All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[nora1992]

Am I missing something?  Didn’t see belligerent handyman near the part of the car that was scratched.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Busted: Vandalism Caught on Tape?! -Plaintiff Kimberly Page suing defendant/handyman Daniel Besougloff, for vandalizing her car after she fired him for bad handyman work at her house.   Litigants are neighbors, plaintiff hired defendant to work on her sliding glass doors (door was installed backwards).   Plaintiff says defendant cut the frame of the door, instead of turning them around.      Plaintiff has a witness, her husband, JJ doesn't want to hear from husband.    Defendant says he had to alter the frame, because it was damaged after years of wear.    Plaintiff didn't fix the door yet, and has no estimate, so plaintiff door case dismissed.   

Unfortunately for defendant, plaintiff hired him, and has a video from her home security system, of enraged defendant vandalizing her car.   Plaintiff says defendant vandalized the car, and then came to her door and demanded money.    In defendant's sworn statement he says he had gone to plaintiff's house repeatedly for payment before the car incident.  

The video doesn't show clearly, but you can hear the sound of the car being keyed by defendant.   Defendant was on the passenger side, which is where the car was keyed,  when the bush near the front porch was blocking him from view, and then he put his hand in his pocket while walking from the car to the porch.  

Unfortunately, plaintiff and defendant live across the street from each other.   

Plaintiff receives $300 for car damage deductible, insurance will pay the rest. 

Second (2020)-

The Reason Judge Judy Never Goes to Dog Parks! -Plaintiff Jemma Coster, dog owner is suing other dog owner, defendant Michael Daniels, for attack at a dog park.     Defendant only had his dog for six weeks.   Plaintiff has two dogs, a rat terrier/Boston Terrier mix, and another small Chi cross. Defendant claims his 90 lb. Golden / Lab Cross didn't attack, and didn't hurt the dog.      Plaintiff took her dogs to the large dog area (30 lb. minimum), because the 22 lb. taller dog. Ellie, likes to play with larger dogs.    

Plaintiff took dogs to the small dog side, and went through the gate to the large dog side, and both dogs went to play for about 30 minutes.    Plaintiff sat down by the park entrance, with her two dogs, and then defendant came in the park.    Plaintiff claims defendant dog went after a Whippet (a fragile 10 lb dog), and Whippet and owner left the park after harassment from defendant's dog.    Then plaintiff claims defendant's dog growled at, and was aggressive towards the Australian Shepherd, and dogs were barking at each other. (My question, so why didn't plaintiff grab her dogs and leave?)     

Plaintiff put her dogs on their split leash, and went to leave, when defendant's dog came after her dogs.     So, 22 lb. Ellie was on leash, and 90 lb. defendant dog charged plaintiff's dogs, bite Ellie, and plaintiff says Ellie was picked up in defendant dog's mouth.   

Lying defendant's story is he let Golden/Lab off leash at park, and does admit the Whippet was scared by defendant's dog, and owner took Whippet and left immediately.     (Why are these small, fragile dogs in the big dog park?).    Defendant's story is plaintiff dog barked and lunged at his dog, and attacked his dog.  

There are two issues to me.  First, why did plaintiff, and others have tiny dogs in the large dog side, and why didn't she leave when she saw the larger dog go after other dogs?   The other one is what does defendant's dog have to do before he stops bringing his dog to the dog park?    Or leash his dog when it went after two other dogs in the dog park, before it went after plaintiffs dogs?   

Defendant claims the second incident with the Australian Shepherd, was about a minute after the Whippet incident, then the third attack happened, resulting in the horrible injuries to plaintiff's dog.   

Defendant claims his dog bit the plaintiff's small dog, but didn't really hurt the dog.   Defendant claims the plaintiff dog was the aggressor. Defendant claims he had nine training sessions with the new dog before the attack.    I'm wondering where the defendant got the dog from, and why he was available?    And why he had nine training sessions? 

Vet bills are $4591.     Ellie had a chest puncture, and crushed ribs.    JJ says you assume a certain risk going to the dog park, and disregard the small/large dog areas at your own risk.     How can the defendant claim his dog isn't vicious after three attacks in a short time?    

50/50 blame, so plaintiff gets half, $2296.

(I'm betting both litigants are still taking risks.    The plaintiff is probably still taking her dogs to the big dog side, and Cujo the 90 lb. mauler is still tackling, and growling at dogs any time he wants to).  (I'm also wondering why an adult Golden/Lab cross [I'm doubting the accuracy of the breed mix too] was available, and why nine dog training sessions?).      There are some aggressive Lab/Golden crosses, but I've never seen one that's aggressive the way the dog in this case is.    They usually (I had one of those crosses for years) are hell on rats if they corner one, but they don't even kill things, except by accident.      I suspect either there was pit in the mix or a Cur type dog, which can be very animal aggressive.)

 I'm hoping plaintiff made reports to animal control, along with the Whippet, and Australian Shepherd owners.    

Edited February 23, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[KittyQ]

56 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

At the day of car rental, defendant brought a debit card, and you can't rent with that card (it was prepaid, and over the limit).     So plaintiff said she would use her card, and defendant could pay her back.  Defendant never took his credit card to get car charged to him, and then defendant had an accident after having the car for a month.    So he owes $1400 for the car rental, and damages.    After the accident defendant left the car at another Avis outlet (plaintiff manages the one Avis outlet).  Then defendant called her to say where car was left, and where it was.  Contract is in defendant's name, and plaintiff's credit card was used.  

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

The defendant is 35 years old - you'd think he would understand that if someone is good enough to offer their card so you don't have to go home to get the right card, it isn't intended to be a "gift". You still owe the money, and in fact, should have returned the next day to get everything straightened out. Either he is a dope or a con artist. I'm guessing option B. 

[effvie]

1 hour ago, nora1992 said:

Am I missing something?  Didn’t see belligerent handyman near the part of the car that was scratched.  

I thought the same thing. Handyman walked around the back corner of the car. In order for him to key the area that was scratched, he would've had to have his arm completely extended - which he did not.

[Carolina Girl]

14 hours ago, KittyQ said:

The defendant is 35 years old - you'd think he would understand that if someone is good enough to offer their card so you don't have to go home to get the right card, it isn't intended to be a "gift". You still owe the money, and in fact, should have returned the next day to get everything straightened out. Either he is a dope or a con artist. I'm guessing option B. 

if defendant thought it was a gift - then WHY would getting a good rate on the car matter?  He isn’t an idiot.  He’s an effing CON MAN.  probably pulls this stunt often.  

[configdotsys]

On 2/15/2021 at 6:41 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

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

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

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

$800 to plaintiff

A few interesting things about this case: the two guys wanted the rest of the money ($1300) for the weekend? Who spends that in a weekend? Even if you are a 20-something that goes to bars and whatever, that's a lot of cash to want "for the weekend." They could have asked for $500 out of what was owed. So they took the balance of the money and spent it over the weekend and now that the money is gone, and they have no clue what they are doing, they have to attempt to fix/finish the job for what feels like no pay. The defendant said to her in a text that he has to "pay for his shit" and that people get $4 grand for doing the job that she expected. That, of course, falls under the category of too bad since he agreed to a price. On a side not, the plaintiff was a very pretty girl and seems totally together for 20 or 21. She was incredibly nice and reasonable to the defendant which is something that's hardly ever seen on this program. $315k sounds very expensive for a house in Idaho but I don't know the market there. 

On 2/16/2021 at 6:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

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

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

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

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

Everything dismissed. 

I had a hard time following this case but reading the defendant's "reply" to the FB post, she really had a good point: the plaintiff was flexing about going around and finding places illegally operating indoor dining just so she could report them, meanwhile, she was illegally cooking and selling food out of her house for profit. I did not buy the whole fund raiser. There was nothing on her flyer about a fundraiser. She was using that as a cover for running an illegal food operation out of her house. The defendant called her a hypocrite in the reply and was spot on. I couldn't untangle all that was going on there, but that jumped out to me. The plaintiff thought that was actionable? 

On 2/17/2021 at 6:43 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

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

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

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

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

 I thought JJ was a bit nasty to the plaintiff. I get that she would not give a rat's behind about my feelings but I feel that it's on the defendant to look in the mirror before getting out of her car. There is no way that the plaintiff was flying into that parking spot. I park in lots like that all the time and it's just not something you can zip into when you are parking between two cars. Even if she saw the defendant in the car, maybe she was on the phone, or listening to a song. I wouldn't think she was leaving because it was 7:45 a.m. in a school parking lot so the assumption would be that she is going to class. What was the plaintiff supposed to do? Wait there and do sign language to ask the person if she was getting out? It was a case of bad timing and to me, the fault was with the defendant all the way and the plaintiff didn't need a dressing down. If the plaintiff should have been looking out since she was in the moving car, the defendant should have known that at that time of the day, it's likely that more people will be pulling in to attend class. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by configdotsys

[nora1992]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Busted: Vandalism Caught on Tape?! -Plaintiff Kimberly Page suing defendant/handyman Daniel Besougloff, for vandalizing her car after she fired him for bad handyman work at her house.   Litigants are neighbors, plaintiff hired defendant to work on her sliding glass doors (door was installed backwards).   Plaintiff says defendant cut the frame of the door, instead of turning them around.      Plaintiff has a witness, her husband, JJ doesn't want to hear from husband.    Defendant says he had to alter the frame, because it was damaged after years of wear.    Plaintiff didn't fix the door yet, and has no estimate, so plaintiff door case dismissed.   

Unfortunately for defendant, plaintiff hired him, and has a video from her home security system, of enraged defendant vandalizing her car.   Plaintiff says defendant vandalized the car, and then came to her door and demanded money.    In defendant's sworn statement he says he had gone to plaintiff's house repeatedly for payment before the car incident.  

The video doesn't show clearly, but you can hear the sound of the car being keyed by defendant.   Defendant was on the passenger side, which is where the car was keyed,  when the bush near the front porch was blocking him from view, and then he put his hand in his pocket while walking from the car to the porch. 

 

But her photos of the damage show the scratch up to the passenger’s side mirror, and the defendant wasn’t seen on the video within arm’s length of the front door.  If the damage was only at the rear, I’d agree with you.  But since it extends so far up the side and close to the camera , it’s hard to imagine the scratching not being clearly visible.

[Schnickelfritz]

20 hours ago, effvie said:

22 hours ago, nora1992 said:

Am I missing something?  Didn’t see belligerent handyman near the part of the car that was scratched.  

I thought the same thing. Handyman walked around the back corner of the car. In order for him to key the area that was scratched, he would've had to have his arm completely extended - which he did not.

And that horrible noise you can hear as he comes up could be his own car door shutting. (JJ ignored that he said he had parked behind her car) My Mom's beater car door makes a very similar screech when you open or close it. He was no where near where that damage was. He could also have been putting his keys in his pocket as he rounded the back of her car. He said that she had called him to pick up the money that she owed him, so why target the car on the way to the door? I think the plaintiff is full of doo doo and if her husband is so handy, why didn't he fix the door in the first place?

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Illegal Eviction Vendetta?! -Plaintiff Corey Barnett  suing defendants/landlords Abigail Lee and Montwell Moore over illegal eviction, theft of property, and non payment for a car he sold to male landlord.    Car was $2400 worth of 2004 Infiniti, defendant started making payments, and defendant says Blue Book was $1700.    Defendant claims he paid plaintiff $500 down, and only owes $1200, plaintiff claims defendant owes $1900.     Defendants were subletting a room that they weren't allowed to sublet to plaintiff.   Plaintiff's phone shows that defendant paid $700, not $500, and plaintiff says defendant owes $1900.   Plaintiff says he gave defendant one month grace on payments to make repairs on car, including a catalytic converter that plaintiff furnished with the car.   $750 plus utilities was the rent, and it was leased by defendant woman.   

