Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant is proud of the fact she smashed the windows of the car on the plaintiff's property, before she repossessed it. 

How was this a civil case and not a criminal one? JFC that Defendant was a psycho.

And then she complains that she has to get the windows fixed so that she can sell the car - lady, you did that!

Edited by Steph J
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2015-2016-

First-

Outrageous Business Practices-Plaintiff suing former tenants for breaking their lease, and property damage.   Former tenants claim they paid in cash, and security in money orders, and have no receipts.    Like all professional squatters, the defendant went to housing court.  The housing court talks mostly about the defendants' dogs, not rent.     

Tenants didn't pay the last two months rent, so security is gone.    And they still owe plaintiff for another month's rent.   Defendant wife has a checking account, but they paid bills in cash, and money orders.    Plaintiff gives photos of the huge amount of junk, and trash, and damages.    Defendants claim to have two small dogs, and plaintiff said that's not the number and size of dogs that they had. 

Plaintiff says defendants used false names on the applications.  Defendants filed a claim with plaintiff's insurance company under the fake names, after they moved out too.   

Plaintiff receives $1200 rent.  

Chickens Rule the Roost-Plaintiffs suing former tenant for property damage, and rent.   Plaintiff claims the tenant of four years owes for utilities, rent, and damages caused by her multitude of chickens.     Defendant cut the garage window screen out, to let the chickens go from the inside of the garage, where the coop was, and out to the yard.   (I agree with the plaintiffs, chicken poop stinks a lot, and the damages from them is not a joke, except to JJ).   

Plaintiff receives $584.   

Second-

Elder Abuse?!-Plaintiff sold a parcel of land to defendant (they're both neighbors) to add to the defendant's property.   Plaintiff wants money for a fence, restraining order, and an assault.   Property was $3,000 and they would split privacy fence dividing the property ($700) more.  Plaintiff didn't put the fence issue in his case in JJ's court, just in the local court case.       After fence was built, the defendant wanted to paint it red to match defendant's house.     Plaintiff wanted a neutral color, and they were going to discuss it.   The next day defendant painted his side of the fence red, but did not paint the plaintiff's side.    The fence was built entirely on plaintiff's property, and defendant trespassed to paint the fence. 

JJ refuses to see that trespassing on plaintiff's property, and painting a fence entirely on his property is an issue.   

Plaintiff also says when they discussed the fence issue, he went to defendant's house, and plaintiff threw a soda can, and hit him.    JJ doesn't believe the assault claim, but I do.   I think the plaintiff's aborted attempt to get the defendant's past crimes is is interesting.    

JJ will give plaintiff nothing.   The defendant is sitting there enjoying everything JJ says.  Nothing to defendant either.   (By the way, apparently defendant is deceased in 2018). 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Teenager Cusses Out Slow Senior-Plaintiff idiot teen, and his mommy are suing a neighbor for punching whiny brat's car. This was after the rotten brat cussed out an elderly widow for driving too slowly, and the bystander intervened.   Mommy came to court with her son, and claims she didn't know about the cussing, until court.  (What the hell is up with plaintiff brat's eyebrows? )     Brat was driving, was mad about the slow driving of an elderly widow, on a dark, rainy day.   So he was revving his engine, instead of honking.   Other driver tried to pull over so plaintiff could pass.   Brat started to pull around the car, and defendant, and another person were walking in the street.   (As jj points out, how could plaintiff see the pedestrians over the much taller car in front from a Mazda Miata?)  Plaintiff almost hit the pedestrians (who have the right of way).  Then plaintiff yelled at pedestrian to "Go F*** Himself".     Defendant says plaintiff brat told the two women the same thing.  

Two pedestrians yelled at plaintiff, and then defendant punched the plaintiff's car.    PLaintiff claims revving the engine and other harassment was "Freedom of speech".   The video show the plaintiff acting like a raging a&$&$&&.     (Driver is a 79 year old widow, pulling over to give a neighbor a ride, and neighbor was getting in the car).    (The man behind the plaintiff brat is really enjoying this case).    The plaintiff's mother claims to be upset about brat's behavior, but she really isn't.   (Brat is lucky that someone didn't punch his lights out). 

$100 for plaintiff.

 Locked Out and Fired Up-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of rent, security deposit, lost wages, and hotel costs.    Plaintiff moved into room at defendant's apartment (She stayed two months) .   Security was $500, and defendant kept that amount for replacing locks.   Defendant claims she was locked out by inside lock, so she called a locksmith to get her into the apartment.   Plaintiff claims when defendant called her, she looked and the inside lock was open.    Locksmith couldn't reach the inside lock, and so defendant slept in her car .  

Defendant is counter suing for return of a key fob, and lost wages.    (Why is the defendant yelling?)   Defendant gets the $355 for the locksmith, from the security deposit. 

$145 to plaintiff.   Defendant gets key fob back.      

Second (Rerun)-

Pepper Spraying Parent Catastrophe-Plaintiff, and his mom are suing ex-girlfriend SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three, only two are plaintiff's ) for bail cost for plaintiff ($4800)posted by mom, and slashed tire.  They have a 2 and 6 year old together.    The two litigants had an argument over her cheating.     Defendant was drinking, they argued again.   The argument escalated.    (JJ's darker hair looks too dark). (I bet defendant had a whole lot more than one drink)   Then defendant slashed the plaintiff's tires.   

The poor kids woke up from the argument.    Then plaintiff went to take kids to his sister's house, because he says defendant was drunk.      Next morning, he got into his other vehicle, to take the kids to his sister's house for babysitting.    Then defendant climbed into the Yukon with plaintiff and three kids, pepper sprayed him, and he wiped the spray into her face.  Two older kids got out of the car, but the youngest daughter got hit with the pepper spray too.   The litigants have finally broken up, and she has full custody of both kids.   (I'm assuming the court only lets him visit the child that's his biological child).   

Defendant claims she was cleaning the kid's birth certificate and other documents out of the car.   Defendant claims man attacked her in the Yukon, and she pulled out the pepper spray, and hit the man with it, and that's when the plaintiff wiped the pepper spray off of his face, and on hers.  Defendant claims plaintiff pushed her, and she hit the daughter when she fell.   Defendant claims plaintiff was kidnapping her kids.. 

I think the defendant is a total fake, drama queen. 

Plaintiff left for his mother's house, came back with the Mother to get clothes, and the police arrested plaintiff, but charges were dropped.   No medical records of assault, but it was all her fault for spraying the pepper spray.  

Plaintiff was arrested, and it cost his mother $4800 for bail.  Everything dismissed.   I feel sorry for the kids, not the parents. 

 

(The new episodes this week are the first episodes on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday  The first episode this Friday is another Pit Bull case, so be prepared for gore, and the sad Grandpa letter).

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/25/2020 at 7:02 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teenager Cusses Out Slow Senior-

JJ was quite correct in calling the young driver a spoiled brat, but she was much too soft on the self-righteous old bully who slapped his car. He obviously fancies himself as a modern-day Galahad tasked with protecting vulnerable ladies on his street and believes he is on a mission from God when he goes about putting up Christmas decorations in his neighbourhood. From what I heard, he gave as good as he got in the recorded verbal exchange.

As much as being young and inexperienced is no excuse for cursing and revving up you car to send a message, being old and a woman is no reason either to drive at a crawl and block traffic on a public street. And since when does walking in the middle of the street give pedestrians the righ of way?

I had a colleague once who owned a Myata and the way he talked about it they cost a lot to repair and maintain. The 100 $ award by JJ was ridiculous and unfair.

She got stuck on the fact that he got the car well below its book value; it was in poor shape according to what we heard and he put in a lot of work to bring it up to par. But true to her habit, she did not credit him with the added value of his work. Which means that if the car had been totaled or damaged more extensively for some reason, she would never have made the plaintiff "whole" since she would only award the price he paid, not the increased value.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

JJ was quite correct in calling the young driver a spoiled brat, but she was much too soft on the self-righteous old bully who slapped his car. He obviously fancies himself as a modern-day Galahad tasked with protecting vulnerable ladies on his street and believes he is on a mission from God when he goes about putting up Christmas decorations in his neighbourhood. From what I heard, he gave as good as he got in the recorded verbal exchange.

As much as being young and inexperienced is no excuse for cursing and revving up you car to send a message, being old and a woman is no reason either to drive at a crawl and block traffic on a public street. 

I agree with this.  P was a young shit; D was an older shit, given the video we saw.  And it wasn't as if the driver was driving slowly to be careful, she was stopped in the middle of the roadway to pick someone up and didn't even move over to pick her up until the pearl-clutching rev of an engine took place.  I think the driver was inconsiderate to begin with but there were better ways to deal with it (that hopefully the P will learn in time).  I think he got less than he should have and I feel like often, JJ just ignores the young Ps because of the whole 'they're lying if their lips are moving!'.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Dangerous Football League-Plaintiff coaches a team in youth football, entered a tournament, and found his kids weren't as experienced.  Plaintiff is suing for return of entry fees, gate, and attorney's fees.    Plaintiff claims the other teams that beat his kids were a huge mismatch.   Plaintiff's team lost twice, including one kid getting a concussion.  

Case dismissed. 

Property Brothers They are Not-Plaintiffs suing former tenant for stealing appliances from their rental home. Plaintiffs wanted to get into real estate investments, and this was their first house, and they now have two houses.    Plaintiffs bought the house, with the defendant, and three other tenants already in place.    Then plaintiffs found out that they could get $1800 a month rent, instead of the current $1200 a month.   They sent a notice that new lease would be $1800, then after not paying that, plaintiff moved to evict tenants for non-payment.   Housing court mediation gave the tenants 20 more days to move out, now 10 months later the squatters are still there.  

Everyone moved out except defendant (last of four tenants), defendant put appliances out on the front lawn for the trash pick up, and the next morning they were gone.   Defendant claims plaintiff told his nephew to get rid of appliances.   Tenants were all finally evicted.  Defendant claims he cleaned the house out, but plaintiff's claim the basement, and house was packed with garbage.  

