All Episodes Talk: All Rise

zillabreeze · June 6, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $300.

Boy, that was a let down! She had her 5k spent! Roof was falling in, EVERYTHING was ruined, but she's got zip for pictures of her Second Katrina.

Earlier, when JJ was quizzing about P's rental history, she said she left one abode because "they didn't do Section 8 anymore". Ummm? Ya think?

Landlording is not in my future. EVER. Section 8? Oh hell no!

One Tough Cookie · June 7, 2020

I swear Byrd has the sunniest smile and I always appreciate the Byrd Boot.

CrazyInAlabama · June 8, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Section 8 Housing Upset-Plaintiff suing former tenant for damage to rental home, and stolen property. Defendant was Section 8 (where state pays almost all of the rent, and tenant pays some). Defendant claims she replaced the blinds, stove knobs, faucets, and left them behind, however plaintiff says she's a liar. Defendant submits an old inspection by the Section 8 people. Plaintiff says the housing people took pictures of the condition on move out. Defendant claims Section 8 wouldn't have let her move on to the next place, if she trashed the plaintiff's unit.

Plaintiff claims defendant took all of the furniture that he put in the home, but defendant claims she paid him $1850 for it (home was rented furnished). Defendant claims she bought furniture from plaintiff for $1800, but has some fake receipt for it. Defendant claims she replaced the beds, because the furnished beds had bed bugs and were trashed.

JJ goes to make the phone call of doom, to the inspector, who declines to talk to her. Then JJ wants to know why defendant chopped up the kitchen counter tops?(comparing the move in picture, and move out picture). Defendant is counter suing for return of rent, and security deposit.

$5,000 to plaintiff, nothing for defendant.

Junkyard or Legit Auto Business?-Plaintiff suing former tenant, for two months unpaid rent, and property damages. Plaintiff had defendant evicted for code violations. Defendant and four children, later husband moved in. Plaintiff says the worst damage was that defendant left cars behind in the back yard, one on a trailers, some without tires.

Plaintiff, and codes enforcement allege that defendant was running a junk yard, with cars on the lawn, on the street, in the back yard, with photos from the City of Sacramento. The codes enforcement photos are appalling. Apparently neighbors told plaintiff about the property, and she drove by, and called codes enforcement, and started eviction proceedings. Defendant blames trash on neighborhood dogs. Defendant husband buys, fixes up, and sells the cars (illegal in a rental, and residential neighborhood). Security deposit was $1500, outside photos were awful, but landlady didn't take inside photos.

Plaintiff gets two months rent, keeps security deposit, and gets $2,000 (She would have received $5k if she would have had pictures of the damages).

Second-

Uber Accident Victim-Plaintiff (Uber driver) was making a left turn, and defendant backed out of his driveway, and backed into plaintiff. Unfortunately, defendant has no license, registration, or insurance, because he just bought the car the day before. He was driving his child to school (and probably everywhere else too). Defendant claims he was going to drop his child at school, then register and insure the car.

Defendant promised to pay for the accident, and he would pay plaintiff when his $9,000+ school funds came in (Byrd should have mailed defendant the check faster).

Plaintiff's Uber insurance paid, except for the $1,000 deductible, so she gets $1,000 from JJ., plus a week of lost Uber wages, and car rental, $767. Plaintiff gets $2500.

Divorce Debit Drama-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for fraudulent use of his health care debit card for one of their common children. The debit card was tied to an HSA for medical, dental etc, but only for medical treatment. Plaintiff says defendant used the HSA debit card for the 27 year old daughter, not the 17 year old child.

27 year old daughter is defendant's witness, and says father said she could use the card for over $500 in lab tests, plaintiff denies this. JJ insists that the 27 year old daughter is who the plaintiff should sue, and I sadly agree, or else he should pay the bill himself if he refuses to sue the daughter. However, I suspect the mother (defendant) did give the information to the older daughter. (I think the older daughter is lying, and took the information after she was too old to be on the father's insurance).

I think the plaintiff sued the right person. As a graduate of the Law & Order, L.A. Law, Boston Legal School of Law, my opinion is the ex-wife/defendant was the guardian of the card information. The father also never let other older children use the debit card.

Case dismissed.

(I know someone who tried to use a family member's insurance like this, and not only was it denied, but that person wasn't allowed to get on the company plan for a year as a penalty, for health care fraud.).

Bongs and Pipes...Oh My-Plaintiff/ landlord suing former tenant for damages (It's a historic Hollywood building, and defendant lived there for four or five years). The $5500 security deposit wasn't returned. ($3281 was rent!), and tenant didn't pay the last two months rent. JJ doesn't like the bills presented, and photos by landlord. Between unpaid rent, and broken floor tile, the $5500 security is used up.

Landlord keeps the $5500, and that's it (I totally believe the former tenant was responsible for the bongs, and paraphernalia left behind, and broken door).

CrazyInAlabama · June 8, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns (only the second episode Wednesday is supposed to be new, but my cable guide lies a lot)-

First-

Feminist Dating App Meets the Me Too Movement-Plaintiff and defendant met online, then defendant needed money, amounting to $1,030. Plaintiff suing for the unpaid loans, threats, and defaming him to his boss, and co-workers. Defendant claims it wasn't romantic, but they only kissed a few times. The first loan request was a couple of weeks after they first met, and they had only met in person once. First loan was $650 for her rent, second was for $25, $10 more, $20 more, and $300, and lastly $25, totaling $1030. (Defendant wasn't worth $1.30, let alone $1030. They only met one other time in person. Plaintiff actually wasn't totally stupid, and has a text from defendant stating she will pay him back.

After the pay you back text from defendant, she called his boss and said plaintiff was crazy, and stalking her. As JJ says, crying sexual harassment is abusive when it's false. Defendant claims plaintiff sent her weird videos, but she deleted them. (My opinion is defendant spent the money on microbladed brows, eyelash extentions, etc.).

What a leach the defendant is, so $1030 to plaintiff. JJ gives the defendant a piece of her mind about scamming people for money. JJ has to point the correct way out.

Hall-terview defendant says he realizes the woman was spending her money on marijuana and kittens. Defendant still calls the man a weird stalker, and she should be ashamed.

Broken-Jaw Sucker Punch-Plaintiff suing defendant for punching him, and breaking his jaw. However, plaintiff already sued in Arizona, and won a default judgement because defendant didn't show up, and Arizona has a maximum of $3500 in small claims.

JJ advises she would have hired a lawyer, and sued the man, and had his wages garnished. Plaintiff claims he's only suing for pain and suffering, and punitive damages, and JJ doesn't like that. JJ says he should go to a marshal, and register a garnishment. Defendant is ordered to give his place of employment, and social security number.

Plaintiff's mother says her son didn't want to file criminal charges, and seems to think JJ should pay the money, so defendant doesn't have to. Plaintiff mother goes bye-bye. Defendant doesn't want to give his social, employer, etc. and JJ has to mention that it's a long walk home to Arizona if he doesn't shut up.

When defendant says he won't give his information, JJ points out that the show staff have the information, and will give it to the plaintiff so he can file for the money. (The show has to report the award money to the IRS, so they do have that information).

Second-

Tell Me Cheating Details or I Toss Your Stuff-Plaintiff suing former co-worker, and love object for a TV, and a laptop she smashed. Litigants worked together at a real estate office. Plaintiff left the job, defendant is still there. TV was at defendant's place, and plaintiff claimed it was loaned to her, and when he wanted it back she told him to stuff it. Plaintiff wants value of TV, and JJ says if he doesn't want it back, then that's dismissed.

Plaintiff says defendant smashed his laptop, after a fight, after defendant accused the plaintiff of cheating on her. Plaintiff says defendant threw the laptop across the room, and said if he didn't tell her about his cheating, that she would keep breaking stuff. (The plaintiff is a serial abuser of the word "conversate", I really hate both of these litigants).

The people were together for over six months after the laptop incident, and in between he gave her the TV to keep for him. They both claim they weren't dating any longer for a month or so, and defendant claims plaintiff was harassing her at work, and wouldn't stop sending her personal texts, and emails. Plaintiff was fired from the company, because of his harassment of defendant.

Plaintiff just won't get it through his head that defendant isn't paying him for the laptop, or the TV. I find him scary.

Plaintiff gets $1,000 for laptop, and I don't know why, I bet so he'll stop harassing the woman.

Florinaldo · June 9, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I think the older daughter is lying, and took the information after she was too old to be on the father's insurance).

I think the plaintiff sued the right person.

For some reason, JJ decided that the daughter's testimony was unassailable and definitive proof that it happened the way she said. She gave no credit to the father's version, although he seemed credible. I think the mother may very well be using the kids as pawns in a guerilla against him. Another ruling apparently based on arbitrariness, unless there was something in the file that was not shared with us.

CrazyInAlabama · June 9, 2020

I wonder if the mother submitted other times that the father's insurance coverage was used for the older kids? I guess we'll never know.

Bobby88 · June 9, 2020

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When defendant says he won't give his information, JJ points out that the show staff have the information, and will give it to the plaintiff so he can file for the money. (The show has to report the award money to the IRS, so they do have that information).

I didn't know that. If that's the case, why does JJ demand that so many litigants give their social security number in open court? And she insists that they do so VERBALLY in front of an audience and gets furious when people understandably refuse! On very few occasions, she will let the litigant write it down, but still. What is the purpose of this battle of wills if show already has the information on file? I wonder if it's to see if the litigant gives the same social security number as the one they gave the producers, but screaming at someone to give it to you in a room full of people is ridiculous. Regardless of someone's guilt or innocence in a case, most people (myself included) won't simply blurt out their social like they're announcing the time of day to anyone who demands it.

Despite this not being an appropriate case for the show (JJ was totally correct not to hear it out), I have a feeling that there's more to the assault itself than just the defendant sucker punching the plaintiff out of the blue. And I actually kind of believe the plaintiff when he says that he thought the case in JJ's court was about something else. I wonder if the producers could have told him one thing to get him to appear (since he apparently didn't show up at the first hearing) and the true nature of the case came out when the cameras started rolling. Talk show producers have done this since the early 90s when the Jerry Springer genre of confrontational talk shows first became popular, and many shows were sued over it.