Defendant's rent was $795, and defendant woman had a baby, and wanted to move to a better neighborhood, so rented to plaintiff for $750. A few months later male defendant called plaintiff, wanted to cancel the car payment, and told plaintiff to move out.  Two hours later plaintiff goes to get his property, and sees defendant man leaving, and sees some of his property is gone.  Plaintiff calls the police about the theft, and showed the leasing office his illegal sublet contract, and defendant woman called the complex and told them to change the locks.   Plaintiff had fifteen minutes to get his stuff out.    Defendants say on the day of the argument, plaintiff is claimed to send a text message to defendant saying he didn't want to stay in the apartment any longer (no text available).

Plaintiff has two witnesses that defendants subleased to illegally, after plaintiff moved out.   Both tenants said that defendant woman told them it was a legal sublet, and they had a lease.  

$2500 for illegal eviction to plaintiff, and $1900 for car, totals $4400

Dangerous Home for Child?!- Plaintiff  Matthew McGlynn suing defendant/baby mama (a Sainted Single Mother of Two or SSMOT) Shealynn Bussee for repayment of child support.  Plaintiff has one boy with defendant, his current wife has another boy, and then there's another son.   Defendant has the 12 year old with plaintiff, and a 6 month old with a married friend's that she was friends with the wife, defendant was living with them, until the couple were divorcing,   and defendant is now living with a boyfriend.    Plaintiff's witness/wife is booted for yakking in court.    

Plaintiff says son was sent to live with defendant's friend, and moved from house to house.   Defendant received child support from plaintiff (from the court ordered support) for 10 weeks when the son lived with the plaintiff/father.    Defendant says that she was getting threatening texts, and emails, so she sent her son away for his safety.       (If you are living with a married couple and then get pregnant by the husband, you're going to get threats, and probably snatched bald).    Defendant says she was getting threatening emails, and texts, and she was worried for her child's safety, but still collected child support, and refuses to repay it to plaintiff. Fortunately, 12 year old son lives with plaintiff, and the other children, instead of being dragged around, and having the drama of mommy's changing roster of boyfriends. 

$750 to plaintiff for the child support.    

Second (2012)-

Target Practice Vandalism -Plaintiffs Sherry Jones is suing defendants: Michael Enos Jr, Daniel Cobbler, Philip Harp, and John Flowers for damaging her car while they were target shooting.  Defendants were shooting on land owned by their church, supposedly with permission, and were shooting for two hours.    On the same day plaintiff's car was damaged, and she has a witness, her fiance who was driving the car that day.   Fiance stopped at a yard sale, heard a lot of shooting, sounded like World War III, and noticed that plaintiff's car had bullet holes.     Police came, saw the damages, and talked to the four defendants.   

There was no written permission to be on the property. 

One defendant thinks this is all funny as hell (Michael Enos Jr).    Enos is about to get booted for being a jerk in court.   Enos claims they were shooting a different direction.     Police report says four defendants agreed to pay for the damages.   

Enos claims they're not idiots.  $450 against Enos, and he's booted, and JJ says it's because defendant is short and nasty (she's totally right too).   $450 against Daniel Cobbler, who is booted, and tries to pull on the push exit door (audience laughs and applauds). 

Unfortunately, we're getting the rotten, moldy blueberries story. 

Phillip Harp and John Flowers, the last two defendants seem more sensible.    Each defendant pays $450 to plaintiff. 

In hall-terview, fiance of plaintiff says one bullet landed a foot from him.  

Plaintiff receives $1800 for car damages.   

Ex-Girlfriend Warrant -Plaintiff Anthony Perez suing defendant /ex-girlfriend Kelly Carrig for loans for rent, and bail he paid for her, and fees $1700.    Defendant claims bail, and rent were gifts, not loans.    First loan was $700 for rent (so defendant and her children wouldn't get evicted), and second $1,000 for bail.   Defendant was arrested for assaulting another woman, had an outstanding warrant, called the courthouse, found out there was a warrant, and turned herself in two weeks later. 

A couple of years ago defendant won $75,000 on a scratch off.  She split it with her ex-boyfriend, gave some to her mother.   Defendant claims to have a terminal illness (must be slowly terminal, she's still around, and this case was over 8 years ago).   Defendant pled her case out, and she still claims she wasn't guilty. 

Plaintiff receives $1700.   

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Paint Splatter Disaster?! (2021) -Plaintiffs Bryan Fraley, and Rachel Watkins suing defendant/painter Roberto Munoz over splatter from the fence he was painting damaged two cars.    Defendant claims his company was spray painting the fence, but he wasn't actually painting.    Defendant claims his witness was the spray painter, and was paid by the owner of the house.   Plaintiff Fraley says he saw defendant, and two other men spray painting the fence.    Defendant claims he built the fence, and roller painted it, but claims his witness Ryan Ramirez spray painted the fence, with friend Chris painted, and were paid $1300 by the homeowner.  Spray painting equipment was borrowed from Defendant Munoz, and witness didn't pay for the spray equipment.

Photos of the damages to both cars are submitted.   Fraley's car has major paint spray on it.   Watkins car has a painted headlight, mirror, and hood.     Estimates for both cars are $900, each. so $1800.  

$1800 to plaintiffs. 

Smashed Spaniel Tail (2013)- Plaintiffs Victoria and Norman Grover suing defendant Robert Flink for vet bills for their dog's tail amputation.   Defendant says plaintiffs were looking at the house to lease it, and detached garage, dog (Rocky) was leashed.   Defendant unhooked leash from plaintiff dog, and litigants were looking at the yard, and the garage.    Garage wasn't included in the rental, defendant opened the garage door (overhead solid door), when an iron pole fell over, and crushed the dog's tail, cutting off most of it.    

Defendant claims dog hit pole, and caused it to fall.   (JJ is right, if that had been a child injured, then he would have been responsible, and penniless). 

$998 to plaintiffs for vet bills for Rocky.

Second (2020)-

Karen Accused of Terrorizing Landlord?!(2020) -Plaintiff Sarah Rolak, suing her former landlady, Ana Belacqua for her security deposit, illegal eviction, return of rent, and an assault. 

Plaintiff rented a room at defendant's house in May 2018, and rent was $1160.    Tenant moved out on August 21, 2020.  Defendant paid rent mostly, but defendant accepted the rent, so shortfall not happening.    Tenant paid the rent until she moved out.    There was a written lease signed by both litigants, for 4 to 6 months.   Security was $800 in cash, claimed by plaintiff as paid.   

Defendant claims she has no record of security payment by plaintiff, but she says no one moves in without security deposit.   In August, they had an argument, and plaintiff moved out.   Room damages were minimal, but defendant claims plaintiff terrorized her, and another tenant, and so plaintiff was given a 30 day notice to leave.    Defendant claims the police were called seven times by plaintiff, and claims it was a reign of terror.   Defendant claims she returned $250 to plaintiff.   Defendant has a total meltdown about 'Karen' plaintiff's behavior, and then gets nasty with JJ.  Defendant keeps telling JJ about being terrorized in her own home.    

$536 to plaintiff for security deposit, no rent returned, nothing on eviction.  Nothing to defendant, for rent, or restraining order attempts by plaintiff.

I Want My Rent and Property (2013) -Plaintiff Tyler Hunter suing landlord to be Latownsend Cassell for return of property, and rent.    Townhouse was rented by defendant, and lease did not allow subleases/renting rooms.    Defendant advertised on craigslist, and plaintiff came to look at the room, and there was a current tenant.   Defendant's boyfriend's brother lived in the apartment.   Plaintiff gave defendant $660, including $300 security.     Defendant boyfriend Tylon, can't figure out who he's in a relationship with.   

Defendant claims plaintiff gave her $300, but not the $360 rent.   Plaintiff wants his $360 back, but has no proof he paid it, and for a ruined mattress Tylon, (defendant's boyfriend) put outside in the rain.   Defendant boyfriend claims he didn't put mattress out, but helped plaintiff move the mattress.

$300 to plaintiff.

 

 

[KittyQ]

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Karen Accused of Terrorizing Landlord?

Could the defendant get the word "Karen" in any more frequently?? I thought if that case went on longer, it could be a drinking game. 

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, KittyQ said:

Could the defendant get the word "Karen" in any more frequently?? I thought if that case went on longer, it could be a drinking game. 

That defendant was effing certifiable.  

[Mamamia123]

On 4/15/2019 at 5:54 PM, Byrd is the Word said:

“Locked and Loaded Neighborhood Patrol?!”

I had almost forgotten how much I despise the obtuse, gun toting Richard Gorman, Jr. and his smug, contradictory, insipid face. I’d give my house away before I’d spend a day as his neighbor.

 

[Carolina Girl]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Enos claims they're not idiots.  $450 against Enos, and he's booted, and JJ says it's because defendant is short and nasty (she's totally right too).   $450 against Daniel Cobbler, who is booted, and tries to pull on the push exit door (audience laughs and applauds). 

On his way out he snots that "there ought to be a test to be a judge."

There is, moron.  It's called the Bar Exam.  And I imagine the only question you have a 50/50 chance of being correct in answering is your name in the upper left-hand corner.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Mother of Nine Payback?! -Plaintiff/mother (Sainted Single Mother of Nine-SSMON) Sharon Thomas suing defendant daughter, Tyler Zimmerman,  and daughter's boyfriend, Jyquaven Jackson, for totaling the car she loaned them.  Daughter claims the 1996 Mustang was a birthday present, but mother claims it was a loan.   Plaintiff has three children from early 20's to 18 year old in court, and is co-parenting her partner's six children they're fostering because otherwise children would go to stranger foster care.   The month defendant daughter received the Mustang the same month as her birthday.   Mustang was in an accident, and totaled.    Plaintiff has a 2012 Lexus she's buying too.   

I find the fact that plaintiff bought the Lexus, and then gave the Mustang to daughter on her birthday month.    Plaintiff is suing both defendants because daughter's boyfriend was driving, and wrecked the car.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Cats on the Prowl?! -Plaintiff Marta Bryant suing defendant/former roommate, Azlynn Morgan, over apartment damages from defendant's cats, for $1700.  $2054 was the cleaning bill, from the apartment complex.   Each litigant put in $150 each, plus $150 from third roommate, plus $150 pet deposit for defendant, and all of that was kept by the apartment complex.   There were three tenants, so 1/3 each, so $684 to plaintiff, and plantiff and other roommate pay $684 each.    

 Defendant was not told when the walk through was scheduled for (defendant moved out a month early, but paid her last month's rent),  Plaintiff claims she told defendant about bill, and walk through, but no proof on the walk through.   

Cry Me a River! -Plaintiff Muhamed Berte suing defendant/future landlord Albert DeGiorgio (condo is rented, defendant rents rooms for extra money), and for prepaid rent for an apartment plaintiff never moved into.  Defendant and plaintiff had an argument on the day plaintiff was moving in.   Plaintiff looked at room, paid in advance for six months (he's a college student).  Plaintiff rented room furnished, and wanted to move his own bed in, defendant told him he wasn't moving in, and refused to refund his rent.

$2750 to plaintiff. 