Plaintiffs say it cost $40,000 to get house repaired, and replace everything the tenants sold or stole.   

Case dismissed (plaintiffs wanted 10 year old fridge, and other old appliances replaced). 

Second-

The Danger of Dog Parks-Plaintiff suing defendant over a dog injury at a dog park.  Plaintiff says defendant's dog bit her dog.   Defendant says he thinks injury was from his dog's sharp collar or some other foreign object, and wasn't his fault.  Vet report doesn't have a statement, just what procedures they're going to do.   Defendant also says Greyhounds have thin skin, and Dr. Google agrees.    JJ agrees that dog parks are a free for all, unless you're taking a vicious animal there, and dogs will be dogs. 

Case dismissed

Study Abroad Misfire-Plaintiff suing defendant for not paying for a car lease that defendant took over for plaintiff, when plaintiff moved overseas.    Defendant was supposed to pay $290 for nine months, but stopped paying half way through the period.  Plaintiff raised the contract amount after a few months, because of excess mileage, changing the contract.   A month or so later, plaintiff notified the leasing company to repossess the car.   

Defendant is counter claiming for her clothes, her kid's clothes, and other items, and says for a period they were living in the car.  Plaintiff bought the car off of the lease, because it was cheaper than paying the overages, and for damages. 

Car was repossessed by plaintiff from in front of a homeless shelter (that's a first for me).  In hall-terview defendant says she was not given notice about the pending repossession, but she's lying. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant case dismissed. 

Friends Don't Let Friends Borrow Money-Plaintiff suing defendant for an unpaid loan.   Defendant needed money for a utility deposit, is unemployed, with three children (lives off of her child support, and son's disability checks).   As usual, defendant claims it was a gift. 

Plaintiff took out a cash advance for $500, plus fees.    Plaintiff receives $561.  (Defendant's witnesses should have been booted, for their commentary trying to coach the defendant). (Hall-terview with defendant states that she paid the utility deposit with the loan, and her friend's court fees).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I could think of was that the P in the Miata engine rev case could have played Prince Joffrey, so I instantly loathed him.  LOL

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

UPDATE:  NIECE WON TODAY!  Next appearance will be semi's next week on Tuesday, 2nd June .......... luckily, schedule still showing JJ reruns next week.......... and now I find a Jeopardy forum here on PRIMETIMER

==========

JJ has been preempted here this week as I've switched over to Jeopardy. My niece, Meggie,  is a contestant on the Teachers' Tournament Jeopardy today, which had me changing channels, and I'm enjoying Jeopardy more than any recent court tv 

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Reasons You Should Live With Your Mother-Plaintiff suing her former boyfriend for a loan to buy a truck, car insurance and the return of stolen tools.    The litigants lived together at an apartment, and then her mother's house, from 2017-2019.     Plaintiff paid his car insurance.   Plaintiff received an insurance rebate check, and plaintiff loaned money to defendant to buy a truck ($1100).    Defendant says the $1100 wasn't a loan, but a down payment on a future income.     JJ asks defendant if he's on drugs, and he says no.   

Money wasn't put down on truck, but spent on random spending. his car payments.    When defendant left, he took a lot of tools, and they were purchased by plaintiff before they were a couple.     Defendant is either stoned, or whacko, or both.   Plaintiff submits invoices for the tools.   

$1200 to plaintiff, and I hope she found someone better than the loser defendant.   

Hotel Tinder Date Fail-Plaintiff suing his Tinder date for two cell phones, hotel charges, and damages.   They couldn't meet at home, so they met at a motel.    They met at 12:30 in the afternoon, went to the room. Plaintiff says he paid defendant $80 for the room, which she denies.  (JJ says she'll read the plaintiff's statement so the adorable Officer Byrd won't have to make the effort to walk to and from the plaintiff's desk, because Byrd had a birthday, and he's getting older.    Plaintiff couldn't find his phone, so he called it, but it was on vibrate, so he couldn't find it.   

Who would think that someone you only meet one time for boinking will be nutso?    The answer is anyone with a brain.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant claim dismissed.  

Second-

Wedding Dress Distress-(the case where the plaintiff designer/seamstress did the wedding dress, and is wearing what looks like a bunch of black garbage bags made into a dress, including a huge bow for court)-

Plaintiff actually was on a local TV news program in a modified dress to claim it's very ugly, but  it was after plaintiff changed it from the original.    The defendant has a picture of the dress when it was finished, and the plaintiff removed the nice touches.  It looked awful when she claimed on TV the dress was nothing like she ordered.     Plaintiff paid less for the dress when she picked it up because it was not totally finished.   $490 was owed, and she paid $300.     Designer says the plaintiff and mother caused a big scene at pick up.      This is a completed contract at the reduced price, because plaintiff took the dress, and she will be getting money.

Apparently, it's one of the wedding dress, and reception dress requiring  two dresses situation.     Defendant says the dress was ripped apart, posted on social media slamming the designer, and went on the local TV news show.   

The designer picture is lovely, and the plaintiff's picture after she took the dress apart was hideous.    By the way, cramming too much person into a satin dress is a bad idea, and too tight satin shows every lump and bump.   The seamstress plaintiff hired to 'fix' the dress took the beady piece off of the dress, and put it on the wedding dress, but it's still fraud, 

Plaintiff gets nothing, and defendant gets $2500.

Pregnant and Panicked!-Plaintiff suing family friend for unpaid loans.     When defendant's hours were cut back, she couldn't pay her insurance ($280).    Defendant claims the plaintiff wanted her policy number, to pay her insurance.     

Defendant backed into a neighbor's vehicle, and then left the scene.    She also claims that when she had the accident she panicked, and left, parked the car at Brake Master's, and plaintiff paid that bill too.   The accident cost plaintiff $500, then loaned her another $200, equaling $980.      

$780 for the plaintiff, no proof of the extra $200.     I wonder if the neighbor saw this, and figured out who whacked their car and left?   I hope so. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone get a screenshot of the defendant?  She was wearing taffeta and lace, I think.

 

Wedding Dress Distress-(the case where the plaintiff designer/seamstress did the wedding dress, and is wearing what looks like a bunch of black garbage bags made into a dress, including a huge bow for court)-

Plaintiff actually was on a local TV news program in a modified dress to claim it's very ugly, but  it was after plaintiff changed it from the original.    The defendant has a picture of the dress when it was finished, and the plaintiff removed the nice touches.  It looked awful when she claimed on TV the dress was nothing like she ordered.     Plaintiff paid less for the dress when she picked it up because it was not totally finished.   $490 was owed, and she pai

 

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

My niece, Meggie,  is a contestant on the Teachers' Tournament Jeopardy today

Awesome! i was rooting for her. I was very glad she won! 

I really liked her headband, I've been trying to wear similar due to COVID hair, but my face is not compatible with hats or headbands 😞 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Horse Tragedy in Unsafe Stables-Plaintiff suing defendant over injury to a horse at her boarding stable, plus boarding fees, ransom for the horse.   Defendant runs a boarding stable, and plaintiff now claims defendant didn't have a license to run a boarding stable.  Defendant told plaintiff about the injury, called a vet, but plaintiff owed the vet money for over six months past due, and vet would only come out to see horse if plaintiff payed the money.     Plaintiff says she owed vet $248, and for over six months past due, and defendant says it was owed for over a year, and was almost $1,000.     Defendant says plaintiff was supposed to move her horse, but didn't move horse on time, and didn't pay the last month ($325) before the injury (horse had been at the barn since 2013).   

(The barn owner said that the horse owner barely paid for board, sometimes didn't pay, never visited the horse, and stiffed the vet on a $1000, so she was a bad horse owner. I bet whoever boards the horse now watched this and cried, knowing they're going to get ripped off too)

Defendant couldn't get a hold of plaintiff, and per contract she called the vet of record, who refused to come out without the past due payment being paid.  When she picked up horse plaintiff had to pay $1584 for past due bills.    Plaintiff has a nasty smirk every time JJ knocks something off the bill, but sorry it says in the contract what the defendant will charge for.

  $1141 to plaintiff (wrong JJ, the stable owner should have received $5,000).   

JJ should never do horse cases, she doesn't understand that horses require regular vet, farrier, feed, and other care.    

Barter Fail-Plaintiffs suing defendant for money owed for a truck ($3400).   $8450 is the value of a 1982 Chevy Silverado (some other models with special packages were almost twice that).     Plaintiffs sold truck to man, and gave him the title.  Cash payment was supposed to be $1200. with defendant doing work for them, for $4700 more.       Defendant performed some work, but didn't finish.    

Plaintiffs get $3400.

Second-

Felon Gets Hustled-Plaintiff loaned $4800 to defendant/ex girlfriend, so she could move into a house.  Plaintiff is suing for loan, lost wages, and some other stuff.   Plaintiff took a loan out with horribly high interest rates, so original loan was $2600 or so, and with interest is now almost $4,000 (If paid in total the interest plus loan will be $12539-usurious interest).      Defendant took the loan, never paid anything back, and her excuse is she had bad credit from a divorce, and couldn't get a loan.   Defendant was trying to buy a house, and needed $4800, with her $2,000 in savings on a lease to buy.   Defendant never bought the house, and is still renting the home for $1400 a month.    This house in L.A., so how can you start to buy anything in L.A. for $4800.  

Defendant also says she found out plaintiff is a convicted felon, so she didn't pay him back.     Defendant lied about when she needed the money for the rental, the amount needed, and never paid back the money.     Plaintiff says the relationship with defendant wasn't intimate, but it was just a booty call situation.  

Plaintiff receives $0, Defendant claims she's paying on the loan. 

Intoxicated Roommate Woes-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for return of rent, and deposit.     Plaintiff rented a room at defendant's place for $600 a month.   Plaintiff claims he paid first, last month, and security, totaling $1800.    Defendant claims plaintiff is a drunk, and disturbed the house.   There is no written lease specifying behavior or noise, so the eviction was illegal.   

Defendant is a circus acrobat.   Is this our first circus acrobat litigant? 

 Defendant heard a loud bang from plaintiff's room, claims he was drunk,    Defendant told plaintiff to leave the house. 