I don't think the defendant is blameless by any means, but I also wouldn't put it past the JJ producers to engage in some sleight of hand to lure certain litigants who otherwise might not have wanted to come. Even if it's a show about the "law", JJ is still a TV show whose goal (like any other show featuring real people) is to be entertaining. We should never lose sight of that.

CrazyInAlabama · June 9, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Social Security Fraud?-Plaintiff suing defendant for failing to build a website for his business (sportswearalley was the website), to sell shirts, and other items for sports teams. It took five months to get the team jerseys loaded, but the payment method and prices were never given by the plaintiff. Defendant says plaintiff wanted the business to be low key, so it wouldn't interfere with his Social Security Disability.

Defendant also says web site for t-shirt business needed information that plaintiff refused to give him. Plaintiff wants almost $4k. Deposit was $1800 to defendant. Did I hear correctly that plaintiff has been on disability for 4 to 5 years? or 45 years? Plaintiff also didn't get a payment method, corporate filing with the state, tax numbers, jersey descriptions, and didn't register the company name, and buy a domain. (By the way the website is for sale for almost $9k now, so I guess this never was resolved).

Plaintiff swears defendant was going to negotiate with suppliers in China for NFL jerseys, not right (Jerseys in China are not legit, and are counterfeit). Defendant says he never said anything about getting jersey's for the plaintiff.

Case dismissed, filed too early pending plaintiff actions

Ex-Lovers Break It Down-Plaintiff and ex-live in suing for tablet, unpaid rent, and hotel costs. Defendant says plaintiff and child moved in with him at his place, and she barely paid rent. He got sick of this, and asked woman and her child (apparently more than one child now) to leave. Plaintiff wants her rent back, but there's no proof she paid rent. Defendant claims woman lived there for three or four months, and didn't pay her $200 a month rent.

Case dismissed.

Second-

Arrest Him for Fraud- Plaintiff suing defendant for repayment of money ($5400) paid to defendant to buy him a truck. Defendant buys vehicle for people. Plaintiff's witness is another victim of defendant's car buying scheme. Defendant never found a truck for the plaintiff, but didn't repay the $5,400. Defendant offered his truck to plaintiff for the money, but there was a $4,000 title loan on the truck, so it couldn't be registered. Minus payments the title loan is now $3600 (A Title Max lien is $10 a day interest = $300 a month).

JJ will send TItleMax the check for the lien, and plaintiff will get a free and clear title, and can insure and register the truck. Then $1400 left goes to the plaintiff's witness, who was also scammed. (For some reason D.A. and police refuse to do something about this fraudster. Wonder if defendant is related to someone in local government?)

Pay Me Back Auntie-Plaintiff suing his Aunt/defendant for giving her a home, health care (Care credit charges), and a car demand payback. Aunt was going to be homeless, and aunt moved in with son, into plaintiff's house for $500 a month (plaintiff wife has fluorescent purple hair, and a red sweater, my eyes are hurting from the clashing colors).

Defendant used over $705 on Care credit from plaintiff, and repaid some, but still owes $695. Plaintiff leased a car, and loaned it to defendant, and defendant was supposed to get a loan for car, but never did. Tolls on leased car, $280.

(My guess is the plaintiffs brought Aunt to court, because they know she's broke, and this is the only way they'll get their money. Also, nephew/plaintiff drove the car to Mexico, is that allowed on leases?).

$973 total to plaintiff.

Edited June 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · June 9, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first one recent rerun, second one new (only new one this week I think)-

First-

Teen Suicide Sadness-Plaintiff is father of 16 year old who committed suicide with a shotgun, seven years ago. Son bought a shotgun at 14, from the father's job at a sports store (father actually purchased the guns since son was underage). After the suicide the father gave the guns to the plaintiff/brother. Father is suing his other son for the guns that he has, including the one his brother used, so the tragedy won't be repeated. The brother/defendant received four guns, and plaintiff/father wants the four guns back. Father says he's worried about an accident or another suicide with the guns in the son's home. Defendant says father never said anything to him about the accident risk, and he's had the guns for seven years.

Defendant says he thinks it's father's way of getting back at him because of his parent's current, apparently bitter divorce. (JJ slips and says something about divorce being because the father moved on to another woman, apparently a yoga instructor).

JJ is overstepping, it's not her place to butt into someone else's relationship, and how the parents relate to their children. How the family is divided over the divorce is not JJ's business. Also, if mother was dumped by husband after 37 years, then I imagine she was blindsided by having to make her own way after the divorce. I see no other explanation for the seven years that passed before this case was filed, after the son and brother's suicide, except to stick it to the son about the divorce.

JJ says guns were a gift of many years ago, and that can't be undone. Case dismissed.

Hallterview is interesting, plaintiff claims defendant, and other children are keeping his grandchildren from him in retaliation for the divorce. Maybe the adult children don't want their children around a vindictive man, who dumped their grandmother for someone else? My guess is the father expects his adult children to pick him over the soon-to-be ex-wife?

(There must have been a lot of smutty remarks in the sworn statements by both litigants. So apparently daddy dumped mommy after 37 years of marriage, for some yoga instructor? I'd pick mom's side too in that case, unless mom was a total jerk).

Van Halen Tribute Band Fail-Plaintiff is suing former band mate over theft of speakers for their Van Halen Tribute band. Band is a side gig for musicians. Defendant ran into financial issues, and sold cables, mics, speakers, etc. Other members were unhappy about this, so defendant quit the band. The guitar player trademarked the band name, and when the defendant heard there was a gig, he called the club and said it was a trademark violation to use the name, so gig was cancelled. Guaranteed fee for the canceled gig was $500.

Plaintiff paid $1045 for the speakers, used off of Amazon.

Plaintiff keeps asking "what was the question again, and again". Plaintiff is a total smart ass. Plaintiff gets $300 for speakers, and thank heavens he's gone. (I couldn't stand the plaintiff, and don't understand why anyone wants to be in a band with him).

Second (New)-

Over-Reaching Elder Abuse-Plaintiff suing father's former caregiver for an unpaid loan, and elder abuse Defendant worked for father for three months, and he bought her a car. Defendant worked for father for about 18 months, and was fired. Defendant claims she's disabled from being born with dislocated hips, and mostly took care of the man's dog. Car was purchased, and titled by plaintiff's late father. The daughter/plaintiff found out about the car purchase, and returned it to the car dealer for a full refund after seven days, so elder abuse is dismissed.

Defendant admits plaintiff's father loaned defendant $300, the month after woman was hired. (Doesn't anyone ever do criminal checks before hiring caregivers?)

$300 to plaintiff.

Three Fathers for One Child-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of plaintiff's daughter's welfare payments (daughter was brought to court by defendant, is only 11, and is asked to wait outside the court room). Plaintiff and ex had four kids, one son full time, the other three 50/50 custody (the one full time child is still with plaintiff, and one other one, the others are grown, and gone). Then ex-wife had a baby while living with defendant, but baby isn't defendant's biological kid, baby is the 11 year old girl in court.

Defendant is raising the daughter as his own. Julisa (11 year old) went into foster care after Defendant and her mother had a domestic violence case, and mother went to jail. Then the plaintiff took the girl into his home. Defendant claims he doesn't get SS for daughter, but maybe the mother did? However, plaintiff wants the state child care payments that the mother, and defendant received, adding up to $1230 over the 10 month period.

No one is paying child support for child, including the biological father.

Plaintiff receives $1323.

Cosmetics and Fashion-Plaintiff suing defendant/former business partner for failing to deliver a clothing order, and lost wages. Plaintiff wants $1400 ($400 was for the clothing order, the $1,000 for lost wages). Plaintiff claims she receive no clothes, and defendant claims he did give her some of the clothing order. Litigants keep yakking back and forth. Defendant's witness apparently has Woolly Bear Caterpillars glued to her eye lashes.

Defendant sent plaintiff a text saying when another person paid him money he was owed, and he would pay plaintiff.

$400 to plaintiff.

Edited June 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · June 10, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Three Fathers for One Child-

That was a rarity: 2 litigants both having at heart the interests of a child who is not their own. Although plaintiff certainly seemed more responsible than the defendant.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Florinaldo

configdotsys · June 10, 2020

Not all renters treat property like trash.

CrazyInAlabama · June 10, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Squatter Extortionist-Plaintiff suing ex-landlord. She lived in room in man's house for over two years, but claims she should get her rent back, be paid for her lost property, was illegally evicted, and still lived there while taking the defendant to housing court. Plaintiff claimed she was over charged for rent, and her rent should have been rent control. (Plaintiff is a bottle server at events or a bar, I don't drink, so I don't have a clue about this job).

Defendant says renting rooms in a private house is not subject to rent control (L.A. Housing Authority), plaintiff disagrees, and L.A. Housing later says not rent controlled. So plaintiff claims house was disgusting, but she couldn't find another place in L.A. to rent.

Plaintiff stayed for five months, after she was issued a three day notice to leave, but never paid rent during those months at all. I love the defendant's happy smile when he realizes he has won the case.

No return any payments will happen after the Housing Authority ruling. Housing also said they don't have jurisdiction over single family homes, so squatter plaintiff arguing with JJ is despicable. And if the plaintiff rolls her eyes at JJ again, I want Byrd to boot her.

Plaintiff case is dismissed by JJ.

There is a counter claim for five months rent. $3,000 to defendant, and nothing to the plaintiff. (Defendant's daughter says plaintiff is upset she had to move, didn't win, and can no longer dance naked in the defendant's back yard).

Entrepreneur on the Hot Seat-Plaintiff suing defendant for selling her a Prius with a lien (title loan) on it. (defendant told to button his shirt, thanks JJ, but next time send Byrd to do it with duct tape). Plaintiffs were told there was a title loan, but they claim the defendant was going to pay off the title loan, and went to the bank with him, and he gave plaintiffs a receipt for the payment of the title loan. (The plaintiff looks so much like a lady I used to work with, she could be her twin).

