Plaintiff is coach of a team, defendants organize the tournament.   Entry fee was $1500 for each team, and grand prize was $10,000.    Defendants asked plaintiff to enter the tournament, and only put in $200 already.  Then plaintiff found out about another tournament, and cancelled with the defendants, partly because they couldn't afford the $1300 left on the entry fee.   In the email to plaintiff about the cancellation, defendant offers some ringers to play on his team.  

The tournament time arrives, and plaintiff feels they were totally outclassed, and didn't use ringers.    I suspect they used the plaintiff's team to fill up the roster, and I wonder how many teams (such as the winners, sponsored by the tournament sponsor too), used ringers.  

Plaintiff gets no entry fees back.   JJ tells the defendants that if they don't understand why JJ, and all of the viewers dislike ringers, they should go home and ask their mothers why.    Plaintiff signed a contract that he will pay $500.   $500 to defendant.

Second (Rerun)-

Moving Company Disaster-Plaintiff suing former movers, after she claims they only moved half of her stuff, damaged property, and were unprofessional.   Defendant mover has been in business since 2005, and has about 30 employees.      Plaintiff hired mover because of the time she needed to move.  Defendant is counter suing for their fees.    The mover didn't pre-inspect, but quoted over the phone.    The movers told her a price for half a house, because that's what she asked for (1250 sq ft).    Plaintiff is a real estate agent, and should have known how to do a move better than this.   (Sorry they had a 30' box truck, so her stuff should have fit fine in that).   They worked from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. at night.    

Plaintiff claims her lamp, wall unit, computer monitor, bed frame, mirrored dresser, dirty mattress set, and other damages are alleged.      Plaintiff claims she bought a very generic looking lamp in Paris from a designer.    Defendant didn't put in a claim because contract requires plaintiff pays the bill, and then the insurance will be contacted about the damage. 

The mover says they don't take checks, and she refused to authorize her credit card the night of the move.  $1284 to mover, and will be paid before claims go to the insurance company.  (Bet plaintiff didn't get extra insurance, and the moving insurance pays very little for damages, and if she packed items herself, they won't be covered at all). 

Roommates-R-Not-Us-Plaintiffs (girlfriend and boyfriend) are suing their former roommate for  breaking their lease, and legal fees.  There were three people living there, then one roommate that moved out, and then defendant moved in and signed the lease.   Plaintiffs want defendant to pay lease breaking fee because he moved out a month before plaintiffs did.    Defendant got sick of the bickering and fighting among the roommates, and they weren't in a romantic relationship when defendant moved in.    Defendant says the two plaintiffs were fighting, and mostly over the fact that she wanted to dump her previous (not a roommate boyfriend), and stay with her co-plaintiff.    Plaintiff actually calls the defendant stupid.    Plaintiff case dismissed, because they won't shut up, and stop commenting to the defendant.    

Defendant is asked if he paid any lease or damage fees, and the answer is he paid his rent until the lease ended.   Defendant moved back in after plaintiffs left, and he stayed for seven months, counter suit dismissed.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[seacliffsal]

Okay, I'm really appreciating these comments and summaries as my JJ is being preempted for the impeachment trial.  So, thank you so very much!

[nora1992]

Just catching up on yesterday’s episode: did anyone else wonder if the two Poore brothers were ever referred to as the po’ boys?

My mind wanders when I’m hungry.....

[AuntiePam]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dogs Get Drunk on Vodka-Plaintiff suing her nephew for vet bills, lost wages, and punitive damages after one of his guests filled her dog's water bowls with vodka, during a family party.   (Wow! Defendant's witness forgot her pants, she's wearing a black lace dress, very short, and with high boots).   

I didn't watch this one until today. I remembered what you wrote so I was paying attention.  JJ notices the short dress and thigh high boots.  She doesn't quite roll her eyes.  It's more of sigh and "What is the world coming to?"  And then later she talks about living too long.  It's understandable. 

Those people are just evil.  It's one thing to give a dog a sip of beer, but to fill a water bowl with vodka? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016 or so-

First-

Inside Job-Plaintiff suing defendants/former roommates for  stealing her property, and making threats.   Plaintiff went out of town for a while, left cash for June's rent in an envelope on the counter.    Defendant says that the house was ransacked, and some men helped the plaintiff take property out.   Litigants were fighting over rent money.   (Sadly, all of the litigants seem rather impaired).   Defendants say plaintiff had men help her rip off and ransack the apartment, and their property was stolen too.  Plaintiff claims her stuff was dumped at Goodwill in Folsom.  

Plaintiff claims the text shows stuff was stolen by defendant witness.   However, the text is from the defendant's co-litigant, and woman friend.   Defendant witness received his property back from the daughter and plaintiff's mobile home.    Defendant witness also saw blankets made by his grandmother at the mobile home.   Case dismissed.   

Senior Skip Day-Plaintiff and  Grandmother are suing plaintiff over the grand daughter's used car down payment..   This is the one where JJ has to have Senior Skip Day explained. 

$500 down on the car, Grandmother signed the paperwork, and Granddaughter drove the car off of the lot.    Granddaughter drove to Senior Skip Day.  No guarantee or warranty is in the contract for the car.   Granddaughter's previous car was given to her by her aunt, and the engine blew after a month.    Granddaughter was driving around with a couple of friends, and it was Senior Skip Day, so she drove to the beach.   Plaintiff says car was acting up, and she kept driving around.   After about a week, Grandmother took car back to dealer, and wanted a refund of the down payment, and payment contract cancelled on an "As Is" car.      (If the Grandmother's phone goes off one more time I'm going to scream, it went off twice already.  By the way, her ringtone is awful).     They didn't even get the car inspected by a mechanic before purchase.    Since there is no counterclaim contract is not going to be enforced.    Case dismissed. 

Second-

Shady Mark-Up Artist-Plaintiff wants her $280 deposit for her vow renewal makeup by defendant, and it's a non-refundable deposit.     Defendant says he had a family emergency.   Plaintiff says she paid $280 to do her makeup for a wedding vow renewal.   He was hired to do cousin's daughter's makeup for prom night, and for graduation pictures.  Plaintiff paid defendant for the cap and gown pictures, $75.   For the prom, defendant didn't show up at all, because of a family emergency.    The family emergency was he had to pick up his little niece with pink eye from day care.   Plaintiff wants the $280 deposit back because she has no confidence that defendant will show up for the vow renewal makeup. 

Plaintiff wants her refund back, and cousin wants pain and suffering for the makeup not being done for prom (she didn't pay for prom night, and didn't have a contract).     However, defendant has done makeup twice on plaintiff before the prom incident.  Sorry JJ, but if a kid has Pink Eye, they have to leave day care, and sometimes the parent can't leave work.  Plaintiff gets $280 back.  

Heroin and Alcohol Abuse-Plaintiff suing his former landlord for return of his security deposit, and belongings. .   Plaintiff fell off the wagon with alcohol, the day he moved into the defendant's property, and overdosed on Heroin soon after.     Counter suit is property damage, stolen tools, etc.   Security deposit is $850.    Defendant says plaintiff moved out when he was out of town, and took his property with him.    Police report by plaintiff says nothing relevant.     Defendant says plaintiff ruined the courtyard door, left heroin residue behind where defendant's two year old daughter could have been exposed to it. 