Second (2012)-

Young Girls Terrorized-Plaintiffs John Bruno, and Janette Linder suing the defendant Tamara Mooney, aka Curl MD, over burglarizing their home their home after she parked in their driveway, and then moved their car to get out of the driveway.   Defendant was going to work, no street parking available, so she parked in the driveway of the plaintiffs. leaving her car locked in the driveway.     Then at the end of the workday, defendant's car was blocking her car in, and defendant saw the car keys for plaintiff's car sitting on the table.   Back door was supposedly unlocked (burglary), took the keys, backed plaintiff's car out, got her car out, and put back plaintiff's car.   Then put keys to plaintiff's car in house, locked the back door from inside the house, and locked the front door on the way out.    Defendant left no note, or anything else.   

Because the license plate said "Curl MD" plaintiff said he thought the license plate was for a doctor's car.   Plaintiff called police about the burglary.  Plaintiff woman's two daughters were terrified about the burglary.  (Curl MD is what the defendant calls herself, she's a hairdresser, and works at a salon near the plaintiffs home).

Plaintiff woman went for a walk, found her car moved, and Curl MD’s car gone, and home locked up, so she called the police, who crowbarred the front door open.    Everything was a mystery until a month or so before the case, when Tamara Mooney, aka Curl Doc made a nasty remark about the plaintiffs to an employee at the neighboring dry cleaners, who is the plaintiffs' witness, and is also plaintiff's sister.     And defendant boasted about the entire break in to witness.  

Plaintiff witness report was made to police, and D.A. about the case, and plaintiffs said they will try to keep on the D.A. to file charges against defendant.    Defendant says she was going to tell plaintiffs, but thought they were mean, so she didn't.   

Defendant is a disgusting excuse for a human being.     

$5,000 to plaintiffs

Unwed Parents Fight-Plaintiff Anita Richards is mother of son with defendant Scott Brooker.    Plaintiff is suing for first, last, and security deposit on apartment move that she loaned defendant, so son could stay in same school district.    Plaintiff hasn't had a job for many years, and claim defendant beat special needs son, and went to jail for it.    Plaintiff says she gave $800 from her brother to loan to the defendant.    Plaintiff loaned defendant more money, but defendant still owes $800.  

Plaintiff says defendant got full custody because, "he can teach his son to be a man", whatever the hell that means.   Son is 17 now, and has lived with the defendant full time since 2009.   Plaintiff never paid one penny of child support. I feel so sorry for the son, and I'm glad his father has full custody.   Defendant said plaintiff never paid child support, since she's never been employed.   Plaintiff also claims that defendant beat the son, and went to jail for it (My guess is that plaintiff alleged something, and defendant was temporarily detained). 

When JJ isn't kissing plaintiff's butt,   Plaintiff gets in a snit, stomps out through JJ's door to her chambers, and is never seen again.   

(This is aka the Devil in a Red Dress Case, where plaintiff wears a hideous wig, and gets mad, and exits through Judge Judy's office door.  The ever protective Officer Byrd just watches the plaintiff humiliate herself on national TV stomping out the wrong door, and lets her show everyone what a fool she is.  I’m quite sure that if the plaintiff had made one move towards JJ, that plaintiff would have been very sorry.     I'm glad that this was an older episode, probably 2012, and that means the son is well old enough to never have to put up with that woman again). 

Plaintiff receives nothing, because she deserves exactly that.  

Edited February 24, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[babyhouseman]

48 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Young Girls Terrorized

 

48 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Young Girls Terrorized-

Meant to be Unwed Parents Fight:

These are two of the craziest cases I've seen on the show. I've watched off and on over the years and have watched more since the pandemic.  The defendant in the first case is a hairdresser. I wouldn't go to her. And the second case is basically "don't have a child with a crazy woman". 

I'm curious about Judge Judy's hearing loss. Does she wear small hearing aids? I'm hearing impaired with hearing aids myself. I can tell when she has problems like when people talk too fast or she doesn't hear all that's being said in the closed captioning. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by babyhouseman

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2013)-

Deli Towing Incident -Plaintiff Gina Imperial suing defendant/deli owner, Bruno Simione,  for towing her car from in front of their business.   Plaintiff claims she didn’t park illegally, that she went to the gym.      Plaintiff claims she parked legally, because she was going into the gym, to find out about membership, and check out the gym.    Plaintiff claims on the day in question she was asking about the gym's hiring process so her son could apply to be a personal trainer.    Plaintiff claims she went in the gym, to talk to Alison, but went across the street to get a coffee (no coffee shop in the strip mall with the deli).  Then went back to talk to Alison at the gym.  Then claims she was going to the deli, made a purchase,   Then, her car disappeared, and she claims she asked at the gym, and deli if they had her car towed.    

Defendant's witness saw the plaintiff park in the shopping center lot, then she walked across the street.   Witness says plaintiff came in the wrong direction, almost hit another car, ran over the curb, looked agitated when she parked, and she walked directly across the street.   Witness (worked at gym for several years,) never saw the plaintiff inside the gym that day.  

There is a witness for defendants that say that plaintiff did leave the car, and wasn't going into the businesses in the strip mall (deli, gym, and a couple of others).    Witness Cody Bartosh, says they did have an Alison that worked there, but she had nothing to do with hiring.   And then Cody Bartosh told deli owner about the illegal parking, so car was towed about 1 p.m., plaintiff didn't come in the deli until 2 p.m.    The witness at the gym never saw plaintiff come in, and he saw the car being towed.    

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.

(As a longtime viewer of Parking Wars, about towing, ticketing, and stupid car owner excuses, I bet plaintiff will lose, and I’ll laugh at her).

Second (2020)-

Logic Gets a Zumba Workout?! -Plaintiff Taylor Coco Patterson, Zumba instructor suing former client for $2,000 for private classes. for defendant Nikki Herrera.  Defendant wanted private Zumba lessons, lasting two hours, but round-trip driving was four hours total.   Plaintiff claims defendant signed up for two classes a week, for a total of ten two-hour classes.   Plaintiff didn't collect up front, and claims defendant didn't pay her.  Defendant admits she took seven classes, but claim they weren't even a full two hours, but was invoiced for $2,000 for the classes.   (Why would anyone drive two hours each way to get private Zumba classes?   This entire case makes zero sense.  It would only make sense if defendant was taking classes to get certified).  (I wish the plaintiff would stop playing with her super long extensions). 

Defendant owes $1400 for the classes she had, but didn't pay for.  

$1400 to plaintiff.

Misguided Tanning Bed Fight!-Plaintiff Joyette Erspamer suing Ravi Trivedi, and Rabih Abou Younes  for equipment plaintiff left behind at the defendant's salon.   Plaintiff had a mobile tanning service, and sold it to Mr. Asfor (owner of the salon at that time), for $1,000, he paid $660, and leaving $340 owing.  

Mr Asfor owed $340 when the two defendants took over the salon.  However, plaintiff's agreement was with previous salon owner, and not the defendants.  Mr Asfor, the previous owner of the salon, owes the money, not the defendants. 

Plaintiff told to find Mr. Asfor, and sue him for the $340.  Defendants will give plaintiff Mr. Asfor's contact information. 

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This is aka the Devil in a Red Dress Case, where plaintiff wears a hideous wig, and gets mad, and exits through Judge Judy's office door

Quite a classic. Just to refresh everyone's memories:

 

[bad things are bad]

Quote

As a longtime viewer of Parking Wars, about towing, ticketing, and stupid car owner excuses, I bet plaintiff will lose, and I’ll laugh at her).

She was no Windsor nurse, that's for sure

 

[Carolina Girl]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant is a disgusting excuse for a human being.     

She is the most clueless, self-entitled person I've seen in a long time.  Still doesn't believe she did anything wrong.  I really hope that somehow she was brought up on charges at some point for this, especially since she actually believed she was "doing them a favor" by locking the front door.  Did it even occur to her that the DOOR keys might be on those car keys and that she had locked the defendants out of their house?  But how DARE they inconvenience HER by blocking her car after she helped herself to their driveway (I'm pretty sure her friend "Jaime" wouldn't have appreciated it either).

Plaintiffs should have had her damn car towed and let her spend eternity trying to find it.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Vicious Pit Bull Attack?! -Plaintiff Rosemary Pinto suing defendant/Pit Bull owner defendant Sharon Gillings for her two Pit Bull/Mastiff crosses dragging the owner across the street, and attacking plaintiff's dog.   Plaintiff's dog is 60 lbs, a Lab Cross, and defendants Pit Bull / Bull Mastiff mix, weighing 130 lbs, and 90 lbs.  Plaintiff was walking her dog, when defendant's dogs dragged her across the street, and plaintiff and her dog were both bitten.    Defendant claims she was on the same side of the street, plaintiff says that's a lie.    Defendant also was supposed to have her animals muzzled, but doesn't.   

Police report is submitted.    There is a stipulation saying the defendant's dogs would be muzzled off her property, Beware of Dog signs prominently posted.   Defendant says that was the only way to get her dogs back from animal control, or they would have been euthanized. 

I hope defendant's insurance company, and if there's a landlord, saw this case. 

I like the plaintiff, she says "Thank you" to Officer Byrd.   

Plaintiff $5,000. 

Six-Year-Old Takes the Stand! -Plaintiff mother Jamesha Harris, daughter Jatavia Harris, are suing defendants,  Cornell and Gwendolyn Ricard, over broken TV, and damaged property, damage was done by defendant's children.   Plaintiff, child's mother, also  claims a pregnancy pillow, mattress, and carpet were also damaged.   Plaintiff mother says the defendant's kids ruined the mattress by peeing on it.   Mattress was Tempur-pedic, $2143, the TV has no proof of when it happened, dismissed, pregnancy pillow $71, and carpet cleaning was  $?.     Plaintiffs claim that defendants and children damaged the mattress, carpet, other pillow, and you don't want to know how it happened.     

The six year-old, Bryson Harris, claims the defendant's kid damaged the TV.   Bryson is very cute, and not scared by JJ.   

$2214 to plaintiffs for mattress, and pillow. 

Second (2018)-

House Flipping and Assault?! -Plaintiff  Michael Eilola, Sr suing defendant Kevin Straw.   Friends of 40 years are flipping a house together, and their arguments end in an assault.   Defendant and son lived in the  house.  Plaintiff was to move into the house, work on it to ready for sale.   Plaintiff was supposed to receive $15,000 for his work on the house, ($10k for the remodel, and $5,000 extra if the house sold at a profit). 

Defendant didn't sell the house, but rented it out, so he never paid plaintiff for working on the house.   No other contractor worked on the house, except for the plaintiff.     House was finished in March, and in June defendant rented house out.   

$5,000 to plaintiff, for his work on the house. 

Mechanic Fraud?! -Plaintiffs Jason and Katie Padavich, suing defendant/mechanic Michael Halstead, when the 20 year old car they bought stopped running.  The car was a 1998 Mitsubishi Montero, and it was for their son.   Nine months later the son hit a deer, and had to install a new radiator, and then car was taken to defendant's shop.  Car's purchase price was $1100, and plaintiffs want $5,000.     Car was not running when taken to defendant's shop.  

Mechanic says $1800 including the engine ($1000 for the rebuilt engine), and a new exhaust.     Then, plaintiff picked up car, and drove it a few miles from mechanic's shop, where car croaked again.  (Plaintiff woman keeps yelling her testimony, as if that will make her case stronger.   It's getting on my last nerve).    Defendant is counter suing for trespassing, and slander.     As JJ says, for $1100 they got their money's worth for the car, and should have junked it.