Plaintiffs went to DMV to register car, told lien was still on it, wait a couple of days for it to clear, but it never did. Defendant had a few bounced checks owed to the bank, so the bank took the loan payment to cover the checks. Plaintiff paid off the title loan, because they wanted the Prius ($9,000+), and defendant claims he would repay the money within 30 days. Defendant never paid a penny to plaintiffs on the Title Loan pay off. Plaintiffs gets $5,000, which is all that JJ can give them, and defendant is still a jerk.

Second-

$100,000 Dog Attack Nightmare-Plaintiff Tasha suing neighbor Tosha over defendant's Rhodesian Ridgeback. Plaintiff wants money for the attack, and harassment. Plaintiff says the dog got loose, and frightened plaintiff and her one year old child, and both fell. Plaintiff says dog was let out, in the fenced yard, and dog was trying to get over fence. Fence looks like a 4 ft chain link, and that's nothing for a Rhodesian Ridgeback to go over, even a young one. Plaintiff says dog jumped over the fence, and then wiggled back through gate. (Personal note-I've known a lot of people with Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and their fences were very tall. A Ridgeback that hopped over a 4 ft chain link fence would just hop back, not have to wiggle back through a gate.)

Plaintiff says her older daughter was previously bitten repeatedly, and had several stitches, That dog also belonged to defendant (that dog went to live with grandpa on the farm, which we all know means a dirt nap for doggy). Plaintiff was suing for $100,000. That case was settled for $51K, but it was $38K after fees. Homeowner's insurance was cancelled after the claim, and there is no more insurance. (Plaintiff bringing the older daughter to court to be a living exhibit is awful. Putting your child on exhibit in court is not right).

Plaintiff in this case was in her driveway, and hurt her leg trying to get the one year old out of the way, and also wants money for the one year old's injuries when plaintiff threw her out of the way. Defendant witness is the defendant's younger daughter, who wasn't the witness that day. Defendant's older daughter was the witness, but she didn't come to court.

Plaintiff and defendant are whining about which daughter saw what. (To paraphrase Judge Marilyn Milian [spelling] "I wouldn't believe any of the litigants or witnesses if their tongues were notarized". I find it interesting that plaintiff has animal control reports, but can't open them, so has no proof.) JJ talks to the daughter of defendant, who claims the dog was never outside of the fence. (I'm guessing that if plaintiff had a case, that some personal injury lawyer would have gone after the defendant, but there is no proof). (Note to JJ, if you have a settled dog bite in your past, then no insurance company will ever insure any animal you own ever again.)

Case dismissed, there is no proof of any dog attack, or escape.

CrazyInAlabama · June 10, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Project Getaway-Plaintiff suing suing ex-boyfriend for an airline ticket, Airbnb costs, and damages after she financed his trip to NYC for Fashion Week. He's a draftsman, and mode,l and show biz entrepreneur. They usually met in the park, and only went out one time. Defendant was supposed to be getting a client into Fashion Week, had no money so he borrowed his expenses from plaintiff.

Plaintiff receives $1,588.

Teen Harassed for 20 Bucks- Plaintiff claims he lost his job for not paying $20 back to defendant. Plaintiff claims the relationship turned ugly when he refused defendant's advances. Plaintiff is also married, so not open to other relationships.

Plaintiff's witness gets smacked back to her seat. Plaintiff claims he didn't have $20 to pay the defendant back, so defendant came to his job and made a scene that resulted in plaintiff getting fired.

(Defendant's hair is hideous. It looks like I styled it, which isn't a good look.)

Case dismissed. Nice try to get a bunch of money from the show, but not happening.

Second-

Poisoned by Tattoo Artist-Plaintiff claims defendant tattoo artist injured her skin with a leg tattoo,(the tattoo was a rose, on her leg) and it later became infected. Defendant said woman never complains until he saw bad reviews on Yelp, Google, etc, and when defendant contacted her she only sent him a blurry photo Defendant claims he has never had another skin infection from a tattoo in the 10 years his business has been open.

Plaintiff didn't go to Urgent Care until a week after the tattoo. The defendant claims his shop is regularly inspected by the county. (My guess is that plaintiff didn't follow instructions about care. I wonder if she's allergic to the ink? Just because you had successful tattoos before, doesn't mean you won't develop an allergy).

Plaintiff also had previous tattoos, successfully. Tattoo cost $215, and she had $1,400 in outstanding medical bills. Counter claim is for negative reviews, and slander, and says the contract says posting bad reviews is a no-no. The contract waives risk for allergies, and other bad outcomes.

Plaintiff is going to win, but I don't think she should. Just because she followed the care rules the other times, doesn't mean she did this time.

Plaintiff receives for tattoo, and medical bills, equaling $1615. (I suspect defendant is right, The woman didn't care for it correctly, or her cat was rubbing on her leg, and she got the infection because she didn't clean often enough).

Surprise! A Pit Mix Attacks- Plaintiff suing dog sitter for punitive damages, vet bills, and out of pocket expenses. Defendant works for Rover Inc., and was dog sitting the plaintiff's two dogs, who were staying for nine days. Rover paid over $3,000 to the plaintiff for dog's injuries. Plaintiff wants the $250 deductible that Rover didn't cover, and wants driving costs to and from the vet.

Defendant took dog to vet. The plaintiff's Chihuahua was attacked by a pit mix (there were two more dogs besides the plaintiff's two dogs). Defendant left dog unsupervised, a kerfuffle started, and defendant witness told dog to let the Chi. go, and the dog did. Then the defendant and witness took the dog to the vet, and stayed there until vet said the dog would have to stay.

Plaintiff gets nothing. (I'm not clear if the pits were actually defendant's dogs or pet sitting dogs).

parrotfeathers · June 11, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is going to win, but I don't think she should.

i agree.

CrazyInAlabama · June 11, 2020

4 pm episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016-2017-

First-

Hair Salon Rip-Off-Plaintiff/salon owner (he owns the building) suing former hair salon tenant that didn't pay her rent, and claims she stole furniture also. Defendant claims plaintiff told her she could refurbish, and keep the old salon furniture. What kind of salon rents for $450 a month? As usual, defendant has no proof she paid the rent. Plaintiff says defendant paid less than half of the time. $2200 in rent is owed by defendant. Salon furniture is next, but since furniture was used, plaintiff gets nothing for the furniture. The plaintiff's wife's mother owned the building for years, and equipped the salon, and then rented it out. Plaintiffs inherited the building, and the furnishings. (Salon chairs, even old ones are very expensive. The mother purchased them, and the plaintiff inherited them, but that doesn't make all of the equipment worthless. If the plaintiff intended to rent a furnished salon again, he would have had to spend many thousands to replace the equipment).

Plaintiff gets $2200 in unpaid rent, not furniture. I agree with plaintiff wife, the first month of late rent should have resulted in eviction.

Cousins Go Dutch on Rent-Plaintiff allowed his cousin and her two kids to move in to his place, but she never paid her $200 a month rent. They were first going to pay alternate months, but only plaintiff paid all of the rent. Plaintiff claims defendant took his clothes, but defendant says she returned his stuff. Plaintiff says he put rims on her car ($440 worth), and one day they were gone, replaced by cheapies.

Case dismissed for lack of anything to care about.

Friends' Fallout-Plaintiff suing former friend, for unpaid loan to fix up an RV. Defendant's RV needed work, so plaintiff loaned her money, Plaintiff has spare set of keys to RV, and defendant wants money to change the locks, not happening. Defendant has PTSD from an accident, and wants money for harassment, not happening.

I don't think plaintiff had money awarded, but it was so boring, and an obvious money grab by defendant, that I'm not sure. Case was dismissed.

Second-

When Ex-Mother-in-Laws Attack-Plaintiff (former Mother-in-Law) of defendant is suing for unpaid loans. Defendant was divorced from MIL's son, and they have since remarried each other. MIL claims she loaned $350, and $1200. Plaintiff's name was on a car, and defendant claims husband, and defendant paid $500 a month, because defendant had bad credit. Plaintiff repo'd the car. What a bizarre family, MIL was sending defendant's incarcerated son in prison huge sums of money.

MIL has no proof of loans, except the $350, so plaintiff gets $350.

Love Triangle Disaster-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for a tractor. After plaintiff's now girlfriend replaced defendant (plaintiff's current girlfriend was best friend of defendant), litigants broke up. Defendant also had another guy. Plaintiff claims he paid for the house, that is in the defendant's name (he admits he was that stupid), and defendant is still living in. The litigants lived together for nine years, with joint checking. Plaintiff wants his tractor back, and they have two cars together.

Case is dismissed. The Supreme Court couldn't untangle this mess.

Metal Pipe Slam-Plaintiff suing former friend and co-worker for damaging his car with a metal pipe. Plaintiff was living as a tenant with defendant and wife, and plaintiff stayed after defendant and wife split up. Plaintiff drove soon-to-be ex-wife to defendant's place of business, and serve defendant with divorce papers, that's when plaintiff claims defendant hit his car with a wrench or pipe. Defendant was totally responsible.

$2383 to plaintiff.

Edited June 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · June 11, 2020

5 pm episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Hey! Let's Hire My Best Friend and Then Rip Him Off-Plaintiff was in hospital (for a full month), and boyfriend took over her condo remodel, and they're suing the contractor(a former friend). Defendant says he was paid $2600 to remove a sink, light fixtures, install a sink, tile, and a lot of other items. Defendant was totally ripped off. Plaintiffs claim that defendant did very little work, and the little he did was badly done.

Plaintiff wanted painting inside of home, downstairs tile flooring installation, install upstairs bamboo flooring, and other items, install light fixtures, remove a sink, and a lot of other items all for $2600. Defendant had to remove old flooring, on two floors, remove tile floor in two rooms, take off the floor molding, carpet tack strips, take stair carpeting off Defendant has an invoice for his services. Vanity had to be removed to put in bathroom tile, and reinstall it. Plaintiff's father was given $2600 check, cashed it, and withdrew $2600 cash, and paid the defendant.

(A personal note. Plaintiff condo owner's hair looks hideous)

As JJ points out, $2600 would be a good deal for painting the home, and defendant should be paid a lot more for everything else he did. Defendant says they owed him $7800 for the job, not just $2600 (leaving 5,200). Someone else hired by plaintiffs did the bad carpeting job. Defendant quit before finishing, because $2600 was simply a rip off by the couple (JJ agrees, and so do I).