$ 900, for half a month's rent, and security, to plaintiff.

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Don't Cosign With Your Idiot Boyfriend-Plaintiff cosigned for the boyfriend's car the month they moved in together.   Actually, it isn't even a cosign, because boyfriend's name isn't on the loan.   Defendant has kids, plaintiff doesn't.    Plaintiff is basically bankrupt.   

Plaintiff took her father's car with her when she moved out of her parent's house, and in with defendant.   Defendant traded in his truck (for $800), and wanted a new vehicle for him.   Plaintiff's family now pays her rent, and she lives with the roommates that were there when deadbeat boyfriend lived there.    

Car was repo'd in January 2020, and only plaintiff was on the loan.   Defendant was only on the insurance for the car he drove.  PLaintiff is still whining that defendant is responsible for the car, but he's not.    JJ thinks plaintiff is an idiot, and she is.   As JJ points out, the woman is on the loan, registration, and could have gone to the police to get the car back, and resell it.   

On the video of the fight in front of the LAPD officer that had to deal with the two fools, plaintiff acts like a dirty mouthed psycho, and so does the loser boyfriend.  The litigants still lived together for months after the video.    $23,000 is still on the loan, that plaintiff is responsible for.  (I would like to slap both litigants until they cry like the spoiled brats they are). 

Plaintiff receives nothing, and is told to take this to another court that has a higher limit, where she will be told she's getting nothing. 

Canadians, Defamation and a Mexican Holiday-(I would like to thank the episode caption writer, this is the most bizarre case title I've ever read for JJ, or any other show)-Defendant owns a vacation condo in Playa del Carmen, Mexico.   Plaintiff rented the condo for three months, through a direct contract with defendant.    Plaintiff told defendant he's cancelling the rental, and wanted all but a couple of weeks of the deposit back, so his parents could stay there for two weeks.   Plaintiff received reduced rent because of the three month term.   JJ says there was a legitimate contract, with offer, acceptance, consideration, and contract completed.     Defendant said that he needed to send his deposit that day, because if he wasn't going to do the 3 month rental, and deposit, she would rent to some Canadian guests instead.    

Defendant was only able to re-rent the condo part of the 3 months.   Plaintiff wanted his $2,000 deposit back, his airline tickets, attorney fees, and everything else he could think of.   What a nasty person the plaintiff is.    When defendant refused to knuckle under to the extortion by plaintiff, he posted nasty reviews all over the internet rental sites.  Defendant is countersuing for defamation of character, and loss of rental income.   Defendant say during the time of the contracted rental, there were two full weeks of vacancies.   

Plaintiff receives $2,000 (defendant made same amount of rental money from other tenants).   

Second (Rerun)-

 Pet Sitter Kills Dog-Plaintiff suing for the death of her dog, when she was in the care of a pet sitter.  Plaintiff was on a European cruise, and sitter was supposed to be living at plaintiff's house, and caring for the dogs.  

 Dog sitter was recommended by the woman's vet, and I hope she told the vet what an idiot she is, and what happened.   Defendant is a so-called animal activist, who is apparently drunk or stoned, and probably always is, was supposed to stay at a woman's house, take care of her four dogs, and took the dogs back to her home instead.    Plaintiff agree to pay $750, with $400 down, and was going to give defendant $1,000 total. 

The 'animal activist' part confuses me, or is the pet sitter, really one of those animal activists that thinks all pets should be allowed to run free in the wild, to get hit by cars and starve?     One dog dug out from under the fence, and got hit by a car.     

The pet sitter won't shut the hell up, and keeps talking over Judge Judy.     Defendant claims harassment, stalking by plaintiff sitting in front of her place of employment, and made reports to CPS about some kids, not hers (no, I don't understand this either).     I guess the idiot pet sitter is a nanny or something.        Defendant also sent text messages to plaintiff saying she's glad the dog died, and her other dogs should die too.  Defendant claims plaintiff saw pictures of plaintiff's dog at defendant's house.   However, dog was unsupervised long enough to get run over.   Defendant claims plaintiff's sister and daughter sent death threats to her.   Defendant claims both litigants were great friends after plaintiff came home.  

Byrd clearly wanted to beat the defendant into a bloody pulp, and if it wasn't a ratings sweeps month I'm sure the defendant Cruella Deville would have been booted out long before the end of the case.     

Plaintiff gets $1,500.

You're an Idiot for Helping Someone in Need-Idiot plaintiff leases a Honda for the defendant.   Defendant has a long history of getting cars repossessed, and that makes the plaintiff stupid.     Defendant claims she was giving rides to plaintiff, etc. , and defendant didn't have enough money for lease.    Plaintiff had car registered, in her name, and defendant is named on the insurance.     Plaintiff also had full insurance on the vehicle, which was her only smart move. 

 Plaintiff is whining because the defendant owes for at least one unpaid parking ticket (P.'s getting that), excess mileage  (P.'s not getting that, since she can't prove who did the mileage), and wants the defendant to pay what she agreed to.     The defendant has a weird little top bun.     (Yes, plaintiff was an idiot for leasing the car for defendant, and for whatever that eye makeup she's wearing is supposed to be.    That eye makeup is hideous). 

Defendant had a limit of 12,000 miles a year, but put 22,000 miles on the car instead.  I don't even want to know how much the extra 10,000 miles will cost. 

Defendant still doesn't think that a person who doesn't pay their bills is a bad risk, and plaintiff had a DUI after this all happened too. 

The plaintiff only gets $84 for the traffic ticket, and nothing else. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Time Share Fiasco-Woman suing her daughter's ex-boyfriend for failing to repay her for a failed time-share vacation.   Daughter wanted to take boyfriend, and use the plaintiff's/parent's time share in Las Vegas, and then the couple broke up.   Plaintiff Mom wants the airline ticket for ex paid back.     

Defendant said he wanted to go to Florida, and didn't know about the time share in Vegas.  (Daughter was adopted at 19, so she never went on vacations to the time shares, or any where before this).    Then couple broke up, and plaintiff wants time share change fee, and airline ticket.    The payments, airline, points, and everything is very confusing.   Plaintiff claims defendant would be repaid for airline, and booking fees.   Defendant took out a loan right before this, and it was to consolidate debt but not specific details of the trip.     

Plaintiff receives $220.   

Bad Luck Car Sale-Plaintiff suing unlicensed car buyer for towing fees, (both litigants are not related, but have the same last name), tickets, and impound fees.       Down payment was $800, and pay $215 a month.   

Defendant was driving the car, and three weeks later was pulled over by police.  Defendant had no license, and car was impounded.     Car was still titled to plaintiff, so only he could get it out of impound.    Defendant wanted plaintiff to sign pink slip, so he could get the car registered/titled, and get his license, so he could get the car out of impound.  Another issue is there was a 30-day hold on the impound. 

Plaintiff tried to get the car out of impound, but he couldn't with the 30 day hold, and the $3,000+ storage fees for an $1,800 car.   The impound lot said they would only release the car earlier than 30 days, if the plaintiff/owner said it was stolen.     

$3800 to plaintiff.  

Second-

Where's the Ring?-Plaintiff suing former fiance for the return of tools, a basketball hoop (or goal?), and an engagement ring.   The two lived together, with her children, for over two years.   Defendant owns a deli/grocery, and plaintiff worked there and they lived above it.   Mostly we're talking about the ring, and defendant says she has no idea where the ring is, and claims man took the ring with him.    Defendant said they never got around to getting married.   Plaintiff says he did not take the ring, and says def. is a liar.   Plaintiff says the defendant claimed to be divorced, but is still married.   

JJ dismisses plaintiff case, because she can't even get the man to answer simple questions about payments for rent, etc.   

Case dismissed, counter claim dismissed. (Hallterview is hysterical, plaintiff claims defendant is still married to someone else.  Plaintiff says defendant belongs on the Lifetime channel, and he appreciates she didn't kill him when the relationship ended.)

The Case of the Missing Car-Plaintiff suing defendant/mechanic for losing her car, that she bought from him.   Plaintiff had defendant fix car body damages.  Plaintiff paid $5,000 (book value is $3525) for car, because of rims.   Plaintiff has no proof of paying mechanic for car.

Mechanic says car disappeared from outside his shop, and thinks plaintiff had something to do with it.   JJ also asks defendant if he's on drugs, and he admits he had a drug problem, but was getting help during the summer all of his happened.     Police report says value of car was $3,000 per plaintiff/owner.    Keeping car safe was defendant's responsibility.   JJ thinks defendant sold car for drugs.   

$3540 for plaintiff

Totaled Friendship-Plaintiff suing former friend for wrecking her car.   Defendant had driven the car several times before the accident.     Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car in rainy weather, slid off of the road, and claims nothing was her fault.  She's blaming the car, and car was defective. 

Plaintiff bought car for $1,000, and gets that amount.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Child Removed From Drunk Parents-Plaintiff suing defendant for taking his truck without permission, and wrecking it.     Defendant is alleged to have had a big physical fight, and wife was beaten up (witness is defendant's wife), while they were both drunk.    The 9 year old daughter of defendant was scared by the parents fighting.    Plaintiff was called to come over to the house, and the child's aunt came over and took child to safety.    Plaintiff took female defendant to his home, and a friend took her to safety from there.   Defendant's wife claims defendant male didn't beat her up. 

Male defendant took plaintiff's truck (yes, defendant was very drunk), and when it ran out of gas, police stopped and gave him a ride to the gas station.   Defendant drove a few more miles, and truck broke down.   Police found truck, and there is no police report, and truck was scrapped.

Case dismissed, because it's stupid, and so are all of the litigants.  