Officer Byrd agrees repairing this car is ridiculous.    Plaintiffs went to mechanics shop, and plaintiff woman drove the car off of mechanic's lot, and a block later car croaked again, and they had to get it towed.   The amount plaintiff's invested in the car is twice the value of the car. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Edited February 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Gruesome Collision with Unleashed Dog?! (2021)-Plaintiff  Kevin Rodriquez suing defendant / dog owner Lacey Migliore  for car damages when defendant’s dog ran in front of his vehicle (suing for $4665).   Plaintiff did not have insurance, was driving and heard a thump, and he swerved and hit some mailboxes.      Then he discovered he had hit and killed the dog.    Even though it's a residential area, the speed limit is 55 (not sure from report).    Defendant spoke to the police at the scene, and claims the dog's body was wrapped around a barbed wire fence post, and the fence.     The fence wasn't down, there is no way the accident happened the way the defendant says.    So dog had to be outside the fence on the road or roadside. 

Defendant says plaintiff lost control, and crashed through her fence, and hit the dog in the yard, and dog died.  However, dog was on the side of the road, and it wasn't behind the barbed wire fence.     There is no way the defendant's dog wasn't out of her control, and on the road.  Defendant's story about dog was bizarre, and ridiculous.

On the day of the accident, plaintiff didn't have any insurance.    It cost $4600 for plaintiff to fix his car.   He claims to now have insurance.  I'm torn about the people who drive without insurance, and I don't think someone who didn't have insurance, drove that way for months, and probably still does, should get a penny from Officer Byrd.    Plaintiff had been driving without insurance for months before this happened.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Dance Mom (2013 )- (This was called Dance Teacher Battle when it ran in 2013)-Plaintiff Amber Ely suing defendant/mother of dance student/dance Mom Jennifer Ladd over recital costumes ($210) and unpaid tuition ($195).   Plaintiff suing for  $210 for costumes, and $65 a month, and wasn't paid for three months = $195 for the lessons, so $405.      Defendant's daughter was attending the school for three years, and left after the recital in question.    Defendant's witness simply won't stop interrupting either.     Defendant claims she paid for the three months, but didn't.    

(What the hell is on the defense witness's head?   It can't be hair, it looks awful.   Defendant apparently went to the same hairdresser).

$405 to plaintiff. 

Second (2020)-

Cops and Robbers Ball Charity Feud!- Plaintiff Renee Roberts, suing party planner Maricela Reyes, for unpaid work for a charity ball.  Defendant claims she never discussed payment, or the props plaintiff made for the ball.   Defendant never met plaintiff before court case.   Plaintiff says she had an oral contract for $882 for the props, and agreement was via phone call with defendant.    Plaintiff can't find the call logged in her phone, just the subsequent emails to the person who arranged the props for the charity ball (Terry).   So why isn't Terry being sued also?   

Plaintiff says her husband dropped a sample at the charity office before the ball, and defendant saw the sample.   Defendant says she ordered 10 to 12 props via Terry, and plaintiff made the cutouts for the party.   Then defendant wanted two more, and plaintiff made them also. So, defendant has now cancelled out everything she said about not being involved with ordering the props from the plaintiff.   

Defendant accepted the labor and props job.   Plaintiff sent invoice for $696 to charity organization a few days before the event for the props.

Plaintiff receives $696.     

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

On 2/24/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(As a longtime viewer of Parking Wars, about towing, ticketing, and stupid car owner excuses, 

My spirit animal! I loved that show. 

Wow, they are pulling out the oldies with Curl MD. Have not seen that one in ages. She was such a weirdo. I mean, she ate the whole bag of chips.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, configdotsys said:

She was such a weirdo.

Yep. She was narcisistic jerk, she was more that, she was a complete screwball. She is lucky that when she barged into a stranger's home she did not get met with justifiable force, which might have wiped her smirking delusional smile off her face. Curl MD? really?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by DoctorK

[KittyMom4]

On 2/23/2021 at 10:00 AM, configdotsys said:

Even if she saw the defendant in the car, maybe she was on the phone, or listening to a song. I wouldn't think she was leaving because it was 7:45 a.m. in a school parking lot so the assumption would be that she is going to class. What was the plaintiff supposed to do?

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing through car windows no matter what time of day it is so I would have never seen the defendent had it been me pulling into the parking spot. I am also famous for whipping open my car door without looking but I certainly wouldn't blame whoever was pulling in next to me. I thought the plaintiff should have gotten everything she asked for.

On 2/23/2021 at 6:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant unhooked leash from plaintiff dog, and litigants were looking at the yard, and the garage.

Why would you unhook someone else's dog on property you own?? Sheesh. I wonder if the plaintiffs had been the ones to unleash the dog if they would have gotten anything from Officer Byrd.

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

when the 20 year old car they bought stopped running

I laugh and laugh at these fools. I sold* my 13 year old Sonata to my stepson, he ended up having a fender bender (not his fault) and the insurance company totalled it. His mom said to me "Oh we can just have it towed to a garage and get it fixed once you get the insurance money." It was all I could do to stop from saying "You idiot, that's not how it works!" 

*he never paid me the full amount, but he's family and a good kid so I gave him $1,000 of the insurance settlement to buy a new car. 

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 He claims to now have insurance.  I'm torn about the people who drive without insurance, and I don't think someone who didn't have insurance, drove that way for months, and probably still does, should get a penny from Officer Byrd. 

Agreed.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Daddy Debt Deployed to Japan? -Plaintiff/former mother-in-law Sandra Silas suing estranged son-in-law, Maurice Richardson for housing money he was paid while he was stationed in Japan, and an unpaid loan.     Soon to be ex wife and child moved back with plaintiff, and defendant received a housing allowance, when he was stationed in Japan.       For 2015 defendant lived in government housing in Japan, and when he moved off post, and had a housing allowance.    Plaintiff and ex-wife received  $700 (witness ex-wife Ms. Richardson)  plus $700 more, while defendant was deployed.  JJ tells plaintiff witness to wake up and testify.    Plaintiff has had daughter and grandchild (7 years old) living with her for three years now, but they're divorcing, and she is no longer allowed to have a housing allowance.     

Plaintiff whines because defendant stopped paying one car payment, while he was in Japan.     Defendant actually asked to have a bill forwarded to him, so he could pay it, it arrived at MIL's house, and she didn't do it, so his wages are now garnished.    It was on a Military Star card, and it was used to buy a bunch of electronics for the family home, and MIL is proud to say that everything he bought was pawned.    Plaintiff also says she used a credit card to fix defendant's car, while defendant and ex were still married.  Car repair loan is dismissed, as marital debt.     $1450 was sent to plaintiffs monthly, and will now end.

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Show Me the Money! -Plaintiff Gene Rotondo,  suing defendant  Steve Ortega (plaintiff witness is David Rice, and is a business partner with plaintiff) over unpaid consulting fees.    Plaintiff wants a consulting fee, for working for the defendant's client.    The consulting is for helping clients set up marijuana businesses.     Defendant claims Dave and Gene aren't partners, but they seem to be.     Defendant paid Dave $10k, but he didn't pay plaintiff, so JJ says plaintiff is suing the wrong person.  Defendant claims he paid plaintiff $10,000, but didn't bring proof to court today (guess he thought he was going to the beach today). 

Everything dismissed, sent back to small claims court so they can get more proof.

Dave Rice admits defendant paid him, so plaintiff needs to sue him.

Second (2018)-

Don’t Clown Around with the Judge! -Plaintiff Gregory Talley father  suing defendant/daughter Tasia Davis for non-payment for a car she bought from him, and audio and video equipment he purchased for her.   2001 GMC Yukon was the car, plaintiff paid $5,000 cash for the car, four years ago, but he didn't drive it (he works for NYC transit so rides free).    Plaintiff sold car for $500 down, and defendant claims she paid $800 down.    

(Daughter has a nose septum piercing that is a bow-I'm close to throwing up.   That's harder to look at than Dr. Now on My 600 lb Life playing with a skin removal mound.  Also, I guess that huge mound of fried blonde hair is a wig?  Defendant keeps gazing off as if she's bored)

Plaintiff says $500 down, and defendant still owes $1500, but plaintiff gave defendant the title so she could register, and insure the Yukon.     Officer Byrd says Yukon sells for $2450 to $2850.    Plaintiff claims he put giant speaker and sound system, and video projector in there, and he wants money for it.   Defendant claims she returned the sound equipment to plaintiff a couple of weeks, but it's back at her house.   Plaintiff has five days to pick up property from daughter, with a witness or civil standby.   Defendant claims plaintiff sold her the Yukon for the $500 she already paid him.  Defendant also says the $500 was just for the electronics in the car, and the car was a gift.   Nothing defendant says makes sense, or matches her sworn statement. 

$1500 to plaintiff

Car Swap Fail! -Plaintiff Zachary Schlichting suing defendant John Terhune over a car swap (no money exchanged a 1963 Chevy Impala for a 2013 Chevy something ).   he two swapped cars, and both were drivable, and a few days later the defendant wanted to swap cars back.     Defendant had buyer's remorse, and plaintiff gave the defendant's car back.   Defendant left plaintiff's car at the swap point, a dealership.    Plaintiff's car was damaged, inoperable,  and had to be towed.    Plaintiff thought it was something simple to fix on his original car, a lot of complex engine issues were discovered, and plaintiff says car looked as if it was wrecked.     Plaintiff said car had new white walls when he traded it, and it hit a curb.    Plaintiff claims the defendant's boss said defendant was driving drunk, whacked a curb, and wrecked the front end.  

Defendant says he backed onto a curb.   Plaintiff has a recording with defendant saying he would pay for the car.

$3300 will be needed to fix the car, and then resell it for $5000 or $6,000. A redone 1963 Chevy Impala could sell for $13,500 to $31,000 if restored fully. Original car was rusty and awful, and plaintiff fixed it.

$3,000 to plaintiff. 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

The Curse of Borrowed Money! -Plaintiff Manoucher Rezvani (father) and (son) Mathew Rezvani suing defendant, Jack Khorsandi over an unpaid loan for $7,000.   Defendant paid $3,000 back to plaintiff.   The $3,000 included 10% interest.    Defendant claims he paid two other $1,000 payments, which the plaintiffs deny.    Defendant gave ten  $1,000 checks to plaintiff, and each $1,000 payment that was given to plaintiff Sr, and a check was returned with each one.   So the total repayment should have been $10,000 with interest on the $7,000 loan.

JJ wants to see plaintiff son's call log, to see if defendant called him.   If plaintiff son's call log shows a lot of calls from defendant, then the two payments will be assumed, because there is no other reason for defendant to call plaintiff son.   Plaintiff son claims to have a text message from defendant acknowledging the $7,000 debt a month after defendant claims to have paid the $2,000. and JJ sees that.   If defendant had made two more payments in June, then he would only owe $5,000.    Signed letter in July acknowledges the $7,000 debt.  Plaintiff son has a cell phone photo of defendant's signed and dated $7,000 promissory note.   

 Defendant keeps interrupting the judge, and the plaintiffs.   So whether defendant still owes $5,000, or $7,000 (which is the amount he owes, in my opinion) which is the court maximum, so the other $2,000 is gone.  Plaintiff gave defendant a couple of extra weeks to pay the $2,000 he was late on paying, and the other $5,000.  

Defendant claims to be the victim, because in their close-knit Persian-Jewish community, it’s unseemly to sue a fellow member for money.  However, defendant owes his siblings money, so he didn't go to them for another loan either.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

Second (2020)-

Real Estate Mogul Sues Section 8 Tenant?!-Plaintiff landlords April Walsh (daughter of plaintiff), and Mon Lin, suing former tenant Maria Nunez for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff owns 40 single family, and some multiple dwelling, and some offices.   Maria Nunez rented in November 2018, for a 2 bed, 2 bath unit in a fourplex, Ms. Nunez was on Section 8.   Apartments rent for $3500 (3 bed 2 bath), or $2700 (2 bed 2 bath).    Plaintiff received section 8, plus $944 from tenant.   Plaintiff has rented other homes/apartments under Section 8.    Contract says $1756 was tenant portion, but defendant only paid $944.   

Plaintiff wants $16,000 from tenant, even though the plaintiff accepted the $944 rent for tenant, her daughter, two grandkids, and sometimes the grandfather.    Plaintiff screwed up, and shouldn't get a penny, because she accepted the $944 for the three years of the lease. As JJ points out, where in hell is tenant supposed to get $16000?    

Plaintiff's daughter is an attorney, but never evicted the defendant/tenant for the non-payment.   For the past five months, tenant claims the Section 8 went down to $624 a month.  Plaintiffs accepted $944 in June, $944 in July, and July $250, August $2056, September $624 from tenant.    October $624 from tenant.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Tenant will move in December. (A historic day, I agree with JJ about a tenant landlord case).

Thank Your Lucky Covid Stars?!-Plaintiff Jyles (pronounced Giles) Jennings suing former landlord, Maria Roumbos, for the return of security deposit, and return of rent for a few days.  $1850 was security deposit, on a furnished one bedroom.   Next tenant rented the apartment unfurnished, and when movers took the furniture out, defendant claims apartment was dirty.   There is a little floor trash from under the bed, and who says it was the same tenant that left that, since the apartment was furnished?

$686 to plaintiff for the rent, and cleaning fee. 

 

[One Tough Cookie]

On 2/24/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Plaintiff Taylor Coco Patterson, Zumba instructor suing former client for $2,000 for private classes. for defendant Nikki Herrera.  Defendant wanted private Zumba lessons,

OMG--did anyone see the ass on on her? She made Kardiashion look positively flat in the  ass--something I NEVER could happen!

[TVMovieBuff]

19 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

OMG--did anyone see the ass on on her? She made Kardiashion look positively flat in the  ass--something I NEVER could happen!

Looked like she was trying mightily to look like Kim, in every way.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Toxic Eye Injury?!- Plaintiff Basia Christ is suing defendant Alexa Wacks.   Both litigants are both product demonstrators at stores,  They were demoing at Mother's Grocery Store, and plaintiff was pushing protein powder, and defendant was pushing her own cosmetics line.     Plaintiff was in the store, when defendant went on break, and a customer picked up a spray, and spritzed it,  and claims the spray went into her eye "like a rubber band snapped her in the eye", and squirted plaintiff in the eye, causing pain, and medical bills.   

Doctor visit wasn't until the third day. Medical records from Opthalmologist are submitted, with a photos from Day One, Day Two, and Day Three.    All three pictures have heavy mascara, and eyeliner.    On the "damage" pictures, plaintiff is wearing heavy mascara on her top and bottom lashes, and heavy eyeliner.   JJ finds that suspicious, and I do too.  

Plaintiff says defendant shouldn't have left her demo station unattended, so the customer had access to the products.    Plaintiff also says you have to have a certification for safety.  All medical bills were covered by plaintiff's insurance.   There is no statement from the Opthalmologist about eye issues.  However, plaintiff has dry eye, and that wasn't caused by defendant's product.

Plaintiff case dismissed.   She should have sued customer. 

Mother Illegally Relocates Child?! -Plaintiff Sandra Olivera  SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One) is suing ex-husband Jose Escobosa, because she moved to another state with the 9 year old child of litigants, and plaintiff is suing defendant for money she loaned for an airline ticket.   However, plaintiff moved to Texas, from California, so how was an involved father supposed to keep up twice a month visitation from that far away?   Plaintiff suddenly moved the child to Texas, and defendant found out a couple of weeks later that his son was in Texas.   Plaintiff is "redoing her life, and with a new boyfriend", so she didn't care that the defendant would never see his son.    

Not smart to bring this case to a former family court judge.   Plaintiff claims the move was fine with defendant.  However, he's trying to get custody in California, so it's not OK.   Plaintiff is suing for an airline ticket she used for the custody case, but it was stopped because defendant needed more money to fight for custody.   As JJ says, when defendant gets enough money, he'll get custody.   Defendant is counter claiming for a cell phone, and punitive damages.   

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.   Defendant cell phone claim tossed, but punitive damages awarded by JJ, $1,000 to defendant (JJ says she would have awarded a lot more if defendant had asked for it). 

Second (2013)-

Fed Up Boss! – Plaintiff  Bryan McDaniel suing defendants, Rebecca Williams, and fiance Anthony Kiser for an unpaid loan of $3,000.    Defendants borrowed the money to pay back property taxes, and plaintiff had four checks from defendants for $750 each, for four months,  to cover the loan, but they closed the bank account the checks were written on.    Defendants work as caretakers for a woman, and get to live there free, and loan was to pay property taxes, involving a reverse mortgage.   

Defendant Williams says her checking account was hacked, and account was shut down for investigation by the bank (that's not how that works, they close that account, and reissue checks and whatever else is in the account for the account holder).     

Checking account closed out in December, and still wasn't resolved by February, so nothing was paid to the plaintiff.   Plaintiff is owed $3,000, but he's only suing for $1500, because at least one defendant worked on an estate sale for plaintiff's auction business.    

$1500 to plaintiff.

Negligent Teen Fishing Captain?! – Plaintiff Steve Hix suing defendant Ricky Lewis for injuries plaintiff suffered while defendant was piloting a charter boat in a negligent manner.   Plaintiff didn't see an attorney.    Plaintiff claims to have texts, that mysteriously disappeared, and has no proof that defendant agreed to pay anything.    The same day, after the so-called accident, plaintiff is holding a 15 pound Yellowtail with both hands, and looking just fine.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Where My $19,000 Garage Apartment? – Plaintiffs Linda Ramirez and brother Gilberto Torrez suing defendants Luis and Juanita Ramirez over a property purchase.   Defendant lives on one property, then owns the property in dispute, that only has a garage on it.    Plaintiffs had an oral contract for $19000 and paid $9000 down to defendant.   THe property had to be surveyed, and legally subdivided, but in the last two years this didn't get done.    Defendant has a written contract with Sylvia Costas for $23,000 for the same property.

Plaintiffs receive $5,000 from JJ and Byrd, and still lost $4,000.

Edited March 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

12k Dream Kitchen Fail (2021)- Plaintiffs  Darryl and Belinda Flournoy are  suing defendant  Javier Gonzales for a kitchen remodel (defendant's in the business).   Deposit was $6,000 on a $12000 job.     Plaintiffs fired defendant with very little needed to finish, but they want $5,000 back from defendant.   Defendant says he did 90% of the job, before he was fired by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs want $5,000 from Byrd, and that would mean defendant did all of the work for $1,000

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Coin Collection Thief (2014) -Plaintiff  Amateo Seno suing defendant ex girlfriend Lisa Radamaker over the theft of a coin collection plaintiff owned.   They lived together, had an argument, and plaintiff tossed a bottle, and it shattered, and a piece of glass hit defendant, and he left to cool off, and when he came back to the home his coin collection was gone, and defendant admits she took it.  Defendant claims she'll need plastic surgery for the cut, and sold the coin collection to pay the rent, after the assault.

Defendant shows the cut, but I can't see much in real court with a very close shot, and this is high definition that shows everything.  I see nothing on her cheek that she claims was slashed open, and she never saw a doctor.      JJ asks if defendant is on any medications, and she says no.    Defendant has no medical bills, or medical report to submit, and never went to the doctor.  Defendant has a police report, but didn't bring it to court.    

JJ asks where the coins are, and defendant says she sold them, and spent it. 

Defendant case gets $5,000.      Plaintiff gets $5,000, so they cancel each other out, and get nothing.   JJ doesn't believe anyone, and I agree with her. 

Second- (2020)-

Deal Making with Perfect Strangers 101!-Plaintiff Carol Althoff suing Tracy Johnson, defendant, for unpaid car sale.   The 12 year-old 2008 Jetta was $3,000, defendant paid $1,000 down, and wanted to make payments, but didn't pay the $2000 balance to plaintiff.  Car belongs to plaintiff daughter (both plaintiff and daughter on the title).   Car didn't pass smog, and defendant claims she put a lot of money into car, and doesn't now doesn’t want car.     Defendant still has the car.  

Plaintiff will get car back, because car can't be smogged, and can't be registered for that reason in California. Plaintiff has a stupid reason about not taking car back, and just won't shut up.   Defendant denies having title to car, but plaintiff claims defendant has the car title.   

Plaintiff is getting car back, and defendant gets $1,000 back.

Brutal Euthanization of a 15-Year-Old Dog?!-Plaintiff Kendra Pezanoski, suing Meghan Morgan defendant for euthanizing the old dog defendant dumped on plaintiff.   Plaintiff had three Chihuahuas, and could only take two (the 5 and 10 year olds) with her to the new apartment.   So, plaintiff decided to give the 15-year-old Chihuahua away to defendant.   Plaintiff messaged on FB messenger if she could take the older dog.  Plaintiff had credit issues, and couldn't qualify for a place that would allow three dogs.  Plaintiff took 15-year-old dog to defendant, and left dog.  Defendant has five other Chihuahuas

Defendant had the dog for a while, and Tater was fine, but then when defendant let dog out with her other dogs one morning a neighbor texted defendant that Tater was whimpering, and had a gash.    Defendant left dog in shade with X-pen for plaintiff to get dog to vet, while defendant took her kids to school.   However, defendant was legal owner of dog, and was responsible for dog care, not former owner plaintiff.  Actually, as legal owner of dog, vet couldn’t talk to anyone but plaintiff, unless plaintiff gave permission.

Plaintiff wants vet bills, but defendant said that if plaintiff had told her what the vet said, she would have made a decision for the dog's welfare.   However, plaintiff never told defendant anything until after the dog was put down.  When dog was at vet, defendant claims plaintiff had dog euthanized instead of $3,000 of surgery.     Plaintiff claims she tried to contact defendant about dog, but was unable to reach her.     JJ tells defendant though she had the dog for only a day or so, that she was the legal owner of the dog, and responsible for care. 

Plaintiff is told to show on her phone that she called defendant on the morning from the vet.     JJ says if plaintiff had dog put down without dog's owner, defendant's permission, then plaintiff won't get vet bills, (bills were over $700). Plaintiff has no proof she contacted the defendant from the vet's office.     

Tater was also incontinent, and JJ asks if plaintiff told defendant about that, and plaintiff says she doesn't have incontinent dogs, and doesn't seem to know what incontinent means.  (I bet plaintiff didn't get her security back from previous apartment, because of dog floor damages).   

Defendant said she eventually had to block the plaintiff's calls, texts, etc.    Defendant says the first time that she heard from the plaintiff was the evening after the dog was put down.       Then the evening of the vet visit, when the dog was euthanized, the plaintiff made cruelty allegations to animal control, and said that defendant is a neglectful dog owner, and had too many animals.    

Plaintiff has zero proof she let defendant know that the dog was either to be euthanized, or paid for surgery $3,000.

Plaintiff’s behavior in the hall-terview is hysterical crying, and if she cared that much about the dog, she would have found an apartment that would have allowed three Chihuahuas.

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

Edited March 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[KittyQ]

Brutal Euthanization of a 15-Year-Old Dog

I think that the plaintiff's emotional response owes a lot to feelings of guilt and regret that she chose to rehome the dog instead of trying to find a place where she could keep her. It was very strange of her to call animal control on her friend, when she obviously previously thought the friend was a good pet owner. Perhaps that was also due to displaced guilt feelings.

[parrotfeathers]

11 hours ago, KittyQ said:

Brutal Euthanization of a 15-Year-Old Dog

I think that the plaintiff's emotional response owes a lot to feelings of guilt and regret that she chose to rehome the dog instead of trying to find a place where she could keep her. It was very strange of her to call animal control on her friend, when she obviously previously thought the friend was a good pet owner. Perhaps that was also due to displaced guilt feelings.

She tried her best to eek out some tears but I never saw any.  I thought it was interesting there were no photos of the injury.  I hate to think the defendant was that heartless to leave a seriously injured old dog in an ex pen with no supervision.  Children can be late for school.  

 

[KittyQ]

I wondered about the emphasis on getting the kids to school too. It seems as though you could either drop the kids off and then take the dog to the vet or take the dog to the vet before dropping the kids off. They'd be late, but since the mom would be there for an explanation, that probably wouldn't be too tough. It lends some credence to the notion that the dog didn't seem to be injured that badly. Of course, there are many factors that might have come into play that we didn't hear about (just off the top of my head: size of car, distance to vet, what was happening at school that day, whether the defendant had be at work at a certain time, etc.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Lying to Brooklyn Police?! -Plaintiff  George Litman  suing defendant Terry Johnson for fraudulent sublet, false restraining order, and   Defendant lives in a rent controlled apartment in NYC for 20 years, and her rent is $309.   Then she sublet the apartment to plaintiff for $700 a month.  Defendant is accused of making outrageous claims to police, to get access to her illegally sublet apartment.   Defendant called the police, and lied to them, and tried to get a restraining order against the plaintiff so he would be barred from the apartment, and she could move back in.   Plaintiff works two jobs, and has a roommate.    There are receipts from defendant's sister, who lives in a neighboring building, and was collecting rent.  After 10 months, defendant came back to town (she was caring for her ailing mother out of town), and wanted plaintiff, and roommate to move out right away.   Defendant never sent a 30 day notice, but housing court wouldn't evict an illegal tenant from an illegal sublet.   

Plaintiff and roommate both paid the full rent for 10 months.    After plaintiff moved out, and roommate they both moved in with friends or relatives.      In September defendant tried to get Landlord/Tenant court to evict plaintiff, after she tried for the TRO.    Defendant swore plaintiff was only a temporary tenant, not for 10 months, and accused plaintiff of an illegal lockout, and housing court told defendant to shove her lies.  

$3,000 to plaintiff and JJ tells plaintiff roommate to sue defendant too.   

Uber Relationship Fail -Plaintiff Liberty Tan, and Maria Domingo (cousins and car owners) are suing defendant Daniel Riviera over a failed car purchase, for missed payments, and late fees, for $5000.   Plaintiff Tan is an Uber driver, and sold the car to defendant, who failed to pay for car, and plaintiff repo'd it, and she's suing defendant for late fees, and the payments.   Plaintiff Domingo was driving Uber with the car she bought with her cousin, then bought another car, and was going to sell car to defendant.    So defendant took over the payments of the car, and did the paperwork at the dealership, but this didn't take plaintiffs off the paperwork, or loan responsibility.      Then, defendant only made a small payment in June, not the full amount.     Defendant needed plaintiff to renew registration/tags, in July (car was still in plaintiffs' names, so they had to renew the tags).     

JJ brings out a good point, when defendant took over payments, plaintiff Tan was at least one month behind on payments too, and defendant paid that month for plaintiff too.   Defendant kept the vehicle until October when the bank repossessed it.   

Plaintiff refused to re-register the car, for $580.    

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2012)-

Fake Designer Bag Scam? -Plaintiff Danielle Zilberg suing defendant Kevin Celentano over a designer bag purchase, for $2900.     Plaintiff bought a designer bag from defendant, including a Hermes bag.    Defendant claims plaintiff now has two designer bags that belong to him.    Defendant's bags came from his mother, and were sold to plaintiff, and says mother has three Hermes bags.    Plaintiff claims bags are fake.  (Note to JJ, I bet the Boeing welder makes more than the scientists at Boeing).  Defendant claims his stepfather bought three Hermes bags for his mother, each $6,000 to $10,000 each at retail (actually a Kelly bag is $10k and up used).   

Bag is submitted to JJ, and an expert Angela Houston, of My Poupette Authentications, a designer bag authenticator from Las Vegas, is plaintiff's witness.   Plaintiff witness Houston looks at the bag, and says there are three features that show the bag is fake, the Kelly bag doesn't have a matching leather lock, studs on the strap should be hand pounded, not put on by a machine, and the logo isn't deeply embossed, and it should be.      JJ is getting attached to one of the three bags (witness brought a Birkin bag to court).    

 Plaintiff met defendant at the Hermes store in Beverly Hills for authenticity.   (The Kelly bags even used retail for over $10k).  Later, defendant and plaintiff wanted to sell another Hermes bag that defendant's mother wanted to sell.    Then defendant claims plaintiff wanted to meet him at some alley, and then met him at the mall, and that's when plaintiff told him that bag was fake, and she wanted her money back.  Defendant claims two men came with plaintiff, and took the second bag, and plaintiff's dad was one of them.     JJ will hold the judgment for plaintiff until plaintiff files fraud charges against defendant.

Plaintiff's father called defendant's mother about the two bags, that they were fake, and wanted their money back.  Defendant's mother made a bunch of excuses, and refused to get involved.   Defendant's mother refused to go to the mall, and do anything to help her son. 

Plaintiff will file grand larceny charges against defendant, and his mother.    Plaintiff says defendant is trying to sell another, third Kelly bag on Ebay.  J J will send the two bags to the Valencia Police Department.   If defendant can prove the bags are authentic, then he will get them back from the property clerk at the Valencia Police Department.

$2900 to plaintiff, after she files the charges.   

(My guess is that the plaintiff didn't want to file grand larceny charges against the defendant, and if he's smart, he returned her money.    I think the actual culprit was the defendant's mother, and defendant was just a way for the mother to get money with the counterfeit bags, and son was just her way to get it.   Also, I bet the defendant's mother figured that even if the bag scam was discovered, that she figured son would just get a slap on the wrist, and I bet the mother wouldn't get off so easy). 

(I looked online, and the reason people are authenticators for designer bags is that the Hermes store won't authenticate them.    If you claim you want the bag cleaned and conditioned by the store, they only take authentic bags, but I'm betting that you pay for cleaning up front, and there are no refunds if the bag is a fake).   

Edited March 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

5 p.m. episodes-

First –

Misguided Roommate Rage?! (2021)- Plaintiff Caitlin Zimbardi suing defendant Brittney Hill for unpaid rent for a third roommate (dismissed), car damages to plaintiff's car done by plaintiff (dismissed), and unpaid utility bills.    Plaintiff claims defendant's untrained puppy was the reason defendant argued with third roommate, who didn't move in (that's what the unpaid rent was for).     Car damages were from plaintiff ripping her mirror off of her car trying to back past defendant's car.  

Defendant should have paid 25% of utilities, but plaintiff wants 33% of utility bills.  

I don't know how this came out.  25% of the one bill should be about $270, don't know about the other three. 

Exotic Bird Collector Battle? (2021)- Plaintiff Thomas and Marcy Savage suing defendant Trent Bergeron for non payment for two huge bird cages.   Price was $1,000 but defendant only paid $200.  The two birdcages are at least 3 ft high.     Defendant only paid $200 of the $1,000.  

$800 to plaintiffs.

Give Me Back My Ring? (2014)- Plaintiff Jessica Roberts suing defendant Thomas Bambery over an engagement ring.     The ring was originally $3500, and defendant paid most of the money, and he has the ring.    $958 is remaining on the ring account, and plaintiff wants that paid for, so she can get the ring off of her credit.    

$958 to plaintiff, and defendant keeps the ring. 

Second (2020)-

Pandemic Free - Time for a Lawsuit-Plaintiff Meredith Less suing other driver defendant William Frankie, a year after the accident when the pandemic gave her the time to put the case together, and sue.  Both exchanged information at the accident site.     Within a month plaintiff received a check for the car damages, from defendant's insurance company for $715 for half of the repair (50% at fault).    Plaintiff didn't cash the check, because cashing it is acceptance of the settlement.    Remaining amount of the claim is $715, but plaintiff is suing for entire amount of $1430, because she says defendant is 100% at fault.     

Both litigants were going the same direction.   Defendant says he was in the left lane, going to the left turn lane.    Defendant was actually in the middle lane, turned to go into the left turn lane, but he tuned into  the right side of plaintiff's car.   Defendant claims plaintiff was going too fast, and was going straight in the middle lane.   Defendant doesn't have a clue about what he did, and that the fault in the accident was all his.   I agree with plaintiff that defendant is 100% at fault.    The accident description is that defendant wanted to get to the left turn lane, but he was three lanes over from the left turn lane, and was in the right lane by the curb.   So defendant took a left turn from the far right lane, and whacked the plaintiff's car. 

Plaintiff receives $715 for the other part of her car repairs.  $715 defendant's insurance sent plaintiff, and court payment equals $1430, the cost of the repairs.

Fishy Boat Transaction-Plaintiff Amir and Susan Vossoughi, suing defendant /boat seller, William Hill over a pontoon boat purchase, parts, engine costs. and fees.   Plaintiffs claim they paid defendant for boat motor he never installed, and claim they can't register the boat, and never received a valid title.    Boat is a 1989 model, paid $6500 cash for boat, and almost $1,000 for DMV registration fees.   Pontoon boat is $1,000 over a comparable boat available on the internet.   They spent a total of $16,000 with defendant for the boat, registration fees, and new motor.   JJ has an excellent question, why did they spend three times what a comparable boat would cost?   Plaintiffs can't explain why they spent three times the book value of the boat.  

Purchases included patio furniture for $3500, $6500 for boat, new top on boat.  Plus, the motor they bought from defendant, and wanted installed on boat $6100, and have no proof of payment on that either.    So over $16,000 on a boat worth less than $5000.    Something is so wrong with this purchase. There was some very shady stuff going on with that case with the plaintiffs.    I still didn't catch why defendant didn't install motor either, or what the title problem was.   

Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, to go back to the local courts, and prove their case there.   (I still question why they didn't spend the equivalent money on a boat with a good motor, it would have needed less work than the 30 year old boat the plaintiffs bought). 

( I'm not sure the defendant in the boat case ever said anything.   Paying over three times the cost of the 31 year old boat was very strange, and something was very wrong with this case). 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So over $16,000 on a boat worth less than $5000.    Something is so wrong with this purchase. There was some very shady stuff going on

I agree with you.  Did the defendant ever say if he got the money?

[Back Atcha]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff will file grand larceny charges against defendant, and his mother.    Plaintiff says defendant is trying to sell the third Kelly bag on Ebay.  J will send the two bags to the Valencia Police Department.   If defendant can prove the bags are authentic, then he will get them back from the property clerk at the Valencia Police Department.

$2900 to plaintiff, after she files the charges.   

BAGSCAM:  Didn't the plaintiff tell us "out in the hall," that she didn't want to file a claim against the kid?  I wonder what was the final outcome; I believed the kid. 

[Carolina Girl]

On 3/2/2021 at 6:13 AM, parrotfeathers said:

She tried her best to eek out some tears but I never saw any.  I thought it was interesting there were no photos of the injury.  I hate to think the defendant was that heartless to leave a seriously injured old dog in an ex pen with no supervision.  Children can be late for school.  

 

I thought the same thing.  She expected Judge Judy to think she was heartbroken.  So here's my question - was she allowed to keep two of the dogs?  If so, why didn't she keep the older dog (which would have been harder to place anyway) and ask her friend to take one of the younger dogs?  I think the poster above was correct - the dog completely ruined the floor with incontinence and she didn't mention it to her friend.  

[Carolina Girl]

2 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

BAGSCAM:  Didn't the plaintiff tell us "out in the hall," that she didn't want to file a claim against the kid?  I wonder what was the final outcome; I believed the kid. 

I thought JJ said SHE was actually going to have the bags turned over to the Valencia Police Department and advise them what was going on.  And I think the defendant absolutely knew that he was selling fake bags.  Why, for instance, did he have her meet him the first time at Hermes?  She wasn't buying the bags from there.  Maybe he thought meeting there would give a patina of authenticity.  What SHE should have done was tell him since they were there, she'd like to have a Hermes employee verify the authenticity of the bags.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Jail Bailout Blues -Plaintiff Tina Mullins  suing defendant Jacob McGrath for not paying loans back.   Plaintiff is a friend of defendant's family, and she rescued him from a bad situation, and let defendant move in, and then sues him for not paying her back.   Defendant says he had a home, but went to jail in 2015, and plaintiff bailed him out, and he agreed to pay her back.   Defendant says it would be easier to pay plaintiff back if he moved into her home, and was working two or three jobs, and all of the money he earned was going into plaintiff's bank account.   Plaintiff says this only was the entire check a few times, but defendant says he has proof it was 13 times.      Plaintiff wants money for a car she purchased for defendant, for $3200, but plaintiff has the car after defendant moved out.   Car 'loan' dismissed, and car repairs dismissed too, since plaintiff has the car now.   

Car insurance and collection agency claims against defendant.    Apartment was $1518, and there is no proof that plaintiff paid it off for defendant.    Then Sprint, $1200 for defendant, but the proof from plaintiff is useless. Her bank statement says payments were for medical services.  The payments plaintiff claims were for Sprint charges don't add up close to the collection agency bills. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Rare Disease?  Financial Disaster -Plaintiff Michael Masten suing defendant John Thomas, for not repaying a loan for $4200.  Loan was for defendant’s bills.  Defendant admits he received the loan, but claims that defendant was (a realtor) helping him sell his house, and agreed to take the loan repayment out of the house commissions.   The written real estate commission was 2% and 1% if you sell at full price, but that's not in the contract. 

Defendant says after his wife had their their baby, that she had a rare disease PPCM, and they had huge bills from that.   

(PPCM is Post Partum Cardio Myopathy, a form of heart failure that develops during the last months of pregnancy, or in the months following.  SOme patients recover normal heart function, and others need a heart transplant).

$4200 to plaintiff

Second (2018)-

Which Driver is Lying?!  -Plaintiff Ryan Luera suing defendant Calvin Minor over a traffic accident.   Stories by the litigants vary wildly, but decision is made on the timeline of filing of damage claims.  Defendant's insurance denied the claim.     Defendant was in the left lane, needed to turn right, put his blinker on, and turned right in front of the plaintiff who hit him.     This happened a year ago, but when plaintiff tried to locate the defendant, but defendant gave him a bad address, and small claims court couldn't find defendant.     Plaintiff said he was going straight when the defendant crossed in front of him.   Defendant didn't file with his insurance company for his car damages until months after the accident, when he was getting sued by the plaintiff.     

However, plaintiff's car is no longer driveable.  Plaintiff's car has a transmission issue.  $3770 is what plaintiff is suing for, but it's only junk value. 

Plaintiff receives $500

Hauling Business Fail! – Plaintiff Robert Carbajal truck driver suing defendant Adam McNeil for a semi truck he bought from defendant, and it was repo'd by defendant.       Plaintiff claims he grossed over $200,000 using the semi truck and trailer the defendant sold him, and also made $150k to $200k gross profit from the other 4 semis that other people drive for him.     Plaintiff was supposed to pay $2500, but only paid $1250, but that was only one month's payment.   SInce plaintiff breached the contract, then defendant had every right to repo the semi.. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Designer Sneaker Scam?! -Plaintiffs Leonardo and Alonzo Franco suing defendant Ryan Padilla over designer sneakers plaintiffs bought from defendant, that plaintiffs think are fake.   Plaintiffs sell through some third party auction, after they've been authenticated as genuine for 8%.    The third party does the authentication, and the auction for plaintiffs.       Plaintiffs saw the Offer Up ad from defendant, and plaintiffs went to look at the sneakers at defendant's house.   Plaintiffs paid $550, and were sent a receipt by defendant for the original purchase of the sneakers.  

Plaintiffs didn't take the blue light (flashlight size) to authenticate the sneakers.   Plaintiffs buy and resale sneakers, and keep some they want to keep.   Plaintiffs used the blue light at home, and it failed, and then plaintiffs took it to authenticators, and it failed again.    Defendant never gave plaintiffs the buy receipt.    Defendant bought the sneakers off of Offer Up a few days before advertising them, bought for $400, sold for $500.  The problem is that plaintiffs bought from a private party, didn't try to authenticate them with the blue light, and waited too long to dispute purchase with defendant.  Sneakers were purchased by defendant from a private party, and did use a blue light on the shoes, and paid the seller $400.  

Defendant put sneakers on Offer Up for $600, settled for $500 to sell to plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs had every chance to take their blue light with them before the purchase, and could have taken them to be authenticated the same day also.  Defendant claims he had one of the authentication flashlights, and offered to let plaintiffs use it. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2020)-

Vet Loses Australian Shepherd?!-Plaintiff Tiffany Best suing veterinarian Dr. Angelina Beeks, for losing her dog for seven days after being taken to the vet for a spay surgery.  This happened in the high desert in California. 

Vet claims dog backed out of the collar, and it wasn't her fault the dog ran away.   The vet is a mobile clinic, and mostly does spay and neuter in high desert.    She did three years at Ross University in the Caribbean, and one year at vet school at LSU.   She graduated in 2014, and is only licensed in California, worked for 3 years at another clinic, and then opened her mobile only service.   

Plaintiff was going to have dog spayed, but a neighbor dog jumped the fence, knocked up the Shepherd, who had nine puppies.    Two months after puppies were all adopted, plaintiff scheduled the spay with defendant. 

Plaintiff drove dog to defendant's mobile clinic, dog escaped, and after seven days dog found her way home.       Dog was left at mobile unit which is parked outside of defendant's home.    In the middle of the next morning, Garrett's surgical tech called the plaintiff, and said the dog was missing.   Vet is blaming dog loss on vet tech Garrett.    Garrett blamed vet's son who is helping her as a vet tech.    Plaintiff says vet had major attitude about the dog loss.   Plaintiff contacted a couple of rescues, and seven days later the plaintiff's dog dug under plaintiff's fence, and was found in the yard at owner's back door.  Plaintiff says dog was a mess after wandering for seven days.  It was over 100 degrees all week when the dog was missing. 

Plaintiff presents the $204 vet bill, and had to pay more to get her spayed.   Plaintiff made flyers about the missing dog, $70.    Plaintiff would like to pay others who helped look for dog back for gas.  Kristopher Beeks, son of vet, and working as a vet assistant,  says dog pulled out of her collar, and someone left the gate open, and dog ran out the gate.  He's working as a tech at mother's clinic, but was a bartender.    

Dr. Beeks claims plaintiff was nasty after dog almost died after her son's negligence resulted in the dog escaping.   Dr. Beeks said she would have done spay for free after plaintiff found her dog.   

That vet wouldn't be allowed near an animal I owned after she blamed her son's negligence on plaintiff.    Plaintiff says she was only turned off by defendant's attitude after she blamed the plaintiff for the dog loss, and in court says it was partially plaintiff's fault.

JJ is not putting up with defendant's rotten attitude, and negligence.   However, plaintiff will not be getting $5,000 either.   JJ points out if dog was permanently lost, then she could get the actual cost of dog. 

$328 to plaintiff for vet bills.   

(Courts would only give plaintiff money for her suffering.   Unfortunately animals are considered property, and only worth what you paid for them.   I bet putting $10k in the letter to the vet was the only way to get her attention.   I think it's ridiculous to blame plaintiff for the dog getting away.   I've never seen a vet clinic use anything but a slip leash on a dog.      There is no way on this earth that I would have taken my dog to that vet for a spay after this.   I'm shocked the dog lived after seven days in the desert, and had to dig under the wall to get back into her own yard).

Edited March 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

Plaintiff was asking for TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for pain and suffering.  Not for the dog, who came home hungry and dirty, ,but for herself.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the blue light (flashlight size)

JJ pissed me off on this, it was not a blue light, as the litigants in the beginning clearly stated it was an ultra-violet (UV) light. Since the litigants clearly identified it, JJ was just sloppy  and doesn't really care because it is something "technical" and she is above that stuff because of all her years in law school.

[configdotsys]

On 3/2/2021 at 5:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Second (2012)-

Fake Designer Bag Scam? -Plaintiff Danielle Zilberg suing defendant Kevin Celentano over a designer bag purchase, for $2900.     Plaintiff bought a designer bag from defendant, including a Hermes bag.    Defendant claims plaintiff now has two designer bags that belong to him.    Defendant's bags came from his mother, and were sold to plaintiff, and says mother has three Hermes bags.    Plaintiff claims bags are fake.  (Note to JJ, I bet the Boeing welder makes more than the scientists at Boeing).  Defendant claims his stepfather bought three Hermes bags for his mother, each $6,000 to $10,000 each at retail (actually a Kelly bag is $10k and up used).   

Bag is submitted to JJ, and an expert Angela Houston, of My Poupette Authentications, a designer bag authenticator from Las Vegas, is plaintiff's witness.   Plaintiff witness Houston looks at the bag, and says there are three features that show the bag is fake, the Kelly bag doesn't have a matching leather lock, studs on the strap should be hand pounded, not put on by a machine, and the logo isn't deeply embossed, and it should be.      JJ is getting attached to one of the three bags (witness brought a Birkin bag to court).    

 Plaintiff met defendant at the Hermes store in Beverly Hills for authenticity.   (The Kelly bags even used retail for over $10k).  Later, defendant and plaintiff wanted to sell another Hermes bag that defendant's mother wanted to sell.    Then defendant claims plaintiff wanted to meet him at some alley, and then met him at the mall, and that's when plaintiff told him that bag was fake, and she wanted her money back.  Defendant claims two men came with plaintiff, and took the second bag, and plaintiff's dad was one of them.     JJ will hold the judgment for plaintiff until plaintiff files fraud charges against defendant.

Plaintiff's father called defendant's mother about the two bags, that they were fake, and wanted their money back.  Defendant's mother made a bunch of excuses, and refused to get involved.   Defendant's mother refused to go to the mall, and do anything to help her son. 

Plaintiff will file grand larceny charges against defendant, and his mother.    Plaintiff says defendant is trying to sell another, third Kelly bag on Ebay.  J J will send the two bags to the Valencia Police Department.   If defendant can prove the bags are authentic, then he will get them back from the property clerk at the Valencia Police Department.

$2900 to plaintiff, after she files the charges.   

(My guess is that the plaintiff didn't want to file grand larceny charges against the defendant, and if he's smart, he returned her money.    I think the actual culprit was the defendant's mother, and defendant was just a way for the mother to get money with the counterfeit bags, and son was just her way to get it.   Also, I bet the defendant's mother figured that even if the bag scam was discovered, that she figured son would just get a slap on the wrist, and I bet the mother wouldn't get off so easy). 