Plaintiff gets nothing, defendant gets $1400 (he should have asked for more).

Second-

Dog Held Hostage for Gold Chain?-Plaintiff suing defendant for $1,053 an unpaid loan, and for holding his dog hostage. Defendant claims the money was to pay for a pawned gold chain ($300), and to pay off high interest loans.

Plaintiff says he was going to board his dog during a trip to Guam (commercial rates were $300 to $500 a month), so he had defendant watch the dog, and it was supposed to be free because of the loan. The pawned chain was ransom to get the dog back. Defense witness is out of control.

$1350 to plaintiff.

Flash Mob Memorializes Gay Engagement-Plaintiff suing his ex-fiance for an unpaid loan to pay for a trip to Fiji, and for car repairs, and for half of an unpaid loan to pay for their engagement video/flash mob. (Apparently we don't have to send the pair wedding gifts, because apparently this relationship is extremely over). Defendant paid some money to the plaintiff, covering his non-diver (it was a scuba diving trip) trip costs.

Counterclaim is for an engagement ring from Tiffany's $2100. They exchanged rings, and plaintiff broke the engagement. Defendant thinks he should get to keep his ring, and get the one he gave to plaintiff back (not happening, they each keep their ring).

$1545 to plaintiff.

Florinaldo · June 12, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I agree with plaintiff wife, the first month of late rent should have resulted in eviction.

Indeed.

Also, JJ ruled by once again applying her stubborn reluctance to award business people anything more than the bare minimum and even less if possible. She stated that since he inherited the salon furniture, he paid zero for it and therefore could claim nothing. Following that logic, if defendant had torched the building, they would have not been allowed any compensation because they also inherited it. Even property received through inheritance has intrinsic value (accounting for depreciation if it applies) once it comes into an heir's possession.

On 6/10/2020 at 7:02 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant's hair is hideous. It looks like I styled it, which isn't a good look.

It looked as if she had a swelled head, which from her demeanour is probably a good representation of the high opinion she holds herself in.

Defendant deserved much more for the work he did for those two pretentious fools (at least they lost their case and exposed themselves on TV as hideous people to deal with).

Edited June 12, 2020 by Florinaldo

AmyFarrahFowler · June 12, 2020

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Indeed.

Also, JJ ruled by once again applying her stubborn reluctance to award business people anything more than the bare minimum and even less if possible. She stated that since he inherited the salon furniture, he paid zero for it and therefore could claim nothing. Following that logic, if defendant had torched the building, they would have not been allowed any compensation because they also inherited it. Even property received through inheritance has intrinsic value (accounting for depreciation if it applies) once it comes into an heir's possession.

It looked as if she had a swelled head, which from her demeanour is probably a good representation of the high opinion she holds herself in.

Defendant deserved much more for the work he did for those two pretentious fools (at least they lost their case and exposed themselves on TV as hideous people to deal with).

Male plaintiff had freaky eyes. Is that an illness?

Edited June 12, 2020 by AmyFarrahFowler

Ilovecomputers · June 12, 2020

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

As JJ points out, $2600 would be a good deal for painting the home, and defendant should be paid a lot more for everything else he did.

Plaintiff boyfriend explained at least three times to JJ that defendant was already doing work painting the kitchen and was paid separately for that. JJ must have asked at least three times if defendant was getting paid $2,600 for painting the kitchen.

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets nothing, defendant gets $1400 (he should have asked for more).

It seemed as if JJ was ready to give defendant up to the $5K max if he had asked for it. Not her usual cheapskate self.

Matty · June 12, 2020

I'm late on this, but I have to say that the defendant from 2 days ago in the $20.00 loan case had the worst wig in the history of JJ. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it's definitely top 5 worst wigs in the history of JJ. In a show that is notorious for bad hair and bad fashion that was hall of fame/shame level. He had a bit of a sassy attitude wig and all. The case had to be phony. I think both the plaintiff and defendant were in on it and wanted a trip out to California and television time on JJ's dollar. How can the plaintiff not have $20 to pay the defendant back and stop the harassment? Not buying it. I have to give JJ and Byrd credit for keeping a straight face. I wouldn't have been able to to do it.

CrazyInAlabama · June 12, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016-2017-

First-

Faulty Family Business-Plaintiff hired defendant to do handyman work at her house (remodel a bathroom), and claims they were incompetent. Defendants say she held their tools hostage, and tried to extort $2,000 from them. Plaintiff did received $2,000 back from the contractor.

JJ has no sympathy for the defendants, and they sound like terrible contractors. Defendant business owner is a blow hard, and I bet a lot of people never complain about him, because he's a bully.

I love that one invoice for materials is dated the day after he was fired by the homeowner, and the police were called to get him off of the property. He claims it was a boo-boo.

Plaintiff $4,300, defendant zip.

Second-(If bad dog breeders, and neglectful owners enrage you, skip this case).

German Shepherd Breeding Fail-Plaintiff suing German Shepherd (GSD) breeder, over a dog sale. Defendant bought dog for $1,000, and sold adult female to plaintiff for breeding. No written contract. Dog was sold for $150 to plaintiff by defendant, and claims as a pet not a breeding animal. Plaintiff actually paid $75, but not the rest.

Plaintiff wanted to breed the female to defendant's stud, and usually gets pick of litter, and wants two this time. Female has litter, and had a history of aggression, and bit one puppy so severely that it eventually lost an ear. GSD's were claimed to be eligible for AKC registration, but they weren't.

After puppy was bitten, plaintiff asked defendant to look at the puppy (she's a groomer that works for a vet), and defendant brought another woman that was a vet tech. Instead of finding a vet, they kept passing the puppy around so-called vet techs. Puppies had never been to a vet, or the adult dog either before birth.

I hate all of these people, they are bad people. The other three puppies were sold at 8 weeks, but hadn't seen a vet for shots or worming. One sold for $800, and two for $500 each. Plaintiff bought shots from Tractor Supply, and wormer too, and was going to give the shots herself. The one-eared puppy was named "Vincent Van Gogh" (no, I'm not kidding about the name) and dog was donated to Dogs for Heroes. There was a second puppy with a severe injury, and that was never treated either.

(The plaintiff looks like the woman who played Marla Hooch in "A League of Their Own")

Plaintiff wanted papers for the dog, but claims she isn't going to breed her again. The ad also claimed the dogs were AKC registered, which was a lie. Defendant ended up with four puppies. Defendant has health certificates, which are required for sale in Florida. Plaintiff was trying to sell the un-vetted puppies at five weeks, and claimed the puppies were eight weeks. Defendant wants three puppies, and the adult dog back.

Case dismissed for both sides.

It's Mostly Nonsense-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit, and the landlords claims there are a lot of damages. Plaintiff claims she had house repainted, and it was clean inside. There was an itemized list sent by landlord, and photos of 'damages'. Landlord's damages are ridiculous.

Plaintiff gets $1300 security back.

CrazyInAlabama · June 12, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Eeny, Meeny, MIney Moe...to Which Child Does the 10K Go?-(I hope I get this case straight, because it's terribly confusing). Plaintiffs (the two are sisters, and there is one other sibling, and the deceased man was their brother) are suing niece for stealing proceeds from her late father's estate. Father/brother left copies of stock certificates, and plaintiffs claim the stocks were owned by plaintiff's father, and died intestate, and would have been shared by his siblings, and insurance proceeds (divided among the father's five children-one died since). The stock shares were from the late father, and held by the family. Niece/defendant found out about her grandfather's stock, and she thinks should have the stock certificates (she was contacted by a third party, unclaimed property company). Each sister /plaintiff received $10k from father's estate.

Niece barely saw her father, in the last 10 years of his life. The niece thinks since the first name, and last name of her father and grandfather are the same, she should keep the stock certificates. Niece/defendant claims the stocks were actually her father's property, not her grandfather of the same name. Plaintiffs say the stock certificates had the their father's/defendant's grandfather's name and social security number on them, proven by the death certificate.

Stock certificates connect to the grandfather's name and social security number, so plaintiffs say they should be split among the three siblings, and maybe the niece/defendant, for her late father's share.

However, niece/defendant says they're her father's certificates, and she thinks they're all hers to keep. Another wrinkle is the stock certificates are from a company the grandfather worked for, not the father. JJ points out that all of those years ago, each sibling received $10k, and that should be enough.

Plaintiff/Aunt says niece/defendant has stolen money from relatives before.

(My suggestion is that the niece should never be near the aunts again, because I think the niece did claim her grandfather's certificates, not her father's, and they were from the company the grandfather worked for, not the father. I think the niece got the certificates, and then taunted the aunts with her windfall. There is no way to prove which man had the certificates, and I don't believe there is any other way the aunts would have found out about the stock certificates, since they came from the unclaimed property office).

Niece gets to keep the stock certificates, and the money. Case dismissed

Second-

Shocking Jail Time-Plaintiff suing his ex-boyfriend for calling the police on him on Christmas Eve, after setting him up. The plaintiff didn't have $30,000 for bail, and spent nine months in jail. Defendant called plaintiff and asked him to pick up his clothes and shoes. Plaintiff was driving a vehicle belonging to the defendant. Plaintiff and cousin went to pick up the clothes, and shoes at defendant's invitation. Defendant and family members demanded the car keys back, and plaintiff left in the car, defendant reported the car stolen, and gun was found, along with drugs. The plaintiff got pulled over by police, they found the gun, and plaintiff was jailed for nine months.

Gun belonged to defendant, but the drugs are plaintiff's. Plaintiff was only charged with the car, possession of weed, auto theft, robbery, and gun possession. Entire case was dismissed eventually. Defendant is counter claiming for car being impounded, and his gun being confiscated.

Defendant never told plaintiff to return the car before the night plaintiff was arrested. It was an obvious set up by defendant. Counter claim by defendant for car expenses, and gun is dismissed.

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

parrotfeathers · June 13, 2020

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

but the drugs are plaintiff's

So I guess he didn't come to court with "dirty hands."

