All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Jealousy-Fueled Vandalism-Plaintiff claims defendant kicked her car on the way to the casino.  Plaintiff is rather vague on her facts, and she didn't report the incident until six days later.      Defendant claims plaintiff witness rammed him into the car, not happening.  (On a personal, tacky note, who did the plaintiff's hair?   It looks terrible).

Plaintiff gets $4317 for car damages.

Fire Pit Craziness-Plaintiffs suing former landlord for return of a security deposit ($1789), landlord claims for lease violation.   There was a walk through with landlady.    There is a formal letter to plaintiffs for $1789 in damages, for a fire pit.  Plaintiff's claim it wasn't an active fire pit.   If the landlady wanted to break the lease, then she should have enforced it during the year, and evicted the tenants for having other people not on the lease living there. 

 $1789 for plaintiffs.   

Bitten Buyer-Plaintiff salesman went to defendant's home, and is suing over her dog biting him.    Garage door was open, with two large dogs in it, but a third dog came out of the house when defendant opened the door, and an Australian Terrier bit the plaintiff.   Defendant makes the usual stupid excuses.  (So the defendant is telling JJ about dog behavior?)

 $500 for plaintiff.

Second-

Bitter Custody Battle-Plaintiff mother and new boyfriend fighting father / plaintiff of kid, for false restraining order and harassment.      SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three) had baby with defendant (and has had two other kids with fiance/boyfriend).  She lived in California, and  since moved to Washington, with the defendant's child also.    This move was without defendant's consent.   There was a custody fight by defendant to get child returned to California, and defendant won.   

Defendant had custody, and now child is allowed to visit mother on school breaks, and some holidays.   Defendant lives with his grandmother for now.  Plaintiff fiance says defendant's family were harassing them, and threatening them in California.  He wants moving costs, etc. because he had to move (so much for plaintiffs saying "We moved for a better life").   

Plaintiff fiance is a total jerk, and keeps running the plaintiff case, and claims the 7 year old made a video for them saying she wants to move back with mother.  

(My guess is mother has to pay child support, and pay travel for the child's visits, and doesn't want to.   I find it creepy that fiance is so fixed on getting the little girl back).    There was no child support order against mother, since the court couldn't locate the mother.    Plaintiff fiance keeps butting in, and JJ tells him to stop it.   Bet the court staff will give the address to the defendant for the plaintiff to file for support. 

Plaintiff fiance claims he didn't try to get a protective order, and defendant didn't get one either, so that part of the case is gone.   However, plaintiff fiance does have a restraining order against defendant's aunt (his witness).   (Plaintiff woman admits that they are deliberately hiding the child from defendant.   Also, plaintiff fiance works in various states, so he doesn't have to live in Washington either.   He's a concert and event promoter).   

Case dismissed.  

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

$1250 to plaintiff.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Don't Make a Baby if You're a Baby-Plaintiff is suing her son's wife's father for an assault when he slammed his truck door on her.  Defendant is counter suing claiming plaintiff filed false police, and CPS reports.  Plaintiff's witness is her daughter in law, and is still friendly with her mother-in-law, who says defendant has been violent before.   

Daughter-in-law was living with plaintiff as a minor, before she became pregnant by her son, and they married when DIL was barely 17, and are now divorcing.    Plaintiff witness needed a Social Security disability payment she received as a minor ($540) on defendant father's SS Disability.    Once she married, daughter wasn't eligible for SSD payments. 

When defendant and daughter met to get the SS paper signed, the fight with the father happened.  Defendant father didn't want to sign paper (they covered up the husband's SS#) so father couldn't get it.   The assault shouldn't have happened, but the plaintiff sticking her nose into everything isn't her place either.   

Especially since plaintiff was sheltering her daughter in law as a minor when she became pregnant.    Assault was when defendant either opened or closed his truck on plaintiff, there is a report, and photos from the next day.      Plaintiff had court date already, and didn't want medical bills to the insurance company, and wanted defendant to pay. 

 JJ will only consider pain and suffering, because plaintiff needs to submit bills to her insurance, and then sue man for her deductibles and co-pays.     The plaintiff's story would be more believable if her own son didn't tell the police that he was going to slam the car door on the defendant's leg if he got a chance.     

The story from MIL's case for tomorrow's show:  As JJ says, none of the confrontation was the plaintiff's business, and she should have stayed out of it.     As JJ says, plaintiff took in a minor girl, non-pregnant, and now she has a baby, useless husband, and an idiot for a MIL.   Police report totally contradicts the location of the bruise on plaintiff (groin/thigh as opposed to left side).  

(I suspect that reunions, and Thanksgiving dinners with both sides of the family involve a lot of police officers in riot gear).    

Sadly, to be continued tomorrow, and is for the full half hour. (The second part of this  actually is rerunning tomorrow, and is called Teen Parents File for Divorce).   I wish they would have run part 2 today, and not continue to tomorrow's show, the second half of the case shows a lot more of who the plaintiff's are.  

Second-

Gun-Brandishing Ex-Lover-Plaintiff suing vengeful ex girlfriend for having him falsely arrested for brandishing a gun, and vandalism.    Defendant's witness is another ex of plaintiff, who claims he does have a gun.    Defendant filed a police report about the gun incident on July 14.    Plaintiff filed for a protective order against defendant after the police report was filed.   Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized more than one of his cars, and was harassing him. 

 Plaintiff dumped defendant, and moved on to someone else.   Then defendant is alleged to have kicked his car, and vandalized another car, before defendant filed the gun brandishing report.   

Defendant claims plaintiff is married (his wife is plaintiff's wife), has 12 children,    Defendant claims she dumped plaintiff, and he's trying to get back at her (not believing that).     

Defendant's witness is supposed to have been married to him since 2007, and they have four sons, and aren't divorced.    Police arrested and held plaintiff for one day, and all charges were dropped.   There is no protective order against plaintiff, because application was dismissed, but plaintiff has a one year protective order against defendant.    In the protective order hearing, defendant consented to avoid testifying.   

Defendant just won't shut up, and as you probably guessed, I would like to punch her out.  The complaint by the defendant about the gun was filed the same day that defendant allegedly smashed plaintiff's windshield.  

$3,000 to plaintiff for false arrest. 

[SandyToes]

So I caught an episode today, but didn't catch the date.  It's a 2-parter (ugh).  Sweet young (stupid) thing and her boyfriend/hubby living with his mom, now getting a divorce after 6 months and a baby.  Plaintiff grandma (boy's mom) is suing daughter's dad for hitting her with a car door during a dispute.  Today was ALL about the family history of the kiddos and their stupid choices.  I guess part 2 will actually be about the car door part of the case? 

Anyone remember how it turned out?  I HOPE in favor of the dad. Those two women (the grandma and stupid teenager) are in a class of their own.

[SandyToes]

13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Make a Baby if You're a Baby-Plaintiff is suing her son's wife's father for an assault when he slammed his truck door on her.  Defendant is counter suing claiming plaintiff filed false police, and CPS reports.  Plaintiff's witness is her daughter in law, and is still friendly with her mother-in-law, who says defendant has been violent before.   

Yes!  This one.  "Here, hurry up and sign this, but we won't let you see what you are signing."  MIL didn't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what was covered up - no one should sign a paper they can't read! "We didn't trust him."  Loved JJ's response:  "Then why should he trust you?!" 

[Florinaldo]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant just won't shut up, and as you probably guessed, I would like to punch her out.

You are not alone: and I am sure JJ felt the same, figuratively at least.

I had totally forgotten the plaintiff, except for his shiny silver suit and his habit of looking bewildered and lost at every statement made by the defendant.

9 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Anyone remember how it turned out?  I HOPE in favor of the dad.

I have the same hope, but I do not really recall the outcome. Which may mean that I was  disappointed or that a benevolent veil of amnesia descended over all that awful story of family interactions. MiL is a real buttinsky and most probably aggravated the basic situation.

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

Anyone remember how it turned out?  I HOPE in favor of the dad. Those two women (the grandma and stupid teenager) are in a class of their own.

Spoiler

On tomorrow's episode (thanks to whoever at the scheduling department really did do part two in the right order) the defendant wins for the two false CPS reports by his daughter.   And the phony assault claim by the plaintiff.    Plaintiff's marks of assault don't show her face or any other recognizable part of her, and don't match what the plaintiff claimed were her injuries from the assault.   The defendant's only huge mistake is that he said he wants a relationship with his daughter again, not happening.   The defendant must be a decent person, because he has custody of his 9 and 10 year old (or about that age) daughters (their mother is long gone from a relationship with her children). 

  Part 2 of this episode will be on tomorrow.  

Edited June 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Bad Attitude Ex-Boyfriend-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid loan for $8500 to buy a motorcycle.   Defendant simply won't stop making remarks to his ex, and mouthing off to JJ. Hopefully a Byrd boot is in his future (and his tattoos are ridiculous looking). 

 Litigants were neighbors, and briefly romantic, she loaned him money for the motorcycle, as usual, defendant denies it was a loan.    Defendant wanted $7500, and $1,000 for tax, license and registration.   Plaintiff took out a personal loan for $8500, and claims defendant said he would repay the loan within a few months, and plaintiff has text messages.   

Plaintiff claims defendant smashed her phone after the loan, and before court.  Defendant's witness is his long time roommate, and sometimes romantic partner (my guess is she's not his romantic partner when he's trying to get some other woman to give him money).

Defendant's witness is a total liar, and she's absolutely doing the nasty with the defendant.  Defendant made the first few payments to plaintiff, and she put it in the bank, and he paid $2800 total.  Defendant keeps making remarks about plaintiff sending him naked pictures of herself.   Defendant owes $5700 or about that, and claims plaintiff owes him $877.   

Plaintiff gets $5,000, and for mouthing off defendant gets nothing. 

Second-

Judge Judy's Message to Congress-Plaintiff suing her parents for opening a utility account using daughter's social security #, and name, and this ruined her credit.      This account was opened four years ago.   Plaintiff has been on her own disability since 18, the account happened when she was 20, and she's now 24.   

The account was opened in plaintiff's name, and she shut it down (parents have delinquent debts), and the mother reopened it a year later.   Father was ticked at Mommy, and he wrote a letter to daughter telling her the account was reopened.   

The daughter lived on her own, not in the parent's home.    (Considering what the defendant mother's hair looks like, I might have some sympathy if she stole the money for hair repair services, or a decent dye job),   

Counterclaim by defendant father he was incarcerated for violating a protective order with the mother, and was also receiving SS disability (a big no no, and he thinks no one pays for his SS, and for prison costs).     Father says daughter was his payee for SS, and she kept his money.    As JJ points out, the man could do some job on the outside, the way he wanted to in prison.     Defendant so-called mother claims daughter borrowed $500, from an inheritance, and never paid her back.   Daughter says mother gave her $20, and didn't loan her $500.   (Defendant father was jailed for violating the protective order that defendant mother had against him). 

 JJ takes this opportunity to tell Congress that this should be corrected, and being incarcerated should stop welfare, and SS, etc, which actually is currently enforced I hope.    JJ gets a huge round of applause from the audience.    

Daughter gets $1235 for the utility payment.    Ridiculous counter claims from parents are dismissed. 

Homeless or Helpless-Plaintiff suing former friend and landlord for stolen money, and destruction of property.   Defendant owns a few rental properties, and he let plaintiff store stuff in the apartment, but wasn't supposed to be living there, until defendant's contractor started to remodel it.    At that time the plaintiff was supposed to move his stuff out.  Plaintiff said he couldn't leave, because defendant didn't help him move his stuff out. 

Defendant finally put everything out in the backyard carport, and plaintiff stayed there for over three months, he says he slept on the floor.  Like all of the professional squatters, plaintiff was trying to sue for unlawful detainer, so wasn't paying any rent.    Defendant case dismissed. 

Defendant gets $750 for unpaid rent.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

(Continued from yesterday) (This case is so bizarre, the plaintiff is the soon-to-be ex Mother-in-Law of her witness, and is suing the defendant,  who is the father of her witness, DIL).   (I'm not very nice, I wish the defendant had slammed a truck door on everyone on the plaintiff's side).   (DIL was shacking up with plaintiff's son, in plaintiff's house, and married the son when she was barely 17, so an underage relationship was involved, and there is a baby involved). 

Teen Parents File for for Divorce-Plaintiff is daughter of defendant, and called complaints about him to CPS.   Defendant has custody of younger sisters of plaintiff witness (also his daughter).    Defendant's side of the door assault is plaintiff daughter wanted defendant to sign paperwork, but paper was covered up with cardboard, and his daughter wanted it signed anyway.      Defendant had his two youngest daughters with him (kids are 9 and 10, mother lives elsewhere).   Plaintiff Susan Deckard (mother of the son married to defendant's daughter, and a total buttinsky).        As JJ says, none of the confrontation was the plaintiff's business, and she should have stayed out of it.     As JJ says, plaintiff took in a minor girl, non-pregnant, and now she has a baby, useless husband, and an idiot for a MIL.    Police report totally contradicts the location of the bruise on plaintiff (groin/thigh as opposed to left side).    

Plaintiff and witness (DIL) called CPS on defendant/father, and tried to get the younger sisters taken out of his custody.  Plaintiff submits pictures of 'living conditions' at her father's home, except it's a place he hasn't lived in for almost two years.    Kayla (plaintiff witness/daughter) talked to her therapist about the younger sister's living conditions, and then called CPS in 2018, and again in 2019.  Defendant owns home, but doesn't live there, and says only the daughter and her loser husband lived there sometimes (over his objections).   

I don't know who made that bruise on plaintiff, but it wasn't the defendant.  The second CPS report was over the phony assault being in front of the defendant's daughters.    CPS did visit and left after he showed his current address, and that he didn't live in the home in question, though he still owns it.     Complaints were dismissed. 

The plaintiff's son (soon to be ex of Kayla, the plaintiff's witness), made a statement to the CPS worker saying he was "going to slam the truck door on the defendant's leg if he got the chance", after Kayla said it's time.   

The only injury photograph doesn't show the plaintiff's face, so who knows who it's of, when, or anything else that proves anything.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant gets $1500 for CPS false reports.  (Defendant hasn't learned, because he says he wants his daughter back in his life.  That would be a big mistake). 

Second-

World's Worst Boyfriend-Plaintiffs say their daughter's boyfriend lost their dog, and stole their belongings.  Daughter of plaintiffs is defendant's girlfriend, and witness, and says she has an email stating that defendant stole the property.    Daughter, and defendant had a fight, and boyfriend was kicked out.   So plaintiffs had an emergency, and had defendant house, and dog sit for them.   Then there was a call that all of the dogs were loose, and one dog disappeared.    Plaintiff husband came home, found house messed up, and when wife came home a month later she noticed a lot of property missing.     