(I'm wondering why plaintiff left the sober living house?    My guess is he was told to leave)

Plaintiff claims he left a TV behind, some Verizon thing, clothing, etc.   Defendant has to get his security deposit back.   $1150 to plaintiff.    (I don't think it should have been that much, and defendant should have done a better background check before letting this person into his home).

[One Tough Cookie]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Both defendant and his trampy looking witness were standing there with vodka bottles in hand, and giggling about the vodka.   Defendant's witness won't stop smirking. 

Was that JJ called the defendant's witness""stupid"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

was

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Stuck in the Swamp-Plaintiff suing defendant for driving his Bobcat (not the little bulldozer, but an ATV into a canal, and ruining the engine.   The Bobcat can go on muddy, or swampy terrain, but not water.   While plaintiff was away from his shop that defendant stole the Bobcat, went clamming, it got stuck in the mud, and left it, and it was ruined.   Defendant claims the plaintiff's employee/witness was driving, and got the Bobcat stuck.     Plaintiff witness says the defendant did help him move life jackets, and witness drove to the boss's property.   Then defendant claimed the plaintiff said he could use the Bobcat for clamming (or crabbing), and defendant left with the Bobcat.   Witness claims defendant drove the Bobcat into the canal/swamp, and couldn't get the Bobcat out.    

Plaintiff was called about the Bobcat being stuck, and they were unable to free it until they recruited a lot of help, and ropes.    By the time it was freed, the Bobcat engine was ruined.  

Defendant claims the plaintiff witness was driving the entire time, and the one who got the Bobcat stuck.   JJ seems convinced that the plaintiff witness got the Bobcat stuck, and lied about it.    JJ splits it, $1406 for plaintiff, which is half of the repair costs.   

This is a Lesson, Not a Lawsuit-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for a loan, living expenses, and babysitting fees.    Defendant has three kids with 50/50 custody, and when he was living with plaintiff they lived as a couple, and plaintiff took care of the kids when they visited.   The couple only lived together for two months.   Plaintiff wants rent, babysitting fees, and food for the home when they were living together.  My guess she feels used by defendant.   Case dismissed, and JJ says using people isn't nice.   (plaintiff didn't learn, she thinks they can still be friends).

Second (Rerun)-

Pool Blowout-Plaintiff suing pool contractor for not completing the pool job she hired him for.   Plaintiff wanted pool resurfaced.   Smart aleck defendant's wife says the "question is only if they completed the job, and not completed satisfactorily".     $5,125 was the price, paid in full, and pool was resurfaced.    However, in the statement he says he wasn't totally finished (the second coat) almost a year after the first resurfacing.     Plaintiff didn't like the first resurfacing job, then defendant says woman changed the job parameters for the second resurfacing.   (Defendant wife needs duct tape over her mouth, and an eyeliner intervention).     Plaintiff receives $1550 for the unfinished pool job. 

Abusive Dad Incarcerated-Plaintiff suing her former daughter in law for travel fees, living expenses from Indiana, to Tennessee (where grandmother is).   Defendant has three kids with loser ex, and abuse of one of their mutual children is why plaintiff's son is in prison.   After defendant moved back to Indiana with the three children to live with her mother (plaintiff and plaintiff's husband helped in the move) defendant got 100% custody, and nothing for plaintiff's side (good for her).     Plaintiff says her criminal son is going to court to get charges reduced ,(another delusional Mother of a criminal) .   The expense of helping move back to Indiana is what Grandma plaintiff is suing for.     Plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for $500 for sports fees.    Case dismissed, and grandmother should be ashamed.   (My guess is that if her son gets out of jail, that plaintiff will be driving to the children's location, and wouldn't say a word no matter what her son does.)

Edited January 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably around 2016 or so-

First-

Quinceanera Party Fail-Plaintiff is suing party planner over her daughter's Quinceanera  (15th birthday) for breach of contract.    Plaintiff contracted with party planner for $17.87 per person, for 500 guests for food, tables, chairs, linens,  cake, dishes and silverware.   Party planner says 660 people showed at the event, instead of the 500 that were planned for.  Plaintiff paid $500 deposit, and owed $8400 more.  Plaintiff claims 515 people attended.     Plaintiff claims bartender never showed, and substitute was inadequate, head table wasn't good enough.     

Defendant claims 650 people actually showed up, not 500.   She says there were seats for 500 (per contract), and claims plaintiff brought 10 extra tables, and 100 chairs.   They needed extra security, and servers, and plaintiff refused to let defendant gather the beer cans, party was rented to midnight, and it took until 2:00 a.m. to clean up the venue.   Security said they counted 650 people. 

Plaintiff lied to the show producer, and said she had 600 guests, until the contract for 500 was produced.  JJ almost called the producer to testify about plaintiff's switch in story, which would have been a first on the show.  Defendant is suing for cleaning crew, and damages.   Defendent receives $1780 for extra people.

Rabbit Hutch Crunch-Plaintiff suing neighbors over his tree branch crushing the rabbit hutch on plaintiff's property.    Defendants had their tree trimmed on their property, and a branch fell on the neighbor's fence, and rabbit hutch.     Defendants are whining because they say it was the plaintiff's responsibility to trim the tree (which is vine covered, and looks dead).   However, plaintiff has the right to trim the branch, but not the responsibility to trim it.   However, because the tree looks diseased, and dead the defendant's insurance would have been on the hook for the tree damage.   

Defendant actually says the plaintiff 'let the branch die'.   

(I think plaintiff is very reasonable in only asking $600 for the fence, and rabbit hutch repairs).    Plaintiff receives $600.  

Second-

Tangled Love Triangle-Plaintiff suing cousin over phone bill and damaged credit, other defendant is plaintiff's ex-husband who has now moved on to the cousin.    Cousin/defendant has plaintiff to co-sign for phone, cousin didn't pay for phone, and plaintiff claims ex-husband gave credit bureau plaintiff's social security number, impacting plaintiff's credit.   Phone cost over $775 each (why do I suspect iPhones).   

Plaintiff says defendant paid three payments, and that's it.   Phone bill was $245 a month!   Plaintiff claims she paid off bill, and both phones, under threat of collections, so she ruined her own credit.   Defendant claims she gave the phone back to plaintiff.   At one time the bill was over $2,000 and going to collections. $775 to plaintiff.

Unwed Parents vs. Bedbugs-Young parents suing ex-boyfriend for car vandalism, bed bugs, and, personal property.  Defendant has his name on car with plaintiff, but had no license, (or teeth either, sadly).   Plaintiff claims defendant kicked her old car, they got a new (used) car, paid the down payment on it.   They had another fight and broke up, and defendant took the car, which is now at plaintiff's dad's place.   Car was in both litigants names.     

Defendant was driving car, and still is without a license (he's never had a license). Defendant's license was suspended for driving without a license, and then he got caught again driving without a license.    Plaintiff claims the children caught bed bugs at defendant's place, dismissed.    Defendant claims woman has two TVs, a laptop, clothes, and a laptop.     Defendant gets his weight stuff, and one TV, and a laptop.      $360 to plaintiff for car.   (I wouldn't have given defendant anything).

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Confused Mother Attacks Friend-Plaintiff suing former friend for stealing her son's Apple watch, when he stayed over for a weekend at defendant's home.   Plaintiff called and asked defendant where the watch was, and claims he said he would look for it.   Plaintiff lost her text messages, due to the sad demise of her previous phone.  Defendant says he doesn't know what happened to watch, and doesn't know where it is.  (Interesting feather trimmed top on plaintiff).   Plaintiff son says he realized the watch was left at the defendant's home, and didn't go back to the defendant's home (they live in adjoining complexes).    Defendant isn't responsible for the watch, it was the son's property to keep track of.   

Plaintiff claims defendant would replace the watch, because his brother stole it.  JJ tells plaintiff if she thinks defendant's brother stole the watch, then sue him.    Plaintiff is given the name and number of the defendant's brother, and can file a police report about the brother.

Violent Threats and Vandalism-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for stolen property, harassment, and breaching the lease.   Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's home, and other tenant turned out to be a little nutty, and the litigants got a restraining order, and problem tenant left.   First tenant was arrested in the driveway.   Second tenant moved in and plaintiff claims that man assaulted him inside the home, vandalized his car, etc., and thinks landlord should pay him to relocate.   Defendant landlord claims plaintiff claims to have moved out, but still has property left behind, and owes September, and October.   Defendant didn't counter claim for last two months rent.   Plaintiff claims it was horrible living in defendant's home, but he stayed for 18 months.   Case dismissed.   

Second (Rerun)-

Retaliatory Tenant Rant-Plaintiff /former tenant rented a home for one year, and claims it was horrible living in home, but it was after he moved out.   Former landlords/defendants are being sued for illegal lockout, return of rent, and ($900) security deposit.   Plaintiff moved in January, but his lease payments didn't start until March in the new rental.     In the beginning of March the defendants changed the locks, since the the lease was up, and plaintiff hadn't paid rent past the end of February.    There is a certified notice to the landlords, that plaintiff was moving out, and he scheduled a date for a walk-through with the landlords.     Julius Gleghorn says he was paying rent at defendant's place in February, and would start 1 March at the new house.   

After plaintiff had left the defendant's home, he sent a list of problems with the home to the landlords, after he had already left.   He also sent the same letter of issues to the Public Works housing department.    This is when plaintiff claims there wasn't a Certificate of Occupancy for the home,   

Landlord told tenant Gleghorn that he would do a walk through on the last day of occupancy, and collect the keys on that day.   Defendant said he would not do a walk through with tenant two weeks before move out, the way the tenant wanted him to (who would do a walk through with a tenant two weeks early?).     

Defendant's are suing for unpaid rent, damages to the home, and missing appliances.    Defendant woman has text messages about the walk through, but plaintiff didn't do a walk through.     Plaintiff called the police about the lockout, but was after the end of the lease.  

Defendant's don't get March rent because they changed the locks.   Plaintiff claims he left clothes, curtains and curtain rods, smart TV accessories, and speakers.     Defendant claims plaintiff stole the washer and dryer.   There is no replacement cost for the washer/dryer, so that's thrown out.    Defendant's claim the signed lease says if the plaintiff breaks the lease, he loses the security deposit.  

(Warning-the second episode Monday is a woman who's dog killed the neighbor's kitten).  

[alegtostandon]

On 1/20/2020 at 4:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun (and it's about a fatal pit bull attack) -

Second (Rerun)-

People Who Own Pit Bulls Are Crazy and Stupid-

Plaintiff dog owner suing pit bull (claims dog is half Lab) owning fool for the mauling death of her leashed terrier, by the defendant and her boyfriend's dog.   Defendant is a pit bull denier, who claims her and boyfriend's dog is always under her control.   Defendant's boyfriend owns the dog, but lives in a studio apartment, and defendant walks the dog constantly.  Defendant was walking the dog, and defendant blames everything on the Yorkie.  Counterclaim for quarantine fees, etc. because it was the Yorkie's fault, are dismissed.   

Defendant picked up the dog, brought the dog in the car to her house, and an hour later she was walking the dog.   (I bet her insurance doesn't allow pits, and it always lives there).   Defendant is renting, and only her dog is allowed, not the pit that obviously lives there.   (Interesting tidbit, boyfriend of defendant has a new baby with another woman).   The defendant actually claims she drives 30 minutes to an hour, each way from her boyfriend's place to walk the dog at her house.   (In my opinion, that dog is zero Labrador).  

Plaintiff was walking terrier on leash, when pit pulled leash out of defendant's hand, and pit attacked Yorkie.  Plaintiff pulled her dog up by the leash, and pit chomped on her dog, and defendant finally tried to get dog off of Yorkie.   Defendant had no hands on dog rope leash, and was tying poop bag, when attack happened.   Defendant says her dog only nipped the Yorkie, and Yorkie bit the pit, causing a fatal attack.   

Plaintiff's witness heard screaming, and saw pit chomping on Yorkie's neck, and he hit the dog with his broom,  until the broom broke.   Defendant dog owner claims the dog is 25 pounds (no, there isn't a mini Pit, ), and defendant is lying through his teeth. 

 JJ now talks about pit bull and cross bite records, from an Akron newspaper from May.   Doctor who did the 15 year study says the #1 bite dog is actually pits and crosses, but people who are in permanent denial about pits lie about the breed or breeds in their dog.   (Pit defenders often claim the dog is a Lab cross, just like the defendant does.   I've known of a local rescue where I live that called any animal with a block head a Lab cross, until they got caught).   

There is a video (police cam) of defendant saying she lost control of the leash.   Defendant lies about the boyfriend's name, address, claims she can't reach him, and lies about the dog attack.  She claims the dog pulled her down.     She also said boyfriend dropped the dog off, and she's just a dog sitter.  

Sadly, apparently the defendants have the dog back.  Defendant now says she lied to the police, not JJ.   I hope the Santa Monica police have her prosecuted, and animal control also.   (I hope the landlord saw this, and evicted her)

The poor little 12 year old Yorkie died from the attack.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

As the owner of a small dog,  these cases always break my heart.  I  know someone who is related to this epuside yorkie owner.   It was a horrible situation.  I could not believe when the male defendant said his "lab/pit" mix was the miniature variety and weighed less than 25 lbs.  I have seen pictures of this dog.  Looks full pit & I am guessing 60 lbs plus,  in addition to being very muscular.   She said the worst part was the woman walking the pit bull has no remorse whatsoever.  

Due to a neighbor who claims to have enough control over their pit bull  so there is no need to walk him on a leash,  I no longer take my girls for walks. 

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, alegtostandon said:

 

Due to a neighbor who claims to have enough control over their pit bull  so there is no need to walk him on a leash,  I no longer take my girls for walks. 

That's a shame.  Does your town not have a leash law? 

One lady in my neighborhood is having a hell of a time walking her dog.  She goes one way and has to deal with a pit bull who is chained up but who has previously broken the chain.  If she walks the other way, she has to deal with a wolf-coyote-? mix who isn't tied and who keeps trying to jump its fence. 

[alegtostandon]

11 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

That's a shame.  Does your town not have a leash law? 

One lady in my neighborhood is having a hell of a time walking her dog.  She goes one way and has to deal with a pit bull who is chained up but who has previously broken the chain.  If she walks the other way, she has to deal with a wolf-coyote-? mix who isn't tied and who keeps trying to jump its fence. 

Yes, we do.  When I  suggested he leash his dog per the leash law,  I was called a few choice names after being told that his dog is trained and will come on command and has no need for a leash.  Trying to positively reason with him and not make him feel defensive,  I said 'as well trained as our dogs may be,  they are still dogs and may have a momentary slip when they see a cat,  plus,  without a leash,  you have no control if you encounter a coyote', which we have being we are next to a golf course and the river bottom.  He told me to mind my own business, in not so nice words.   That's when I called the police,  He has since moved.  Some people!  I feel for your neighbor.  

[augmentedfourth]

Bobcat defendant guy totally was the one driving. I thought he slipped once in the hallterview (but didn't care enough to rewind and check), and then after that one instance, there was a lot of "we" in there, like "we drove this way" and "we got stuck" and so on. I feel like if it had been the other guy driving, the defendant definitely would have used "he" and not "we". That said, the plaintiff's witness was working as his employee (or his agent, as JJ likes to say), and while he probably didn't give the defendant express permission to drive it, he certainly didn't try to stop him in any way, and initially was fine in joining him on that joy ride. I don't blame JJ for not wanting to untangle that one further and thought the ruling was fair.

[Mondrianyone]

Because I am deeply shallow, I'd like to know what town it is where the guys who run the bait shop and whatever other redneck business that was look like male models for GQ.  It's enough to make you take up fishing.

[SRTouch]

19 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Because I am deeply shallow, I'd like to know what town it is where the guys who run the bait shop and whatever other redneck business that was look like male models for GQ.  It's enough to make you take up fishing.

I've visited a few bait shops was thinking how nice it was that both sides cleaned up for their tv appearance. Especially the P's witness - I was thinking that was the first time he wore a suit & tie in awhile. Only thing was that mop of hair - I just imagined dude getting fed up with getting all gussied up and flat out refusing the makeup person coming at him with a comb 😃

[Mondrianyone]

There are tons of bait shops near where I live, but I don't think any of our local worm purveyors would clean up that spectacularly.  I completely agree with you about P's witness, though--at some point he clearly reached his "enough is enough" point.  That hair had a lot of unrealized potential.  👱‍♂️

[patty1h]

Chelsea Durham was being sued because she let a shopping cart get away and it hit the plaintiff's car.  That woman needs to get some lessons in lipstick application because the way she's applying it gives her a severe case of Resting Bitch Face.  She could also seek out a prescription for some industrial strength mood elevators, if talking about a runaway cart makes her look like she's on the verge of a flood of tears.  She also looks like she would be a major snot when confronted at the scene, exasperated by having to wrangle her mom, two dogs and chase a fleeing cart in a windy parking lot.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016 or so-

First-

Man Enraged by Police Arrest-Plaintiff suing his mother and sister for falsely accusing him of assault and theft.  Plaintiff has many (over a dozen) violent crimes he's been convicted for previously, and claims they weren't drug related, just assaults.   Plaintiff was arrested for assault and theft, spent six days in jail, and bailed himself out.    Plaintiff refuses to discuss his past history, and so JJ says case is dismissed.  Plaintiff then says he's willing to come back to court. 

However, he's back, and all of his crimes are assault related.    Defendant mother says son has an alcohol problem.     Criminal complaint was man went into mother's home, stole a TV from the wall, assaulted sister (sister has since died), and police were called.   Mother says she came home to see her daughter holding an ice bag on her face, when she told mother what happened, and police were called.     The police report is awful.    Plaintiff was arrested, had a spit hood put on, spent six days in jail until he bailed himself out, and charges were later dismissed.     Mother had nothing to do with pressing charges. Plaintiff's case is dismissed.

The Biting Black Cat-Plaintiff, visiting nurse, wants former neighbor to pay her out-of-pocket bills for defendant's cat biting her, and lost wages.   The medical insurance already paid almost $6000, and plaintiff's part is $6,000 (ER bill co-pay alone was $3,000).    Plaintiff waited almost a year to file the case, because bills were sent to her very late.    Plaintiff had to get rabies shots after the bite.  

Plaintiff came home from work, and cat tried to get into her apartment, and then cat bit her.  Plaintiff went to Urgent Care, and police and animal control were called, and animal control report is submitted.      Defendant has two cats, the outdoor one is black.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant said her cat bites her sister fairly often (sister lives with defendant).  Defendant claims animal control went away after she gave them the vet's name, and that cat was up to date on rabies shot.   Defendant thinks that since plaintiff only had one rabies shot, and not the other three, that the bite isn't a problem.  Defendant claims he didn't bite the sister, but only nips her and never draws blood.   $3,000 to plaintiff.  

Second-

Security Deposit Snafu-Plaintiff/former tenant wants rent back, and for an unlawful eviction by defendant/landlord.   Plaintiff claims after the eviction he was told to remove his stuff from his room through the window to the room.   Rent was $750 a month.    Plaintiff claims the $750 he paid landlord in March was to cover 15 March to 15 April, and landlord says it was security deposit.    When plaintiff tried to move in by April, landlord wanted the $750 rent for April, and plaintiff refused to pay.   There was no written lease, just month-to-month.      On 5 April plaintiff tried to move in, and went to work, and returned to defendant's place that afternoon.    Landlord wanted $375 for the prorated March rent (plaintiff moved some stuff in on 15 March).   When plaintiff couldn't pay the $375, landlord called the police, and they told plaintiff to move.    

Plaintiff came back to get his stuff (with a police escort), and that's when he claims defendant told him to move stuff out through the window.   Defendant claims plaintiff broke his window.    Plaintiff gets $750, defendant claim dismissed (Defendant says man was trying to establish residency, and squat for eight months or more). 

Drunk Driving Excuses-Plaintiff suing former friend for wrecking her car when he drove it drunk.    The night before the accident the litigants went to a friend's house, and at the home both litigants were drinking.    Defendant was driving them home, in plaintiff's car, then he tried to pull over, and that's when the accident happened.  Defendant also hit another car, and a fire hydrant in the accident. 

Plaintiff claims defendant wasn't drinking or drunk, but defendant claims both had been drinking all day.   Defendant's license was suspended for drunk driving.   Plaintiff claims the car was worth $5000.   Plaintiff actually had insurance, and has estimates.   Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun (with a graphic mauling of a kitten by a neighbors dog)-

First (New)-

Taco Wedding Falls Flat-Plaintiff taco caterer for balance of food service at defendant's wedding reception, and for libel.    Plaintiff was hired to have a taco service at a wedding reception (hired for 130 people, about 100 showed up) and this was the only food.   There is an invoice, but no other contract.    $1094 is the catering bill, but the total cost is $2200 (about $22 per person).    Serving time was supposed to be 6:00 p.m., and defendant claims service didn't start until 7:45 p.m.    (Wedding was at 1 p.m., with just immediate family, reception was to start at 5:00 p.m. with the extra invitees).   Music was $2200 too.    Plaintiff offered $150 back for additional time, as compensation for being late).   Plaintiff set up at 3 p.m., and was to return at 6 p.m. to start service, but didn't return until 7:45.   

Plaintiff still doesn't want to say why he was almost 2 hours late.    Defendant owes $700, after $300 to plaintiff deducted for the late service.  

Runaway Shopping Cart-Plaintiff suing defendant for damaging her car bumper with a shopping cart.   Plaintiff was parked at a shopping center, and felt something hit her car, and it was a shopping cart      Plaintiff saw defendant running after cart, and saw cart hit another car also.   Then defendant went running after the cart, still talking on her cell phone the entire time.  When defendant retrieved the cart, plaintiff walked back to her own car, retrieved her mother, and another dog, and went into Petsmart.      Defendant says she loaded her one dog, was getting her mother out of the car, when the mysterious shopping cart that was parked in the next parking space, it started moving in the wind.   Short version, it was the wind that moved the cart, and not defendant's problem at all.    

JJ says woman got a cart, was assisting her mother out of the car, and then the cart got away from defendant, and hit the two other cars.  (I really wonder about the safety of both dogs, and her mother under the defendant's care.   She seems to have a very bad temper). 

Defendant refused to give her insurance information to plaintiff, because she was afraid of harassment by plaintiff.    Defendant is a total (supply own nasty expletive), $724 to plaintiff.  

Second (Rerun)-

Kitten Mauled by a Husky-(What are defendant's teeth?  Veneers?  They're huge, and ugly, and so are her giant false eyelashes.  )-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her roaming Husky getting in plaintiff's home, and mauling a kitten.     Defendant claims she was in bed, when neighbor called and said her dog was out. I think JJ is right, defendant or roommate let the dog out to roam, and that's when dog attacked.   

Plaintiff heard knock at door, and Good Samaritan brings lost Husky to their door thinking it might be their dog.   Dog charged in the front door when plaintiff opened it, and dog immediate charged cat, cornered it in the basement, and attacked kitten repeatedly.   Plaintiff threw dog out their front door after attack, and defendants are outraged that their dog was manhandled.       Plaintiff tried to present bills to roommate of dog owning idiot.  It was a very snowy night, and apparently foolish roommate let dog out, and dog was running loose.    The dog was taken to plaintiff's front door by plaintiff's witness/neighbor, and then took the dog to defendant's house, and it was her dog. 

  Dog owner finally contacted plaintiff by text, but refuses to pay.   Vet bill is over $6,000+ for poor cat, that survived.   Defendant claims her dog didn't do it, and seems incredibly stupid also.    $5,000 for plaintiffs.    Defendant is a moron.      

Dream Car is Friend's Nightmare-Plaintiff (foolish student) suing former friend for an unpaid loan for tires (he's not a student, but they met in a chat room for students at the local community college).    Defendant acknowledges in texts that he owes the money, and brought the giggling village idiot as a witness.   

JJ will now grill defendant, construction worker, and security guard sometimes.   What a shock, he has a 2017 Camaro SS, with huge speakers (JJ's guess about the speakers).  Defendant sold the car in March, and still didn't pay the plaintiff.    Defendant sold Camaro, and bought a Prius (I hope he proves the Prius as target of catalytic converter theft rumor is true, one man has had six stolen).   Plaintiff gets tire money.  $758 to plaintiff.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Runaway Shopping Cart

Virago defendant joins the pantheon of despicable JJ litigants, determined to deny reality and facts at all turns to shirk responsibility. Even arguing she was afraid of the plaintiff, as if that mug was ever afraid of anyone as JJ pointed out.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016 or so-

First-

Bitter Custody Battle-Plaintiff mother and new boyfriend fighting father / plaintiff of kid, for false restraining order and harassment.      SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three) had baby with defendant (and has had two other kids with fiance/boyfriend), and lived in California, and have since moved to Washington, with the defendant's child also.    This move was without defendant's consent.   There was a custody fight by defendant to get child returned to California, and defendant won.   Defendant had custody, and now child is allowed to visit mother on school breaks, and some holidays.   Defendant lives with his grandmother for now.  Plaintiff fiance says defendant's family were harassing them, and threatening them in California, and he wants moving costs, etc. because he had to move (so much for plaintiff's saying "We moved for a better life").    Plaintiff fiance is a total jerk, and keeps running the plaintiff case, and claims the 7 year old made a video for them saying she wants to move back with mother.  

(My guess is mother has to pay child support, and travel for the child's visits, and doesn't want to.   I find it creepy that fiance is so fixed on getting the little girl back).    There was no child support order against mother, since the court couldn't locate the mother.    Plaintiff fiance keeps butting in, and JJ tells him to stop it.    Plaintiff fiance claims he didn't try to get a protective order, and defendant didn't get one either, so that part of the case is gone.   However, plaintiff fiance does have a restraining order against defendant's aunt (his witness).   (Plaintiff woman admits that they deliberately hiding the child from defendant.   Also, plaintiff fiance works in various states, so he doesn't have to live in Washington either).   Case dismissed.  

Mechanic Mayhem-Plaintiff suing mechanic for refund for uncompleted repairs, and an unpaid parking ticket.  Mechanic works out of his home, car repair is a side job for him.      Car was towed while the mechanic had possession, and plaintiff had to bail his car out of impound.  $1250 to plaintiff.

Second-

Friendly Neighborhood Road Rage-Plaintiff woman suing neighbor/ defendant man over a road rage incident (I already picked sides, I think the defendant is close to sane, the plaintiff not so close).   Plaintiff was backing out of her driveway, defendant was driving down the street and had right of way.   Plaintiff stopped backing, then she backed up into the driving lane, and defendant braked, and swerved.    Then plaintiff was yelling at him, and pulled up close behind him at the stop sign.   The defendant thought she wanted to "chat", so he got out of his car.   (Defendant should never have done that, years ago two friends were being harassed on the road, got out to "chat", and died right there).     Plaintiff is totally out of control in court.   On the roadside, both litigants were yelling like fools.   Plaintiff claims man hit her car with his hand, and didn't damage anything, or hit where the woman claims damage is from him.    Plaintiff is out of control in court, and claims defendant was swerving towards her car, (total garbage), and tried to hit her.   Plaintiff did not have right of way.  Defendant says woman was on cell phone, and smoking when backing out.  

 This happened on 7 September, and plaintiff didn't make the police report until 1 October.   Plaintiff claims defendant punched her car (let me guess, she had someone hit her car, and then decided to file report with police, blaming defendant).     $1637 to plaintiff, and that's wrong.   

Deceased Mom, Deadbeat Dad-Plaintiff former Mother-in-law suing former Son-in-law for social security checks going to the two daughters, after defendant's wife died.   Daughters went to live with grandmother, and are still there.     Plaintiff claims it was $800+ for each child from the beginning, and now is over $1100 each child.   MIL claims that former SIL illegally kept one daughter's SS payments for almost a year.   

However, the daughter in question was taken by grandmother when defendant wasn't home, and didn't have his permission.   He was thinking about filing kidnapping charges at the time.  The grandmother has legal guardianship of both girls for several years now.    SS Admin. paid $660 over to defendant, and grandmother will get that money.   Except grandmother didn't even have temporary guardianship when the daughters started living with him (my guess is that's about the time he remarried).   $6900-$1150 for first month, plaintiff gets $5,000.   

Horse Case-Defendant was selling horse on payments to plaintiff for 15 payments of $100 a month.   Plaintiff says it was a lease, not a sale, so she's suing for $2700 for board and feed.   Plaintiff says it was a lease to own (she was buying the horse on payments, another reason why I tell people to either keep the horse in your barn until it's paid for, or don't do payments).   $1400 to defendant for the horse, and plaintiff seems stunned.   The hall-terview is hysterical, where plaintiff has a meltdown, complete with crying on the bench of shame, and gasping.     Plaintiff thought she would get away with not paying for the horse.   

Edited January 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 1/24/2020 at 9:44 PM, alegtostandon said:

Due to a neighbor who claims to have enough control over their pit bull  so there is no need to walk him on a leash,  I no longer take my girls for walks. 

We had,in our neighborhood, two pits climb a 5 foot fence and maul  a little Yorkie.  The cops were involved, this was not their first rodeo and they were put down.  The owners are in a wee bit of trouble.  We have several large pits, rots and mix breeds in the neighborhood and any walking I now do is at the gym on the tread.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Caught Cheating-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend/ defendant lived together for about a year, and she's suing him for unpaid rent (living together doesn't lead to rent), and for an assault.    Plaintiff claims she found boyfriend, drunk, naked, texting another woman, and plaintiff called other woman, and told her to pick him up.   Plaintiff claims he assaulted her, bloodied her nose. 

Defendant claims he didn't assault her, but was trying to walk by her, and she was blocking him.   He also claims he wasn't drunk, but only had the typical two beers (probably two 55 gallon barrels of beer).    All of the charges were dropped, and no restraining order.  Plaintiff had a protective order hearing, both litigants testified, and nothing happened.  Defendant got engaged, briefly, but that ended.      Defendant's charges were dropped.    $250 to plaintiff for the assault.  

Compton Police Drop-Off-Plaintiff suing defendant over car sale, and he wants $4,000.   He gave defendant a down payment, and $300 payments each week to pay off the car ($1800 was the total cost).   Defendant says plaintiff was supposed to pay $450 a week to pay off car, and there is a signed contract.    When man was incarcerated, the defendant still wanted her money, and was going to report it stolen.  Plaintiff was only paying $300 of the $450, was jailed for other charges.      Car was impounded, and defendant couldn't get car out of impound yet.    Plaintiff wants $1300 he paid for the car back, and money for upgrades he made to the car, and personal belongings left in the car.   Defendant says the personal property was left at the Compton police station.

As JJ says, plaintiff wasn't paying the full payments, and reporting the car to the police as stolen was right.    Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant has her car back already.   Defendant in hall-terview says plaintiff keeps threatening to shoot her house up, so she's going to the police station the second she gets back to Compton.  

Second (Rerun)-

Don't Get Involved With Your Son's Coach-Plaintiff loaned $4500 to son's baseball coach for his DUI costs.   She claims the coach scammed other parents too.   Defendant scum ball claims it was a gift, not a loan, and in return for extra coaching for son.   Amazingly, his cell phone plan changed, and he lost the texts .   Plaintiff has check defendant cashed.  $4500 to plaintiff.  

Diamond Heist-Plaintiffs suing jeweler for refund for engagement ring, and travel expenses. Plaintiff ordered ring, paid defendant, but it wasn't ready on time, and he also wants travel expenses for one of those special proposal trips.    Defendant isn't a real jeweler that produces rings, etc. but a middle man who buys from others, which is a shock to the plaintiff.    Plaintiff paid $7,000 to defendant. Defendant counter suing for restocking fees.

 However, JJ is right, the office had no stock, and they called up websites and jewelers to select the ring he wanted.   GIA certification for the stone would come with it.   Defendant spent the $7,000 he collected from the plaintiff.   When plaintiff said he was going to sue for non-delivery, the plaintiff stopped production from the jeweler he placed the order with.  Plaintiff does know anything about buying diamonds or rings.   Plaintiff gets $5k (he still lost over $2,000+), and defendant is a crook according to JJ, and we know she knows diamonds, and sales. 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Toaster Strudel]

This is embarrassing.

Not only do I routinely park near shopping carts, but I nearly always park near the cart return because it's convenient and the space is often free! Besides, it's probably the safest place from being kit by a cart, the worst place is probably just across the cart return.

The defendant was parked in the handicapped parking spot so didn't have much choice of where to park, it was weird how JJ was so amazed with her logical powers that she kept repeating it (an incorrect premise) ad nauseam.

I can't believe the plaintiff got $750 for barely visible damage.

Perhaps JJ doesn't like fluorescent red hair and matching lipstick, especially on a homely woman.

Having said that... it was her cart that got away from her.

 

[AuntiePam]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Compton Police Drop-Off-

  Defendant in hall-terview says plaintiff keeps threatening to shoot her house up, so she's going to the police station the second she gets back to Compton.  

 

Who could blame her?  Plaintiff was scary!  I do wonder if there was more to the story.  Was he in jail because defendant accused him of stealing the car? 

Then he complains that the rims were all wrong.   What do rims have to do with a car's driveability?  If he had money for rims, he could have paid the defendant.

What TV show was it where we saw people renting rims?  I can't come up with the title -- main character named Daniel, he's on death row for 20 years for rape and murder, then released.  His stepbrother opens up a rim shop and gets beat up when trying to repossess some rims.  What the heck was the name of that show?  It was excellent.  It'll come to me in the middle of the night.

Toaster Strudel, exactly, with the carts!  She's gonna park in the handicapped spot and the handicapped spots are almost always next to the cart return.  But yeah, her cart got away from her.  I had some sympathy for her though, schlepping around with her mom in a wheelchair and two dogs. 

 

[Mondrianyone]

I have to say (well, I don't actually have to, but I will) that watching the grocery-cart case I felt like the most morally superior person on earth.  (I feel that way most of the time anyway, but for once there was a justification for it.)

About ten or fifteen years ago, my husband and I were coming out of a supermarket in some other town, so not a store where we were known.  It was nighttime, and I was feeling . . . exuberant (which does not mean drunk), and I was doing a sort of cabaret act there in the parking lot, and at the climax I aimed the empty cart at the cart return with a flourish.  It missed and went careening off in the direction of an old crusty car.  I ran as fast as I could to catch it, but I wasn't as fast as the cart, and it hit one of the headlights and cracked the plastic cover.

My husband always carries a little notebook in his shirt pocket, so I took it and started writing a note.  And no, it wasn't one of those notes that say "People watching me think I'm writing down my name and insurance info, but they're wrong."  It was a real note with my truthful name and all the rest of it.  The owner of the car came out and headed over while I was just finishing the note, and I handed it to her and apologized for being a dope (but a dope who could really sing well in a parking lot), and I took her details in return.  When I didn't hear from her in a couple of days, I called her, and she told me to forget about it, that her brother had gotten her a new headlight cover for practically nothing and everything was just fine.

I'm not sure what my point is in telling this ridiculous story, except maybe that you shouldn't finish your cabaret act by jet-propelling a shopping cart at an old car.  And also this is how semi-normal people act when unfortunate things happen and don't always have to end up on TV in front of an audience of 10 million just to avoid paying 75 bucks for a headlight cover.  And also to let everyone know how morally superior I am.  😇

[augmentedfourth]

Yeah, I think JJ missed the mark with the shopping cart case. Sometimes I DO park right next to a loose shopping cart in the lot...so I can take that cart and not worry about having to track down another one. That said, I also believe that the defendant had "taken ownership" of the cart and it did get away from her, based on her chasing it across the parking lot. She had a bit of a nasty attitude that really came out in the hallterview, so even though I don't agree with JJ's logic here, I also didn't lose any sleep over the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

[KittyMom4]

On 1/27/2020 at 10:29 PM, Florinaldo said:

Virago defendant joins the pantheon of despicable JJ litigants, determined to deny reality and facts at all turns to shirk responsibility. Even arguing she was afraid of the plaintiff, as if that mug was ever afraid of anyone as JJ pointed out.

 

On 1/27/2020 at 4:35 PM, patty1h said:

Chelsea Durham was being sued because she let a shopping cart get away and it hit the plaintiff's car.  That woman needs to get some lessons in lipstick application because the way she's applying it gives her a severe case of Resting Bitch Face.

 

14 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Not only do I routinely park near shopping carts, but I nearly always park near the cart return because it's convenient and the space is often free! Besides, it's probably the safest place from being kit by a cart, the worst place is probably just across the cart return.

 

2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Yeah, I think JJ missed the mark with the shopping cart case. Sometimes I DO park right next to a loose shopping cart in the lot...so I can take that cart and not worry about having to track down another one

I think Judge Judy was emphasizing that no one would park near a stray cart on a WINDY day as the defendant had alleged it was, and I agree. I too always park near a cart coral, or even a cart if it isn't rolling around because that way I can just grab it and go rather than fight for one inside the vestibule.

@Florinaldo and @patty1h, that face was scary! Lipstick or not, she had a fully active bitch face, no resting there. She looked loaded for bear from the moment the plaintiff started telling her story, her lips quivered like she was about to spit nails. I'm positive that was not the first confrontation she's had, and likely most people would walk away rather than deal with that raging pitbull. 

[KittyMom4]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Caught Cheating-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend/ defendant lived together for about a year, and she's suing him for unpaid rent (living together doesn't lead to rent), and for an assault.    Plaintiff claims she found boyfriend, drunk, naked, texting another woman, and plaintiff called other woman, and told her to pick him up.   Plaintiff claims he assaulted her, bloodied her nose. 

Those 2 deserved each other, she so desperate she'd let that pudgy, dumb Lothario move in with her and throw money at him like it was raining cash. And him so stupid as to get drunk, half naked, (ICK!!!) and then pass out while texting another desperate dimbulb.

Judge Judy's advice to the plaintiff at the end of the case probably went over her head as well. If you have to start paying his bills on the 2nd date, MOVE ON!!! 

Edited January 29, 2020 by BexKeps
too many words

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Chelsea Durham was being sued because she let a shopping cart get away and it hit the plaintiff's car.  That woman needs to get some lessons in lipstick application because the way she's applying it gives her a severe case of Resting Bitch Face.  She could also seek out a prescription for some industrial strength mood elevators, if talking about a runaway cart makes her look like she's on the verge of a flood of tears.  She also looks like she would be a major snot when confronted at the scene, exasperated by having to wrangle her mom, two dogs and chase a fleeing cart in a windy parking lot.

I have a non-drinking game that I play when watching JJ. At some point I watch the defendants and try and figure out if they are going to act like a 3 year old with a bad "you-can't-make-me" attitude, crossing of the arms, snotty nosed vocal affliction, etc. The Lipstick Lady would have made me more tipsy that Mondrianyone in a parking lot doing her dance routine (and I stand in solidarity with you as I have danced many MANY times in parking lots, mostly without the aid of liquid courage, and yes, a few times involving a shopping cart). Lipstick Lady got all snarky and I'm sure that didn't help her case at all. 

BTW, the majority of our cart returns where I live are far far away from the handicapped spots. (source: I have a handicapped placard and try to scope out a cart before I get out of my car - yes, I am one of those cranky old bats that uses the cart for a walking aid on many occasions). 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016 or so-

First-

How Do You Support Yourself?-Plaintiff suing ex-landlord for vandalizing and stealing her property, plaintiff's boyfriend moved in too.   Plaintiff wants $3000 for a 60" TV, laptop, etc.   Rent was $650 a month.    Plaintiff has her own home business, and boyfriend works with his mother as a dog groomer sometimes (he's been unemployed for two years awaiting surgery).    In six months the police three or four times, were called because of fights between the two plaintiffs, according to female plaintiff.    However, defendant claims there were 10 police calls, in six months.    On September 5th plaintiff, and defendant all called the police, and defendant received a Temporary Restraining Order against male plaintiff.    Plaintiff male has been in prison for drugs (2 years for selling meth).      

There were home window damages.   Plaintiff boyfriend broke a window, and claims as long as his girlfriend was living in the home, he was going to stay (that's why the Temporary Protective Order).    Defendant claims plaintiff male was using drugs in her home.    Plaintiff woman filed no taxes, because she didn't know she had to, and  how is she paying rent, and buying a lot of expensive stuff?   Defendant also had help pulling up, and destroying plaintiff males marijuana plants, and he's whining about that.    Defendant is counter suing for house damages.

Neighbor called defendant about the two plaintiffs moving things out over a four day period.   This was after plaintiff male was served with a restraining order to stay away from the house.     Plaintiff case dismissed.     Defendant case dismissed too, and she has a restraining order for three years against plaintiffs.   

Don't Cross the Yellow Line-Plaintiff and mother are suing defendant over traffic accident.   No surprise the defendant didn't have insurance at the time.  Plaintiff daughter was driving, (her car was insured).   Defendant is counter claiming for car damages on her uninsured car.  PLaintiff was driving home, was in the left lane, and defendant pulled out from the gas station on the right side of the street, and hit plaintiff.     Defendant says she was in the left turn lane, going the other way, was across the yellow line on plaintiff's side, and claims plaintiff hit her then.   Defendant was on plaintiff's side of the road, so she's going to lose.  Defendant took off after the accident.  Defendant received a ticket for no insurance, and should have been cited for hit and run.  

Plaintiff receives $2500

Second-

Blame it on Your Bro!-Plaintiff suing his former friend for damaging his fence when he ran over it with his car.   Defendant claims his currently incarcerated brother was driving, not him.  Plaintiff's  daughter witnessed the accident.   The fence, and a shed were the casualties.   Plaintiff saw two people standing by the car after the accident.   Defendant claims his brother handed him his driver's license, and then brother left.   Whoever was driving, the car is owned by the defendant.   Defendant's pathetic story is he was going out, so he drove to his mother's house, and left the car and his driver's license there, and that's when brother took the car.   JJ gets a real kick out of defendant's sworn statement, because it full of lies.  Defendant girlfriend claims boyfriend drives one of her family's cars, not his own, and his car has no insurance.   However, defendant isn't named on girlfriend's family's car insurance.     Plaintiff receives $5,000

Bulldog vs. Little Girl-Plaintiff suing neighbor over dog bite on her little girl, for medical bills, and pain and suffering.        

Defendant claims the girl provoked his dog before it bit her on the leg.    Plaintiff says his bull dog mix is about 40 lbs., and gets out of the yard many times, and has been brought back by the plaintiff at least 7 times.     Defendant Hea'venleigh Marshall (No, I'm not kidding, that's his name)  saw the bite happen, and claims the kids he was watching were chasing the dog with a stick, and the dog bit the little girl.      Animal control did not quarantine the dog.   The next day after the attack, the dog was loose again when the police report was being done, and on one other occasion.    Dog was moved to the cousin's house.        Plaintiff receives $248 for medical costs, and JJ doubles that to $500. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Water Birth Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing her former midwife for her fee, for staying with another patient who was in labor, and not dumping that patient to come to her baby's birth.  The birth was at a birthing center owned by the defendant, with two labor / delivery suites, and also do water births, like the plaintiff wanted.   

Defendant charges $5500 for a birthing center birth, and there is a signed contract by both parties.    Contract clearly says that midwife might be at another birth, and the specific midwife isn't guaranteed.     The other birth was a home birth, and then had to finish at the hospital (midwife couldn't work at the hospital).      Then plaintiff went into labor, and she went to the birthing center.   The other midwife was in attendance at the Birthing Center.   Plaintiff claims the second midwife wasn't qualified.   

Defendant stayed with plaintiff for about an hour, and left her with the other midwife.   Defendant went back to the hospital, because the other woman's baby died.  Plus, defendant had been up for almost 24 hours by that time.  Plaintiff stayed at the Birthing Center for 23 hours, and then transferred to the hospital.   Second midwife advised client to go to hospital, because her labor wasn't progressing.    

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry).   

$5,000 to plaintiff, who applauds loudly.   (Sorry, the contract was fulfilled.   Why would anyone want the first midwife there after she'd been on her feet for an entire day?)

Cheap Leash? Injured Dog-Plaintiff suing over injuries to his cute, but dentally challenged dog.   Plaintiff was walking his two Maltipoos, on leash, when one was attacked by defendant's dog.    Defendant claims their German Shepherd slipped it's collar, and then attacked.    Plaintiff was walking two dogs on sidewalk, defendant was with her son in front of her house, with her son, and two GSDs.    GSDs started barking, and plaintiff crossed the street.   Defendant son says dog slipped the collar, and attacked plaintiff's dogs in the middle of the street.    Defendant says attack was in the middle of her front yard, but plaintiff says he was on the sidewalk, and then was crossing the street when the attack happened.   Animal control was called, and there was no action taken.      

$3445 to plaintiff for the vet bills. 

Second (Rerun)-

Inheritance Riddled With Debt-Plaintiff foreclosure consultant is suing defendant over a real estate deal.    Defendant inherited a house (in 2012), but didn't realize that the house had $400k in liens on it (reverse mortgage).  It took 6 years to confirm the mortgage, and defendant tried to weasel out of the mortgage.   She negotiated a short sale with the lender, to sell to her daughter.   Plaintiff was hired to stop the foreclosure, and negotiate with the bank.    Foreclosure was stopped, but plaintiff was only paid $2k. 

Reverse mortgage was $400k, but defendant's father used over $200k.  Defendant settled for $348k, instead of $400k.     (I hate that piercing or whatever it is between defendant's eyebrows).   Defendant now says she already had a short sale agreement with the bank, so plaintiff is claimed to be in cahoots with the bank.  Plaintiff claims to have a signed contract, but doesn't-even I know that's garbage.   Contract submitted by plaintiff is unsigned.  Byrd has to go and tell defendant to shut up.   Both women whine like crazy when JJ dumps their cases.      Both women are cuckoos, and need to be booted out. Case dismissed for both litigants, and that's what they deserve. 

Fool Falls for Nigerian Stranger Scam-Plaintiff suing defendant for helping an online scammer steal from her.   Plaintiff saw apartment advertised on craigslist, and plaintiff wired money for deposit to defendant, which was three months rent.   It went to defendant's bank account.    Plaintiff went to get the keys, and she was told current tenant wasn't moving out, and she would get a refund.   Supposedly, scammer phoned plaintiff, emailed, and texts that tenant wasn't moving, and money would be refunded. 

Defendant says Nigerian scammer was in Texas, and would be her friend,  and give her a lot of money.    Defendant claims the $3,000+ went to a closed bank account.   Defendant still says she doesn't have the money, that the scammer took it out of her account.  Plaintiff says defendant was listed on the lease as attorney, and with the defendant's account information.  Defendant is either a fool, for giving the man her banking information, or a scammer.  My guess is that the defendant is in on the scam, and has some of the money that the 'boyfriend' is conning people out of. (I had to laugh when defendant says that man was traveling in Nigeria, and the woman behind her in the audience flinched).    

Plaintiff receives $3,150 

(I lived near a woman that fell for another variation of this.    The scammers charged hundreds of thousands in computer, and electronics, mostly prohibited for shipping overseas without a license, by stealing the identity of another man.   The packages went to the fool's house, and she would reship overseas, labelled something harmless.   Then the victim who had their credit stolen is out hundreds of thousands, the fool was paid a little, and lots of vital electronics went to people who shouldn't have them.  They feds proved she had received and shipped at least a couple of million worth of electronics, and computer hardware.   The feds hauled her away one afternoon.   People I knew that knew her said, she was dumb as a box of hammers).

[Mondrianyone]

5 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

The Lipstick Lady would have made me more tipsy that Mondrianyone in a parking lot doing her dance routine (and I stand in solidarity with you as I have danced many MANY times in parking lots, mostly without the aid of liquid courage, and yes, a few times involving a shopping cart).

Who needs booze when you have talent!?!  Here's to all the crazy women singing and dancing in parking lots.  (I'm not sure my husband would raise a glass to that particular toast.)

[edie3]

21 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

And also to let everyone know how morally superior I am.  😇

and talented!

[Florinaldo]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Water Birth Gone Wrong-

After so many out-of control brides with unrealistic expectations, we now meet that rare but still related sub-species, the parturientzilla, whose loins as so precious and sacred that only the sole midwife of her choise can be authorised to work on them.

I could not understand how JJ sided with her, even forgiving her loud and vulgar clapping after the verdict. It should have been argued that by going back to the hospital, the senior midwife was simply continuing with an ongping birth procedure, as per the contract. Perhaps JJ would then not have made such a narrow and one-sided reading of the contract (although her mind was probably already made up). I agree that plaintiff was a fool to insist that a dead-tired midwife who had already been up for 24 hours should be the one assisting her. And JJ stupidily went along with her.

11 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I think Judge Judy was emphasizing that no one would park near a stray cart on a WINDY day as the defendant had alleged it was, and I agree.

Even on non-windy days, cars are not safe from runaway carts managed by irresponsible shoppers, whether one parks near a cart return or as far away from it as possible.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Mondrianyone]

11 hours ago, edie3 said:

and talented!

Well, you only have my word for that, to be fair.  🤡

[bad things are bad]

Quote

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry).   

As was she. What an entitled awful person, and again society says thanks for whelping out more of your subpar DNA

I agree with Florinaldo, JJ was way off. 

[VartanFan]

Quote

As was she. What an entitled awful person, and again society says thanks for whelping out more of your subpar DNA

The most she should have gotten was a portion of her  money back (I supposed 5k is a portion of 5500...but still).  She hung out at the birthing center for an entire day.  I had a doula when I had my kids and she introduced me to another doula that she knew because of not being sure who would be there at the birth.  Turns out the woman I hired wasn't the one there.  Oh well.  The loud clapping made me hope Judy would reduce the award.