But I sure am glad he got $5,000. That was a terrible set up.

CrazyInAlabama · June 13, 2020

In the words of Tom Morris, Jr (formerly of Live PD), he was "Riding Dirty" but only the weed was his, and that charge was later dropped by the prosecutors.

zillabreeze · June 15, 2020

Rerun "Stolen Lottery Ticket" I don't gamble at all, so can someone dumb this case down for me, plz?

I get the rule about winning over X$ has to be claimed through mail. So, if plaintiffs prepared the claim properly and mailed in the ticket, how might the Sleazeballs have acquired it to claim as their own? Just straight from the home mailbox waiting for outgoing? Any other scenarios? (My nerdy self sends everything of real value, Certified from the Post Office).

ETA. I've heard of clerks at the store leaning down behind counter and swapping/stealing winning tickets. This didn't sound like that at all.

Edited June 15, 2020 by zillabreeze

Florinaldo · June 15, 2020

16 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I've heard of clerks at the store leaning down behind counter and swapping/stealing winning tickets.

In Canada, many provinces (perhaps all) require people to sign their Lotto tickets when they purchase them, exactly to avoid a swap like that after the draw. I do not think it can apply to scratch games though, of which there is always an appallingly vast and diverse offering on display behind the cashier in various businesses.

CrazyInAlabama · June 15, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Winning Lottery Ticket Thief-Plaintiff purchased winning lottery ticket, and are suing defendant for stealing their ticket, and cashing it in, with the help of his father-in-law (defense witness). Plaintiffs sent claim ticket in, and sent it to the lottery, never received the money ($1750). They found out it had been cashed in, and found from the lottery that defendant cashed it in at the lottery office.

Defendant says father in law called him, said he found the unsigned winning ticket (at the bar where the ticket was bought by the plaintiffs), and wanted defendant to claim the ticket (to avoid FIL's back child support orders).

The defendant, FIL, and then wife lived together at the time, but def. claims FIL called him on a cell that mysteriously croaked before court. Defendant witness claims it was a gift, then he bought it off of some guy outside the bar, and then plaintiffs caught up with defendant thief, and threatened legal action.

$1750 to plaintiffs.

Read What You Sign-Plaintiff work at used car lot, and sold car to defendant, a 2006 Toyota Avalon for $11,000 (commission to plaintiff $560). The defendant didn't have the down payment, so plaintiff loaned the defendant $2700+ for the down payment, still owes $1030. Defendant totaled the car, and never paid down payment off.

Defendant signed a promissory note for the down payment. Defendant claims she didn't know what she signed, what she owed, and doesn't think she owes anything.

$1030 to plaintiff. (yes, a 10% interest rate on the down payment is legal, when you have bad credit).

Second-

Debutante Dud-Plaintiff runs a tutoring, debutante non-profit organization, and is suing Capone DeLeon, videographer for doing a bad video, and photographs of debutantes for the debutante ball. Defendant was paid $500.

There was supposed to be a winter wonderland background on the still photos, and everything else would have the same background added to the video. Plaintiff told defendant he would make extra money by selling photos to the teens, and their family. Back drop was purchased by the plaintiff, but too late to arrive. A green background was used, but it can be altered easily. The debutantes paid $400 to belong to the organization, and attend the ball (what's charitable about that?)

There were only four debutantes. Plaintiff received photos, and video. There was no written contract, and the defendant fulfilled what was required of him by plaintiff. Emailed 'contract' doesn't mention back drop, editing of video, or several other things plaintiff wanted, but it was signed electronically by both parties. Total price was supposed to be $1200, but because of the extra photo purchases by debutantes, photographer discounted the price to $500. (I don't see what the point of a debutante ball for a tutoring charity, especially since the girls have to pay to do this too).

Case dismissed

Cars Held Hostage-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for return of two vehicles, or the costs of them. Plaintiff claims defendant borrowed money to purchase a car, which she put in her name. Then defendant took a car into the mechanic for him, and the car has been non operating for two years now, and plaintiff wants something for this one too.

Everything dismissed, because it was all ridiculous.

jilliannatalia · June 15, 2020

In the case of Finnegan versus Bentley/Roberto over baseball or softball tournament entry fees, does anyone understand why JJ had a problem with the term "ringer" or "ringers" ?

CrazyInAlabama · June 15, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

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, and hideously microbladed brows). 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 plaintiff decided to play in the defendant's tournament anyway. Then 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-

Burning Man Bad Vibes-Plaintiff (blue haired) and defendant were at Burning Man, and plaintiff is suing defendant over breaching their agreement for accommodations at Burning Man. Plaintiff was staying in defendant's RV at Burning Man. Defendant claims the RV sleeps five. Plaintiff was getting a ticket for $500 for defendant,

Only the plaintiff was staying in the RV, with defendant, his witness, and then he added two other people to the RV. Because RV had five people in it, plaintiff wants her $500 back. They were supposed to go for 10 days, and plaintiff claims defendant left the same day he arrived, Defendant claims the next morning after he arrived, plaintiff saw his girlfriend in the RV, and blew her top. So defendant left that spot and moved the RV to another spot, after the plaintiff was so ugly.

Plaintiff was upset about defendant's girlfriend being there, and not paying dues, that didn't involve the plaintiff. (I bet plaintiff really expected a much different experience with the defendant, and then the girlfriend shows up). (In my opinion, the plaintiff's hair color is awful. That shade of blue reminds me of windshield washer fluid or blue sports drink).

Plaintiff's ridiculous case is dismissed. Defendant's stupid case also dismissed.

Meth Users Age Rapidly-Plaintiff suing former roommate for return of rent, lease breaking costs, and utility bills. The litigants have known each other since elementary school. Poor Byrd will have to explain what "Molly" drugs are.

Plaintiff claims legal roommate defendant was inviting underage people, 16 and 17, (one in court is 17, and one brought her baby), over to use drugs, including Molly/Ecstasy (hope I'm spelling that right).

Plaintiff claimed they threw a firecracker at her, and were also using Meth. JJ tells them what Meth users look like, which of course goes in one ear, and out the other of defendant, and her 17 year old buddy.

After plaintiff moved out, she paid the next month's rent, and defendant will only get one month's rent, and plaintiff will get her name off of the lease.

zillabreeze · June 16, 2020

5 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

In the case of Finnegan versus Bentley/Roberto over baseball or softball tournament entry fees, does anyone understand why JJ had a problem with the term "ringer" or "ringers" ?

The use of "ringers" - the word and the actual people is most commonly seen in movies, etc.

It's where an otherwise amateur sports team manages to skirt the rules or find a loophole to get a professional or unusually talented athlete on their team, to gain an unfair advantage. Especially when the game or tournament has a big dollar prize or is prestigious.

Even with a loophole or legal workaround, it's unethical and violates the spirit of amateur competition.

ETHICS being a concept of So foreign to may of our litigants...

Edited June 16, 2020 by zillabreeze

CrazyInAlabama · June 16, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Jealously Turns to Violence- Plaintiff is suing for $5,000 for assault. Plaintiff and ex-boyfriend went to Las Vegas, and had a big argument. The two litigants went to Vegas, she went up to his room, and they were both drinking. Plaintiff claims she wasn't drinking much, but defendant was very drunk. They started arguing, plaintiff claims defendant beat her up. Then plaintiff starts a dramatic recitation of every single second of their argument, and his assault of her.

Plaintiff called police after the first assault, but she didn't leave the room (that I don't understand), and plaintiff was arrested on an outstanding warrant (unemployment fraud, and something else).

Defendant admits he was drinking in the hotel room at Las Vegas, went to the hotel room, and claims both were drinking a lot. They started arguing about a friend of defendant hitting on plaintiff, and claims that plaintiff hit him in the face.

Defendant has a recording of plaintiff's attack on him on video. The plaintiff sounds and looks very drunk, and you can see and hear her hit him. Plaintiff also has a video later than the defendant's video, after her call to the police. She sounds very drunk. However, defendant has another video that he gives to JJ, with much more on it than the plaintiff's video does. Plaintiff's video was a shortened version of the second video presented by the defendant.

After the two videos are viewed, plaintiff's case is dismissed.

Second-

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, and talk about his criminal record. However, he's back, and all of his crimes are assault related, not burglaries, drugs or alcohol. .

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 sounds drunk in court).

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, (a traveling 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, and one is an outdoor cat, that's the one who bit the plaintiff.

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 the cat didn't bite the sister, but only nips her and never draws blood.

The defendant keeps repeating that her cat never bit the plaintiff, no one every complains about the cat, and everyone loves the cat. Cat is still wandering the neighborhood.

$3,000 to plaintiff.

Edited June 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · June 16, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Here Comes the Disgruntled Bride-Plaintiff wants her deposit back for a custom wedding gown, defendant/shop owner wants the rest of the money for the gown because she claims the bride damaged the dress. Plaintiff says her custom dress arrived torn, was not new, and soiled.

Plaintiff bought a replacement dress ( a week after she ripped the original dress), and wants her deposit back, and more money too. Defendant has purchase order, receipt from designer of gown. Defendant ordered a replacement gown after they saw the gown ripped, they claim the plaintiff did it. Designer only charged for one dress, not two.

Paperwork shows designer had another gown on order, so they told plaintiff the dress would be in shortly, and they were in the return process over the other gown with the designer. (I wonder if the designer knows the dress was ripped at the salon, and not when received the way the bridal shop said on the return ticket for the gown?). Mother of bride won't give straight answers about anything, and is overly dramatic. Two or three weeks later the other dress came in.

Store personnel check the dress twice when it arrives. There is no way that the dress was dirty or ripped before that bridezilla tried it on. I'm wondering if she got a chest enhancement, and that's why the top didn't fit? I bet she was measured for the dress, ordered it, and then had enhancements. So the top would be a lot tighter and the netting would rip. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of that happening.

(As a long term viewer of Say Yes to the Dress, I totally believe the defendants. I think the plaintiff found another dress either cheaper or one she liked better, and that's why she didn't want the original dress. They don't give refunds on wedding dresses either). (Also, at the expensive places, you try on a sample dress, and then put down about half of the price, not refundable, and then the dress is ordered to fit your measurements. The ones at the store are try on samples. The cheaper gown sources do often have at least some dresses you can buy off the rack, and alter).