Defendant and witness have a one child together, and  daughter has another child too, and have broken up since this.    Defendant is being supported by his family.   Defendant has a lame excuse for all of the dogs getting out, when girlfriend was staying at the parents' home with him.   

The dog that was lost was a Chihuahua, and escaped from the laundry room where the dogs stay, used the doggy door, and got out of the gate.  Bet idiot boyfriend left the gate open too.     Dog was never seen again.    Defendant witness/SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) throws idiot defendant under the bus  (she's also the plaintiff's daughter).   

Missing property was noticed by the wife, and she found her jewelry was gone, and other items, from the locked master bedroom.   When defendant was house sitting someone hit the mailbox, and paid defendant $150.  He claims he gave the money to the girlfriend, and she says it's a lie. 

I had to laugh at the girlfriend of defendant throwing him under the bus.  My guess is defendant called his ex, that he's never paid any kind of support for their child, and asked her to be a witness against her parents.    I think she thought it would be a good way to pay him back, and embarrass him on national TV too.    

Plaintiffs received $2500 (It is claimed that defendant pawned the jewelry and other property). 

Motorcycle Scam-Plaintiff suing mechanic and wife for a fraudulent lien, fixing the motorcycle, and damages to the motorcycle.     Defendants submit a work order with extra items added after the argument about the motorcycle, including storage fees.    Plaintiff paid all of the charges, except the storage charges that were added after the argument.    JJ wants to know where motorcycle was stored, and the answer is next to the shop.  Defendant claims it's a covered area, and a tarp was on the motorcycles in storage (50 x 20).   

Plaintiff supplied the transmission, and paid $1,000.  Original invoice was only $850, but defendant claim that plaintiff owes $11,000 for storage fees (Did I understand that the bike was there for two years?)     JJ is going to generate an order for plaintiff to get bike back, and void the lien (they didn't do a mechanics lien, just a lien of possession of the bike).     Defendant says bike was left in 2017, but work wasn't done until 2019.    Plaintiff still wants more, he claims his bike is not fixed.   

Order is placed to get bike back, and lien dismissed.   Defendants will not get paid the ridiculous storage fees. 

[SandyToes]

57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Continued from yesterday) (This case is so bizarre, the plaintiff is the soon-to-be ex Mother-in-Law of her witness, and is suing the defendant,  who is the father of her witness, DIL).   (I'm not very nice, I wish the defendant had slammed a truck door on everyone on the plaintiff's side).   (DIL was shacking up with plaintiff's son, in plaintiff's house, and married the son when she was barely 17, so an underage relationship was involved, and there is a baby involved). 

Of course there was a baby involved!  Thanks for the recap/update yesterday, @CrazyInAlabama.  One never knows if Part 2 will actually air after Part 1! 

Wish Dad defendant had received/asked for more.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I wish the father would realize that his daughter isn't ever going to stop trying to ruin his life.  

[configdotsys]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First-

Bad Attitude Ex-Boyfriend-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid loan for $8500 to buy a motorcycle.   Defendant simply won't stop making remarks to his ex, and mouthing off to JJ. Hopefully a Byrd boot is in his future (and his tattoos are ridiculous looking). 

 Litigants were neighbors, and briefly romantic, she loaned him money for the motorcycle, as usual, defendant denies it was a loan.    Defendant wanted $7500, and $1,000 for tax, license and registration.   Plaintiff took out a personal loan for $8500, and claims defendant said he would repay the loan within a few months, and plaintiff has text messages.   

Plaintiff claims defendant smashed her phone after the loan, and before court.  Defendant's witness is his long time roommate, and sometimes romantic partner (my guess is she's not his romantic partner when he's trying to get some other woman to give him money).

Defendant's witness is a total liar, and she's absolutely doing the nasty with the defendant.  Defendant made the first few payments to plaintiff, and she put it in the bank, and he paid $2800 total.  Defendant keeps making remarks about plaintiff sending him naked pictures of herself.   Defendant owes $5700 or about that, and claims plaintiff owes him $877.   

Plaintiff gets $5,000, and for mouthing off defendant gets nothing. 

The defendant looked like a scary stalker type. The best part of the episode was at the very end when JJ said she would hear his counterclaim and they talked over each other. The defendant said, "Well, if you wouldn't talk over me, I'd tell you," or something and JJ said to Byrd, "What did he say?" When Byrd told her, she immediately dismissed his counterclaim.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Innocent Onlooker Steps Up-Plaintiff ($2147)suing defendant over a traffic accident, caused by defendant cutting plaintiff while driving.   Plaintiff's witness is an innocent onlooker.  As usual, defendant does not have insurance, and it lapsed the day before.    Plaintiff was driving, turning left with a green light, plaintiff turned left, and defendant (a liar)says she was already in the left hand lane turning, in front of the plaintiff, and claims plaintiff hit her car in the rear.   Plaintiff witness was behind and driving behind the two litigants, and says defendant cut off plaintiff, and caused the accident. 

Defendant's witness is her daughter, and her lies are supporting her lying mother.   

Any time when they rewrite my policy (when I get a new car or other changes), or I change companies, I'm covered, so why wasn't the defendant?    

Plaintiff receives $ 2147, and the lying, uninsured defendant's counter claim is dismissed

Officer Byrd Nudged by a 13-Year-Old-Plaintiff-Plaintiff teen (actually his mom) is suing the mother of kid the plaintiff bullied on the playground, for his glasses breaking.     Fortunately, the kids aren't in the same school now.   Defendant says he was sitting on the slide, and plaintiff threw wood chips in his face twice, defendant told plaintiff to stop, and plaintiff took defendant's hat, and threw it in the trash.   

Plaintiff seems to think like Eddie Haskell (Leave it to Beaver) his charm will get him off the hook-Nope, not happening.   Plaintiff claims it was all just fun when he threw wood chips in the defendant's face, and ripped his hat off and put it in the trash.   A few minutes later plaintiff claims the defendant attacked him, and wanted to fight.   

Plaintiff's mother thinks her son's stuff doesn't stink, and I bet he's always been a bully, and mother ignored it.  Plaintiff mother is despicable, and you can tell she thinks her son is so innocent.   Plaintiff then pushed the kid, demonstrated on Officer Byrd.  I was really hoping Officer Byrd would show the creepy bully what a real shove felt like, but he didn't (I'm sure Officer Byrd wanted to do that).    Then plaintiff's glasses were broken.   

JJ is paying nothing to the plaintiff, and gets a round of applause from the audience.   JJ dismisses case, and tells plaintiff mommy her kid is a bully, and he certainly is.   Bet plaintiff has a long history of bullying other kids.   

Second-

Miniature Schnauzer Return Policy Problem-Plaintiff suing dog breeder and seller because the puppy she bought from him (for $850) was sick.  Plaintiff wants money for vet bills, travel costs, and fraud.    Defendant's contract says no cash refunds.   Defendant is counter claiming for boarding the plaintiff's puppy.     Plaintiff paid a total of $850, for a seven week old puppy.    Puppy was brought back three days later, with Coccidiosis, which is an intestinal disease, spread by infected animals.   There is a vet health certificate from two weeks before the sale.    Contract says puppy is in good health, and there are a few reasons for a refund included.    Plaintiff took puppy to the vet.   (Note to defendant, Coccidiosis isn't from stress, but an infection).  

$850 to plaintiff, and defendant keeps the puppy. 

Irritating Landlord or Lease Breaking Tenant-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of security deposit, and harassment.     Plaintiff signed a lease, and was a tenant for 15 months.   Plaintiff says she moved out after three months in the apartment, on the second year of the lease, by mutual agreement with the landlord/defendant.   Plaintiff called police about landlord.   Plaintiff claims landlord was constantly texting about noise from tenant's 17 year old sister, and plaintiff's two young kids.   Plaintiff signed a 1 year lease, and then a six month lease after that.   If landlord was so horrible, why did the tenant renew the lease?  

Landlord sent a letter to tenant saying that her rent was going from $947, to $1500 a month if she wasn't out by March.    Plaintiff signed the lease amendment.    Defendant has to prove that the $1300 in security deposit was withheld for good reasons, and have proof.  

Landlord has no pictures or other proof, plaintiff gets $1371.  

Caught in the Act-Plaintiff suing former friend, and his boyfriend for damaging her car, 40" TV,  and smashing her phone.   However, apparently defendant gave the phone to plaintiff.    Plaintiff is a Sainted Single Mother of One (SSMOO), and rented a room, and later a back cottage, to defendants, for a month, and three days.    Plaintiff claims she loaned the two men a table, and left it outside in the rain to be ruined.   Plaintiff has no receipt for the TV either.   

Plaintiff claims the TV damage happened after the defendants moved out, and had a police escort for the move out.    Plaintiff did not legally evict the defendants.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Burglar Caught in the Act-Plaintiff suing defendant for scratching his car, while defendant was in the process of stealing the chrome off of his car.  Defendant hasn't been arrested since he was 17, for smoking weed and he's now 56.      Sorry, no one really thinks the defendant was stealing Plaintiff Mr. Clean's rims.   

Defendant told the police (called by plaintiff) that he had locked himself out of the car, and needed his hide-a-key to get into the car, and slipped while replacing the hide-a-key.     JJ wants Byrd to loan the plaintiff a pen to circle the damage on the car, but Byrd has to borrow JJ's pen.   Byrd and JJ can't see a scratch on the car.  Police report says car wasn't pristine the way plaintiff claims, and says the marks seemed to have rust on them.    

Defendant had locked his keys in the car, and was retrieving his hide-a-key under the car fender to unlock his car.   Plaintiff still says the defendant was trying to steal the chrome off of plaintiff's car.  

Plaintiff is a nut case, and will be getting nothing.   

Akita Dog Owners Beware-Plaintiff suing neighbor Akita owner for a dog attack, and lost wages..     Akitas are huge, fluffy guard dogs, why do people keep getting guard animals, and acting like they're stuff animals?  Defendant used to have two Akitas, and now only has one Akita.    Defendant claims there is no proof her dog attacked plaintiff's dog.   Plaintiff was walking her dog in her yard, on leash, when Akita attacked her.     (Another dog owner that makes me want to punch them out).      Defendant says no one saw the attack, but the plaintiff did. 

 After living next door to each other for three years, plaintiff certainly knows what the Akitas look like.    Defendant is trying to claim that it was probably a coyote, not her dog.   Believe me people can tell the difference between an Akita, and a coyote or a coyote crossbred (they're usually much larger than a coyote).   

Landlord told her the dog had to go, so she found another home.    Homeowner's insurance didn't cover the Akitas., and the landlord is a fool for allowing the Akita to stay.  My guess is the defendants dogs and previous animals had a bite or attack history, and the insurance won't cover her animals.  

(JJ should save her breath about the danger of this dog to her children, the defendant will never back down.   Tell me I'm not going to hear another idiot defendant say their dog loves their kids, and would never hurt them).

Vet bills were $10,000!    Plaintiff dog is tiny.    $5,000 to plaintiff for vet bills.        (Hallterview shows defendant heard nothing JJ said, and thinks her dog is just fine, and didn't attack the plaintiff's dog).

Second-

KISS Costume Missing Bat Wings-Plaintiff commissioned a KISS costume, complete with bat wings he wanted to wear to a KISS concert, he want the costume cost returned ($850), and attorney fees.    Plaintiff commissioned the costume in December 2018, for delivery in  April 2019, eight weeks later than when plaintiff wanted the costume.  Plaintiff wanted costume by 1 February.   

Plaintiff wanted a specific version of the costume, complete with big bat wings.    No bat wings were included, and costume was eight weeks late. 

There is no "time is of the essence" or due date on the contract, but it's in text messages (outside the four corners of the contract).   Defendant says order cannot be cancelled, and no refunds either.   However, plaintiff still wanted the costume, even though it was late.   The wings were $100, and defendant claims the bat wings were in the same box as the plaintiff's costume. 

Box was opened by plaintiff at his attorney's office, but can anyone prove box wasn't opened, and re-closed by plaintiff first after wings were removed?     Plaintiff didn't return the costume since received in April, and October when the case was filmed.    I find it amazing that the plaintiff opened the box on video, and at his attorney's office. 

 Defendant counter claims for harassment, and many nasty texts from plaintiff.   Unfortunately, slander doesn't apply when there is truth in the allegations.  Defendant and witness claim the bat wings were packed in the same bubble wrap, and box as the costume.   (This is the case where the defendant's witness keeps popping out of his chair, and JJ yells "Sit!" at him.   Not only did the witness sit down, but I bet every animals that heard this did too).  

(Other posters found a photo of the original costume for KISS, and there are no bat wings on the costume that the KISS bandmember was wearing). 

 Plaintiff will get $100 for the wings.       

Drug Test Fail and Bail-Plaintiff suing defendant/step brother over a car sale. on payments.   A 2003 GMC Envoy, $2700-$4300, but car was $6,000 to step-brother, because plaintiff had put in a brand new transmission and motor.    Defendant is counter suing for stolen property.  Defendant claims sale was for $2800, and still owed $940 or so.   

There was a fight between the brothers, claiming defendant was on drugs, so he was told to get out of plaintiff's house.   Defendant failed drug test too.    Plaintiff says property he's being sued for is still at his house.   Plaintiff will carefully pack the property, and with an escort the defendant will meet at the father's shop and exchange items.   

Plaintiff says defendant had a gun at his house too.     I guess defendant never heard of felon in possession charges?     The step brother will never get it together, but at least the plaintiff tried.   Hopefully plaintiff will never trust the step brother again.  

$940 for the plaintiff. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Bed Bug Battle-Plaintiffs / trailer park owners, suing former tenants over social media postings about bed bugs throughout the plaintiff's trailer park.  Plaintiffs want to be paid for harassment,  Defendant was living at the park,  and helping to manage the park.   He claims he stopped paying lot rent because the park was infested with bed bugs, and signed trailer over to park owners in lieu of lot rent.   Plaintiff says they fired the defendant, and defendant says he quit.  

Plaintiffs say only the defendant, and his friend's trailers were infested, because they picked up junked furniture from the side of the road.   Defendant and his witness both claim they told the plaintiffs about the vermin, but plaintiffs deny that.  

Plaintiff's park manager says that no one ever told her about bed bugs.  Defendant and his witness both used the same pest control company to treat their trailers.     (My guess is both defendant and witness picked up infested furniture, and didn't want the park to know that they brought this infestation to the park, so they didn't tell the manager). 

Plaintiffs get nothing, since they accepted the trailer in lieu of rent, $1200, and spent $1200 fixing it up, and sold it for $2000.  Both defendant and witness moved out.  

Small Business Fail-Plaintiff suing business owner (business is gone now) over nonpayment of a loan for her care giving business.   Defendant claims it wasn't a loan, but an investment, and that money is gone.   However, defendant closed the first business, and reopened the same business under another name immediately after that.    Defendant is still running the subsequent business, but claims she's the only employee.     .   

Defendant's witness is a former marketing employee.   He claims the first business shut down, and defendant still owns him.    The defendant claims the old business phone number is gone with the business.   Plaintiff claims that when JJ calls the number that the care provider company defendant claims is shut down, will answer the phone.     The phone number is disconnected.   (There are online Yelp reviews of the second, and maybe third care giving business owned by defendant.   All except one review is awful.   I agree this was a bad investment, but I suspect there are a lot of other 'investors' out there with the same complaint).  

Plaintiff receives nothing since it was a bad investment, not a loan

Second-

Sick Boxer Puppy Scam-Plaintiff puppy buyer suing seller over a sick puppy (puppy survived), and wants vet bills, and cost of puppy ($300).  Plaintiff claims defendant tried to get out of repaying money by faking her own death, and her children's deaths. Puppy was only nine weeks, and defendant bought puppy from someone else a week before.   Plaintiff claims puppy had worms, and parvo.  Plaintiff says puppy was sick soon after purchase (picked up on Saturday, to vet on Wednesday), and taken to vet a four days after purchase. 

Defendant claims puppy had shots (breeder did these), and wormed.    There is no contract or guarantee, stating shot history, health records, etc.       Defendant also claims plaintiff wanted almost $2,000 for vet bills.     There was no health guarantee, so plaintiff will not get his $1700 in vet bills.   

Case dismissed.  

Baby caught in the Middle-Plaintiff suing defendant /ex-fiance for return of wedding ring set, a tablet.   Rings are returned in court.    Plaintiff also wants credit card charges made by defendant on his card returned (that's not happening).   

Defendant also is restricting the visitation of plaintiff with their child, because she dislikes the plaintiff, but JJ lacks jurisdiction in visitation.    Both litigants keep chiming in, and I hope their cases are dismissed, and booted. 

 Tablet and rings returned to plaintiff, so his case is over.   Defendant gets her dining room table, and some mirrors from plaintiff, and with an escort.  This stupid case is now over.    

Edited June 27, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

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

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

Defendant claims the plaintiff witness was driving the entire time, and the one who got the Bobcat stuck.   JJ seems convinced that the plaintiff witness got the Bobcat stuck, and lied about it.   

JJ splits it, $1406 for plaintiff, which is half of the repair costs.   (the plaintiff's employee, and defendant were both involved in getting the swamp buggy stuck). 

This is a Lesson, Not a Lawsuit-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for a loan, living expenses, and babysitting fees.    Defendant has three kids with 50/50 custody, and when he was living with plaintiff they lived as a couple, and plaintiff took care of the kids when they visited.   The couple only lived together for two months.   Plaintiff wants rent, babysitting fees, and food for the home when they were living together.  My guess she feels used by defendant. 

Case dismissed, and JJ says using people isn't nice.   (plaintiff didn't learn, she thinks they can still be friends).

Second (this insurance one is really long because of facts about insurance company that we all found out after the case)-

Family Unprepared for Father's Sudden Death-(Judging from the glares between the two litigants, Byrd and the security guys need to be ready)-Plaintiffs (sisters) are suing other sister over funeral costs for their father.   Mother couldn't afford it.    Plaintiff sister is suing for defendant's share of father's funeral costs ($2733).    There are four sisters, and with the mother were at the funeral home.   One sister said she couldn't kick in, and mother had no money, so the other three sisters paid for it, pending the insurance company review.  Policy was for $100k, and policy is still under review (it's for $100K in life insurance, but father died before the two year vesting period, Lumico is the insurance company, and another previous policy was cancelled by the wife of the deceased when she signed up for Lumico). 

JJ is using the sacred phone of Justice, calling the insurance company for information, and policy has been under review since the father died in November, and this was filmed in February.    JJ threatens to go to the State Attorney General, for insurance issue.  (Everyone guessed that the staff sets up the call, and JJ just picks up to talk to the customer representative).  (Father died in November, and this is February, and policy payout is still under review by the insurance company).  The insurance company is being nasty, and trying to weasel out of answering.   

Mother of women did the policy, for the father, and apparently then she dropped the previous insurance policy.     The insurance company has received medical records, and they claim that is something still outstanding.     (Main office for Lumico was not given to anyone, but JJ will give it to the defendant's witness/daughter/ attorney). 

Bet the company is going to claim that the blood clots that killed the man were a pre-existing condition.    Twin sister of defendant (a trial attorney) testifies that she'll sue if claim is denied.   Anyone can sue, but my guess is she won't win.   Defendant will file a complaint with the State Insurance Commission where this company operates.   Plaintiff doesn't want the mother to pay for the funeral, even if she receives the $100K.     The daughters paid for an autopsy.   (If the company  can prove the father had blood clots before, then this insurance payout will be history, or if he lied on the  questionaire to the insurance company that either the father or his doctor had to complete to apply for the policy).

Defendant sister attorney (the defendant's witness)  just said Lumico is a s$*% policy.    And she's so right.  There are a lot of complaints against Lumico, including one that is very similar to the claim in question.  The person on the review says that because the policy hadn't finished the two years, they only received 10%, so the most the mother will get is $10K.  One source I looked at said that for some policies, there is a three year period from getting the insurance, (called a vesting period), and that the insurance company won't pay a penny if you die before the three years is up. 

This company actually has an A rating by A.M. Best that rates insurance companies.   Lumico doesn't require medical exams, but a medical questionaire (don't know if applicant does it, or medical provider does this), so if who ever filled this out omitted something that's a disqualifying condition, or outright lied, then this will never be paid. 

(My guess is that since two years of vesting period hadn't passed that the payout will either be $0, or $10k maximum.  )

Now we get to the heart of the defendant's issue with the payments.   The defendant placed the first policy, and the father had that for over 10 years, then the mother got the Lumico policy, and dumped the original policy.      

Plaintiff gets $2733. (Since Byrd and the show paid the award money, the defendant still never paid anything).  

(I thought the BBB complaints that said if the person doesn't live through the vesting period (which is either two or three years depending on the type of policy you purchase), that you receive 10% was interesting.   So my guess if they can't find a disqualifying condition or pre-existing condition, that the pay out will either be $10k, but if the company can prove the man had blood clots before, then the payout will be $0).     

On the BBB site, and others with reviews of the insurance company, there were different levels of when you receive payouts.   The highest level is after the 2 or 3 year vesting period expires, and you get the full payout pretty soon.    Then if you die before the vesting period is up, like the father did, your beneficiary is only paid 10%, or in this case $10K (the policy was $100K).    The lesser levels of pay outs, depending on your medical history, have a graduated payout period over several years.     I really don't see how this company gets an "A" rating from the rating company for insurance.)

(The mother caused this when she went with the Lumico policy without reading the vesting terms.    If she would have kept the other policy for the term of the vesting (2 or 3 years depending on which policy she chose), then she would have received a payout from the first company.  Instead she got greedy, dumped the first policy, and the father didn't live long enough for a full payout). 

Everything but the Kitchen Sink-Plaintiff sister (a child care teacher, age 33) bought a car in her name for her sister (she's the oldest 36 year old I've ever seen), who had bad credit (and probably a bad driving record, or no license is my guess).   So plaintiff is coming to court with dirty hands.  Defendant sister had her last car repo'd (2 years ago), and another recent repo in the last 3 years.    Defendant had an hit and run accident with the car in question, and that car was repo'd, and plaintiff wants JJ and Byrd to pay her for this.     

Plaintiff case dismissed, because she has some of the dirtiest hands in court ever.  

Edited June 27, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judging from the glares between the two litigants,

From the smirks of the defendant, I believe she thought she was going to win.

On 6/24/2020 at 6:52 PM, SandyToes said:

Wish Dad defendant had received/asked for more.

Poor man.  And yet he wants a relationship with her and the kid.  She's a real POS.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Outlandish Landlord Demands-Plaintiff / landlord suing former tenant for property and emotional damage, after she rented him a room in her home.    Def. moved in April of one year, and moved out the next August.   Plaintiff claims tenant changed the locks to her house, on her.   Defendant says he did, but only on his private entrance to his room, because plaintiff kept coming in his room.   Plaintiff gave defendant a lease to sign, but he never signed.    Defendant has since moved out, and took the outside door lock with him, so he will have to pay for the new lock.  However plaintiff didn't put the new lock in yet, and defendant moved out seven months ago.  Lock was $30, and her husband installed it (no, Byrd isn't paying for the labor for the lock).   

Plaintiff submits before and after pictures of the room.   There was an old fridge on the after courtyard picture, but defendant says he didn't own it or leave it.    $725 was the deposit, and plaintiff kept that money.    Plaintiff wants to be paid for repairs to the room, including labor by her husband.    JJ wants receipts for the repair work,   Only one receipt was from Lowe's, the rest were handmade by plaintiff.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.     Security will cover the rent owed, and the tiny amount she paid for damages. 

Mushy Agreements and Alleged Child Abuse-Plaintiffs want to be repaid for the loan made to defendants.   Plaintiffs said the agreement was that $300 was to be paid in cash (defendant didn't pay it), and do the rest of the loan in work around their house.    Plaintiffs claim defendants called CPS repeatedly with false claims.  Defendants claims they never called CPS on plaintiffs.     Defendant says he completed all but a small part of the work at the house.  

Plaintiffs want $1800 to $2,000, and they're not getting that because defendant worked the loan off.     There is no proof the defendants called CPS, so nothing for that.   Plaintiffs will receive $300 for the loan cash owed. 

Defendants are counter claiming for his tools, but plaintiffs still have them.   

Plaintiffs get their $300 when defendant gets all of his tools back. 

Second-

Mega Landlord Fail-Plaintiff / former tenant suing defendant/landlord because he wasn't present when the inspector from Section 8 came to inspect his property.    Plaintiff wants her security deposit returned by defendant.    Defendant has 44 rental properties, and is owner/ manager, and is experienced with Section 8 housing, and plaintiff paid her own $500 security deposit.    Defendant said it would be $1500 security with plaintiff's bad credit, and after Section 8 inspected landlord was given 5 days to make a few corrections.   On the appointed return date and time the plaintiff, and the inspector showed, but defendant didn't show up for the inspection.    The Section 8 voucher ran out on the 26th, but the re-inspection was the 28th, and she was given a 30 day extension by Section 8.    Defendant's property failed the second inspection, on the 28th, because defendant didn't show up.    

Plaintiff had to find another property, and defendant didn't return her deposit. 

Plaintiff gets her $500 deposit back.  (Defendant says his wife died during the month in question, so he was a little distracted). 

On Again, Off Again Home-Plaintiffs were renting out a rental property while they were trying to sell it.   They bought the house for an investment, fixed it up, and rented to the defendant.    When defendant moved out she took an older TV, some other furniture, and other items from the house, and didn't pay her last two months rent (defendant claims she didn't owe the last two months rent), two months utilities.    Defendant claims she only paid rent while house was off sale market, and it was put back on in January, so she didn't pay December and January.    Lease is only month-to-month, and 30 days notice of non-renewal was given.    It's hard to tell what security 

Defendant owes $2,000 for rent.  Plaintiff want to be paid for a futon, dresser, bed, etc. that came with the rental house, and defendant took them.    Plaintiff will get the furniture back from defendant, if they pick it up within five days.   

Plaintiffs get $2,000 unpaid rent back, and $448 for unpaid utilities, totaling $2,448, and get their furniture and appliances back.  

Mother Daughter Feud-Plaintiff/mother  suing her daughter/defendant for unpaid loans, property damages, and lease fees, and slander.   Defendant wanted small loans (that's gone).   Plaintiff made the huge mistake of co-signing on daughter's apartment, then daughter stopped paying rent, and moved out early.      Rent was $389, lease went to August, but defendant moved out in June.    So plaintiff had to pay for June, and July.     Apartment was 4 bedrooms, and three other young women lived there, and landlord rented the rooms individually.    

Plaintiff says defendant moved out to be with her boyfriend (not the father of defendant's seven month old baby), in Richmond, and plaintiff didn't know until landlord sent her bills for rent.    JJ tells to offer landlord a settlement. 

$778 to plaintiff. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

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

Defendant claims he didn't assault her, but was trying to walk by her, and she was blocking him.   He also claims he wasn't drunk, but only had the typical two beers (probably two 55 gallon barrels of beer).    All of the charges were dropped, and no restraining order.  Plaintiff had a protective order hearing, both litigants testified, and nothing happened.  Defendant got engaged, briefly, to another woman,  but that ended.      Defendant's charges were dropped.    Plaintiff claims that charges in protective order (there are three of them) will be reinstated if the defendant hurts plaintiff.    

$250 to plaintiff for the assault.  

Compton Police Drop-Off-Plaintiff suing defendant over car sale, and he wants $4,000, for the car, false arrest, and other stuff.    He gave defendant a down payment, and $300 payments each week to pay off the car ($1800 was the total cost).   Defendant says plaintiff was supposed to pay $450 a week to pay off car, and there is a signed contract.    When man was incarcerated, the defendant still wanted her money, and was going to report it stolen. 

Plaintiff wants $1300 he paid for the car back, and money for upgrades he made to the car, and personal belongings left in the car.   Defendant says the personal property was left at the Compton police station.  Plaintiff whines that he doesn't have the title to register it, but he hadn't paid for it, and he doesn't want to pay the price he agree to.    Car was impounded, and plaintiff couldn't get it out of impound, so defendant did, and she kept the car. 

As JJ says, plaintiff wasn't paying the full payments, and reporting the car to the police as stolen was right.    Plaintiff was only paying $300 of the $450, and was jailed for other charges.      Car wasn't reported stolen by defendant.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant has her car back already.   Defendant in hall-terview says plaintiff keeps threatening to shoot her house up, so she's going to the police station the second she gets back to Compton.  

Second-

Hoop Earrings Cat Fight-Plaintiff and her mother, both suing defendant and her mother for damage to a door, harassment, and assault.   Plaintiff (19 years old) and defendant daughter (17 years old) were friends before five years.    Defendant went to medical appointment, couldn't wear her metal jewelry, so she asked plaintiff daughter to hold the jewelry.   Plaintiff daughter claims earrings were stolen from her purse, and she doesn't know when or who stole them.     

The next day defendant sent a text to plaintiff saying she was going to come pick up her earrings from plaintiff.   Plaintiff says the earrings were missing from her purse.    Plaintiff claims she was out riding around with other friends at 8 a.m. the next morning, when she discovered the earrings were missing.   Plaintiff said since she only lost the earrings, she should only pay half, $200.     Then the two daughters had a fight.   The two moms claim the other sent them nasty texts.   

Defendants are counter suing for assault, and the earrings.   

Earrings were replaced, and cost defendant $400 to replace.     Then the two daughters had a fight, apparently started by the plaintiff and her friends.   The two moms claim the other mom sent them nasty texts.   Defendant claims she was bullied and harassed, and her doctor gave her a note that it was hurting the defendant daughter's health.   Plaintiff's mother sent text threats to the defendant, and daughter saying plaintiff's daughter will beat her up again.     Plaintiff daughter sent a certified letter to defendant, saying she would pay $100 for the earrings, and that's all.    Plaintiff's daughter claims she has a permanent scar from tiny little defendant daughter's attack, but no medical or police report. 

$400 to defendant for the earrings.  

(This case is so boring.    No wonder I didn't remember it, it probably put me to sleep the last time it was on).  (Why does a 17 year old have a $400 pair of earrings?    They must be designer or other name brand.  For that price I would have 40 pair, not one). 

Edited June 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This case is so boring.

It really was!

[Megan Markled]

On 11/16/2015 at 5:02 PM, CoolWhipLite said:

Ep. 1, Case 1

Defendant Mr. Brodman gave off a ne'er-do-well vibe, and plaintiff Miss Allen was dead behind the eyes. Miss Allen and the landlady claimed Brodman screwed them out of money and did damage to the rental. Mr. Brodman tried to present himself as the injured party and spewed his memorized soundbites of woe. The landlady loudly squawked throughout the case, and I don't know why Judge Judy didn't tell her to calm the hell down and lower her voice.

 

Ep. 2, Case 1

Two Muppets came to life, escaped the Imaginarium, and were chosen to dispute their case on this episode of Judge Judy. Crystal Stegelman, the defendant, stole money off a dead guy and was mad that the plaintiff, William Madden, spread the word. So, Crystal and her pal Junior (who she was pretending not to remember) went over to Big Bill's to beat him with the dead guy's bat.  JJ (and the rest of us) are grossed out that Crystal has children. Homeowner Dave Dipman seemed like a nice-enough guy, possibly touched by a stroke or TBI (bless him) - I was wishing he didn't get mixed up with these messy folks. Dave - get new friends.

 

Ep. 2, Case 2

Plaintiff Tony McIntosh was suing for a $1500 loan given to defendant, Jane Andaya, who had fascinating hair color. Boo hoo, I'm a single mother and all of that. She pissed off Judge Judy by lying to her, giving her a story in court that didn't match her Lifetime romance movie-inspired sworn account (on paper) of how Mr. McIntosh gave her a special delivery along with the money. (That sounds dirty, but it wasn't.) JJ told Ms. Andaya that her kid will know she's a bullshitter someday.

 

The preview for tomorrow's first episode was gruesome (not watching it), but the preview for the second episode looked pretty good....a grill-wearing guy who believes all the ladies want him. I'm in for that one.

I am going to sign up to start snarking with ya'll. Haven't seen the epi in a while but Crystal Stegelman was a piece of work! I looked up her FB page and girl needs to stop with the motorcycle b.s. It's not cute [she's scary looking]. And poor Dave, DEFINITELY needs new friends......he did seem "off" in some way, wasn't quite sure how!

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

You Made Me Lose My House-Plaintiff / landlord suing former tenant for damages to her rental house, the ongoing harassment led to plaintiff putting the house on the market to sell.       Plaintiff bought house, lived for three months, wanted a better commute, so put it for rent, and wanted to keep it for a retirement home some day.  Damages by tenant included damaged garage doors, missing garage door openers.    (House was purchased for $118k, and is on the market for $139,900).     Reason for eviction include repeated complaints by neighbors, defendant moving additional tenants (daughter, boyfriend, and kid) that were not on the lease (lease allowed tenant, husband, and three minor kids).    Tenant didn't pay any additional rent for the extra family members moving in, and they weren't on the lease as legal tenants.   The price for additional tenants was $300 a month, but it was never paid.     (JJ hasn't bought window blinds, and had them installed lately, it's more than $20).    

All the landlady will get is the cost for hauling garbage, not for damages, or the 10 hours it took the landscapers to mow and clear the yard.   The yard weeds, and lawn look like they're 3 ft high.     

Plaintiff gets $500 for destroyed screens, and trash hauling.  Plaintiff keeps the security deposit for the last month of unpaid rent.   

Disgusting Dog Mess-Plaintiff suing former tenant for unpaid rent and property damages.    Tenant lived in home for three years (2011-2014) with a one year lease for the first year, and month-to-month after that.    Tenant didn't pay the last month rent at all, so she owes for that.     Landlord has pictures of before and after, and carpet, and floors were ruined by tenant's four dogs.   (Landlord lived in the home for many years, and remodeled the home three years before he rented to the defendant).   Security was $1755, and was for tenant, and two small dogs.

Landlord walked in to his home when tenant moved out without notice.    Landlord says the house reeked of pet feces, and urine, dirt was all over the carpet, and walls.    The yard (looked lovely on move in) was bare dirt after tenant moved out.   Tenant claimed she couldn't take care of the yard, which was required in the lease.   However, her lazy adult children did nothing to help either.     

 Pictures are submitted by the landlord in a before and after format, the place was beautiful before move in, and totally disgusting after tenant moved out.    Lease also says two small dogs, with $100 deposit (non-refundable) for each, but they had four dogs.       Defendant is counter suing for withheld property.    On move in it was tenant, husband, and her three children.   Husband died, and tenant claims only the woman and three adult kids.     Defendant had a doggy door, but says the latest puppy had a few accidents.  However,  the whole house was filthy, and reeked of pet feces, urine, and wet dog.     

I'm so glad the landlord had good before and after pictures.    

$4800 to landlord, and nothing to the disgusting mess of a tenant.    

Second-

Sneaky Boyfriend Discovery-Plaintiff suing his former live in boyfriend over laptop damage, and an unpaid loan ($200).   However, the video of defendant destroying the laptop, right after he got up, is a total scam.     I agree with JJ, they're a couple of scammers that just wanted a free trip to L.A., and TV money.        Months after they moved in together, plaintiff looked at defendant's phone, and found defendant was cheating, and sexting other men.    Plaintiff has a video of defendant smashing the laptop, but the defendant doesn't look like he's just out of bed, he's fully dressed including sneakers and a ball cap.      

Laptop wasn't replaced by plaintiff.   Defendant claims his phone insurance replaced the phone.   

Cases dismissed, because they're lies.   

Mommy Dearest Debt-Plaintiff suing former friend for damage to a rental home, caused by defendant's daughter.   Plaintiff rented home to defendant for her daughter, and was the guarantor on the lease, and for damages.  

Plaintiff says the damages were almost $1000, more than the $1550 security deposit.   Defendant claims landlord said she could have a dog, as long as it wasn't a certain breed.   Plaintiff/ landlord denies that a dog was allowed.   Defendant admits she had at least one cat that wasn't allowed either.     Defendant's daughter had a Shepherd/Husky mix, and a cat.  Defendant daughter claims all the damage was there when she moved in.    Plaintiff said the defendant had to go through the realty company, and do a pet deposit for the dog, but she never did.  Plaintiff says there were no pets allowed in the lease, and carpets were five years old.  

Defendant daughter apparently had a bad history, according to the remark that plaintiff slipped in to her testimony.     

$500 to plaintiff, and she keeps the security deposit.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Confused Mother Attacks Friend-Plaintiff suing former friend for stealing her son's Apple watch, when he stayed over for a weekend at defendant's home.   Plaintiff called and asked defendant where the watch was, and claims he said he would look for it.   Plaintiff lost her text messages, due to the sad demise of her previous phone. 

Defendant says he doesn't know what happened to watch, and doesn't know where it is.  (Interesting feather trimmed top on plaintiff).   Plaintiff son says he realized the watch was left at the defendant's home, and didn't go back to the defendant's home (they live in adjoining complexes).    Defendant isn't responsible for the watch, it was the son's property to keep track of.   

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

Violent Threats and Vandalism-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for stolen property, harassment, and breaching the lease.   Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's home, and first tenant turned out to be a little nutty, and the litigants got a restraining order, and problem tenant left.   

First tenant was ousted by the litigants protective order, and was arrested in the driveway.   A second tenant moved in, and plaintiff claims that man assaulted him inside the home, vandalized his car, etc., and thinks landlord should pay him to relocate.   Plaintiff claims the second tenant was arrested, bonded out or was released, and claims the former tenant vandalized his property, and cars.  

Defendant landlord claims plaintiff claims to have moved out, but still has property left behind, and owes September, and October.   Defendant didn't counter claim for last two months rent.   Plaintiff claims it was horrible living in defendant's home, but he stayed for 18 months. 

 Case dismissed.   (Plaintiff shows his true demeanor in the hall-terview, and goes bonkers making allegations against the landlord).  

Second-

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

Defendant had restraining order for over six months before this fight with plaintiff.    Plaintiff claims the second time the ex-GF was in the apartment when she came home, and there was a fight earlier in the day.     Plaintiff claims ex-GF, and witness were hanging out together the night before.   (Both litigants have Groucho Marx microbladed eyebrows, a look I will never understand).  

However, plaintiff witness (another roommate) says she knew about the restraining order, and testifies that defendant still has ex-GF in her room, and bed.   Plaintiff says ex-GF sleeps over, had her own key to the apartment.   There are texts submitted by plaintiff showing texts and pictures of defendant, and her ex-GF.   

Poor JJ has to get Byrd to translate the text speak, and he keeps giggling (that's when Byrd says he's bi-lingual because he can translate text speak).   

Pro-rated rent back to plaintiff, $125, and that's all. 

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

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

$1690 for plaintiff.    

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Limo Driver Thief?-Plaintiff suing former limo driver over damage to his limo, auto repairs to her car (plaintiff owns an auto repair shop), and stolen limo fares.   Defendant claims there wasn't an accident, and she doesn't believe there is any damage.  Plaintiff has two limos, and defendant was an independent contractor driving for him five years ago, left for a while, and a year ago she started driving again for him.  Plaintiff claims she went on a job, and didn't bring the limo back for several days.    JJ says if she was on duty, then his insurance should have covered it.   Plaintiff says the rules are explained to the drivers, he thinks damage happened between gigs, when defendant was driving limo for her own purposes.   

Defendant claims she was driving clients for plaintiff when whatever happened occurred.    Defendant claims hitting a marker in the parking lot isn't an accident.   Limo photos are a dent and scrape all along the passenger side, from front to back wheel wells.   $1000 to plaintiff, because that's his deductible, fares thrown out (due to eight month time span between limo drives, and court).    Also, after this he kept using her as a driver, and did three repairs to her personal car, pending settlement from family inheritance.   

The really bizarre story by plaintiff is that defendant said she would pay him the auto repairs she owed him, from her inheritance when her parents die (I think the parents were still alive when this was filmed).    The auto repairs were done after the accident occurred, and defendant was still employed by the plaintiff for months after the accident.   

$1,000 to plaintiff for his deductible. because JJ believes the defendant had the accident when she was working for the plaintiff.   JJ dismisses the auto repairs plaintiff's mechanics shop did for defendant.  However, since the plaintiff did car repairs after the accident, and still employed defendant.   Case dismissed, and the plaintiff award of $1,000 is cancelled. 

$50,000 Truck Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid car payments, and car upgrades, defendant counter suing for the usual cellphone, a bed, two sofas, and other junk.     Plaintiff bought truck, made payments, and truck was in defendant's name.  Plaintiff wants his payments back, but would have to get refinanced, and get truck in his name.   (It's been a long time since I saw two unlikable litigants like these two, and their witnesses look angry too.  As my mother used to say, they look like they've been sucking on lemons). 

Plaintiff paid all of the payments, but defendant just started making payments in November.   JJ guesses that plaintiff's truck was in defendant's name, because he either had bad credit, or a bad driving record.    Title and loan is in defendant's name, and she keeps the truck, since plaintiff could have refinanced the loan, and kept the truck.   

Case dismissed, the litigants are arguing like they're on Jerry Springer or Maury.  

Burn, Baby, Burn-Plaintiff suing former friend for cost of her car after it caught fire on his property.   Plaintiff had car accident, towed car to defendant's property, and she paid nothing.   She wants $5k for her car, claims she's disabled, doesn't work, and can't pay for repairs (then don't just get liability).     Two months later the car was burned in a fire on the lot.       

Plaintiff standing there looking stunned about JJ not paying her $5,000.   Defendant was claimed to be burning rubbish in a burn barrel, and her car supposedly burned.    Defendant had told her to get her car off of his lot.  Plaintiff is outraged that JJ told her to stuff it.  (I had to laugh at the plaintiff's outrage at JJ, for telling her she's not getting a penny).     

Second-

Slander and Cheating-Plaintiff says ex owes her for a loan for a motorcycle, and legal fees after motorcycle was impounded.   Defendant says he caught plaintiff in bed with someone else, and he moved out.   He says she gave him the motorcycle as a reunion present.   Defendant claims every time plaintiff did something naughty, she tried to buy his love.  

Motorcycle was pulled over for expired plates, and impounded because defendant didn't have a motorcycle endorsement.    There were legal fees involved with the motorcycle impound.  Plaintiff gets $300 legal fees, but not the motorcycle cost (apparently motorcycle is in impound), and he doesn't have the pink slip.   

The only one who can get the bike out of impound is the plaintiff, so she can sell it.  

Plaintiff had nasty postings about defendant, but JJ didn't know about Plenty of Fish then (I only know about it from TV court cases).    Plaintiff says she wanted to warn other women about the defendant. 

$300 for legal fees to plaintiff, nothing for defendant. 

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

$1800 for plaintiff. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Landlord's Rage Caught on Tape-Plaintiff landlord and the woman who sublets the rooms out, and lives in the home, are suing former tenant for utilities, and property damages.   Defendant says woman plaintiff broke into her room, and severely beat her (there is a video of this).  Defendant signed a six month lease, and paid $600 security deposit.   Lease was to expire in September, and in August plaintiff woman claims defendant was gathering her property to move out.   

Plaintiff woman claims she thought she was going to be homeless with her adult son, if defendant/tenant moved without 30 days notice, leaving her on the hook for the rent.    Plaintiff woman claims if the lease wasn't officially ended by the defendant, that the lease would automatically renew for six more months.    The 30 day notice isn't in the lease.  

I can't believe the owner/landlord let the loony plaintiff woman run the house rentals for so many years.    There is no clause in the lease about automatically renewing.    Plaintiff woman claims the defendant jumped out her room window and left without notice.   Since the lease was to expire on the end of September, then there was no requirement for 30 days notice.     The tenant / defendant was going to use her security deposit for the last month.   27 August, plaintiff woman claims defendant and boyfriend were jumping in and out of the room window, and moving items to her U-Haul truck parked in a neighbor's driveway.   

Plaintiff woman would have lost nothing by defendant moving out on the end of August, and would have had a month covered by the security deposit, so had until 1 October to get another roommate.     Plaintiff son throws Mom under the bus, and I bet he caught hell for this.  Plaintiff landlord says his tenant's son saw defendant damaging the wall with a crowbar, but the son wasn't home when she moved. 

Now for the best part, the video of plaintiff woman kicking the door in, grabbing the camera or phone, and attacking the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff woman punched her several times, tackled her, and rammed her face first into the wall, causing the damages.    There are bad photos of the defendant's bruised face, and knee.   

 Defendant is counter suing for security deposit, and alternative housing she had to get when she left the house in fear of the landlady/sublet.     Police did not arrest the plaintiff woman.    Landlord owner still doesn't get a clue.   (Hall-terview with plaintiff woman is appalling). 

Plaintiff gets nothing.     Defendant gets $1500.      

Second-

Slick Business Partner-Plaintiff suing car dealership owner for return of car payments, and wrongful repo.     Plaintiff bought a used car for $4,732, and a $1000 down payment paid, and $1800 more on the down payment.   Plaintiff was supposed to pay a $1,000 payment, but only paid $500.   Plaintiff only gave $2300 on the $2800 down payment.    And claims she paid $500 more in July.    Payments were supposed to be $500 a month for four months to pay the remainder (no, I have no idea if that adds up, this is confusing).   

Defendant claims he only received $1800 of the $2800 down payment, and never received the remaining $3,000.    Defendant is suing for the rest of the down payment, vandalizing the car, and non-payment.. Defendant claims the receipts of payments are forged.   Car was repo'd. in September.    Business associate that plaintiff claims received her cash was terminated by the defendant.    Defendant claims that business associate did not have control of the financial systems, and never dealt with the plaintiff.   

There are pictures of the bad shape of the car when the repo occurred, by the repo company.   Car was full of broken glass, and trash.   Of course, plaintiff says defendant trashed the car.     The purchase contract says that repo will happen if payments aren't made, or if full insurance isn't in effect at all times.    Defendant says that text messages about payments are after other man was fired.     

Plaintiff gets $4300 from JJ for the car.  (JJ tells the defendant to sue the former business partner).   I think plaintiff is a big liar.  (Note to plaintiff, you don't get the title until you pay the vehicle off.   I suspect the former business partner was a crook, but the plaintiff never paid more than the defendant has receipts for that were actually from his business.  I'm betting the plaintiff knows the former business partner.) (There's something wrong with the plaintiff, and I suspect that's part of why JJ was so generous with the award money).  

Short Vacation Bust-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit return ($2500).     Defendant is suing for removal of trash, and other damages.   Water heater burst in the home, home owner's insurance should have paid for that, and that wasn't the tenant's fault.    JJ won't accept the combined bill for everything that was done.   

Plaintiff gets $2500.   (Why do landlords come on this show, or The People's Court? However, I do agree that the flood from the water heater wasn't the plaintiff/tenant's fault) 

Edited July 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, since the plaintiff did car repairs after the accident, and still employed defendant.   Case dismissed, and the plaintiff award of $1,000 is cancelled. 

My take is that JJ just got tired of hearing counter-arguments (valid ones at that) from the plaintiff when she would not admit to having misunderstood the facts and chronology, so she decided in a huff to put an end to things, reminding everyone who's boss and giving her another opportuinity to indulge in one of ther favourite pastimes, screwing over a small businessman.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Zip Line Rip Off-Plaintiffs suing a vacation cabin renter for nonpayment.    Defendant refuses to pay because the zipline attraction (separately owned from cabin) that was on a list of amusement in the brochure was closed.   Defendant's children couldn't go ziplining, so they "had nothing to do", and so they left early ("children" are two adult daughters, plus 15 year old twins).   They were supposed to stay four full days, and only stayed two, disputed the charges with their bank/credit card company, and it was all refunded, $1045+.    Trip was in August, so the skiing mentioned in the brochure wasn't available either, as well as snow shoeing, or anything else winter related.     It would only be partially the cabin owner's issue to notify the renter, if they knew exactly why the vacationers were renting for only one activity.  

What an entitled brat the defendant is, and her four children too.     You can't tell me there is nothing to do at the cabin for four days.    They also stayed two days, and the morning of the third, so even if they had a refund it should have only been for less than half of the rental, minus fees.   

$842 for plaintiff. 

Teen Purchase Pickle-Plaintiff purchased a car for $3,000 from defendant, she has a bill of sale (2007 Saturn), and was unable to register the car because it wouldn't smog.   However, she had the car for two weeks before going to the mechanics.   Plaintiff assumed that the car had passed smog before, and she was wrong, because car hadn't been registered in California before.    Plaintiff claims the part to pass smog is permanently out of stock (they stopped making Saturns years ago), so the car can never pass smog.   Car is registered in Guam.    Defendant says plaintiff was in a hurry, so refused to wait on car deal.    There must be some way to get that part, maybe from a junkyard, or other parts source.  

Plaintiff just parked the car, and can't get it smog tested because it's in defendant's name, I hope defendant's plates aren't still on it.   Plaintiff should have taken it to a mechanic before purchase, since it was 'as is'.   However, plaintiff refused to wait, so she's stuck.    Plaintiff obviously drove the car before she went to the mechanic, and I don't believe that car has been parked since the car sale.   

Case dismissed.  

Second-

Trust the Judge, Get a Lawyer-Plaintiff / landlord is suing former tenants for stolen property, unpaid rent, and damages.    Defendants rented an apartment above a pizzeria, after a job loss they stopped paying rent, (landlord says $2200, def. say $4,000).   Defendants say that new owner of building was going to cover their back rent, about $800.   

JJ tells plaintiff to get a lawyer, for the building transfer with his witness (buying the apartment and pizza shop).   (Sadly plaintiff seems very confused, and lives alone after his wife died, and he needs a lawyer).  Pizzeria closed after water damage, and after the plaintiff's son, the manager of the pizzeria, collapsed and died.     

The damage to the apartment was caused by defendant's ferrets, including rug damages.    JJ declines to see pictures of the ferrets from the defendant.    As usual, tenants claim plaintiff harassed them, and I guess that's what she calls asking for your rent.      Plaintiff is very confused about unpaid rent total, and fortunately his adult son is in court to help.   I really hope the plaintiff's son helped him find an attorney for the apartment building sale, because otherwise, he'll get ripped off. 

Defendants were $4200 behind on rent, and plaintiff gets that. 

Pigs Don't Live in Houses-Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant/former tenant for damages to home, and unpaid rent.   Defendant says it wasn't damage, but normal wear and tear.   Defendant also stayed an extra week, so she owes for the month ($1200).    There was no walk through with tenant (she moved out suddenly), and plaintiff submits pictures of damages.   

Pictures show tons of left over items in room, and defendant claims someone else did that after she moved out, and says it's not that bad.  There is a lot of damage, including doors off of the hinges, large holes in walls, and just plain filth.    There was an $1100 security deposit, covering the unpaid rent.  House is filthy, holes in doors and walls, etc.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.  

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Beatdown for BMW-Plaintiff /mechanic suing former girlfriend/ customer for assault, robbery (she reached in his pocket during the assault and took money), and vandalizing his car.  Defendant claims they didn't date, but plaintiff says they did date for a while.   Plaintiff is defendant's brother's best friend.   Plaintiff sold defendant a BMW for $2500, with a signed Bill of Sale. 

Defendant is as phony as her cheap wig, from the Bozo collection.  Her lemon yellow fingernails are ugly too.   

Defendant claims she paid $5k for the car, and the $2500 was just on paper to avoid car sales tax, and license plate fees totaling almost $1,000.    Defendant is torpedoing her own case, claiming she cheated the government.        Coming to court without clean hands is stupid.  

Two months later she dropped car off at his garage for a brake repair, in June.   Defendant drove the car from April to June, without an issue.   Plaintiff gave defendant a loaner for four hours while he worked on the BMW brakes.    Plaintiff claims when defendant returned to pick up the car, the back windshield broke, and he told woman he would fix the back windshield.   Defendant claims the windshield conversation never happened.   Defendant claims she paid to fix the windshield, but has no receipt.    

Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted him, grabbed money out of his pocket during the fight, and trashed the loaner car he gave her.  Plaintiff claims the defendant's new boyfriend tried to pry her off of him.    Plaintiff plays the 911 call (he was in his car with the woman's boyfriend, locked in, and you can hear woman hitting the car).    The loaner car was a Corolla, and the car is full of trash.      Defendant is counter-claiming for false arrest (that's not happening).   She should be arrested for crimes against fashion, with the tomato red dress, yellow talon nails, and burgundy cheap wig, plus huge fake eyelashes. .   

Defendant gets told to stuff her counter claim, the charges were justified.   

Plaintiff receives $750.   (I bet she only dated him to get a car). 

Second-

Thanks for the Car! Now, Let's Break Up-Plaintiff suing defendant / ex-girlfriend for the return or value of a car, and an unpaid loan to move.     The litigants only dated for three months.    Litigants met as mutual tenants renting rooms in a private home, plaintiff still lives there, and defendant moved out.    In the list of gifts, defendant forgets to mention the car plaintiff gave her, and then she broke up him.     

Car was purchased for $2900 from a friend of plaintiff.   (If this woman says "basically" one more time, I'm going to scream).   How rotten, the defendant was preying on a lonely man, who was willing to help her in return for the relationship.     Defendant admits she was going to pay the plaintiff back for the car.    

(What's wrong with the defendant?   She is leaning, and swaying, bowing front and back, and is nervous as hell.  JJ asks if defendant is OK, but defendant looks very impaired).

 Defendant admits she paid back $800+ on the car.   Defendant still owes $2100 for the car.   

Plaintiff gets $2100 for car, but nothing else because he had no expectation of repayment.   Defendant case thrown out. 

Painting Damage and Defamation-Plaintiff painting business owner is suing defendant for unpaid services, and defamation.   $3650 was the price, $2190 was paid by defendant.   defendant  still owes, $1460.     Defendant fired plaintiff's company, and hired another person to finish the job, for the same $1460.   JJ sees the photos of what plaintiffs did, and what the other woman defendant hired did, and plaintiff's work sucks.  Defendant wants a lien the plaintiff put on her home removed.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, because they do lousy work.  Defendant will not get money, because she's not out any additional money.  However, plaintiffs refuse to remove the lien, but JJ can't help with that.   

Defendant will have to hire an attorney to get the lien lifted.    It will be cheaper to pay the plaintiffs off, then hire the attorney.  However, I bet the plaintiff will up the price that the defendant will have to pay them to get the lien lifted. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Inside Job-Plaintiff suing defendants/former roommates for  stealing her property, and making threats.   Plaintiff went out of town for a while, left cash for June's rent in an envelope on the counter.    Defendant says that the house was ransacked, and some men helped the plaintiff take property out.   Litigants were fighting over rent money.   Sadly, all of the litigants seem rather impaired. 

 Defendants say plaintiff had men help her rip off, and ransack the apartment, and her property was stolen too.  Plaintiff claims her stuff was dumped at Goodwill in Folsom.  

Plaintiff claims the text shows stuff was stolen by defendant witness.   However, the text is from the defendant's co-litigant, and woman friend.  Defendant witness received his property back from the daughter, and it was at plaintiff's mobile home.    Defendant witness also saw blankets made by his grandmother at the plaintiff's mobile home.   (Did all of the women go to the same bad hairdresser, that over bleached their hair? )   

Case dismissed.   

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

$500 down on the car, Grandmother signed the paperwork, and Granddaughter drove the car off of the lot.    Granddaughter drove to Senior Skip Day.  No guarantee or warranty is in the contract for the car.   Granddaughter's previous car was given to her by her aunt, and the engine blew after a month.    Granddaughter was driving around with a couple of friends, and it was Senior Skip Day, so she drove to the beach.   Plaintiff says car was acting up, and she kept driving around. 

 After about a week, Grandmother took car back to dealer, and wanted a refund of the down payment, and payment contract cancelled on an "As Is" car.      (If the Grandmother's phone goes off one more time I'm going to scream, it went off twice already.  By the way, her ringtone is awful).     They didn't even get the car inspected by a mechanic before purchase.    Since there is no counterclaim contract is not going to be enforced.    

Case dismissed. 

Second-

Home Not So Sweet Home- Plaintiff / mother suing her son over rental home damages, and unpaid rent. when he and his wife, moved into her rental home for a short time ( months).   Defendant and his witness are not married, but were married before, and divorced, but live together.   Defendants moved in right after Christmas into plaintiff's condo.   Plaintiff had to file eviction on defendants, who lived in condo from mid-February, to mid-June.   Defendants moved into another house they were buying.    

Defendant claims he paid $700 a month directly into his mother's bank account.  $1,050 is owed for son's unpaid rent. 

Photo of damages to condo are submitted by plaintiff.    $1,090 to plaintiff for back rent, and two damaged blinds. 

Teen Custody Fight for Pit Bull-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for the return or value of a pure bred Pit Bull.   Plaintiff says he wants dog back from the girlfriend, he bought from a rapper.    Puppy was six months old when plaintiff bought the dog.   (Sorry, Pit Bull is a UKC, or CKC registration, which would register a Gerbil if you paid the fee).     Plaintiff asked the defendant to baby sit the dog for him, while he was working, and defendant kept the dog, and refused to return it.  Dog is now a year old, and has no papers.     

Plaintiff is now homeless, and unemployed, and wants dog back to breed, and sell.    

Defendant says in May she received a text from plaintiff saying he couldn't keep the dog, and she said she was trying to find the dog a home.  Defendant says the day plaintiff gave her the dog, the dog got away, and was hit by a car or bicycle, and dog costs $223 to treat the dog.  Plaintiff visited the dog, and then defendant gave the dog to a friend, and she's no longer in contact with the dog owner.    Plaintiff had already bred the dog to his cousin's Australian Mastiff to start a dog breeding business.  

Case dismissed. 

Party Profit Dispute-Plaintiff suing defendant over an unpaid loan to throw a party.   Defendant wanted to give a celebrity event to make money, but needed a loan from plaintiff (defendant is her daughter's friend).     Defendant successfully had events before.   Plaintiff invested $7,000 in the event with defendant.     Defendant didn't make any money on event, so he didn't pay the plaintiff anything.  

Defendant says he invested $10k of his own money, and plaintiff invested about $10k also.    

Event did not go well, made no money, and there were no profits to split.   JJ rules it was an investment, not a loan.

Case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Woe to the Woman Who Hacks Her Lover's Phone-Plaintiff suing defendant for an assault, a false arrest, bail, and vandalizing his property.    Litigants met online, and after only two months plaintiff moved in with girlfriend at her mother's place.   

Plaintiff moved out, to a campground., and they tried to reconcile, and defendant stayed at his camp sometimes.   There was a fight at the campground between litigants.   Plaintiff was asleep and woke up to defendant punching him in the chest, and she had his phone, and accused him of cheating.   Defendant kept fighting, police told her to leave.    Plaintiff was arrested by local police, defendant says she didn't make a complaint.   Plaintiff's police report has a false name by defendant, and later all charges were dismissed by prosecutor.  False arrest is dismissed, because police wanted the charges, not defendant.   Sorry, plaintiff should get some money for her lies.  Bail is also not defendant's fault. 

Vandalism of property was of items at defendant's mother's house.  Defendant sent him pictures of the destroyed property.    Defendant thinks it's funny that she destroyed his property.   They were doing drive by booty calls at defendant's house for two months after the assault.  Between the last encounter, and the destruction of property, it was only a week. 

$4,000 to plaintiff.

College Student Witnesses Murder-Plaintiff suing her former landlord for return of rent ($420), security deposit ($420), and hospital bills.   Plaintiff was a witness of another tenant being murdered by another tenant.   Before the murder, defendant split the kitchen in half, to separate the two tenants, and one of the tenants was killed by the other.  Landlord/defendant still thinks plaintiff should have stayed for the term of her lease.

(I bet this is the case:     https://www.statesman.com/news/20190604/police-bastrop-county-man-stabbed-suffocated-tried-to-cut-off-roommates-head/

(Her parents didn't want her to move home, but to cope with the situation herself.    Sadly, the plaintiff's parents were as heartless as the landlord was).   (I think plaintiff should have received $5,000.   Landlord knew the murderer was violent, and hostile, but still kept him as a tenant)

$840 back to plaintiff. for rent, and security deposit.   I wish the plaintiff would have had an expert witness testify, because she deserved the money.   

Second-

Caregiver Cries Extortion by Disabled Senior-Plaintiff caretaker accused by her former patient of running a pet-sitting business on the side, the plaintiff  says the defendant committed extortion.   Plaintiff wants money for car tires, etc. she used on defendant's car, and defendant says plaintiff drove the hell out of the car.   

Defendant doesn't regularly drive, and plaintiff took defendant's car to her house, and kept it there to drive to school, etc.    When plaintiff went back to school, she took the defendant's car for school, which is a 90 mile round trip commute, starting in August.     Defendant says plaintiff took her car, used it all of the time.    Defendant didn't drive any longer, but then plaintiff became caregiver, and took defendant's car to drive.     Defendant paid all upkeep, and insurance on her car too.   Plaintiff wants to be paid for tires, that went on defendant's car.  

Defendant says plaintiff wanted to become a pet sitter, and use defendant's car for that also.  Defendant said she never drove her own car, and pet sitting business started in April, using defendant's car for that too.      

Plaintiff keeps interrupting, and whining, but one glare from the wonderful Officer Byrd shuts her up.   Plaintiff put 3500 miles on the car, in 18 months.   Defendant says it was more like 30,000 miles.  Defendant claims plaintiff put in for hours she didn't work.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant counter-claim dismissed.   (As JJ says, the two litigants deserve each other). 

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff put 3500 miles on the car, in 18 months.   Defendant says it was more like 30,000 miles. 

I believe the defendant, she cited specific odometer readings, and the plaintiff's testimony was shaky, she didn't say she put 3,00 miles on the car, she said that it was probably about 3,000. The plaintiff was a flat out liar and should have been socked much harder.

[parrotfeathers]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I believe the defendant, she cited specific odometer readings, and the plaintiff's testimony was shaky, she didn't say she put 3,00 miles on the car, she said that it was probably about 3,000. The plaintiff was a flat out liar and should have been socked much harder.

The plaintiff 's demeanor said it all.   I hope she never sits down at a poker table because she would lose.

[Bobby88]

On 7/1/2020 at 6:42 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Now for the best part, the video of plaintiff woman kicking the door in, grabbing the camera or phone, and attacking the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff woman punched her several times, tackled her, and rammed her face first into the wall, causing the damages.    There are bad photos of the defendant's bruised face, and knee.   

 Defendant is counter suing for security deposit, and alternative housing she had to get when she left the house in fear of the landlady/sublet.     Police did not arrest the plaintiff woman.    Landlord owner still doesn't get a clue.   (Hall-terview with plaintiff woman is appalling). 

Plaintiff gets nothing.     Defendant gets $1500.         

The plaintiff was nuts for sure, but the defendant was getting on my nerves with the constant unnecessary remarks. She struck me as someone who could be pretty antagonistic in her own right.

Did anyone else think the video seemed a little staged? The camera is focused squarely on the door and almost on cue, the plaintiff barrels through and wreaks havoc. Given the defendant’s attitude in court, part of me wonders if she kind of picked a fight with the plaintiff knowing it would provoke a reaction and recorded it. The plaintiff is clearly a loose cannon, so it would no doubt have taken very little to set her off.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Bobby88

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Boiling Water Poured on High Roommate-Plaintiff suing former roommate (plaintiff, defendant and defendant's sister were sharing an apartment)  for medical bills, for pouring boiling water on her when plaintiff was sleeping.   However, the police report says plaintiff (and both other roommates) was high on PCP.      Plaintiff says the cop was fugazi (apparently means fake), and lied on the police report.   Plaintiff was found outside the apartment building, wearing a hospital gown.    Doctor's report says plaintiff did have second degree burns, was wearing a hospital gown, and was altered by PCP use.   

Plaintiff claims defendant poured boiling water on her.   Defendant says plaintiff pulled a pan off of the stove, and spilled the water on herself (JJ's rendition of the plaintiff's position is hysterical!).    As JJ points out, the doctor and police officer couldn't get a cogent story out of plaintiff.   

The other sister says they all used PCP, and need to stop.   

(A personal note, family friends had their adult son using PCP, and they had to call the police one night when he was standing in the living room, playing with a butcher knife, and announced they were all space aliens and had to die.   It took four people to subdue him, so he could go to the locked ward at a local hospital, and then for a very long stint at the state mental hospital.   He was never right mentally again, and the few times he went off his medication, it was scary.      I bet the litigants were all high on PCP, and the plaintiff was quite capable of pouring water on her lady bits, or the roommates could have, but there is no way of proving anything.   I think someone on PCP could do all kinds of bizarre and dangerous things, and I don't think JJ had any evidence that plaintiff didn't do it, or that defendant and sister did.   I've heard of people doing bizarre things to themselves and others on PCP, and I bet that plaintiff used her $5k award up quickly, and not for medical bills.

(In the hall-terview the plaintiff is crying and wailing, and says she was just using weed that night.  However, I've been told by someone who really knows that many places weed is actually sprayed with PCP, or formaldehyde or other substances).   

Plaintiff gets $5k (I bet she poured the water on herself), and her hall-terview is bizarre.   

Tell the Truth-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for return of belongings she stole from him.    Defendant rented a room from the plaintiff in his apartment, with her two children.    Rent was $500.    Plaintiff claims she moved because of pot, and alcohol use by the plaintiff in the apartment.   When defendant moved out on 12 July,

Plaintiff says she moved in on 13 May, and out on 12 July.    Defendant claims she moved in during July, and lived in Seattle during May and June, and now says she lived at her Mother's place in June.     JJ calls defendant a fibber.   Defendant claims she lived in Seattle, then Orlando (where the apartment is) with plaintiff, and then moved to Naples with her mother.   

Plaintiff says lying defendant stole his Xbox, TV, his mattress, other electronics, and claims defendant's witness was the accomplice.      I suspect the plaintiff is right about the defendant, and her witness.   The witness just won't shut up. 

Defendant claims she was fired from her job (in Orlando) after plaintiff harassed her there.  However, she claims she was living with her mother in Naples then, and that's not commuting distance at all. 

$3600 to plaintiff

Second-

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

Defendant claims 650 people actually showed up, not 500.   She says there were seats for 500 (per contract), and claims plaintiff brought 10 extra tables, and 100 chairs.   They needed extra security, and servers, and plaintiff refused to let defendant gather the beer cans off of the tables, party venue was rented to midnight, and it took until 4:00 a.m. to clean up the venue.   Security said they counted 660 people. 

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

 Defendant / party planner receives $1780 for extra people.

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

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

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

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Trainer Abuses Horse-Plaintiff/horse owner suing over an underweight horse, that was full of bite, and hoof marks.    Plaintiff is suing a horse trainer for rehabilitation costs.    Plaintiff sent horse to trainer (boyfriend of trainer), and was supposed to pay training board, including food.  Training board was $750, she paid for June, July, but sent nothing in August ($400 was finally paid in September, and $320 later).     The change in agreement in August went to $650.   Someone else picked up the horse about the end of September.    Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay her for a full month.    When plaintiff only paid $400 in September, defendant wanted money to buy a round bale (a giant bale of hay), and plaintiff had a puppy vet bill, so plaintiff didn't pay for the extra feed.    Plaintiff was sent videos and photos, all the way along.   

Plaintiff is saying all kinds of allegations about physical abuse, that cannot be substantiated.   ( Is this the first horse this plaintiff owned?    She doesn't seem too knowledgeable about horses).     Defendant sent a message about the trailer being unsuitable to carry the horse safely.    It was a trailer for cattle, and a lot of wires sticking up.  

Plaintiff was out of town for four and a half months, didn't pay her bills, and wants the horse 'fixed', even after someone else had horse for over two weeks, between defendant, and plaintiff return.     

I used to ride, and I've been around horses for years, so to me the horse looks like he's the low horse on the pecking order, and the other horses beat him up.   Also, if plaintiff wasn't sending feed money, and horse was just in pasture, not with extra feed then he could lose weight very quickly.   This looked like a big horse, and he wasn't all that filled out in the before picture either, he was just shiny.    Also, when is the last time the horse's teeth were floated (rasped) by a vet?    If teeth aren't cared for properly, then the horse might not be able to eat, or chew food, and will lose weight.     Plus, defendant wanted to have an extra feed for the horse, but plaintiff refused to pay for it.   The horse has marks from other horses, and there is no record of when that happened.    

 And JJ is right, we don't know how he was kept between when the horse was picked up in that shoddy trailer, and when the plaintiff finally got him back two weeks later.   After plaintiff came back where her horse is now, she feeds him pellets, and supplements, and has been feeding him a lot over the last two months.   The horse doesn't look that great since the plaintiff has been taking care of him for two months, and I wonder if she had the veterinarian to look at the horse's teeth? 

Case dismissed, and that's right. 

Divorcee Stiffs the Bank-Plaintiff suing his ex-wife for damages to his home, from her incomplete renovations to the home.    Plaintiff received home in divorce, and doesn't live there, but ex-wife lived there for several years with the kids, and her new husband.    Since defendant, and her love muffin (new husband) were living in the home, plaintiff wasn't paying mortgage.    Mortgage was joint during the divorce, and after.   Ex-wife filed for bankruptcy right after divorce.   Plaintiff home is about to go into foreclosure, unless he can sell it.    

Defendant and new husband wanted plaintiff to co-sign a mortgage for them to buy the house (are they crazy?   Who would ever be stupid enough to do this?).    How can a woman with a recent bankruptcy think she's going to get a mortgage?   

Plaintiff says he allowed the defendant access to plan what she would do to the home, if she was able to get financing.     However, plaintiff claims the defendants started renovating, and damaged the home.    New husband's name was on a quit claim deed that defendants wanted plaintiff to sign.

JJ tells them to stuff it.   Case dismissed. 

Second-

Vandalism, Eviction and a Death Threat?!-Plaintiff suing former co-worker/neighbor for stalking, harassment, and vandalizing her vehicle.   Plaintiff called police (no arrests), tried to get defendant evicted (they live in separate buildings, but the same complex), called CPS against defendant (CPS didn't do anything).         Plaintiff is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.    (I bet Byrd puts the crossword puzzle down, and watches plaintiff closely).    Police report is a cell phone photo of a 'police report', there is no other report, and witness to car vandalism apparently took a one way trip to Mars to get away from the plaintiff.   (I disagree with JJ plaintiff isn't a smart woman, she's a nut case).    Plaintiff claims former co-workers heard defendant bragging about the vandalism (witnesses are also not in court).  Plaintiff claims some man watches her apartment for defendant constantly.    Plaintiff filed in July for a protective order, no police report, no witnesses, no order granted. 

Plaintiff claims defendant threatened to shoot plaintiff in the head.    Plaintiff is proud of calling CPS, and claims defendant has her kid watching plaintiff's comings and goings (probably in a space ship).   CPS didn't even open a report.  

This is so scary!   Plaintiff has temporary custody of a relative's baby.   If CPS should investigate anyone, it should be the plaintiff.   Plaintiff also looks like she's expecting another bundle of joy, poor kid. 

Yes, plaintiff in the harassment case claims a man watches her comings, and goings from her apartment for defendant.   Plaintiff also claimed defendant's young son watched her too, and sometimes sat on the apartment steps waiting for her to do something he could report.    I am very upset that plaintiff is watching a relative's child full time for a year, while that person is deployed.      I hope plaintiff does move, but I've heard too many people on this show claim they're moving very soon, and it turns out they've been talking about moving for a long time, but never move. 

It must be terrifying for defendant and her family living near this nutso plaintiff, and apparently they used to work together.    

Everything dismissed (sorry JJ, but defendant should have received $5,000 for the harassment).   

Bambi or Schindler's List-Plaintiff suing brother for balance of a car she sold him.   (The litigants are foster brother and sister).     Defendant bought 2003 Mercedes from sister, car had 209,000 miles.    Defendant stopped paying when car started having issues.   Defendant parked car outside plaintiff's place.   

Defendant's affidavit to court varies dramatically from testimony in court (that's where JJ's analogy between Bambi v. Schindler's List comes in comparing the stories).         

Plaintiff is only suing for $1500, and that's what she gets. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

A Mother's Revenge on Her Son's Ex-Plaintiff is suing former daughter-in-law for legal fees and harassment, former DIL is counter suing for the same.    Each litigant says that the other harassed them, and caused them to need to hire an attorney.    Defendant, and plaintiff's son lived together for a few years, but were married for less than a year.     The parents have 50-50 custody, and grandchild/daughter goes to school at the defendant's location.    Defendant tried to get an order of protection against plaintiff, for trying to stab DIL in back, and defendant has a three year protective order against ex-MIL.    Both litigants had attorneys, for the custody case, and the protective order case.    Also, both sides had mutual protective orders for three years.   

MIL/plaintiff wanted visitation with granddaughter, after protective order was granted, son (plaintiff's son, and defendant's ex) couldn't have visitation with daughter/granddaughter because she lives with her son, and the protective order interferes.   Plaintiff son says mother, and father moved in after financial reverses, and they still live in son's home.   

Exes (plaintiff's son, and ex wife) both say the other is a good parent to the daughter/granddaughter.    JJ rightly says plaintiff is a pot stirrer (you can supply what JJ was really wanting to say).   JJ is so right, the plaintiff lives to ruin other people's lives, and cause drama.     

Plaintiff claims 911 called her son, and the granddaughter had locked herself in the bathroom, in fear of the mother.    However, the school and church don't allow the plaintiff to attend child's function in spite of the restraining order.    

Case dismissed, and defendant is right, plaintiff

Homeless and Looking for Payback-Plaintiff suing ex roommate for destroyed property, kept her belongings, and a false protective order.    Defendant says they lived in the same place as tenants for five years, and for a while they were romantic.    Plaintiff denies the litigants were romantic.    Plaintiff never paid rent at all, but lived there for five years.    

Plaintiff says she never paid rent because she was working on her case against the state of Oregon, about her child.   (No, it didn't make any sense to me either).   

Plaintiff finally moved out to some boyfriend's place, but left her junk behind (let me guess, it will be $5000).     Finally, defendant dumped her junk.    Defendant says plaintiff would move in and out for weeks at a time, but return, and finally moved out.   Plaintiff, and boyfriend are now living in his car for the last two months.   Plaintiff moved out, has been full time with the boyfriend for over three months, and defendant finally dumped it.  

Unfortunately, many jurisdictions would say the woman was a legal tenant, and would have to be legally evicted.   

Defendant says the plaintiff called police three times about him, but he was never arrested, or charged.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.    (I absolutely believe everything the defendant said about the plaintiff)

Second-

Abuse of the Justice System-Plaintiff suing former co-worker, and roommate for lost wages, rent, and deposit.    The litigants worked at a Ramen restaurant, and decided to be roommates.  They roomed together for two months, The next month the plaintiff went to a party at defendant's place, and they argued. Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted him.   The next day defendant said he was taking plaintiff to small claims (as usual, plaintiff's cell phone is new, so he doesn't have the text messages).   Plaintiff files small claims case in October, and service about the case was the plaintiff's mother giving him the paperwork, the two men still worked together.   

The day after the small claims notice, the defendant filed a protection order   Defendant was granted the TRO, alleging the incident at his house.    As JJ says, the defendant abused the system in filing the protective order.   The protective order barred the plaintiff from going to work, because they worked together. 

 JJ will give the plaintiff lost wages, because the false protective order filing prevented the plaintiff from going to work, $1500.

You Should Know Better by Now-Plaintiff suing defendant for getting rid of her property.   Plaintiff left her property at some kind of transitional shelter for women, and she left it behind for seven months.   Pl

Plaintiff had no lease on the storage area, and never paid anything for using the area.    When new renter rented the property, he found pieces of furniture, deteriorated furniture, so defendant got rid of the trash.   Plaintiff claimed that she called the defendant and told him she was getting her stuff.   

Defendant had the previous owner notify everyone who had items in the storage area, or housing to get their items out before 1 November.    When defendant took possession of the property, he got rid of leftover junk, 

 JJ calls the woman a hustler, and dismisses the case.  

[configdotsys]

On 7/6/2020 at 5:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Quinceanera Party Fail-

Security said they counted 660 people. 

What I found particularly bizarre about this case was when JJ asked if security used a clicker and the defendant said yes, JJ asked why they (security) was not there, and the defendant said, "Because they told us we could only have two witnesses." 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Truck Takes a Horse-Kicking-Plaintiff suing defendant/horse owner for defendant's horse getting stuck between two trucks, and kicking plaintiff's truck.   Suing for damages, harassment, and threats.     Litigants live on 12 acre property, in separate homes, each have 3 horses.    Property is fenced to separate horses.    Defendant boards other people's horses, and one of the boarder horses got loose, and attacked the plaintiff's truck.    (Defendant has colorful, pink, blue and purple hair, and it coordinates with her tattoos).   Defendant locks driveway perimeter gate (to the main road), and then she opens the gate to the pasture, so they can graze.    Plaintiff looked out, saw defendant's boarder horses out, and getting into plaintiff's horse feed. 

I wonder if the landlord (all three homes on the property are rented) knows that defendant is running a horse boarding business on his property?     I wonder if the IRS knows about the extra income too?   

 The defendant's boyfriend's broken down truck (truck has been there for 8 months) was parked on the main parking area, and was close by the plaintiff's truck, and one horse was wedged between the two trucks, panicked, and kicked the snot out of plaintiff's truck/car.    Sorry defendant has cancerous kidney issues, but that has nothing to do with her horses getting out, stealing feed (that can cause choke, or colic), or leaving the horses unattended.     

Plaintiff claims the kickstarter, bake sales, Gofundme, etc. money was used by defendant for saddle purchases, tattoos, etc.  (I was naughty, and looked at defendant's Go gimmie account, and the donations certainly dropped off quite a few months ago.    Bet it's not the only begging account she's had). 

Plaintiff gets $1,000 to fix and paint his car.  I find it amazing that the litigants still live on the same property.     

Dead Ants in Resort Freezer-Plaintiff suing rental property owner for money he spent renting her condo at Buena Pointe, because it had ants in the freezer, neighboring condo was being painted, and four weeks of rental $5276 was the total cost.     Plaintiff is complaining a neighbor condo is being painted.   Plaintiff complains that because of the danger of paint getting on the patio furniture, that the furniture was covered up, and unusable for two weeks.   Plaintiff arrived on the 9th, and left eight days early, the 23rd.  The last two weeks were only $1,000 a week.     

Plaintiff complained about amenities, ants in the bedroom and kitchen, freezer (no pictures), condo didn't have a blender (oh, the humanity!), couldn't use the patio furniture because the neighboring condo was being painted (for two weeks?).    The condo was redoing the outside paint, so they had to cover the patio furniture because of pressure washing, and painting, and were there for 1 1/2 weeks.     Painting was over (by the 23rd) before plaintiff left on the 28th, and he wants $5,000 back.   

Case is dismissed.   What a whiny jerk.  

Second-

Section 8? Not so Great-Plaintiff/landlady (she's property manager for the landlord/owner) suing defendants (former tenant is the Section 8, her father/witness was the guarantor of the rent, who did not pay it either).   Plaintiff lived with her three children, her kid's father, and her adult brother.   Rent was $1600 a month, paid by Section 8 at the beginning.    Children's father, and defendant's brother both helped to pay the rent, and when they left the unemployed tenant /defendant had Section 8.    Then when defendant was dumped by Section 8 after two months, and, she didn't pay the rent.    Section 8 was terminated because defendant didn't tell Section 8 about money that one her children's father was paying her.    Landlady and tenant both were notified that Section 8 wouldn't cover the rent.   Defendant had a one year lease, with Section 8 (October of 2018, to October of 2019).   

There were a lot of nefarious people who were coming and going in the house, and living as illegal tenants.    There was suspected drug use in the home.     Defendant tenant's father was guarantor of the rent, and he refused to pay the rent.   Since no rent was paid, landlady intended to evict, but tenant moved out in June after not paying rent.   

 Damages are supposed to be huge, tons of junk and trash left in the house, pictures are submitted by plaintiff.   Some of the damages by tenant were caused by tenant's children who were playing on the rental house roof, a photo of them is submitted, on the house roof, and garage roof, playing.        Roofer repair bill is submitted.    Pictures of trash in house are stunning.    Landlady had to remove 5,060 lbs. of trash, it took a 27 foot U-haul to get rid of it.    Tenant's children live full time with defendant grandfather, and tenant only lives there occasionally.   Defendant's counter claim is that landlady attacked her, and left bruises, no medical report, as usual.   Landlady has text messages with the same bruise photos, (sent to landlady's daughter), and saying the boyfriend did it.   

Now we find out what it takes to make JJ favor a landlord, many children playing on the house roof.   The defendant's three children live full time with defendant's father, and his wife.  

Plaintiff gets $1543, for repainting and repair, (not for entire house).    Landlady kept the security deposit ($1500), and received some of the roof repair costs (there was a storm about that time too).   

$2074 to plaintiff for damages above the security deposit.   Defendant's phony claim is thrown out. 

[Florinaldo]

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Truck Takes a Horse-Kicking-

I felt sorry for the defendant, who obviously suffers from a genetic condition that makes her hair take on such fugly variegated colourings.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's style of beard I usually find silly looking, but he wore it rather well.

13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Section 8? Not so Great

If ever a defendant generated in me a desire to slap them around, it would be her (although it would of course be wrong, and perhaps a tad unhealthy, to touch her). Her father obviously taught her well how to show absolutely no consideration for other people's property; he was even worse than her in his callousness about the situation.  It also looks like a third generation is carrying on that proud heritage.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Repo Man Chased Down-Plaintiff suing repo man for repoing his car that he was behind on payments, and wants damages for assault, and vandalizing his property.    Plaintiff claims he thought his behind on payments car was being stolen by defendant.   Defendant was towing the car with his tow truck, clearly labelled as vehicle recovery.  Defendant was hired by the repo company, that was told to repo the car by the finance company.   

Defendant says as he was securing the  car on the tow device, plaintiff threatened him, stood on the running board, claims plaintiff punched him in the ribs several time, and grabbed the steering wheel, causing defendant to crash.      Police were not impressed by plaintiff's claims of 'theft' of his vehicle.     Defendant had the right paperwork to repo the vehicle.   Plaintiff is lucky no one was hurt by the accident, caused by him.   Defendant's tow truck says the company name, Northwest Recovery in big letters on it, it was obviously a repo company.

Plaintiff's  case dismissed. 

What's a Pyredoodle Puppy?-Plaintiff suing for return of deposit for a Pyredoodle puppy (Pyrennes/Poodle cross).   Plaintiff picked a specific mother dog, Song.   Defendant took deposit on unborn puppy in February, and puppy was never given to plaintiff.    As usual, defendant says deposits are non-refundable, and she's not getting away with that.  Deposit was $500.   

Defendant says the designated dog is currently due with a litter in a month.   Defendant b-word tells JJ that she's not giving a refund, or a puppy, and JJ takes that rather badly (Please, just this once, let Byrd use the Fly Swatter of Death on the defendant).    Defendant claims that Song is currently expecting, but has no proof of pregnancy from the vet.   When the idiot defendant says she's not doing a refund, the entire audience groans (they must realize they won't see hunky Officer Byrd beat the defendant with the Fly Swatter of Death).  

Plaintiff receives $500.  (Plaintiff wants a Pyrennes cross for a service dog! No one would ever use a Pyrennes cross for anything requiring obedience)

Second-

Basketball, Lies and the Police-Plaintiff suing neighbors because their 11 year old son kicked her car.   There is a police report that the son states that he kicked the car, and he then lies to JJ.    11 year old claims woman called him nasty names.    The plaintiff didn't return the ball that was on her lawn, and sorry JJ that is her right as a property owner.  Plaintiff says she picks up jackets, trash, and balls on her lawn regularly.   (Trust me, if some kids were using JJ's yard as a playground, she would be livid.   Plus my insurance agent said that if someone gets injured on my property, I'm liable, so I don't put up with kids or anyone using my yard).   

$700 for plaintiff.  

Wedding Kiss and Make-Up-Plaintiff make up artist suing former client for a false charge back on Pay Pal.  Plaintiff and defendant signed a contract to do defendant's wedding party's makeup for a year later.   $905 was the deposit.   Date of wedding changed earlier, and told makeup artist about the change, but funds were non-transferable, or refundable.    The contract was not signed, but plaintiff says the payment equals signing, no it doesn't work like that.   Nothing in the contract says non-refundable, or non-transferrable to another date.   

Defendant has the $931 back already, and keeps it (Pay Pal reversal was paid to her). 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Motivational Speaker Sued-Plaintiff photographer is suing former Tinder date for unpaid photography, defamation, and loss of work.    Litigants met on a dating app (Tinder), and plaintiff was to take photographs of defendant, for his web page, or other written materials.   Plaintiff would be paid for each viewing.   Plaintiff was going to take many pictures, consult with defendant on editing, and use some photos.    Plaintiff keeps interjecting her opinions, and defendant is a jerk.   Defendant is a motivational speaker.    Plaintiff took pictures in two locations, for a total of three hours.    They only dated two times.   She claims she told him she was a professional photographer, and had a free lance business.    Defendant sent her $26.00, and plaintiff claims he tried to get the money back from Pay Pal.  

Defendant claims the pictures were just for his personal Facebook page, not for business,, and gave plaintiff a photography credit.   However, defendant didn't do a photography credit on Spotify, etc.  Defendant claims having the pictures, meant ownership/copyright.   Defendant claims to have an email from plaintiff saying he had the rights to the photos.  Defendant is counter claiming for damages, and legal fees. 

As JJ says, they don't have a contract, and didn't set a price, so defendant could own the rights.   The email says that for the high-resolution photos would require payment from defendant.   JJ again says she dislikes the defendant, and I think she's so right.   Defendant gives JJ a load of ca-ca in response to that.    I hate to think how he goes off on his Suicide Hotline volunteer job if callers don't agree with him.       (How does someone who lives in Portland have a job with a Suicide Hotline in L.A.).

Case dismissed, for plaintiff.   Defendant filed an infringement case against plaintiff already, and he wants legal fees for that (lawyer was a family friend, and didn't charge him a penny for advice).  Defendant won the infringement case, and could post the album.    Both litigants are irritating, they don't shut up, and are both idiots.  

Off-Leash Attack of Accident-Plaintiff / video photographer was supposed to take videos of defendant's dogs, and ended up being run over by the dogs, plaintiff is suing for medical bills, and lost wages.   (Plaintiff's shirt, hair, and lipstick are all the similar shades of orange-red, not a good look).    Plaintiff says the dogs were off leash, and defendant called them back, and that's when she was run over by the dogs.     The video is played.   

Case dismissed.   

Second-

Shut This Family's Lights Out-Plaintiffs suing mother for ripping them off.   Plaintiff, and his fiance were living with the mother (defendant), for about 18 months.     Fiance (not the son) was informed when the house electricity would be turned off.   So the defendant needed the utilities in the plaintiff/fiance's name, (mother has bad credit) but bill would be paid out of the father (house owner) auto pay bank account.   (Defendant mother has the most hideous wig, and makeup, at least it looks like a wig).   When defendant moved into house, there were several other relatives living there, and they weren't paying the bills either. 

House was in foreclosure (according to the defendant), and conveniently burned down too.   The PG&E bill was in the thousands, then defendant's name, also in the thousands, and then the plaintiff fiance's name.    Bill was $3250 (or about that), when plaintiffs found out the bill wasn't being paid.   

As JJ says, the deadbeat defendant family don't pay the electricity, but keep putting the bill in different names, until bills reach a high amount, and utilities get cut off..    Defendant is alleged by plaintiff son to have opened Care credit account, and other credit charges, also in plaintiff son's name.   The 'emergency dental work' was for veneers on defendant front teeth, cosmetic work, not necessary.    Plaintiff son disputed the charges with Care credit, and it was written off (defendant says she's paying the dentist).   Case is recalled so defendant can get proof she's paying the dentist (great idea, sticking a dentist with thousands of dollars worth of bills, in a court the is run by the daughter of a dentist).    It doesn't show clear payments on the dentist bill.   (I was naughty, there are several non-payment cases against the defendant, and they're still pending). 

Plaintiffs claim that almost $10k was disputed and taken off of credit accounts, except for the mother's/defendant's $462 Victoria's Secret bill, now in collections.    There's also a Fingerhut charge account, (am I the only person who is surprised Fingerhut still exists?)  that plaintiff son claims he didn't know about, but then he says he saw the items arrive, and they were addressed to him.  The plaintiff fiance was told why the utilities were going to be in his name.     I suspect he wasn't upset about the big bill, until he found out that a lousy credit report would do to his future nursing career prospects. 

I don't know how JJ decided, but I wouldn't give the plaintiffs anything, they knew about the accounts, and I suggest the son and mother pull this garbage a lot.  

Plaintiffs received $4601 for the electric bill, and that's all.  

Best Friends: Worst Roommates-Plaintiffs were bad roommates, and plaintiff wanted his cousin to move in, with her children.    Defendant claims he was told the cousin would move in alone, and but the father of the kids, and the kids all moved into one room.   Plaintiff is still suing defendant for not paying his half of the rent, when the cousin was paying it already.   It's plaintiff's problem if he didn't make the cousin pay the rent.    (Plaintiff should be suing the hair stylist that did that dye job, and cut to his hair).   

Defendant's counter claim will be heard, and dismissed.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Edited July 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[jilliannatalia]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Motivational Speaker Sued-Plaintiff photographer is suing former Tinder date for unpaid photography, defamation, and loss of work.    Litigants met on a dating app (Tinder), and plaintiff was to take photographs of defendant, for his web page, or other written materials.   Plaintiff would be paid for each viewing.   Plaintiff was going to take many pictures, consult with defendant on editing, and use some photos.    Plaintiff keeps interjecting her opinions, and defendant is a jerk.   Defendant is a motivational speaker.    Plaintiff took pictures in two locations, for a total of three hours.    They only dated two times.   She claims she told him she was a professional photographer, and had a free lance business.    Defendant sent her $26.00, and plaintiff claims he tried to get the money back from Pay Pal.  

Defendant claims the pictures were just for his personal Facebook page, not for business,, and gave plaintiff a photography credit.   However, defendant didn't do a photography credit on Spotify, etc.  Defendant claims having the pictures, meant ownership/copyright.   Defendant claims to have an email from plaintiff saying he had the rights to the photos.  Defendant is counter claiming for damages, and legal fees. 

Did anyone catch the motivational speaker's name? I forgot to make note of it and would  like to google him.

[EllaFunt]

1 hour ago, jilliannatalia said:

Did anyone catch the motivational speaker's name? I forgot to make note of it and would  like to google him.

It’s Addison Zegan. He has posted the same (badly written) story about himself on numerous “news” sites in attempt to improve his search results. In addition to being a jerk, he’s also a poseur. 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by EllaFunt

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Did anyone catch the motivational speaker's name? I forgot to make note of it and would  like to google him.

I had the same idea. He was extremely motivating IMO. I was highly  motivated to kick him in the gonads. 

[zillabreeze]

Ok.  Y'all tell me if it's just my misophonia is getting worse, but the way JJ say "work" makes my ears bleed.  Sounds like "woreKKK", hard K like she's choking. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Charity Singer Gets Shafted-Plaintiffs are suing concert promoter for a fee for singing at his charity benefit concert.   Defendant finally gives them a check, but it bounces.  Another wrinkle is the plaintiff singer is related to defendant by marriage.   The charity benefit raises money for challenge coins he gives to first responders, and veterans.   This was the first concert put on by the defendant.   

Concert tickets were $20, and a cash bar, only 55 people came to the event.  It cost the plaintiffs $900 for staging, lighting and sound.   The normal fee for the plaintiffs, for 350 people (event capacity) is $3,000, split between six band members.     Plaintiffs told defendant the cost for their performance.     The entire concert performance had been booked, and planned for months. 

 $900 to plaintiffs for their performance. 

Handyman Drama-Plaintiff suing handyman for his shoddy work painting her condo.   Plaintiff says defendant did a bad job, didn't finish the job, and claims she was scammed. Defendant was paid $3350 for the job.  The defendant claims he actually came back and patched and painted areas again. 

 The plaintiff's father actually circled areas he was unhappy with using some kind of pencil or pen, and it would be hard to cover that up.   The plaintiff has interrupted the defendant , and JJ multiple times, and I wish her case would be dismissed for her rudeness.   Plaintiff's father repainted.    Plaintiff paid $450 for the touch ups.       

Plaintiff gets $450, and that's it.   Plaintiff didn't finish the painting job, and wants more for other rooms she didn't have painted yet.   Painting happened while plaintiff was on a trip to Bali.  

Second-

Botched Wig Order-Plaintiff suing salon owner and wig maker, for $647 in damages when her custom wig order goes wrong.   After plaintiff complaints, the wig was rebuilt, and plaintiff still wasn't happy.   Wig was ordered in October, but when plaintiff went to pick up the wig, it was unsatisfactory, and she returned again in January, but wig was still wrong.    The defendant claims to be a hair replacement specialist, and do great wigs.    

Plaintiff says stylist told her to get a lower side part, to tilt the wig to the side. (I would have enjoyed a picture of the plaintiff wearing the wig like that).    Plaintiff also claims it took two trips to get measurement done.    Plaintiff sent wig back, tried to dispute with the credit card company, and lost.   So plaintiff ended up without wig, or the money for the wig.   

 Plaintiff receives $647

Casual Gambler Demands Payback-Plaintiff suing former son-in-law for unpaid loan to pay his bills.     Candance Principe (not kidding) plaintiff has all visitation with her grandchildren through defendant, not her own daughter (kids are 16, 14, 13).    JJ would like to know where plaintiff had $3,000 to loan to defendant.     Defendant needed money because he was off of work, due to a non-work injury, and didn't get disability approved, so he needed money.    

Plaintiff admits she gambles and loses constantly, and doesn't work.   Plaintiff says she  relies on her husband/fiance for gambling money.   Plaintiff's fiance gave her the money to loan to defendant. 

$3,000 to plaintiff, so she can gamble it away.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Don't Let Your Parents Watch This!-Plaintiff suing defendant over a used car, plaintiff put down a deposit, and defendant sold car to someone else. Plaintiff saw car online for $5499.   Defendant is irritating as hell.     

JJ and the audience want to punch the smart Alec out.   Plaintiff was going to see car in person, and car was taken off the sale site for a week, and plaintiff paid a deposit of $750.    Plaintiff didn't arrive on the correct day, because interstate bus was seven hours late, and claimed he would be there in a week.      JJ tells the defendant he's irritating, and advises any future fiance to think before being married to defendant..   

What kind of idiot irritates the judge or arbitrator?   The answer is Ryan Grubba, village idiot.   

Defendant sold car for $500 less than list price, but kept deposit of $750, so plaintiff gets $250.   

Stolen Bouncy House-Plaintiff bouncy house owner, suing defendant who rented her bouncy house, and claims defendant gave it to thieves, (my guess is she sold it), and not returning it to plaintiff.  Defendant rented bouncy house for $175, did bouncy house set up at defendant's home, for her kid's birthday party.   Defendant claims pick up was supposed to be later in the day.  At 9 p.m. bouncy house fan had been unplugged by defendant, and defendant claims she called plaintiff at almost 10 p.m. (or at 6 p.m., defendant can't keep her stories straight) for pickup.  Plaintiff claims defendant never called for pick up.

Defendant says after 9 p.m. some men came, claimed they were from plaintiff's company, and took the bouncy house.     Defendant says bouncy house theft wasn't her problem.    Plaintiff says bouncy house was two years old, so she was going to charge the defendant $1500, but she will get new replacement cost, of $2200.  

Plaintiff receives $2200 to replace her bouncy house. (I hope that everyone in the area that rents bouncy houses know about this woman, because she should have to buy them in the future). 

Second-

Can Judge Judy Mend a Broken Family?-Plaintiff suing brother for unpaid truck driving wages, when she was stranded in Maryland.     Plaintiff wants $1100 in back wages,   Defendant owns a truck, plaintiff was driving his truck as an employee, from New Jersey to Maryland, with several stops on the way.     Plaintiff was being paid by number of miles, .30 per mile.    Plaintiff doesn't have all of the mileage covered cumulated for the last trip that plaintiff was not paid for.    Last trip should be $480, but plaintiff wants $1100.    (The plaintiff is giving me a headache with her endless babbling, should I sue her?).     

The plaintiff was supposed to pick up a truck, there was an argument, and she was stranded by the brother in Jessup, MD.    Defendant is counter suing, for nothing I care about.  Plaintiff was supposed to do two loads, but only did one.    Plaintiff also sent a text to brother, saying "Good luck finding your truck".    The defendant's name is Addam, so why does plaintiff call him "Prince Addam"?      

Both litigants are swilling the "Water that Should Not be Drunk" like they're dying of thirst.   

Plaintiff gets $1600, and this case is finally over.   Defendant counter suit dismissed.  

[MerBearStare]

There have been at least two bouncy house cases on Judge Judy, which is hilarious. It's even more hilarious to hear Judge J, or anyone really, angrily say "bouncy house."

[DoctorK]

8 hours ago, MerBearStare said:

There have been at least two bouncy house cases on Judge Judy

Yep, and if I am remembering correctly, the one long ago, JJ awarded the bouncy house owner only the value of a KMart bouncy house, not the value of the commercial one that was destroyed because the defendant brought in a KMart ad as proof that the thing was only worth that much. Better this time, the plaintiff was actually only asking for the depreciated value, but the defendant was so annoying that JJ gave the plaintiff the new replacement value. That'll teach you to piss off the judge/arbitrator.

[Florinaldo]

On 7/10/2020 at 8:15 AM, DoctorK said:

Better this time, the plaintiff was actually only asking for the depreciated value, but the defendant was so annoying that JJ gave the plaintiff the new replacement value.

This surprised me, pleasantly. We did not get the usual "depreciated vlue" doctrine from JJ, even though the plaintiff's claim went along those lines. As you say, the defendant was so off-putting with her blatant lies and made-up story that JJ went overboard in compensating the bouncy house's owner.

Sometimes, JJ's inconsistency produces good results.

On 7/9/2020 at 1:56 PM, bad things are bad said:

I had the same idea. He was extremely motivating IMO. I was highly  motivated to kick him in the gonads. 

He is an example of why our company has stopped hiring motivational speakers for employee seminars after 2 attempts. They were full of themselves just because they provide generic bromides that would be cheaper to buy in a bag of fortune cookies. And these were the highly rated and recommended ones, which means that there is a market their shtick.

In the case of this guy, I feel that even us polite Canadians would have run him out of the hall on a rail, after a delicate but thorough tarring and feathering.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Playing House With a Baby-Plaintiff cousin is suing the cousin's ex-girlfriend, and baby mama for unpaid rent.    The cousin/sort of nephew couldn't rent an apartment, after their baby was six months old, and plaintiff co-signed.   Six months or so later the defendant moved home with her mother, and plaintiff wants two full months, and part of another month's rent.   

Baby daddy has never paid child support, but like all deadbeats, brings diapers sometimes.   Plaintiff cousin/baby daddy works sometimes, while defendant is a bar tender.   Defendant says she paid more than half of the rent every month, and plaintiff baby daddy lied about working.  

Plaintiff baby daddy gets paid under the table, so no wage garnishment for him.  There is a 50/50 custody arrangement, so I doubt any child support will be happening for the mother. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

Bad Tempered Landlord-Plaintiff leased a room from defendant and his wife, (defendant and wife are leasers of the house, not the owners).  and he moved out during the last month and wants pro-rated rent back for his last month, and moving costs.   Plaintiff contends that defendant landlord had a bad temper, and defendant wife  says only with plaintiff.   Defendant says plaintiff called police after plaintiff complained about his monthly rent shortfall.   Plaintiff actually paid rent directly to landlord, not to defendants. 

$150 to plaintiff for pro-rated rent.   (Defendant landlord sounds like a total jerk). 

Second-

Childcare Center Revenge-Plaintiff suing former childcare center employer, and fellow employee for child care for unpaid wages.      Plaintiff was homeless, and defendant (owner) gave her a job, a place for plaintiff and child to live, and child care.     Plaintiff gave up previous subsidized housing because it was dangerous.   Plaintiff claims the money defendant loaned her was taken out of her paycheck, defendant disagrees.    Plaintiff also made complaints about the safety of the childcare center, but her child was still attending the center.     There was state subsidies for the day care for plaintiff.    After the CPS complaint, by plaintiff, defendant day care center operator fired the plaintiff that night.   The day the complaint was made, and CPS visited, defendant took the child and gave her to her mother to care for, and fired the plaintiff.  

Plaintiff's witness is a buddy of plaintiff, and claims she saw child care owner manhandle the baby.   

Plaintiff claims she is owed $280, but plaintiff wants the pay without the taxes withheld (Plaintiff is given the check, minus taxes).    Plaintiff claims the daycare owner broke her window, and plaintiff was going to the police HQ, to make a petition for a restraining order.  Plaintiff, claims defendant called her on the phone, and broke her apartment window so she could hear it over the phone.   

Counter claim by defendant is about damage to her business by false CPS report by plaintiff.   Plaintiff doesn't know when she worked for the defendant.    Plaintiff's complaint was about bugs in the water fountain, and bugs in the refrigerator.    Plaintiff also claims that at some time a table fell on a baby.      As JJ says, plaintiff is a big fat liar.

Plaintiff's case dismissed.   Defendant gets $1500 for false CPS report, and audience applauds.  

Man's Mani/Pedi Fail-Plaintiff suing nail shop owner for getting parafin on his jeans, while softening his hands with the parafin treatment.    Plaintiff claims the way the defendant had the jeans treated to remove the way damaged the color of the jeans (or something like that).  Plaintiff also claims wax was very hot and burned his hands (no doctor report).   

No proof of injury to plaintiff.    

Case dismissed, because it's stupid.