34-Year-Old Brat Beat Down-Plaintiff suing former landlord, for return of belongings she withheld, after she locked him out.    Plaintiff brought his mommy to court, yes, he's 34 years old.     Plaintiff paid security, and moved in a week early at defendant's home.   The plaintiff saw defendant's father was sleeping over on the couch, and plaintiff and the dad had a fight.   Plaintiff left his shoes in the common area, and father put them outside of plaintiff's door, and he almost tripped over them.   So plaintiff stuck the shoes in the living room.    A passive-aggressive brat of a plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's mother seems to think her 34 year old brat is cute, and she's wrong.  Defendant realized this roommate situation wasn't working out so she locked his door, and put a note on his door telling him to find other accommodations.     A month later plaintiff returned to get his stuff back, but would have to pay rent for October (had paid through September already).    Plaintiff never paid for October, and now we fast forward to February, and then to this case.   Plaintiff's junk is in the room, some in a shed she owns, and he needs to pay the rent through February to get his stuff.   

Defendant rented room in January, so plaintiff just has to pay for October, November, and December.   (Roommate for one month slept in the plaintiff's abandoned bed-Ick!!!).   

$450 rent to defendant, and plaintiff gets his junk back.  

Second (Rerun)-

You Made It Awkward!  You Pay for It-Plaintiff suing for breach of lease, damages, and late fees.   Plaintiff, plaintiff witness, and defendant moved into the same apartment.   Plaintiff witness, and defendant were in a dating relationship, then broke up.    Defendant moved out four months before lease ended.    

Defendant says even after the break up, plaintiff and plaintiff's witness were still friendly, and witness would let himself into the apartment with his key, even after witness moved out.   Defendant had a new boyfriend, and eventually told plaintiff she didn't want plaintiff witness in the apartment.  Defendant claims ex was harassing her, texting her, and apparently, looking at her funny.   Defendant's mommy is her witness, and thinks her daughter is so right, and mommy is wrong.   

Defendant wanted to change the locks to keep the ex out.    To get plaintiff off the lease, defendant would have to find a co-signer (probably mommy).   Defendant didn't show up for her ex parte restraining order.    Defendant's mommy just has to stick her nose in the situation.     Defendant is trying to stick plaintiff with her portion of four months rent.  

Plaintiff receives the defendant's half of the rent for four months, $1600.     Defendant's stupid counter claim for emotional distress is dismissed, because it's stupid. 

I am Not My Adult Son's Keeper-Plaintiff suing her son, and his ex-wife for a loan to pay off credit card debt.  Loan was made after the divorce was filed, to pay off the credit card bills of the couple.    Ex-daughter-in-law isn't a party to the loan.    Plaintiff says money for attorney to son was a gift ($2800).    Then son asked mother for a loan, $689 for his house payment, then a couple of weeks later, she loaned him $4800 for credit cards by check.   

Plaintiff saw the JJ show, and called the show directly to file the case.    She never filed locally in small claims.   My guess, plaintiff filed just to get money from the show, and she never filed locally, because son would have to actually pay a judgment.   

Plaintiff sent back to file in local small claims court, which will never happen.   Bet if plaintiff files, it will be against ex daughter-in-law.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

I am Not My Adult Son's Keeper-Plaintiff suing her son, and his ex-wife for a loan to pay off credit card debt.  Loan was made after the divorce was filed, to pay off the credit card bills of the couple.    Ex-daughter-in-law isn't a party to the loan.    Plaintiff says money for attorney to son was a gift ($2800).    Then son asked mother for a loan, $689 for his house payment, then a couple of weeks later, she loaned him $4800 for credit cards by check.   

Plaintiff saw the JJ show, and called the show directly to file the case.    She never filed locally in small claims.   My guess, plaintiff filed just to get money from the show, and she never filed locally, because son would have to actually pay a judgment.   

Plaintiff sent back to file in local small claims court, which will never happen.   Bet if plaintiff files, it will be against ex daughter-in-law.  

If Ms. Davis files in small claims court and names the former daughter-in-law in the suit, the daughter-in-law's portion of the suit  will have been  a waste of time and of a filing fee.  Unless Ms. Davis drastically changes her story, the daughter-in-law still will not have been a party to the loan. The same principle applies in virtually any U.S. jurisdiction. The son (Welch?), had the two been shacking up and not legally married (they were married, weren't they?), could then have attempted to cut his losses by then suing the ex in civil court for her contribution to the debt necessitating (???) the loan. If the two were legally married and then divorced, however, the dissolution/division of joint marital property and assets/debts would have been final, and Welch would not then be able to petition another court to reopen and renegotiate it.

I got the idea that JJ felt that, whether she believed any money transfer between the parties  was a loan and not a gift or if she believed there was never any actual money transfer,, the case was fraudulent. She expressed more interested than I've ever seen her express in regard to why the suit was never filed in small claims court.  

I understand why JJ asked, and if I had the same financial stake she has (I don't know if she actually owns the financial company or has a large stake; someone else here probably knows far more about that than I do), I, too, would be concerned, but if she wants to be certain that she's getting a  legitimate  case as opposed to a manufactured "dispute" after which the plaintiff and defendant have agreed to split the proceeds, she she would be much safer in taking only cases for which small claims courts suits have actually been filed. 

JJ's staff is probably fairly skilled at vetting out the phony cases, but every now and then, an apparently bogus case makes it into the courtroom, which might very well have happened with this case.  It doesn't seem to happen so often  with the other shows. I would guess that the difference is that the other court shows cut  such cases off or don't air them and perhaps go after the phony litigants for production costs. Once JJ's production staff begins filming, it seems that we see the case for better or for worse, though JJ seems to cut those cases as short as is humanly possible, either making an extremely fast decision or dismissing without prejudice and sending the case to [back] small claims  court.

Remember that case with the young woman named Kate who had a cat that was supposedly killed when the musician roommates started throwing TVs around the living room, with one of the TVs supposedly landing on and killing the cat? That one seemed clearly to have been  a hoax that fooled  the production staff. JJ  was in such a mad rush to get those litigants out of her courtroom that she didn't even take the time to throw out the witness who called her mama.  I wouldn't have wanted to be the onne who let that case get before the cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if the responsible staff member got the ax.  It  was one of my favorite cases, though. Those young people were hysterical.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/20/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Housekeeper Steals Customers-Plaintiff cleaning service owner suing former employee for soliciting clients away from her business.   Defendant was hired with a contract, to do cleaning services, and contract said no stealing clients.   One of the ex-clients, and present client of defendant is the witness.     

I considered JJ's decision on this case to be controversial, not the one about the website design services.  Client asked the housecleaner when she would be back to clean, and the cleaner replied she would no longer be working for The Company.  Client was dismayed and expressed a desire to keep her services; she trusted the cleaner, she was reliable, she did good work.  Cleaner told the client she was starting her own business.  Judy ruled this was solicitation on the part of the cleaner, but I disagree.  The cleaner didn't volunteer this information until she was asked.  What was she supposed to say when the client asked her about her future work?  All I could imagine was a ridiculous game of charades between the housecleaner and the client  until the truth came out.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2020 at 7:06 PM, Brattinella said:

Wedding Dress Distress-(the case where the plaintiff designer/seamstress did the wedding dress, and is wearing what looks like a bunch of black garbage bags made into a dress, including a huge bow for court)-

Yes, all I could think of was, "Hefty, hefty hefty!"

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Immigrant Battle-Plaintiff/Australian suing defendant/ South African over a physical fight.   Plaintiff is suing for harassment, and defendant disposing of his boat cover.   Boat cover was custom made, but used, and hard to replace.   Defendant says landlord hired (landlord is plaintiff's witness) him to clean up the rented lot, and he threw out a moldy tarp.  Defendant rented one lot from plaintiff landlord.   Landlord says defendant does clean up property for him occasionally, but hadn't hired man to clean this time.   Defendant's witness gets booted.   

Defendant was mowing both properties, on the landlord's lawnmower, and claims plaintiff attacked him.  Police report says the same thing, defendant was mowing and was pushed off of the lawn mower by plaintiff.   Plaintiff says he defendant was yelling, and cursing at plaintiff.   Plaintiff says he never hurt the defendant man.

Plaintiff gets $150 to buy a boat cover (it won't be custom, but the other one was used)   

I Smell Pot-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages, and storage fees.     Plaintiff wanted screen printing machine moved to a storage unit.    Plaintiff agreed to pay $75, but says it was in $35 cash, and a bag of weed.  Defendant says he was paid $35 up front cash, and defendant says he is owed $40 by plaintiff.  

Then the two made an agreement that plaintiff would work on a 2000 Audi for the defendant, and would get the Audi.   Defendant instead offered a Ford.      There was no written contract, and nothing to prove the agreement.   There is no proof plaintiff worked on any car, so case dismissed. 

Plaintiff claims he did the work, and was given a forged receipt.   Defendant says work wasn't done.   Defendant says plaintiff forged the document for the DMV that was rejected. 

Case dismissed. 

Second-

Malicious Call to Child Protective Services-Plaintiff rented trailer ($1500 total, $1000 deposit was paid), and was going to grow marijuana.  Plaintiff is suing for $1,000 deposit on trailer, and fix up costs.         Defendants are neighbors of plaintiff, and his mother.   

(Plaintiff was going to grow pot for his own use, so he didn't have to buy it.   He obviously used way too much of everything.   Plaintiff hasn't blinked yet, very odd.).     

Defendants said plaintiff claimed he was going to live in the trailer (he wanted to rent travel trailer for three months).   Plaintiff says he told male defendant it was for a grow op, and it was going to be on a friend's property (in Paris, California), but friend told plaintiff to get off his property.   Plaintiff says trailer didn't have valid registration.   

Defendant says plaintiff called CPS on them, said male defendant was meth user, and used drugs around the kids.    Plaintiff wanted his $1,000 deposit back, and then called CPS the same day.    

Plaintiff is not getting his $1,000 back.   Defendants receive $3,000 for plaintiff's malicious call to CPS.    

Horrible Tenant-Plaintiff landlady suing former tenant for unpaid rent, and damages, after she evicted him.    There is a signed lease.   Defendant paid some months in full, but some months less, and claims he's made up the back costs.    Defendant keeps swaying, and he's making me sick, but worse, JJ is getting sea sick too.     

Defendant breached lease by not paying in full for August, and  eviction was started.   Landlady claims $500 wasn't paid for July either.   Plaintiff gave a three day order on 1 September, and defendant owed $700, plus September, $500 more, equals $1200.   

Defendant moved on 15 September, but was on the premises on 24 September, when plaintiff's property manager (she lives across the hall from his former apartment), and defendant and his witness were heard trashing the place, and property manager photographed the damages (ripped out cabinets, etc.)    Defendant's witness doesn't lie very well.   I love it when the landlady has photos on move in, and move out. 

Plaintiff receives the full $5,000.   Defendant told to hit the road.    

Intersection Collision-Plaintiff suing defendant for a car accident.  Defendant did not have insurance on the day of the accident. 

Plaintiff was at stop sign, saw defendant in the left hand lane, but when he turned right onto the road, defendant switched lanes in the middle of the intersection,  and nailed his car.     JJ isn't getting the point, the woman didn't signal, and changed lanes in an intersection, and then swooped right hitting plaintiff's car.   

JJ says plaintiff should have waited for defendant to go past.   (My opinion is that if you don't have insurance, you should automatically lose). 

Case dismissed. 

(From a lot of talks with my insurance agent, anyone who is injured on your property is the homeowners, and/or the renter's liability.    That's a big reason that pools don't have diving boards any more.   This includes trespassers you don't do anything about).  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the case of the sprained ankle/horses/fence was a raw deal.  If someone is on my property and tripped on a rock, then they sued me, I'd be pissed.  It seems unfair to me - clumsy equals I pay for your ER bill, do I have to clear every little obstacle so no mishaps can befall any visitor ever? 

After hearing the details, JJ made the defendant (partly) responsible.   Whatever, JJ.   I've never been a homeowner, so if I'm missing some statute, I'd be curious to find out how this case fits.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Divorce Fallout = Free Horses-Plaintiff went on defendant's mother's property to look at horses being given away, and defendant's daughter invited plaintiff on the property.   Defendant daughter was going through a divorce, and the horses needed to be rehomed.     Plaintiff claims she stepped on a pipe or something in the pasture, and turned her ankle.  Defendant daughter kept the horses on the defendant's mother's property. 

Plaintiff claims she climbed over a gate, and defendant says she didn't need to do that getting into the property.   There is a walk through gate shown on the pictures submitted by defendant.   There was a lot of getting keys, shuffling positions, etc.   Then defendant unlocked the gate, and opened the gate, and plaintiff climbed over the second gate, stepped on something, and rolled her ankle.    

I'm surprised the plaintiff didn't go after the defendant's homeowner's insurance, or if she had better evidence, get a civil attorney.      JJ says plaintiff was invited, and defendant is partly responsible.

Plaintiff claims her deductible will be $2300 or more, and she receives $1010 (half of out of pocket fees, because plaintiff was half responsible)

When a Pit Bull Attacks...Yet Again-Plaintiff suing defendant/neighbor for a dog bite, pain and suffering, and other damages from defendant's dog biting plaintiff.   This happened at a dog park, and plaintiff says the defendant's dog bit her dog at the park a year ago.    

Plaintiff was at the dog park for the first time after the previous attack, with a well behaved group of dogs and owners, she was with.     Plaintiff saw defendant coming to the dog park, plaintiff yelled for defendant to stay out, because plaintiff was leaving.   Defendant ignored the warning, let her dog loose in the gate, and defendant's dog attacked plaintiff's dog.    Plaintiff was injured rescuing her dog from the attacking Pit.     Plaintiff's arm injuries look very bad, and had to drain to heal.    Defendant dog was quarantined, and defendant claims that was her only issue with animal control.    

JJ wants defendant to describe the previous attack by her dog, the year before.   Defendant was not watching her dog, and the Pit Bull was in a fight with plaintiff's Jack Russell.   Plaintiff says the Pit entered the park, and immediately pinned her Jack Russell to the ground, and a bystander separated the dog.   Defendant didn't see any of the fight or rescue happen, because she wasn't even looking.     Plaintiff says defendant never sees anything her dog does.  

Plaintiff gets $2,000.   I think she should have gone for $5,000, because the Pit shouldn't be at the park. 

Second (Rerun)-

Woman Whacks Husband's Ex in Head with Gun - Plaintiff is suing defendant for vandalizing her vehicle.   Plaintiff husband went to prison for 3 years for assaulting the defendant, and married his co-plaintiff wife while he was in jail, and the three kids with plaintiff wife range from 11 years to 5 months.   

Plaintiff is idiot ex-con who claims he was innocently out until midnight (and we all know what he was doing, and probably with another desperate woman).  Supposedly man texted defendant at mall, to come to his cousin's house, not where he's shacking up with the wife.   Defendant goes to the cousin's house, wife/girlfriend plaintiff whacks stupid desperate defendant in head with a gun.    Defendant made phony police report saying plaintiff ex-con wasn't present, so it didn't violate his non-contact order with desperate, stupid, slutty defendant.     

Plaintiff wife says she has a recording of confession from defendant that she vandalized the car.      Poor Byrd has to go listen to the garbage audio recording on the phone, and couldn't figure out anything on it.      Plaintiff wife apparently walked in on plaintiff husband, and defendant boinking in the basement, and that's when the assault happens.       I wonder what happened to the plaintiff's teeth?  Or is that a souvenir of love muffin's assault?   Plaintiff wife claims defendant vandalized her car.   Plaintiff wife's witness is her own husband.  

JJ dismisses the town tramps' cases. 

Apparently defendant took her fake teeth out, and claims plaintiff wife took the teeth too.   

No money to either party, because they're stupid, slutty, and desperate, and all three will probably go home to continue the freaky relationships. 

My Arm Was Almost Torn Off-Two tow truck drivers work for the same company in Chicago.  They get paid cash for each tow, which apparently makes things very competitive.     Plaintiff claims defendant parked too close to his truck that plaintiff's arm was caught, and almost torn off.    Truck company doesn't get worker's comp., and claims the company said they will take care of the plaintiff, and didn't want him to get a lawyer, for obvious, sleazy reasons.     

The two drivers were racing to get to the accident, because first one there gets the tow, and the money.   The plaintiff looks so confused and hurt when JJ says there's a scam going on, and she'll figure it out (he's not a good actor either).      I think part of the reason they came on the show was to advertise the business, and I'm surprised the litigants, and their witnesses aren't wearing M & J Trucking t-shirts.    When defendant pulled out to go to the tow, the T-shaped boom hit p.'s arm.   

JJ tells them both to take it up with M & J Trucking, no one gets money from Byrd today.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2020 at 6:44 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ says plaintiff was invited, and defendant is partly responsible

She was invited all right, but not to climb over the fence! She was supposed to walk through the entrance like any sensible person would have done.

On 5/29/2020 at 6:44 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

When a Pit Bull Attacks...Yet Again-

Defendant does not supervise her savage dog and does not care about the consequences for others. I agree that plaintiff did not ask for enough money. As in many cities, the municipal animal control department appears to be a joke where they live.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

(They have now changed my TV schedule, JJ old reruns air at 4 p.m., and newer ones still air at 5 p.m.   Don't know if that's permanent).

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

First-

Boss Steals Worker's Car-Plaintiff suing former boss/car seller for the car he repo'd.   She paid $2500 down, and was to make bi-weekly payments of $100 until car paid off.   Plaintiff skipped six payments, defendant repo'd car.    JJ say repo was legit.    However, defendant didn't tell the plaintiff car was repo'd by him, so she reported it stolen, and police impounded the car.    

JJ will not give impound, since defendant didn't tell plaintiff he had car.

There are allegations of car damages, and JJ tells defendant to use the $2500 down payment he received for the car damage, and impound.    

Gimme Back My Camera-Plaintiff and defendant were shacking up, she gave him an older camera.   Then they had a fight, and plaintiff went to drop him off at ex-wife and kid's place for Christmas.   Defendant borrowed the new professional camera owned by professional photographer plaintiff, to take family pictures.    Defendant reconciled with ex-wife, and kept the professional camera.   

JJ gives plaintiff back her expensive camera, and Byrd gives older camera to defendant, and case is over.

Second-

Divorced and Angry-Plaintiff suing estranged Mother-in-Law for a false restraining order, and attorney's fees.    Plaintiff need child support, and MIL paid for one month for her deadbeat son.  Then defendant ex-husband raided the marital joint account, and took off for Florida fun with his side piece.    So plaintiff called MIL for money, and then MIL called the son by the pool in Florida.   Defendant son called police, and police told MIL to get a restraining order against plaintiff.    

MIL files for a protective order, and plaintiff had to get an attorney to fight the order.   Protective order was denied, and plaintiff gets $1,083 for the attorney fees, everything else dismissed. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. cases, both recent reruns-

First-

Slick Senior Picture Operation?!-Plaintiff photographer suing defendants (Mom gets the boot later) for stopping payment on a check, to pay for defendant's daughter's senior photo shoots.

The contract is the 'model' photos free, with a discount for senior pictures for photo packages, which costs a bundle.     Defendant mother claims she only received two modeling pictures, daughter says 3 to 5 per photo shoot, and there were two shoots.  The average senior photo packages costs about $1,000. 

 Defendant mom tries to charge the desk, and gets the Byrd stop.   The senior picture turned the girl's hair red, but final album shows blonde hair (the right color).    (I don't have kids, so when co-workers told me how much they spent on professional photographers for photo shoots, albums, prints, and all kinds of things for senior pictures, I was stunned). 

The defendant mother trashes every picture, and stopped payment on the check for the senior photos.   Photo shoot was $1200 + sales tax 8 1/4%, $1249.50.     Photographer says all pictures in the album were selected by the daughter.       Another photographer took the senior yearbook picture.   Photographer was paid $250 deposit, and that's all she's getting, until JJ finds out some were posted online by the defendant mother.  

Now defendant mom gets the boot.   JJ likes the digitals the defendant daughter received.  Mother had posted the pictures on Facebook, and supposedly deleted them.   

Photographer keeps the $250 deposit, and $500 for the photo shoot, totals $750.   