The mother of bride also tried three times to dispute the charges with the credit card company, and the credit card people said no to a refund.

Bride was told two weeks later that replacement dress arrived. However, bride already bought the other dress before the replacement dress arrived. JJ is not giving deposit back, and I totally agree with her.

Case dismissed. Defendants won't get more money either. (defendants say plaintiffs reported them to the Attorney General too, and that's still in process. I wonder how that complaint came out?).

Second-

Officer Byrd's Birthday Gift to the Judge-(Byrd and Mrs. Byrd bought JJ a lovely orchid for her birthday).

Plaintiff suing defendant for defendant's 12 year old son taking her car, and wrecking it (she wants $500 deductible, and down payment for another car). Apparently, plaintiff didn't have gap insurance on her car. Plaintiff asked by defendant to watch her two kids at night at plaintiff's house. The defendant's kids, and plaintiff's son were sleeping in the living room, took the plaintiff's car keys, and took car on a joy ride. Defendant son said car keys were in the bathroom, but plaintiff says the keys were in her dresser drawer. Plaintiff claims she didn't leave the keys out.

Defendant delinquent says plaintiff's son found the car keys, and the defendant's son (12 at the time) was driving, and crashed the car two blocks away from the house.

Plaintiff son is living at a treatment facility, and only comes home sometimes. All three children survived the crash. JJ points out that plaintiff's watching the kids was inadequate, and everything was her fault.

The three kids were 11, 12, and 5 at the time, and I'm surprised no one was killed. Plaintiff claims that the defendant came to her home at 2 a.m. after this happens, and was driving an Uber while she was drunk. Plaintiff thinks anyone will believe that a kid managed to sneak into her room, and take the keys out of the drawer without her noticing.

All cases dismissed. Defendant's son has zero remorse.

Trash or Treasure Hunters-Plaintiff suing ex-business partner for money owed for wages he paid defendant's former employees, stolen money, and damages. The two men bid on abandoned storage units, and resell items with a 60/40 split at defendant's store space.

Plaintiff paid $6,000 for 40% of the business. Then a week later the landlord showed the bounced check for rent the defendant wrote him to the plaintiff. Defendant claims landlord cashed the check too early.

$6,000 plaintiff gave the defendant was spent on inventory according to the defendant but there is no proof. Defendant claims all of the paperwork was in the resale store when the landlord padlocked it. Store opened in June, plaintiff's deal happened in July. Then when plaintiff was working in the store three men came in demanded their wages, so plaintiff paid them.

$5,000 to plaintiff, leaving him short a few thousand.

Edited June 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

parrotfeathers · June 17, 2020

I don't like how JJ makes fun of people when they try to reply to a question.

Florinaldo · June 17, 2020

1 hour ago, parrotfeathers said:

I don't like how JJ makes fun of people when they try to reply to a question.

Well, that's the old gal's only remaining pleasure in life, to mock and demean litigants, even those who do not deserve it.

jilliannatalia · June 17, 2020

On 6/15/2020 at 8:35 PM, zillabreeze said:

The use of "ringers" - the word and the actual people is most commonly seen in movies, etc.

It's where an otherwise amateur sports team manages to skirt the rules or find a loophole to get a professional or unusually talented athlete on their team, to gain an unfair advantage. Especially when the game or tournament has a big dollar prize or is prestigious.

Even with a loophole or legal workaround, it's unethical and violates the spirit of amateur competition.

ETHICS being a concept of So foreign to may of our litigants...

JJ said she disliked the word. Did she actually mean that she was opposed to the whole concept?

configdotsys · June 17, 2020

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Here Comes the Disgruntled Bride-Plaintiff wants her deposit back for a custom wedding gown, defendant/shop owner wants the rest of the money for the gown because she claims the bride damaged the dress. Plaintiff says her custom dress arrived torn, was not new, and soiled.

Plaintiff bought a replacement dress ( a week after she ripped the original dress), and wants her deposit back, and more money too. Defendant has purchase order, receipt from designer of gown. Defendant ordered a replacement gown after they saw the gown ripped, they claim the plaintiff did it. Designer only charged for one dress, not two.

Paperwork shows designer had another gown on order, so they told plaintiff the dress would be in shortly, and they were in the return process over the other gown with the designer. (I wonder if the designer knows the dress was ripped at the salon, and not when received the way the bridal shop said on the return ticket for the gown?). Mother of bride won't give straight answers about anything, and is overly dramatic. Two or three weeks later the other dress came in.

Store personnel check the dress twice when it arrives. There is no way that the dress was dirty or ripped before that bridezilla tried it on. I'm wondering if she got a chest enhancement, and that's why the top didn't fit? I bet she was measured for the dress, ordered it, and then had enhancements. So the top would be a lot tighter and the netting would rip. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of that happening.

(As a long term viewer of Say Yes to the Dress, I totally believe the defendants. I think the plaintiff found another dress either cheaper or one she liked better, and that's why she didn't want the original dress. They don't give refunds on wedding dresses either).

The mother of bride also tried three times to dispute the charges with the credit card company, and the credit card people said no to a refund.

Bride was told two weeks later that replacement dress arrived. However, bride already bought the other dress before the replacement dress arrived. JJ is not giving deposit back, and I totally agree with her.

Case dismissed. Defendants won't get more money either. (defendants say plaintiffs reported them to the Attorney General too, and that's still in process. I wonder how that complaint came out?).

I saved this ep as a keeper and was totally on the side of the bridal shop. I know nothing about bride gowns. Don't stores sell them off the rack and alter them as needed in addition to offering fully custom made dresses? The only thing I didn't get was why the defendant said she would be unable to sell the gown because it is a "custom gown." Is that accurate or can they just make alterations if someone else wants it?

The bridezilla and her mother were real winners. JJ asked bridezilla if she saw the tears in the dress before or after she put it on and she said before. Why wouldn't she immediately tell Megan what was up with the dress? I get that she was excited and whatever but why would she put on a torn dress, then paw at it with her mother and then say it was torn from the get go? Isn't that asking for it to tear more? Also, when they got the voicemail from the shop owner saying "Your [replacement] dress should be here on Tuesday," they already had the new dress so they were just stringing the store along.

Florinaldo · June 17, 2020

59 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

I saved this ep as a keeper and was totally on the side of the bridal shop.

JJ said she usually is sympathetic to brides-to-be in dress cases. My attitude is totally opposite and this case is one of many that have only confirmed my bias.

CrazyInAlabama · June 17, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Handyman Shows Off Gunshot Wounds-Plaintiff hired handyman for a bargain price, and is suing him for work she paid him for, lock change fees, and to replace the broken vanity top, she's suing for $1049. Defendant is suing for a false restraining order. Plaintiff saw man working on neighbor's home, and hired him for $60, he completed that project. Then plaintiff hired him for $100, to install a vanity that she had purchased.

Handyman says he opened the vanity box, and opened it in front of the plaintiff, and vanity top was cracked. Defendant testifies that the vanity and top were rattling in the box when he carried it in. Plaintiff claims defendant broke the vanity top.

Plaintiff took it back to Home Depot, and had a replacement vanity top. Handyman disconnected old vanity, took it outside, put vanity cabinet in place, put vanity top on it, and handyman left for the day. Plaintiff paid him the $100. However, handyman says plaintiff needed the connectors for the supply lines for the faucet, so plaintiff had to pick them up.

Plaintiff picked up the plumbing connectors that handyman needed. She also claims he showed her daughter his bullet scars. My guess is that the previous vanity was attached to wall with glue, and it ripped the wall board. No expert witnesses, or repair bills.

Plaintiff also tried to get a restraining order against defendant, and defendant claims plaintiff trashed him all over the internet. Plaintiff's restraining order application is ridiculous, and she didn't show in court and it was dismissed. Nothing for plaintiff, and it's exactly what she deserves. (My opinion is the plaintiff always hires whoever she can get cheap, then tries to cheat them).

Defendant gets $800.

Second-

Unbelievable Lawsuit-Plaintiff /uninsured driver is suing the driver she crashed into. Defendant was insured, and in a brand new car. After the accident the plaintiff was supposed to meet defendant at the police station, but didn't. Defendant's car insurance paid for her car, but defendant wants her $1,000 deductible from the plaintiff. Plaintiff gave defendant a phony phone number too.

Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized her car, and has a police report from plaintiff. Report says plaintiff's car tires were slashed (bet there are a ton of suspects for that crime), and claims there was vandalism on three occasions, over the span of months. Plaintiff brought two 'witnesses' who claim to have seen the vandalism. There are actually three police reports, dated from May, July, and October, all about vandalism on plaintiff's car. Plaintiff actually has the gall to say the defendant vandalized her car two days in a row, apparently on flattened tires.

Funny! Plaintiff claims she missed the police the day after the vandalism, because she was driving her kid to school. On flat tires.

Also, plaintiff's license was suspended too (don't they ever arrest anyone anymore for driving suspended?). The accident happened in May, and plaintiff didn't get insurance until July. Plaintiff's license was never reinstated.

Defendant receives $1,000, and plaintiff gets nothing.

Cheating, Guns and a Stolen Laptop-Plaintiff is suing his ex-girlfriend for a stolen laptop ($3,000), defendant claims he was cheating. Plaintiff claims he paid the defendant for the laptop.

Defendant claims she wasn't living with plaintiff, and she was. She also claims she didn't have a laptop while completing her two year program at Virginia College. Defendant can't keep any of her dates or times right.

$400 to plaintiff for the laptop.

CrazyInAlabama · June 17, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Do the Hustle-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan. Defendant swears everything is a gift, not a loan, and he's a hustler, or as JJ says 'hustla'. Plaintiff has never worked any job for six months total. Plaintiff looks half asleep, or something.

Defendant lost his job, and wanted to sue the employer, so plaintiff gave or loaned him $3,000 for the attorney. Case was dismissed because defendant had no evidence. Defendant previously paid back $500 out of $1,000 to send to his mother back home.