 

16 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I thought JJ said SHE was actually going to have the bags turned over to the Valencia Police Department and advise them what was going on.  And I think the defendant absolutely knew that he was selling fake bags.  Why, for instance, did he have her meet him the first time at Hermes?  She wasn't buying the bags from there.  Maybe he thought meeting there would give a patina of authenticity.  What SHE should have done was tell him since they were there, she'd like to have a Hermes employee verify the authenticity of the bags.  

I had SO many questions about this case when it aired. I still have it on my DVR from a few years ago:

Regarding the first bag, plaintiff said she met with the defendant at the Hermes store in Beverly Hills to verify authenticity. This was at her request. When the defendant had a second bag and JJ asked him why he did not meet her there the second time, he said, "Because we had already went to the Her-meez store." That made it sound like the first bag was authenticated there so the defendant felt he proved himself and did not want so drive to far back there a second time.

So did they go in the first time? Did the store authenticate the first bag? Did they not go in? Did the store refuse to look at the bag? Why did the plaintiff say she wanted to meet there to verify authenticity and then not only not get the bag authenticated, but paid him and "walked away happy" according to the defendant. That was left hanging. 

The plaintiff worked as a buyer at a company called bidz.com when this case aired. It's a site that sells luxury goods. I remember looking it up at the time and I thought she planned to resell the bag through bidz and make a nice profit it if it was legit. Why did she give him the money for the first bag if the "Her-meez" store did not authenticate it? She probably asked about another bag because she figured she'd make another tidy sum on a second one. But again, why did she look for (and pay) an independent person to authenticate the bag when they were at Her-meez? JJ was way off when she suggested that the plaintiff was a foolish young woman who was able to drop $2900. on a pocketbook because she still lived at home. She was sourcing product and figured if he was clueless, she'd make out like a bandit. Pretty naive as there are counterfeits galore out there.  

JJ seemed to have a fixation with the word Valencia in this show. She kept saying it and it seemed she enjoyed doing so. The plaintiff was from LA, which is a few hours from Valencia and the defendant lived mostly with his girlfriend and her grandmother in La Crescenta which is over 2 hours from Valencia I think. His mother was having dinner with a friend in Valencia "at the time" that this "attempted kidnapping" happened. Valencia was never part of the case at all except for mom being out with a friend there so why JJ would turn over anything to the Valencia police was just weird.

 I thought JJ was holding the award until the plaintiff filed a police report but maybe I'm not remembering it right. There are just some cases on this show that leave me with so many questions. This was one of those cases.

Edited March 4, 2021 by configdotsys
I can spell. I just can't type.

[Back Atcha]

1 hour ago, configdotsys said:

JJ seemed to have a fixation with the word Valencia in this show. She kept saying it and it seemed she enjoyed doing so. The plaintiff was from LA, which is a few hours from Valencia and the defendant lived mostly with his girlfriend and her grandmother in La Crescenta which is over 2 hours from LA I think. His mother was having dinner with a friend in Valencia "at the time" that this "attempted kidnapping" happened. Valencia was never part of the case at all except for mom being out with a friend there so why JJ would turn over anything to the Valencia police was just weird.

If JJ EVER lived a life where she/her family had to watch their pennies, it's certainly not evident here!  She doesn't care about anyone's hardships...how far someone has to drive...how many children they have to take care of...how many jobs they work and STILL try to take care of the family.  She wants US to know that she knows All Things Hermes, all things Limousines, all things YACHTS!  I keep thinking she's getting more and more irritating...and then I check the dates of those OLD shows I'm re-watching.

[Carolina Girl]

 

 

16 hours ago, configdotsys said:

 

That made it sound like the first bag was authenticated there so the defendant felt he proved himself and did not want so drive to far back there a second time.

 

Funny that NEITHER litigant thought it would be a good idea to have the Hermes employee either authenticate the bag.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

(On the Hermes bag case, the Hermes store in Beverly Hills doesn't authenticate bags, that's why the third party authenticators exist.    Hermes will only look at a bag you take to their store for repairs or cleaning, and won't work on counterfeit bags.   I bet there's an up front fee for working on the bag, and I don't know if you get a counterfeit bag back if you take it to Hermes.   I absolutely believe the defendant didn't know his mother was scamming the plaintiff and him).

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Motorcycle Mayhem -Plaintiff Robert Pollard suing defendant/mechanic Bret Harder over shoddy repairs to plaintiff's 16 year-old motorcycle that left him stranded.   Plaintiff took motorcycle to defendant's shop, and needed another motor.   First visit was new (rebuilt?) engine for $300, and $300 for labor.   Bike was in shop for 10 weeks, until plaintiff paid off the $600 total.    Then when plaintiff picked it up, he claims the bike wasn't working right, and defendant says another issue had happened.  Bike was ready a few days later, and plaintiff had it for a week, then took it back to the shop.     $169 for the second visit.   Then plaintiff took it back to the shop, and this time defendant had plaintiff sign the contract acknowledging no warranties of any kind.   

Plaintiff says he only rode the bike to his home from the shop, but defendant claims he saw the plaintiff riding the motorcycle in Florida.  (I just read that 10% of drivers nationally don't have vehicle insurance, but Florida's rate is over 26%!).     There is a dispute over whether Florida requires motorcycle insurance (only if you don't have a bond to cover damages, or ride helmetless).    Florida law does say no insurance required, but you have to have a financial responsibility certificate when you certify your cash, or get a security bond.    Now plaintiff says he had Geico at one time, and Progressive another time, then dropped it, but plaintiff claims he was covered for the month he had the bike on the road.  (I'm not sure why we're doing the insurance stuff).   In February plaintiff dropped the motorcycle again.   Bike is in his witness' shop now.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Kennedy Assassination Translation fail!  -Plaintiff / translator Jose Carneiro suing defendant/author David Nolan Sr. for not paying him for translating the defendant's Kennedy assassination book into Portuguese.    Defendant's book is fiction about Lee Harvey Oswald surviving Jack Ruby's attempt to kill him, and the trial that would have happened.    Defendant claims plaintiff would be paid 50/50 from the profits of the book sales for the Portuguese edition.   (Book is titled Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, and is available in English on Amazon, and maybe other sites). 

There are no other translations, and defendant said the translator should publicize the book too.  When plaintiff finished the translation, he sent defendant the bill, and defendant refused to pay ($4828 was the bill for the translation). 

JJ says there is no contract between the two men.    Interesting, because defendant is a former attorney in the Reagan Administration, so no contract is bizarre.

JJ says since defendant doesn't have the Portuguese translation, then plaintiff should sell him the book he translated, if the defendant wants the book.   Defendant says he doesn't want the book, so plaintiff did this for nothing.  

Case dismissed.  

Boiling Water Fight-Plaintiff Angel Navarro is suing his brother, Jose Sanchez, for medical bills, and punitive damages, from a fight a year ago, when the plaintiff claims his brother threw boiling water on him.    Plaintiff and defendant had an argument over the plaintiff's missing cigarettes (plaintiff says the defendant's friend stole cigarettes, and other items from the home).  Plaintiff, and the litigants' mother live in the house together.   Plaintiff went to take a nap, then defendant decided to boil some eggs, and plaintiff gets up from his nap, goes in the kitchen, tells defendant his friend isn't welcome at the house where plaintiff and their mother live.   

Plaintiff told defendant to leave the house after defendant was threatening him.    Then, when plaintiff went to open the door, defendant threw boiling water on plaintiff's back, and he was taken to the ER, and released a few hours later.   Plaintiff had second degree burns on his back, and now has medical bills coming in from the ER visit.  Defendant says that brother attacked him, and he pushed him away, and the plaintiff hit the stove, and when he hit the pot of boiling water, it turned over on plaintiff's back. 

Defendant says they argued, and plaintiff grabbed his wrists, (demonstrated on a very unhappy looking Officer Byrd), claims the brother caused the water to turn over.  So how did that turn into boiling water on the back?   Plaintiff says when he turned his back on defendant, that defendant threw the boiling water on his back. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Edited March 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

 

 

Funny that NEITHER litigant thought it would be a good idea to have the Hermes employee either authenticate the bag.  

I'm wondering if that is the case, though. It was not mentioned on the program. The plaintiff requested that they meet there to authenticate the bag. I would guess that if the defendant balked at going in, she would not have handed over almost three grand. But she did. Why JJ didn't pursue this line of questioning is puzzling to me. 

I am really hoping that since they are pulling out the oldies these days that we'll see to revisit the cheeseballs and the VFW Ladies' Auxliary brawl.

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(On the Hermes bag case, the Hermes store in Beverly Hills doesn't authenticate bags, that's why the third party authenticators exist.    Hermes will only look at a bag you take to their store for repairs or cleaning, and won't work on counterfeit bags.   I bet there's an up front fee for working on the bag, and I don't know if you get a counterfeit bag back if you take it to Hermes.   I absolutely believe the defendant didn't know his mother was scamming the plaintiff and him).

Ah, interesting that she still handed off nearly three grand with no verification of the bag's authenticity. That's just nuts.

[LetsStartTalking]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Designer Sneaker Scam?! -Plaintiffs Leonardo and Alonzo Franco suing defendant Ryan Padilla over designer sneakers plaintiffs bought from defendant, that plaintiffs think are fake.   Plaintiffs sell through some third party auction, after they've been authenticated as genuine for 8%.    The third party does the authentication, and the auction for plaintiffs.       Plaintiffs saw the Offer Up ad from defendant, and plaintiffs went to look at the sneakers at defendant's house.   Plaintiffs paid $550, and were sent a receipt by defendant for the original purchase of the sneakers.  

Plaintiffs didn't take the blue light (flashlight size) to authenticate the sneakers.   Plaintiffs buy and resale sneakers, and keep some they want to keep.   Plaintiffs used the blue light at home, and it failed, and then plaintiffs took it to authenticators, and it failed again.    Defendant never gave plaintiffs the buy receipt.    Defendant bought the sneakers off of Offer Up a few days before advertising them, bought for $400, sold for $500.  The problem is that plaintiffs bought from a private party, didn't try to authenticate them with the blue light, and waited too long to dispute purchase with defendant.  Sneakers were purchased by defendant from a private party, and did use a blue light on the shoes, and paid the seller $400.  

Defendant put sneakers on Offer Up for $600, settled for $500 to sell to plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs had every chance to take their blue light with them before the purchase, and could have taken them to be authenticated the same day also.  Defendant claims he had one of the authentication flashlights, and offered to let plaintiffs use it. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

First, a shout out to Ryan Padilla, one of the sexiest 'bad boys' to grace Judge Judy's court this season. The past few seasons, Judge Judy has hit a dry spell - a desert, is more like it. This season she's had a few hotties (not as many as earlier seasons) and Padilla was enjoyable to watch. So thank you for being sued!

Second, most of the case was explaining to Judy what the transaction was all about. For the past 20 years she has been dealing with 'eBay' lawsuits. This site isn't that much different - the major difference is that it focuses in on a specific clientele (those addicted to sneakers). Why Judy wasted twenty minutes by telling the plaintiff 'Explain it to me' every few minutes was beyond comprehension.  And the plaintiff could only answer, 'Well basically...'.

Third, how does one become a an official, trusted 'sneaker authenticator' ? Does one go to Nike school for that? Does one get a degree or certificate for that ?  From the appearance of the two 'official authenticators' the plaintiff brought along, it looks like they sit home and do nothing but 'study sneakers'. And eat (at least one of them ate).