Second-

Guess Which Breed of Dog Annihilates Another!-A younger teen (niece of plaintiff), and a friend go to walk her dog (German Shepherd).  The across the street neighbor's two pit crosses came out of the yard, and attacked the dog.      The pits are kept on chains at night in the back yard, and off chains during the day, and never come in the house.   

The dogs are chained, and she doesn't want to risk people kicking in her fence (I believe that the SWAT team usually kicks in the front and back doors, but maybe the gate too.   I wonder if the pits attack any dog they see, or just dogs resembling the ones that come with the SWAT team? ), at night, and letting the dogs out.    The defendant also has a chihuahua that lives in the house all of the time.

Plaintiff's niece was walking her leashed dog, and the two pits attacked the dog.  A wonderful bystander hit the attacking dogs with a chair, and made them let go.  The girls went home, pointed out the two attacking dogs, and saw the roommates of the defendant/homeowner put the dogs back in the yard.     

After the attack, the defendant homeowner kept threatening the plaintiff, the niece, and others at the plaintiff's house.    Police reports were made, and to animal control.  The Pits were not quarantined.   

There is a shocking video of the homeowner screaming all kinds of threats against the plaintiffs, and the dogs, the morning after the attack.   Defendant claims her homeowner's insurance covers the Pits, I'm betting that's a lie too.  

$3,000 for the plaintiff.     

Upcoming Rap Star Bling!-Plaintiff suing for $5k, for rent, jewelry, and iPhone, and iWatch.    Plaintiff paid nothing in April, May and June, but they were living together then too.  The ex-girlfriend, or whatever, was an aspiring rap artist, so plaintiff loaned her money for an iPhone, and paid nothing back.    Then, plaintiff bought her the iWatch, and nothing was paid back by defendant, and there was one payment from defendant of $500.   In May defendant smashed the watch and phone, and in July plaintiff bought the necklace for the defendant.  

Apparently the defendant misbehaved in the court clerk's office before the case.    I really want the video of that misbehavior.

Plaintiff starts to yell at JJ, and defendant, and case is thrown out.    

Cat-Litter Eating Puppy?!-Defendant young man and woman moved plaintiff into their apartment, and plaintiff's cat litter was eaten by defendant's puppy.     Plaintiff moved out early after the fighting over the puppy, kitty, and everything else started, and JJ told her to pay the lease break fee.

Everyone gets booted, and no money. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Don't Fence Me In-Plaintiff (Michael Jackson) owns the fence on his property (not a joint fence) between his house, and defendants' yard.    Defendants piled tires and junk against the fence until the fence broke, when plaintiff wanted replacement costs, the defendants told him to stuff it.    Then they piled the junk against their front gate to keep their dogs in, so they still have a yard with lots of trash and tires.     Defendants also wanted plaintiff to pay for the branches they trimmed on their property, from plaintiff's tree (dismissed). 

JJ says since fence is old, defendants don't have to pitch in on fence.   This fence stuff has been going on for over six years!   Too bad no one moved away from the neighbors.  Defendant tries to tell the entire history of their disputes with plaintiff, and I side with the plaintiff.    Wonder how much wildlife is living in the junky yard of the defendants?  

Case dismissed. 

Sister, I Don't Believe You-Plaintiff suing sister for cost to repair her car, defendant counter claim for payments she made on car.    JJ thinks both litigants are lying and just here for the money, and I agree.    Supposedly plaintiff co-signed, and car was in plaintiff's name, but defendant drove it and made payments for two years.  However, defendant didn't have insurance.   

Cases dismissed.   JJ told them to go back to where they came from and sue there.    

Mess or No Mess-Plaintiff suing former landlady for return of security deposit ($200), but wants $5,000.   Rent was $650, so she still owes $450 for last month.    Landlady wants damages. 

$450 for defendant, nothing for plaintiff.

Second-

Dad Left in the Dark-Plaintiffs mother and son, suing sister's ex-husband and her sister for child care costs, and travel costs for the kids.   Plaintiff had custody of sister's kids, and lived in Minnesota.   Defendant ex-husband lives in North Dakota, and defendant woman now lives in Texas.   Defendant sister lived in Texas, and CPS was involved.   Sister /plaintiff took custody of children, and paid for the air fare for the kids.   

Defendant woman and kids lived in Minnesota, but moved to Texas, a year later.   Defendant father didn't see the kids at any time while they lived in Texas.    Defendant father was accused of corporal punishment against the oldest daughter, and CPS was involved, and that's when the defendant mother moved to Texas with the kids.    

Defendant father lives in Fargo, ND, and kids were in Minnesota, and defendant father wanted custody of the kids.   Defendant man called the sister with the kids, and wanted to talk to his kids, and kids didn't want to talk to him.   Defendant father goes to court in ND, and gets custody of the three kids (the ones the Texas court stopped all visitation with the defendant father).       Plaintiff paid $700 for airfare for the three kids, who only lived with her for a week, before the father got custody.    Defendant father has the two boys, and the daughter (the one he assaulted), is in foster care in ND. 

How can any judge in ND, not look at the father's history with the kids, and give this man custody?   

$700 to plaintiff. 

Victim Compensation Funeral-Plaintiff / funeral director is suing defendant/mother of deceased son for funeral costs she still owes.   Defendant owes money to funeral director for son's funeral, and is counter suing him to get funeral payment back.  Mother's  claim to a state crime victim funeral fund was turned down.    There was the option of a state paid pauper's funeral, but mother wanted a better funeral.   Funeral director told defendant about the state crime victim's compensation fund.   Funeral director told defendant about her funeral cost options. .   Plaintiff has a signed contract for the funeral, and cemetery.   Defendant claims she paid $300 to plaintiff.    

$5000 to plaintiff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Therapy Pit Bull vs. 8-Year-Old Child-Plaintiff suing for dog attack ($997 vet bill) by a pit bull that was being walked by an 8 year old child (the male plaintiff was with the child and dog), and the child couldn't stop the attack. 

Defendant keeps claiming the pit bull is a therapy dog.      Plaintiffs are suing neighbor after pit bull attacked their Labrador.    Plaintiff's dog was on leash, when pit bull attacked.    An 8 year old was going to walk the Pit Bull, but defendant doesn't remember the kid's name.   Plaintiff says Pit dragged boy across a neighbor's yard, where it attacked the first time.  The plaintiff managed to get the Pit off of the Lab, then Pit slipped it's collar, and attacked again.   

Defendant was watching the 8 year old, for the kid's parent, and can't remember his name, and hasn't seen the child since the dog attack.  Defendant claims plaintiffs were trespassing, and her dog attacked because it was protecting the 8 year old.   

Defendant claims plaintiff was hitting her with the leash, not the Pit.     Defendant lied to Animal Control on the day of the fight, and claims she didn't see fight happen.    Plaintiff sent certified letter with vet bills to defendant who did not reply.   

Sheriff's department officers arrived, and stated they had a history with the address residents, so they stuck around until animal control showed up. 

As JJ says, defendant either lied to Sheriff deputy, and Animal Control, or lied to JJ, and defendant says she lied today.   I hope the Sheriff's department saw this, or JJ forwarded a copy.     (note to defendant, this is not a cocktail party, so don't dress like it is).

$997 to plaintiffs. (and JJ goes off on defendant big time, very enjoyable).

Alabama Child Support Drama-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for collecting extra child support that she accepted, and kept after child turned 19.   Defendant also wants medical bills plaintiff didn't pay, $2,000.   Defendant is told to go back to family court for the medical bills. 

Plaintiff gets $945 back.  

Second-

House Flipping 101: What Not to Do-Woman takes real estate how to flip course, and screws the flip up miserably.   Plaintiff is first time house flipper claims the defendant contractor scammed her.   Plaintiff hired the man to do the kitchen cabinets, maybe opening up a wall, and putting in a support beam.      Defendant claims he ordered cabinets, and plaintiff cancelled them, and there was a restocking fee.    Plaintiff never checked any references for defendant. 

 Plaintiff gets $3000, even after advancing on the sacred desk of Judge Judy.   Plaintiff doesn't get the other $2k that she claims the man damaged in the house. 

I Threw a Ping Pong Ball , Not a Rock!-Plaintiff claims she manages an apartment house for free (she's apparently related to the owner).    She claims that defendants moved in, were month to month tenants, and are still living in the duplex.  Plaintiff says she loaned an armoire, and two more pieces of furniture to the defendants.     

Defendants were going to renovate a bathroom in the building for the equivalent of $1k, and they ripped the bathroom out.     The bathroom remodel was hysterically bad, and will have to be gutted, and redone.   No permits were pulled either.  

After seeing the bad job on the bathroom, plaintiff demanded the armoire, and two lamps back.  

The glass on the armoire was cracked, defendant says plaintiff's son broke it, and there were cigarette burns (she gets $250 for armoire).      Defendant claims plaintiff hit her car, and left the scene.     Defendants moved out suddenly, and claim (on video) plaintiff whacked their car with a rock.  Plaintiff claims it was a ping pong ball or rubber ball.  Defendant claims damage to her van was not caused by the ball or rock, but when plaintiff hit van with her car.   The police case is still pending. 

Plaintiff receives $250 for the furniture damages.  Defendants receive $0.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/1/2020 at 6:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Slick Senior Picture Operation?!

Another case where JJ screwed a small business owner. She may have a gazillion children and grandchildren and thus have infinite knowledge of how the prom pictures market works, but she knows crap about the technical side of photography. She semed to hink that colour correction is a marketing ploy by the photographer whereas it is a necessary technique that has been around for ages to correct lighting of film imbalance. Even B&W movies had to go though colour correcting or grading.

The photographer should have been allowed to keep more if not all of the money because that hateful mother breached the contract. She apparently believes her smart-alecky little smirking princess has a potential career as a model (and as a cash cow for the family).

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Therapy Pit Bull vs. 8-Year-Old Child-

I instantly detest dog owners who trot out the therapy or service dog defense. As if such canines magically lose all of their animal impulses and instincts, and become incapable of attacking another creature.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016-2017 (maybe won't get summarized, if the thunderstorm over my house doesn't move on quickly)

First-

Salon Thievery-Plaintiff suing former business partners over a beauty salon business, alleging property stolen, and loss of income.   Plaintiff claims the two defendants illegally evicted her.  At one time both defendants worked for plaintiff, then they all decided to expand the salon, move to a new location, and become partners.    Plaintiff and husband did renovations on the new beauty shop, and was full time, defendants were only in the salon a day or two a week, and worked other jobs.   Lease still has two more years to run.   

Plaintiff claims the two defendants breached the partnership contract by working very few hours.    Plaintiff claims she paid the utilities, and in December she came to work, and the lights were cut off.  Plaintiff called one defendant and asked about power outage, then other issues happened with the plumbing, and the end of the month plaintiff left the salon.  

Plaintiff claims she owned all salon equipment and stations, except one sofa, and claims defendant kept everything after she left.      Defendants deny plaintiff left much behind.   Funny the defendant who is talking doesn't look at JJ at all.   Plaintiff has order giving her furniture back, that she brought from the old salon she owned.   

Defendants get some chairs from plaintiff's chairs, and plaintiff gets her stuff back (what defendant didn't trash or sell).  

You're an Idiot-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan.    Defendant says the $800 loan for a car was a gift, not a loan.  Plaintiff, as usual, got a new phone since the loan, with text messages gone that prove $800 was a loan, not a gift.     (Plaintiff gave iPhone with messages to her 4 year old cousin).    Texts were printed out, and show that it was a loan, so $800 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Engagement Ring Confusion-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of his engagement ring.  Engagement was broken, and defendant gave the rings back to plaintiff.  Plaintiff gave defendant eviction paperwork, and defendant finally left.   Plaintiff's daughter filed elder abuse paperwork against defendant.    Defendant claims she was escorted out of the home, after police came after reports defendant was threatening the plaintiff with a knife.  (I love the plaintiff's suit, and the matching accessories).    Defendant says she went to dinner with plaintiff (3 to 6 months after the eviction), but they weren't engaged, so the ring was just a gift.   Then, plaintiff claims defendant blocked his phone number, and he wanted ring back again.     Plaintiff said defendant only could keep the rings if they married. 

Defendant keeps the rings to sell, plaintiff keeps any furniture defendant left behind. 

Too Much Money Too Soon-Plaintiff suing her boyfriend's mother for a loan to pay rent.   Plaintiff gets tribal money, received $50K when she turned 18, and every penny is gone.   (defendant mother has hideous makeup, and looks stoned).    Plaintiff, defendant mother, boyfriend, defendant's ex-husband, two more siblings of boyfriend, all live together with plaintiff paying the bills.    Plaintiff thinks ex-husband of defendant will actually start paying the rent the next month (no he won't).    Plaintiff's boyfriend, and his useless relatives certainly knew who to target, didn't they?    The only good thing is the plaintiff and boyfriend threw mommy out.  (Plaintiff was going to school, and isn't even doing that any longer.   I hope she moved out and has a little place of her own, and went back to school). 

Sadly, predatory defendant took advantage of plaintiff, but there was no loan contract.  Case dismissed.  

Drunk Cyclists-Plaintiff claims bicyclist damaged her car. Plaintiff was at work, her car was parked, when defendant hit the parked car with his bicycle.      Police report says defendant had been drinking before the accident.   Plaintiff came out to her car after work, and found a note from the Sheriff's deputy about the accident.    Damage is a long scratch, and big dents.     

Plaintiff receives $3200 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Babblers are Usually Liars!-Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her fiance, but plaintiff claims the fiance attacked her.     Plaintiff  accuses a former friend of returning her car with a huge dent that wasn't there before, and stealing a necklace.   Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car to go to the beach, fiance drove to Orchard Beach, parked, everyone met at the beach.  Defendant claims some tow truck parked at the beach did the damage.   Damage is assessed by JJ at $1,000 for plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims the necklace was ripped off by defendant at the gym.   

The car loan, and damage was months after the necklace incident. $1,000 for plaintiff.  

Battle Over the Bronze Lions!-Plaintiff was selling her house, and claims some bronze lions were her property, and is suing the home buyers/defendants.     There was no attorney involved, and no contract, but closing documents were done by a title company (it works that way in some states).        I think this house sale happened in 2015!  Plaintiff provided $12k closing costs, and signed the addendum the morning of closing costs.   

Plaintiff wants the bronze lions back, defendants claim they were part of the house.   There is an email from male defendant about the lions, and an email from plaintiff saying they could have them for $5k.  Defendant responded he wanted the lions.   That was a bizarre case, especially since the house was in New Hampshire, but the defendants were listed as living in Florida on the screen.   

 $5k for plaintiff.  

Second-

Damning Vandalism and Theft Caught on Tape?!-Defendant moves into woman's house, and plaintiff is suing for his video taped theft and damage of her property.      I remember this one, and the plaintiff is lucky she's not on the ID channel, as a victim.         Defendant stayed there from mid-September to the end of May.  He claims he paid in cash every month, but there are only seven months rent paid, and not one month.   

The video of defendant, and girlfriend stealing and vandalizing the plaintiff's property is awful.   Defendant and girlfriend are both stealing a lot of stuff too.    Defendant seems to think everything on the video, is funny.   

Plaintiff gets $5000.  

Don't Call My Antiques Junk-(This is the wild case where the neighbor had a lot of his junk in the old store on the first floor of the two store, and house/apartment above it)    Plaintiff wants money to get the defendants stuff off the alleyway on the plaintiff's aunt's property, and he put a gate over the end of the alleyway, and all are on the plaintiff's property.    Plaintiff wants to rehab the property, and sell, and it will then be worth about $500k (it's worth about $150k now).    

The plaintiff (niece of owner with power of attorney) had a survey done, and defendant's stuff is clearly on the aunt's property, and plaintiff wants it out now, and the gate removed.     Defendant Jeremy Burmeister, claims it's all valuable for his art projects. 

The plaintiff has pictures of the junk, and it's not art work or valuable.    Plaintiff also claims he's adding to the pile too.    The plaintiff's witness is trying hard to not laugh herself off the chair.     The defendant only owns 3 ft. from his building, and stuff is way beyond that too, from the photos.   Plaintiff wants the stuff moved, and demolition money for the gate removal.   

The only mistake the plaintiff made is she didn't get an estimate for removal of the junk, and the gate.   Defendant has three days to remove his junk, and clear out the gate, or plaintiff will get money for dumpsters, labor, and removal fees. 

This is a rerun, and I'm betting the plaintiff had to remove the junk, and get paid for it.  JJ is giving the plaintiff an order that if the junk isn't gone in three days, then she can call the sheriff, and get his junk out.      If plaintiff has to remove junk, then JJ will pay her bills for removal.      I love the response of the defendant to finding out JJ will not put up with him, and his junk.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episode, rerun, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Renter Hell-Plaintiff landlord suing tenant for damage to his rental home (I remember this one, JJ absolutely sided with the lying tenant, against the landlord).    Plaintiff inherited one tenant when he bought the house, and then the tenant / defendant moved in.   Plaintiff claims he did work on the house, but JJ says he had no time to do that.    Tenant was girlfriend of plaintiff's former business partner.      Tenant claims she was evicted illegally, by plaintiff.    There are reports to landlord by neighbors about shady activities going on at the property.    There was a trailer on the property, all kinds of vehicles (defendant claims she knew nothing about a trailer, or the vehicles).    Plaintiff submits a police report, and eviction notice.    

Defendant claims her ex-boyfriend, and landlord, and her boyfriend's mutual friends owned the trailer, and vehicles.   Defendant's druggie daughter, and daughter's boyfriend were on the property too, and lived in the house for a while.  Landlord says trailer on property, while defendant was living there, was stolen.      Abatement orders from city or county about the trailer, vehicles, etc. were while defendant was there.     Defendant had custody of the daughter's two grandkids, and one drew a lot of graffiti on the walls.     House is trashed.  Defendant says plaintiff stole her property, after she was evicted.   Sadly, housing court put the defendant back in the house after the eviction. 

Plaintiff can't go to the house, because of harassment from defendant's friends.  

JJ dismisses plaintiff's case.   JJ definitely favors grandmother's who are raising their grandkids, because parents are druggies.    Plaintiff didn't even get damages for the drawings on the wall by the grandkids.     Bad decisions JJ.   I guess JJ doesn't realize that the deputies were probably buddies with defendant, or her boyfriend?   

Counter claim is by defendant over vehicles towed off of his property, after abatement orders.    $5,000 to defendant, nothing to plaintiff, because JJ hates landlords.    Landlord should have received money for damages to the house, and now defendant still lives in plaintiff's house.  My guess, when plaintiff finally gets house back, it will be a tear down.  

 

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 3/12/2019 at 3:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Manhunt for Criminal at Large!-Foolish plaintiff had her car stolen or borrowed by boyfriend, and it was impounded after defendant goes to California, commits a robbery of a lady's purse, and he already had an extradiction warrant for household burglary from Washington.    (So defendant testimony that this was his first arrest is a lie). 

Plaintiff tried to get a lawyer, and bond to get loser out of jail, so she could have him help her get the car back.     I hope this fool boyfriend soon commits two more crimes in California, they have that three strikes law for sociopaths like him.  Plaintiff claims defendant's mommy made her feel guilty for not getting loser son out of jail.   Plaintiff lost her license for not having insurance card with her, an unpaid traffic ticket, and also had a pending DUI.  (My guess is the boyfriend was not an ex). 

$1402 to plaintiff for car that she'll never see again.   

Married Teen Victim of Odometer Fraud-Plaintiff wants money they paid for car, money fro what they put into the car (not getting that).  $3300 was the cost of a car, and the odometer wasn't 108,000 miles, but CarFax says it was actually 208,000 miles.    Car was bought by defendant at auction, and he offered a refund.    The plaintiffs should have looked at the Car Fax first.    Plaintiff wife just won't shut up.   

Plaintiff signs title to defendant, and gets money for car $3300.  

Second-

Drone Under Attack Takes Fatal Dive!-Son borrowed a drone ($999.99) from Mommy, and a man with a frisbee (Disc Golf) nailed the drone, and killed it.   Drone was hovering 15 ft. in the air, and the drone goes down.  Plaintiff claims the drone dipped down in front of a bunch of the frisbees, and bye-bye drone.     Defendant unfortunately said he would give the plaintiff some money.    Plaintiff is partially responsible for the drone damage, because it was flying so low.   (I think anyone over 18 that brings Mommy to court should lose on the spot). 

$750 to the plaintiff.   

Mysterious Cat Attacks Shepherd Puppy!-Plaintiff claims defendant's cat attacked his dog, and he wants vet bills ($491).     Defendant claims it's not her cat, but if the cat attacked it's feral, and not under her control.     Plaintiff says he was walking his dog, cat attacked his dog, and when he arrived home he discovered the cat had injured the dog's eye.    

The plaintiff posted on Next Door with the description of the cat, the tags and collar, and someone answered.      A neighbor of both people posted that the cat belonged to the defendant, and is named Max, and claims the cat is a menace.  Defendant claims she's never had an issue with neighbors over the cat, but there is a neighbor complaint that says she has.   

Defendant Nancie Walsh, claims the neighbor has issues with her, not the cat.   Defendant says the neighbors also have issues with the two dogs the defendant owns, and walks.  

Defendant's witness is saying she knows all about the attack, saw it, but Max was on her front lawn, not attacking the man's dog.  Witness is a liar.  Hallterview with defendant is hysterical "they don't have leash laws in Austin", "there are no witnesses with anything notarized"   "Nobody can prove it was Max".   My comments: Austin isn't a state, HOA rules address wandering animals, and Nancie Walsh makes me glad I don' live anywhere near her.  

$491 to plaintiff.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ dismisses plaintiff's case.   JJ definitely favors grandmother's who are raising their grandkids, because parents are druggies.    Plaintiff didn't even get damages for the drawings on the wall by the grandkids.     Bad decisions JJ.

I remember this one also, JJ screwed the pooch on this case. Don't forget the hallterview in which the defendant flat out stated that she had outsmarted the plaintiff, she was smarter than him. The plaintiff didn't present his case very well, but JJ constantly browbeat him, and jumped down his throat almost every time he tried to respond to her. No wonder the guy got tongue tied and confused.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Savage Dog Attack-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills ($), after an attack by defendant's German Shepherd on plaintiff's Chihuahua at a dog park.    Defendants claim their German Shepherd didn't attack the Chi, but it was another GSD.   Chi was off-leash, (legal at the dog park area), when the GSD attack happened, and plaintiff's boyfriend separated the dogs.  Then the GSD slipped the collar and attacked two more times.   

Defendant wife came up to get her GSD, but now claims her dog didn't do it.    Defendant wife did give her phone number to plaintiff. but refused to pay the bills, and defendant husband got very nasty with plaintiff, and her boyfriend.   Defendant wife said that her husband, and the boyfriend should settle things.  

Defendant husband claims his wife has massive panic attacks, so they shouldn't have to deal with this.   He also claims his dog ran away, but another GSD did the attack.    The reason these people lost is because of their ridiculous attitudes, and bizarre defense.   

Plaintiffs receive $5,000.    

Medical Treatment Disaster- (I remember this one, the poor woman with the treatment has a horrific disease.  Money was borrowed to pay the medical bills.)    Plaintiff suing her brother-in-law for the repayment of a loan for defendant's wife chemo therapy bills.     Plaintiff denies she knew about the wife's condition, but claims the loan was just to pay bills.   Plaintiff and defendant's wife are sisters, so I call bull on the plaintiff's claims about ignorance of the disease.  

The plaintiff's husband has worked for the defendant for 15 years, so he had to know about the poor woman's condition.  Plaintiff's check was for $9,999.00 to avoid the IRS $10k report amount, part of the money was a settlement for an accident.   

  The bills faced by defendants are horrific, and for plaintiff to deny she knew anything about the treatments for the defendant's wife is appalling.     Plaintiffs claim it was a loan, and defendant says he is totally broke.     (My guess is the loan is only a tiny part of the issue the plaintiff has with her sister). 

Plaintiffs get $5,000.    

Second-

Four-Dog Pile-Up-Plaintiff suing defendant/neighbor for vet bills from a dog fight.   Plaintiff's two dogs (German Shepherd, and Chihuahua) were not on leash, and escaped the yard.   German Shepherd (GSD) was on defendant's property, and plaintiff's daughter leashed the GSD, still in defendant's front yard, with the Chihuahua(witness testimony says dogs were not leashed).   

Defendant's witness saw roommate let dogs (both Pits) out, and a fight ensued between GSD and one Pit.   Fight started on defendant's lawn, and moved to the street.   Witness says GSD was not on leash.   Neighbors tried to get dogs separated.   

Plaintiff still claims it was the Pit owner's fault.   Plaintiff will pay her own vet bills, but her dogs were off leash, and out of her control.   Plaintiff's daughter is giving her dramatic attack recreation, but it's total garbage.   The defendant's witness has no reason to lie, but plaintiff's witness/daughter does.   

Case dismissed.  (plaintiff still blames everything on the defendant).   Plaintiff's dog was on defendant's property, so defendant has no liability for the fight. 

Spray Gun Mist Mess-Plaintiff car collector suing fellow storage unit owner for damages to his vehicles from paint over spray.    The storage unit isn't sealed between units (big holes at the top of the common wall), and over the winter the plaintiff's vehicles were damaged by paint on them from a spray gun.   Plaintiff's witness is a 40 year auto paint pro. 

 Defendant sprayed primer, black paint, etc. over the winter in his storage unit.   Plaintiff claims defendant was told not to spray paint in his unit (they're more workshop areas, than actual storage units) a year before this by the fire department.   

$2600 to plaintiff.  (Hallterview is hysterical, plaintiff says maybe defendant inhaled too much lacquer over the years, and defendant still claims the paint was his.   I guess the Spray Paint Fairy did it?).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Who Robbed Who?!-Plaintiff (remodeling house to rent it out) suing defendant (unlicensed contractor) when more than $8k worth of appliances disappear, during a remodel.    Plaintiff's losses include appliances, sinks, and other items.   Plaintiff has a neighbor who witnessed a car at the house, and identifies the car as the defendant's.   

$5,000 to plaintiff, and she's advised to follow up with the police.   (If plaintiff actually bought all of her remodeling stuff from Home Depot, she wasted a bundle of money, appliance warehouses, and other suppliers would have saved her a lot.)

Child Visitation Fight!-Plaintiff sues children's father over a loan for him to gain custody of a child by another relationship.    Loan was for visitation arrangements with the other woman's child.    I have the feeling I'm going to be yelling at my TV soon, over the plaintiff's foolish actions.  Plaintiff loaned him $1800, and defendant says that it wasn't a loan, and if he didn't get a tax refund, then he would let woman claim the two kids on her taxes.  (What is the defendant wearing?   Something from the Game of Thrones Pleather collection?).   

$2500 for plaintiff.

Surprise!   I Left You No Money!-Plaintiff sister is suing brother / defendant for an unpaid loan to pay for his stepson's lawyer for an appeal of the son's prison sentence. 

Defendant refuses to repay the loan ($4k), because the sister was the sole beneficiary of late mother's insurance policy, and defendant thinks he should have received half.   

 The loan wasn't really spent on an attorney, and never repaid either.    

Plaintiff gets $4k. 

Second-

Drug Bust and Jail Time-Woman sells 2008 BMW that is wrecked to Damaged Cars . com, and they resell the salvage titled car to idiot defendant.  I wonder why the damaged cars place didn't transfer the title before they sold it?   When I trade a car in, the dealership has title in hand, and gets legal title on the spot, so they can resell it.     Plaintiff buys car in September 2017, never registers it, then goes to prison for 90 days, and car gets impounded in a drug bust.   

Former owner gets letter from impound lot, because they're going to charge the real owner for storage and auction shortfall, so they pay to get it out, husband starts working on it, and in June defendant comes for the car.      They gave it back to her, and she took it, not sure of the money involved, and plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for damage to car, and still has it. 

 Defendant will sign car title for plaintiff. 

The defendant says that the drug bust in the car was one of the largest ever in North Carolina, with  5,000 bindles of heroin and cocaine (my spell check doesn't understand drug amounts, or I misspelled 'bindle') seized.     At least the dealer had class, and drove the drugs in a BMW.     

Plaintiff is still pissed she didn't get money for a car that was ripped apart by the DEA, and leaves in a huff, and I hope the car falls apart the first time she sits in it.    And I'm guessing that if she actually registers it, that the local police will be pulling her over regularly, since their drug sniffing dogs will smell the residue at a hundred paces.   

Roof Falls on Daughter's Head-Section 8 tenant (don't know why the plaintiff keeps emphasizing the Section 8 part, but I don't know why).    She says the roof leaked, and before the repair she had roof leaks, and she has a picture of the damaged, expensive electronics she was keeping in a big box.     Damaged was a white Wii, play piano, Samsung camera, Samsung tablet, and apparently many other emails full of damaged stuff.   The stuff was in a box, because they had newer versions of it too.    At the time of the court case, the plaintiff still lives in the apartment, and isn't moving until a month after the court case.   

 Love the landlord saying he didn't have to go over, since she could send him pictures and messages about the damages, and I like that.    Roof gets replaced, and landlord claims the roofers were supposed to clean up after the roof was done.   Plaintiff tries to get all of her violations, and everything else fixed too.    When JJ says the plaintiff will not be getting $5k, she starts pouting like a little kid.    Landlord/defendant says roofers paid to clean the apartment, and gave tenant plaintiff $100 for laundry. 

Plaintiff gets $300.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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!

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Florinaldo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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).    

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

Official notice that the topic of Sean DeMarco is off limits. If you have 1-on-1 thoughts to complete please take it to PM with each other.

If you have questions, contact the forum moderator @PrincessPurrsALot.  Do not discuss this limit to this discussion in here. Doing so will result in a warning. 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size