Somehow I can see that plaintiff wouldn't be a good waitress, since she's barely conscious in court. Plaintiff says defendant blocked her on all social media, and only found out defendant lost the lawsuit through word of mouth. JJ says defendant is not a nice man, and a hustla.

Defendant claims letting plaintiff stay at him home rent free was expensive. JJ mentions woman has 'challenges', and I think she looks stoned. Byrd does not like it when the defendant tries to charge the Sacred Chair of Justice. I really think Byrd would like to drop kick the defendant's phone accidentally.

Plaintiff gets $4500, and defendant is still a hustla. (Hall-terview plaintiff says she found out defendant had another girlfriend, in another country, and was supporting her with plaintiff's money).

(Amazing, plaintiff seems a ton less 'challenged' in the hallway, and I suspect both litigants are hustlas . Why do I suspect they were both in it together, and had a great time on the way home from their free trip to L.A. ).

Child Welfare Feud-Plaintiff suing the father of her child for filing a false restraining order. Plaintiff has another boy (10 years old), plus the 3 year old with defendant. Plaintiff's only source of income is making soaps and lotions at home for sale.

JJ asks if while they were living together that plaintiff ever saw any inappropriate conduct with her son, and she says No. However, the plaintiff did call the police for a welfare check on defendant when he had visitation with their daughter, and said she thought he was abusing her. I can see why he got a restraining order.

When the couple separated, plaintiff would leave the son, and their daughter with defendant, and they frequently spent the night (once a week). One day after the separation, woman took son and daughter over to visit, and she saw another woman leaving the apartment. The son was picked up by her, but the daughter stayed with the man for about three weeks.

The plaintiff kept calling the police to make welfare checks on the daughter over the three week visit, and claiming abuse. The defendant says one time he called for a welfare check on plaintiff, because plaintiff wouldn't give him his daughter on the scheduled visitation.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because restraining order was legit. JJ calls this abuse of police time, and she's right.

Second-

Nine Grandchildren and a Pit Bull-Plaintiff suing neighbor/pit bull owner for vet bills, and hospital bills. Three years ago there was another attack by same defendant's dog, and on the plaintiff's dog she had then, and now. The vet bills were from the previous attack on plaintiff's dog, that eventually caused the plaintiff's dog death (no vet testimony). Plaintiff's previous attack vet bills are thrown out, because no vet testimony is given.

Plaintiff wife was walking her dog, on leash, to the designated dog area in her neighborhood. Plaintiff heard barking, decided to go home, when defendant dog attacks. Plaintiff picked up her little dog in her arms, to protect her. Defendant Pit Bull/Boxer mix jumps on plaintiff's back, and plaintiff pushed dog off and tried to run home. Plaintiff managed to get her dog in her home front door. Dog chased plaintiff all the way to her home, tried to get into plaintiff's home.

(This attacking dog is the replacement for the defendant's previous attacking dog. Here comes the Grandpa letter, and PB owners can stop writing JJ).

Defendant claims her 9 grandchildren are safe around the dog. Defendant also claims that she didn't know Pit Bulls are banned in several countries, and not covered by most homeowner's insurance.

Dog looks like straight Pit Bull to me, but bigger. JJ tells court about a 4 year old that was killed by a Pit Bull, while child's parents were dog sitting.

Plaintiff's previous dog was banned from the area by animal control, and the HOA, and plaintiff says dog that attacked her three years ago wasn't a Lab, but a Pit. Previous dog was rehomed to plaintiff's daughter, and then given to pound when daughter moved to a non-dog or Pit complex. Defendant never reported dog attack to homeowner's insurance, and JJ warns State Farm about the dog's history. I bet State Farm cancels her policy tomorrow morning, because of the dog attack history.

JJ says she would have awarded the full $5,000 to plaintiff. Idiot defendant says her dog didn't attack, but was only jumping around, and playing. (State Farm doesn't ban breeds, but does drop coverage on dogs with a bite history, such as defendant's dogs)

Plaintiff is only suing for hospital bills, and receives $1300.

(Yes, when the pit bull owner said, "Nanny Dog", and said how pits protect kids, I knew she would never admit that her dogs attacked anyone. The fact that she dumped the previous one on her own daughter told me what the woman values, and it's not her family's safety. Situations like this are why I say all bites, or attacks should be reported to animal control (if you live where there is animal control. The Nanny Dog phrase makes my blood boil. Pits were breed for dog fighting in the pit, not to baby sit your helpless children.)

Political Paraphernalia Problems-Plaintiff suing defendant for deposit for election materials, such as T-shirts, yard signs, a banner, etc. Plaintiff received 15 T-Shirts, for $250, and did not return them, so that's gone. . $462 was the total deposit, leaving $212. Banner, and yard signs were both the wrong sizes, and returned. Plaintiff receives $212, plus the $75 banner deposit, totaling $287.

Edited June 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · June 18, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Bring Back My Child-Plaintiff left Florida, suddenly moved to Virginia, and took the baby she had with the defendant with her without notice, and is suing him for the return of her belongings, and her cat. Defendant has custody of the 18 month old child. In 2016 Florida awarded 50/50 custody, but child lives in Florida, and plaintiff moved to Virginia. What's she want the man to do, ship the kid UPS?

In April 2016 plaintiff moved to Virginia, and filed for a protective order against defendant, after receiving notice of the return to Florida court action. She had to come back to Florida in May for court, to get child back to Florida. (Plaintiff has to put in a comment about defendant being in prison for five years, it was for drugs). (Another case where you wonder what the hell the litigants were thinking when they got together, and why birth control, and safe sex seems to be a bizarre concept to the litigants).

The protective order was to block man from contact with the child, and with plaintiff's cat. (Cat was not a typo). TPO was granted in Virginia, however, judge in Virginia wasn't told there was a Florida court ruling prohibiting Holly Leftwich from taking the child out of Florida. TPO was dismissed because plaintiff went back to Florida.

Holly L. left her cat behind in the apartment, and made no arrangements, (she was gone for three months) and keeps telling JJ she wants her cat back. Counter claim was served too late to be heard in court today, JJ said to refile in Palm Beach County, FL. Plaintiff didn't pay rent in Florida after she left, and so landlord evicted her.

Plaintiff claims she only left cat for two weeks, but left for three months instead, and still wants the cat she abandoned back. Landlord wanted the possession of the property after the eviction, and wanted Ms. Leftwich's stuff out. (On a personal, tacky note, I hate her awful bleached hair).

Case dismissed. I hope the cat got a good home, and the child is fine, and not being yanked around.

Second-

Bloody Assault at the Comedy Show-Plaintiff suing former friend for a false restraining order, and . Plaintiff claims that defendant was sending her nasty texts (apparently another friend or relative was boinking someone they shouldn't have been), and threats. Months later they ran into each other at the Orpheum Theatre (for a comedy show, to make the episode title make sense). Defendant walked up behind plaintiff, and assaulted her, and it's on video. Plaintiff claims defendant bit her too. Some bystander pulled defendant off of plaintiff, who was laying on the ground, and plaintiff called the police.

Defendant swears the plaintiff started it at the Orpheum, and defendant claims she fell on plaintiff. Both filed for protective orders, and both were granted TROs until the hearing, and only plaintiff was granted a longer term protective order. Defendant brought no witnesses.

In the video, defendant is clearly on top of plaintiff, shaking and grabbing her. Plaintiff has scars from the assault, a dent in her forehead, and because of another issue (Chiari Malformation) had two brain surgeries after this (Chiari malformation surgery is major, plaintiff is lucky to be alive). (The poor person who bleeps things from the air certainly earned their pay with the voice mail from defendant).

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and defendant already was tried in criminal court, and was convicted. (Defendant says in hallterview the plaintiff received what she deserved).

Wedding Chapel Catastrophe-Plaintiffs claims defendant owes for payments made by plaintiffs for daughter's wedding. Plaintiff daughter was driving by, saw the venue, and reserved it.

Defendant says he was in negotiations to purchase he building from the contractor who was remodeling the building. There was never a contract with the remodeler/seller, and a sale to defendant never happened. The defendant never owned the venue, but the flyers he printed say that he is the owner. The flyer for the rental of the venue has defendant's cell phone written in by him. The defendant accepted the reservation for the venue, and took a deposit for the first half of the rental fee ($3400).

In face-to-face meetings with defendant, the plaintiff bride says that defendant claimed he owned the venue. It was in Kansas, and by the time of the wedding, there would have been no heat (defendant says that's wrong, but I don't believe anything he says). Plaintiff mother of bride submits a flyer saying under new ownership, defendant's phone number. Plaintiff bride and fiance saw a sign on the door of the venue about the boiler being off, and the place was closed.

Plaintiffs receive $3400 from the lying, stealing defendant. Why didn't the police take a complaint, and file fraud charges on this loser?

CrazyInAlabama · June 18, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

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, and his wife won't say either.

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). I'm enjoying the sad look on the defendant's face when JJ says she's lying about the cart, and her fear of the plaintiff). (Note to lying defendant, Bozo the clown orange hair and dark red lipstick look very bad together).

Defendant says she 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-

Man Sent to Jail By Mom-Plaintiff mother was going into business with son, and purchased a work van for him. Business was son would use a van to pick up dogs, and take them to their new owner, and mother rented van for him. Son was listed as authorized operator on the van, and has a valid license. Four weeks later the mother reported the van stolen. Woman wanted son to put van on his card, not hers.

The rental company never reported the van stolen, or retrieved the van from impound.

Plaintiff reported van stolen, and defendant was arrested, and jailed for nine days. Son was pulled over for the stolen van, and claims that was the only charge. Plaintiff mother claims there was marijuana in vehicle, and drug charges were later dismissed. Defendant does say he had a small amount of weed in the van, but it was dismissed.

It was outrageous what the mother did. The son's lucky he didn't have something worse happen than arrested, and jailed for nine days.

Case dismissed.

Online Auction Crash-Plaintiff suing online auction house owner for lost earnings, and banning her from his business. The auction house takes consignments, charges a fee, and sells either from his warehouse, or online auction. Plaintiff decides she wanted some items back, because his website crashed. (Whatever the plaintiff has been doing to her hair needs to stop, before it breaks off).

Plaintiff did get her items back, but wants $150 processing fee back from auction owner. Plaintiff wants money for defendant banning her from his website, consignments, and visiting his warehouse. Plaintiff claims sixty or seventy previous items were sold, and the $150 fees were for pulling the second set of items, and that's in the contract she signed.

I've only heard the plaintiff for a minute or two, and I'd like to ban her too. Maybe we could chip in, and send her on that one way trip to Mars? How dare the plaintiff saying JJ doesn't understand anything about the auction! Outrageous.

Case dismissed.

Collapsing Wedding Cake-Plaintiff suing bakery owner for a refund for a wedding cake, and emotional distress. (the plaintiff's purple wig is certainly memorable, especially when contrasted with her red blouse). The three tiered cake top two tiers fell off. Cake cost $450. Signed contract says defendant isn't responsible for cake once delivered to plaintiff. (I think this should have been a contract case, not because the judge felt sorry that the plaintiff's wedding cake was ruined).

Plaintiff supplied her own cake stand, and that's what failed. However, bakery owner/defendant seems to think that a health care worker/plaintiff should know what cake stand to buy.

Defendant is counter suing for lost wages, defamation, and loss of business. Plaintiff gets $450 for cake only. Defendant counter claim dismissed.

(I wouldn't have paid the plaintiff a penny. She bought the cake stand, and it looks very flimsy. However, I think the defendant should sell the right cake stands, or have a source that customers can buy them from. A rather popular local specialty cake shop here charges a lot for delivery. However, if you pick it up, and do set up yourself, you are responsible for the cake from the second you pick it up from the bakery. The cake stands the plaintiff had were very light weight plastic, they looked like Dollar store items. And the price the bride received of $4.00 a slice was really cheap compared to what other stores charge just for the cake, and they charge extra for delivery and set up).

CrazyInAlabama · June 19, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Doggie Daycare Disaster-Plaintiff / former landlord suing former tenant who claimed she was starting a dog walking business, and is suing for damages from pet boarding business. Plaintiff claims defendant was actually advertising dog boarding. Defendant moved into the rental house with her 7 month old child, and her father was a co-signer.. Plaintiff did research after tenant moved out, and he saw the damages.

Defendant admits to having foster dogs, and I suggest she was doing Doggie Daycare, and boarding, which is not dog walking. Lease limits defendant to one dog, and with a substantial fee for any additional dogs.

Plaintiff has a FB ad for dog boarding, and with pictures of several dogs in the back yard of the home. Broken cabinets, trash left behind, nasty carpets. Defendant claims she paid someone to deep clean the rugs, but they look nasty.

It took a month to clean, paint, and re-carpet the home. And defendant left property behind into the next month, so she owes for the month's rent. Photos show the home was in pristine condition, and newly painted before defendant moved in. Defendant's witness is a realtor who has known the defendant forever, and is totally lying.

$1313 to plaintiff for damages.

Mouth of Pain-Plaintiff suing brother Larry Westerfield II for a loan for massive amount of dental work (last time it was speculated that the Xrays should be used for ads for "this is your mouth on meth" commercials). Plaintiff wants her Care Credit bill paid, and defendant claims it was a gift. The dentist was smart, because the first person people refuse to pay are dentists, doctors, veterinarians, and other providers.

Larry II is 43, and an electrician, who lives with mommy. Defendant claims his mother told the sister about his teeth, and then sister took defendant to the dentist, where the dentist said it was the worst mouth he'd ever seen. The dentist office is smart not to take payments, and sister was a fool to get the Care Credit account.

Defendant went back to work two months later, and claims he gave the sister cash. A licensed electrician doesn't make $10 an hour, and man still owes about $10,000 child support. Balance is $3386 left, because sister has been making payments.

$3547 to plaintiff. (If they're so estranged, then why the big hug, and "I Still Love You Too" in the hall-terview?)

(A personal rant. When I was a kid, and dinosaurs roamed the earth, many parents believed that baby teeth didn't need dental visits, or any type of care. I knew other kids that had visibly decayed teeth. I've known adults who never saw a dentist until something painful happened. So depending on the minerals in the drinking water, and hygiene, the man's teeth might have been vulnerable to rot, and not really from anything else )

Second-

I Love You, but I Don't Owe You-Plaintiff suing defendant/former friend over unpaid loans. Defendant has the most facial tattoos and piercings I've seen in a long time, and her teenage daughter (named Seven) is following in her tattooed footsteps. . How does Ms. Barksdale get through metal detectors?

Plaintiff claims she loaned defendant $2000 , until defendant's SSI started, with back payments. Plaintiff says she's been helping defendant for over 13 years now. (Defendant claims she was given a legal aid attorney, when plaintiff sued her for $6,000, my guess is defendant, Theresa Barksdale, is no stranger to the legal system as a defendant).

Defendant says she was homeless. Defendant also has a Legal Aid lawyer now, and had a public defender before for other previous cases. Plaintiff claims she paid over $1300+ for InTown Suites after eviction, plus $1099 to another hotel, and $1440 for Sunrise Apartments. Defendant claims she repaid the $1300 in cash when settlement came in.

$4580 to plaintiff.

33 Year-Old RV Bust-Plaintiff paid $2500 for a 33 year-old RV, and purchased vehicle, and drove it 15 miles home, after a mechanic's inspection. Plaintiff said RV engine blew, burned him, and he wants his money back, plus payment for his burns. Apparently, plaintiff can't understand 33 years-old, As Is, or anything about buying used vehicles.

Case dismissed, because plaintiff is ridiculous.

Edited June 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · June 19, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

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. (How rotten when someone is working hard to try and turn his life around, gets ripped off by two jerks like the 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-

A $17,000 Gazebo Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing defendant over nasty review online, and her claims that he didn't have a contractor's license, but he does. Defendant is another nasty old lady who thinks if she complains enough, that she should get work done cheaper. Contract price was $17,000 for the gazebo. Defendant only paid $12500, and received $2500 back.

When project was done, defendant was unhappy, and sued the plaintiff, and defendant got $2500 back in the court case. She had already paid $12,500. Plaintiff didn't get the other $4500 back.

Plaintiff is suing in JJ's court for libel, for claiming that he didn't have contractor's license, and that his business was closing immediately. Plaintiff does have his contractor's license. Defendant claims because another man did the electrical work, then defendant claims that makes the company unlicensed.

$2500 to plaintiff.

Tree Trimmer Chops Down Wrong Tree-Plaintiffs suing tree removal company because they went to the wrong address (the plaintiff's home), and cut down the plaintiff's tree. The tree is huge (a Blue Spruce), and filled a great deal of half of the front yard.

When JJ sees the before and after, her eyes get big. Defendant tree guy says it was a tiny tree (liar), and he claims they should be happy with the free work. Defendant claims plaintiff husband called him, and thanked him for removing tree (Liar).

Plaintiff gets $2500.

gingerormaryann · June 19, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A $17,000 Gazebo Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing defendant over nasty review online, and her claims that he didn't have a contractor's license, but he does. Defendant is another nasty old lady who thinks if she complains enough, that she should get work done cheaper. Contract price was $17,000 for the gazebo. Defendant only paid $12500, and received $2500 back.

When project was done, defendant was unhappy, and sued the plaintiff, and defendant got $2500 back in the court case. She had already paid $12,500. Plaintiff didn't get the other $4500 back.

Plaintiff is suing in JJ's court for libel, for claiming that he didn't have contractor's license, and that his business was closing immediately. Plaintiff does have his contractor's license. Defendant claims because another man did the electrical work, then defendant claims that makes the company unlicensed.

$2500 to plaintiff.

I thought JJ was unbelievably rude and abrupt to the defendant, who was very respectful to her. These are moments where her reputation for being unprofessional are well deserved.

CrazyInAlabama · June 20, 2020

I respectfully disagree. I read the original review the defendant posted about the gazebo company, (I looked again, and the review was finally taken down) and it was horrible. I know JJ was kind of harsh to her, but in my view she deserved it. The woman lied online about plaintiff not being a licensed contractor, and I bet that stopped at least a few people from employing his company. For a long time JJ didn't seem to understand the power of negative reviews being posted online, but she apparently understands now.

gingerormaryann · June 20, 2020

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I respectfully disagree. I read the original review the defendant posted about the gazebo company, (I looked again, and the review was finally taken down) and it was horrible. I know JJ was kind of harsh to her, but in my view she deserved it. The woman lied online about plaintiff not being a licensed contractor, and I bet that stopped at least a few people from employing his company. For a long time JJ didn't seem to understand the power of negative reviews being posted online, but she apparently understands now.

It might just be the current climate that has worn me down. Someone is respectful to the Judge and all you get back is snark.

There was also the issue that part of the case had already been adjudicated in small claims court in the defendant's favor.

I stopped watching JJ a while back and won't start up again.

Edited June 20, 2020 by gingerormaryann

Florinaldo · June 20, 2020

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I know JJ was kind of harsh to her, but in my view she deserved it.

I think that the lying was what really ticked off JJ because it was a very serious accusation of him illegally misrepresenting himself, plus the fact that the defendant tried to make a strange legal parallel between practices in her own profession and the building trade. She argued that only the licensed contractor should have been allowed to do every portion of the work; either she does not know how things work in construction with very specialised sub-fields, or she was simply lying. I lean towards the latter.

I fully agree with @CrazyInAlabama's description of her as "another nasty old lady who thinks if she complains enough, that she should get work done cheaper".

And if complaining does not do the trick, then lying is her next go-to option

Edited June 20, 2020 by Florinaldo

CrazyInAlabama · June 20, 2020

I've found that sometimes in regular small claims court, that the judges aren't always impartial. I personally found the gazebo to be ridiculously expensive, but if it's real redwood, then I guess that's part of the price.

Edited June 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

parrotfeathers · June 20, 2020

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The woman lied online about plaintiff not being a licensed contractor,

And then tried to play dumb blonde about it.

CrazyInAlabama · June 22, 2020

Due to the Talladega NASCAR race being postponed to Monday, and then a huge rain delay, no JJ today for me. At least everything is a rerun these days. No chance they're going to leave the racing coverage.

Edited June 22, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment