Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiffs claim the damages were behind the wall.   Plaintiff and defendant's insurance companies declined to cover the damages.   Why didn't plaintiffs do a walk through on the house a day or two before move in, and they did their walk through two weeks before the purchase.   Plaintiff blames her own real estate agent for the lack of walk through the day or two before closing.     Plaintiffs are suing their real estate agent too. 

I think JJ got this one wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Drive to Church Gone Bad! -Plaintiff Travis Riddle  suing defendant Shameka Roberts over an accident settlement.    Plaintiff was driving, defendant was a passenger, they were going to church. Litigants were carpooling to church, they were rear ended, and are fighting over the insurance settlement.  Accident was a another driver who rear ended plaintiff's car.   Plaintiff in good at negotiating with the insurance company over the settlement, and plaintiff loaned defendant $4200.   Loan would be paid back out of the settlement.    

  Defendant claims plaintiff tried to cash all three checks.   Plaintiff negotiated over $20k to pay all of defendant's bills, after $4200 was given to plaintiff, defendant received $14k plus $9150, $1000, $1100 ($3700 came directly to defendant), were paid to her defendant.    Defendant wants his $4200, from defendant, and she didn't pay.  Defendant was ready to settle for less than $4,000, when plaintiff stepped in and started negotiating.    Plaintiff had a POA from defendant to represent her, and she revoked that later.   All checks were made out to defendant.  Plaintiff couldn't cash any of the checks from the insurance company to defendant. 

JJ's staff will help defendant find out from insurance company about a fourth check   Case is recalled, and insurance company said there is a fourth check, but that's to defendant for $350 for medical costs.   Plaintiff can't cash the checks only the defendant. 

There is a separate case involving defendant's children's guardianship papers.   Defendant didn't pay the medical bills for the her children, $13,000.    Plaintiff put his house up as collateral to pay the children's medical bills, and defendant paid him nothing for those either.  

$4200 to plaintiff.  

Whiplash!  I Doubt That! – Plaintiff /car owner Samantha Schroeder suing defendant/car owner, Brittany Acquiano ,   Plaintiff is suing for damages, and injuries from defendant rear-ending her car while plaintiff was turning left, in the turn lane.   As usual, defendant was uninsured.   

Plaintiff was turning left from a left turn lane, going to Toys for Tots, when defendant rear ended her car.  Plaintiff saw defendant coming at her from her rear view mirror.   From the accident defendant claims she went to her home a block away, to get her I.D., driver had no insurance, license with her, or registration.    Plaintiff went home to get her I.D. because Toys are Us requires I.D.     Plaintiff has before pictures (she drives for Uber), and after pictures, plus the paid damages.   

Plaintiff had whiplash, and back pain, but defendant says she's faking. 

$1300 for plaintiff. 

Second (2018)

Dreaded Secret of the VW Rabbit- Plaintiff /car buyer Cody Wiscomb suing defendant/car seller Stephen Medina, over a VW Rabbit that couldn’t be registered until the $3,000 Title Loan was paid off.   Defendant claims he told car buyer at the sale that the car couldn't be registered until the title loan was paid off.     Plaintiff bought the car for his son to drive, 

Defendant is such a liar, but has had a Scales of Justice carved into his hair. and is also wearing a plain t-shirt, a tie, and a jacket, very odd.     

VW had 57,000 miles on it and sold for $5,600, plus the $3k title loan.     The plaintiff says no one told him about the title loan, and would have to be a total idiot to buy it for that price with the title loan added, making it cost $8600 for the car that's only worth $5600.       Stephen Medina, defendant is such a crook.    I love that JJ is chopping pieces off of the crooked defendant.   

Defendant's mother says that her son bought the car, but had to sell it at half the price a few months later, and they paid $10k for the car, worth only $5600.     Mommy is also a complete liar too, and has all kinds of garbage reasons about why the car was sold.      Mother of defendant gets the Byrd boot.   

Plaintiff's son drove the car still registered in the defendant's name from April to the next February, but it was insured by the plaintiff.  and I'm not sure the plaintiff is all that smart either.     Defendant says that plaintiff would go halfsies on a bank account, and take out a loan for the title loan amount, and that's so much garbage.  (That statement is hysterical, does defendant think we're stupid?)     

Plaintiff actually wanted defendant to get a loan and pay the title loan off.  Now, the car is back with the defendant.   Plaintiff's son drove the car for close to a year, still in defendant's name, with plaintiff insuring the car.   Defendant says he offered a full refund, which is a total lie. 

Plaintiff gets $5k.

You ARE Your Furniture-Plaintiff Anna Estrella moved in with defendant, Pamela Nolan, and is now suing defendant for her furniture left in the apartment, and wants $2875.    Defendant wants back rent, and other boring things.     Plaintiff left, wasn't paying rent, and left her furniture behind.   Rent for one room was $400 a month.    Plaintiff moved out after the two roomies had a big fight.   

 Plaintiff doesn't want her furniture back, but the money because the grandkid slept on it, and I'm assuming did something on it.   

Defendant wants back rent, of $1600, that claim is dismissed.   

 Plaintiff didn't even come back for over four months, and JJ will give an order to get the furniture back, and plaintiff will pick it up.   If plaintiff doesn't pick up furniture in five days, then it will be considered abandoned.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First

Death Threats, Lockouts and Restraining Orders?  Oh My! (2021) -Plaintiff/nephew Khalil McKinney  suing defendant/aunt Lynette Perdue for illegal eviction, false restraining order applications, moving costs, and claims aunt made death threats against him.    Defendant says plaintiff threatened to kill her, she lives in fear of him, and applying for a restraining order was her only option.  Nephew, his girlfriend, and nephew's child (girlfriend is not the child's mother) moved into aunt's place, for $200 a month rent.   

They moved in December of 2019, from mommy's house.   Defendant is plaintiff's maternal aunt.     Nephew moved in right before New Years, and would pay $200 a month rent, and food stamps given for plaintiff, girlfriend, and child.   Nephew claims aunt complained about messy bedroom, coming home in the late night, food taken to nephew's room.   

On January 1st, 2020 plaintiff moved out with girlfriend, because he says his aunt threatened to burn nephew and girlfriend alive in their sleep in the bedroom.   Nephew claims aunt told him he was unwanted starting in October 2020.   Nephew claims he paid October and November 2020 rent.   Aunt gave notice on 15 October 2020, he stayed past 15 November, but didn't move out until 1 January 2021.  

Plaintiff claims aunt said he could stay without paying rent until he got his life together.  Plaintiff now pays $1250 a month rent, lives with girlfriend, and sometimes the child.  Defendant says she filed for the restraining order after plaintiff was belligerent to her, threatening her, and she felt unsafe in her own home.  

Plaintiff claims to have a police report for 1 January, and 4 January.  4 January was a police escort to get his stuff out.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, and plaintiff is stunned.    Plaintiff is fake sobbing in the hall-terview. 

Granny or Nanny? (2014) -Plaintiff/grandmother Lynnmarie Johnson  suing defendant/daughter Elesia Howard, for child care fees, and lost wages.   Plaintiff was baby sitting her daughter's children.   Grandmother says daughter didn't pay for childcare, claiming daughter said she was broke, but still bought weaves, and wigs, and other luxury items.  Daughter has one child.  Plaintiff says she babysat for the one granddaughter, and says daughter was to fill out paperwork to get state babysitting payment.  Since daughter didn't fill out paperwork correctly, it was rejected, so plaintiff was never paid.   Plaintiff is suing for $5,000.  Plaintiff says this is the third time this daughter did this to her, and she's not babysitting again. 

JJ says this isn't a lawsuit, and plaintiff case is dismissed. 

Second

Dog Breeder vs. Dog Trainer! (2021) -Plaintiff/dog breeder Jacqueline Marshall  suing defendant/dog trainer James Fairbanks  over an agreement to split a  litter of puppies.  Plaintiff gave a dog to a friend for law enforcement use, when friend retired, he returned the dog to plaintiff, and defendant would retrain the dog.   Lila (dog) was pregnant, by defendant's GSD (German Shepherd Dog), and delivered all ten puppies at plaintiff's house.  Plaintiff gave away some puppies, and sold the rest at reduced prices.  Agreement was they would split the litter, and plaintiff didn't.  PLaintiff is suing for breach of contract, to retrain dog. 

Plaintiff claims defendant was to certify or title the dog before breeding her.    I don't understand what the defendant is talking about a court case being postponed by the Paradise fire.  Defendant had dog from August 2018 to December 2018, and then plaintiff had her.     

Breeder/plaintiff should have given defendant 5 puppies of the litter of 10, but didn’t.   Plaintiff gave a lot of the puppies away, and sold the rest at a huge discount.     Plaintiff claims this was Lila's only litter, but did try to get her pregnant after this litter, which failed.    Plaintiff has more than one female for breeding.   Stud dog owned by defendant is AKC registered, but defendant says the puppies papers were forged by plaintiff.   Plaintiff received AKC papers after all ten puppies were sold, or given away.     Plaintiff is told to produce the AKC papers, and sent papers to three puppies' owners.  JJ points out that without AKC papers the dogs should have been neutered or spayed, because they are pets, not breeding animals. 

 Plaintiff sold the puppies for $150, up to $600.  Two for $500, one for $600, $480 for one, and one for $150, the rest were given away.    Plaintiff refused to give any puppies to defendant.   

Plaintiff claims Lila was injured when returned to her.  Owner just wanted dog's injuries documented by vet, but vet report says owner won't treat anything.   

$5,000 to defendant.   Plaintiff claim dismissed. 

Souped-Up Snowmobile Crash! (2014) -Plaintiff/snowmobile owner Charles Cummings suing defendants Maurice Eull (rider) and Leah Eull (wife) for crashing and damaging his snowmobile.     Defendant admits he crashed the plaintiff's snowmobile into a tree, but blames the friend for having such a powerful vehicle, and didn't tell him it was supercharged.    Defendant borrowed snowmobile from plaintiff, crashed it into a tree.    Defendant says supercharged snowmobile, and crash was all plaintiff's fault. 

Estimate for snowmobile damages $ 11,500 is repair estimate, new price in 2012 was $10,000+

Plaintiff says he's suing wife of defendant also, because defendant husband was willing to pay him, but defendant wife refused to let husband pay. 

Plaintiff has picture of snowmobile, and the innocent victim in this case, the poor tree.   The snowmobile is trashed, and the tree looks very bad too. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2021 at 5:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Cheerleading Nanny Time! -Plaintiff/nanny Michelle Kachin suing defendant Kristen Thomason for a loan to finance her child's cheerleading camp, for $2,000.

Seriously? Cheer leading camp?  She sounds like an entitled princess.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims defendant was to certify or title the dog before breeding her.    I

I wish Judge Judy would have asked WHAT the dog was supposed to be titled in!  Sounds to be like it was a "service dog" thing maybe.  You wouldn't believe the money people making selling puppies as potential "service" dogs!

JJ mentioned obedience titling but that cannot be it.  I show in obedience and other venues (agility, etc.).  No decent trainer puts a dog in trials without at least 2 years of training.

And this "breeder" had no restrictions on her puppies.  No pet spay/neuter agreements required.  I'd say she was in all of it for the cash and am glad JJ busted her.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I assumed it was an obedience title of some kind, because the dog was a retired K-9 officer.   However, the only other registry AKC has is for therapy dogs.      The dog was pretty ancient for a beginner in the show ring, so I doubt that was it.   Maybe it was to get the genetic issue certifications?    I really disliked the dog breeder.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I really disliked the dog breeder.

So did Judge Judy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, NYGirl said:

So did Judge Judy.

And I don’t believe for a minute she “gave away” those puppies.  I think it was her intention to stiff the guy from the get-go.  Otherwise why start that “documentation of injuries” nonsense with the vet when she got the dog back?   She was pissed that he refused to sign the papers until he got the puppies which was smart.  And frankly certification of the mother dog for anything has absolutely no added value to the puppies.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/11/2021 at 6:53 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First

Tween’s Costly Rock Toss! (2021) -Plaintiff /car owner Christopher Donahoe suing defendant Raymond Greenoge (grandparent, who has custody of the grandson) because defendant's grandson Aiden Jahner, threw a rock that broke plaintiff's back windshield on his truck.   Grandfather claims plaintiff has no proof, blames other kids.   Plaintiff wants $500 to fix the windshield.    Plaintiff's daughter didn't see the incident, but answered the door when the kids told his daughter that Aiden broke the windshield.    There is ring footage from plaintiff's doorbell showing most of the action. 

Video will show the kids playing, and throwing rocks.   Aiden blames JP, and another little kid, but then tells JJ he threw a rock at the windshield.   Grandson lied to grandfather, and said he threw nothing at the truck, and blamed others for the rock throwing.

In the hall-terview Aiden still blames the other kids.  Grandfather believes him, and says he's going to find out who threw the rock. 

$499 to plaintiff. 

Hurricane Destruction (2013) -Plaintiff Kara Portocerrero is suing defendant Daniel Famulare for driving her car with her permission (in Florida).   This means plaintiff was dropped off at work by defendant.    This was after Hurricane Ike.  Plaintiff had to go to work, because she's a zoo keeper.

Plaintiff drove to work, and defendant was driving the car back to plaintiff's home.  Defendant was driving in horrible, driving rain, fish tailed, went into a ditch, and a canal, and had to call 911 for help.  Defendant was on top of the car, and had to be rescued.  

Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible, and $2700 for down payment on another car.  Plaintiff claims she didn't loan anyone the car, so how did defendant get the car when she drove to work?    Was plaintiff planning on defendant sitting in the car all day?  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second

Illegal Covid Party for Mom’s 50th (2021) -Plaintiff Tyana Levels  suing defendant /party supply  Ernie Chavez  over plaintiff's mother's 50th birthday party with 20 to 30 people indoors, in Lancaster, CA.    This number is less than the 80 plaintiff wanted chairs and tables, to have party in October 2020.    25 to 30 was over the allowed number in California for an indoor party in October.     So, if plaintiff was having 25 to 30, why did she need chairs, tables, etc. for 80 people?   

Defendant delivered a throne, chairs, tables, etc.  Plaintiff paid $1475, party occurred, and she claims defendant overcharged her.    Plaintiff claims defendant subcontracted for the chairs with a cheaper company, and she wants a refund for the difference.    (I'm not commenting on the throne, supply your own snark).    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  JJ has Officer Byrd boot plaintiff's witness.

Defendant is counter claiming for plaintiff's friends. coming to his business to serve him for the case, disrupted his business, and yelled defamatory names in front of clients.      Defendant was the only area rental place still operating in the pandemic, but he found someone to supply the chairs.   There is a video of the dust up at defendant's business, and JJ tells him to file against them.

Defendant case dismissed.

Don’t Flood My Car (2013) -Plaintiff Sena (mother, car is on car title) and Nia Peden (daughter, her name was on title too, and she's only 17)  suing defendant Kevin Brown for driving her car and damaging it.  Plaintiff daughter was going out with two friends in her own car, and her friend Kianna Brown (daughter of defendant) said they should use the father's SUV, because it was bad weather.    Then defendant father drove plaintiff's car when he needed to run an errand.     Father agreed to daughter taking the SUV, but said he needed transportation, and would use the plaintiff's car. Defendant says mother of plaintiff agreed to the deal.

Plaintiff daughter, and defendant daughter, wanted the defendant's SUV because it was safer in bad weather.    Plaintiff's car was flooded when defendant was driving to pick his niece up from her work-release program, car died but restarted several times, then finally died, and water was rising.   Plaintiff car was totaled out, but the mother is blaming defendant for driving the car.  Plaintiff mother gave permission for defendant to drive the car.   Why didn't the daughters, and friend, just skip their night out for once?    Staying home would have been the safest of all. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

 

Christopher Donahoe -another hot DILF ! Thank You, JJ !

Daniel Famulare  - another sexy young hunk ! Thank You, JJ!

Tyana Levels  - So it looks like she was expecting everything to be done at 'cost' with no profit for the vendor. Hmmm.  If that's her expectations, she should be suing McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, and every other fast-food place she's ever bought from because her eyes will pop out when she sees the mark-up on their menu (about 10 times the actual cost of product ).

Quote

Death Threats, Lockouts and Restraining Orders?  Oh My! (2021) -Plaintiff/nephew Khalil McKinney  suing defendant/aunt Lynette Perdue for illegal eviction, false restraining order applications, moving costs, and claims aunt made death threats against him.    Defendant says plaintiff threatened to kill her, she lives in fear of him, and applying for a restraining order was her only option.  Nephew, his girlfriend, and nephew's child (girlfriend is not the child's mother) moved into aunt's place, for $200 a month rent.   

They moved in December of 2019, from mommy's house.   Defendant is plaintiff's maternal aunt.     Nephew moved in right before New Years, and would pay $200 a month rent, and food stamps given for plaintiff, girlfriend, and child.   Nephew claims aunt complained about messy bedroom, coming home in the late night, food taken to nephew's room.   

On January 1st, 2020 plaintiff moved out with girlfriend, because he says his aunt threatened to burn nephew and girlfriend alive in their sleep in the bedroom.   Nephew claims aunt told him he was unwanted starting in October 2020.   Nephew claims he paid October and November 2020 rent.   Aunt gave notice on 15 October 2020, he stayed past 15 November, but didn't move out until 1 January 2021.  

Plaintiff claims aunt said he could stay without paying rent until he got his life together.  Plaintiff now pays $1250 a month rent, lives with girlfriend, and sometimes the child.  Defendant says she filed for the restraining order after plaintiff was belligerent to her, threatening her, and she felt unsafe in her own home.  

Plaintiff claims to have a police report for 1 January, and 4 January.  4 January was a police escort to get his stuff out.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, and plaintiff is stunned.    Plaintiff is fake sobbing in the hall-terview. 

Granny or Nanny? (2014) -Plaintiff/grandmother Lynnmarie Johnson  suing defendant/daughter Elesia Howard, for child care fees, and lost wages.   Plaintiff was baby sitting her daughter's children.   Grandmother says daughter didn't pay for childcare, claiming daughter said she was broke, but still bought weaves, and wigs, and other luxury items.  Daughter has one child.  Plaintiff says she babysat for the one granddaughter, and says daughter was to fill out paperwork to get state babysitting payment.  Since daughter didn't fill out paperwork correctly, it was rejected, so plaintiff was never paid.   Plaintiff is suing for $5,000.  Plaintiff says this is the third time this daughter did this to her, and she's not babysitting again. 

JJ says this isn't a lawsuit, and plaintiff case is dismissed. 

 

Khalil McKinney - He scams the system by using his food stamps - benefited to him to feed his two children - to feed his girlfriend and aunt. and JJ actually entertained this case ?

 

Lynnmarie Johnson  - I want to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her and her family. I mean can it be anything other than a pleasant time ?

And speaking of scamming the system !

 

 

Edited by LetsStartTalking
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Open Relationship Shocker! -Plaintiff/ex-boyfriend of everyone Dario Rodriguez suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Emani England for an unpaid loan.    Defendant and plaintiff's witness were both girlfriend's of plaintiff at the same, and all three stayed in the same room.   Then the two girlfriend's moved to the same rented room at another home. PLaintiff claims he loaned defendant $1500, then claims it was $750.  Defendant says $1,000 paid by defendant to the house manager as the security, and first month for the room for the two girlfriends to share.    When the witness, and defendants moved it was to the same room, and then two separate rooms in the same house.   

Plaintiff's witness (the other girlfriend) is supposed to support the loan amount.   Plaintiff claims his witness paid his $500 back, and defendant didn't.    Defendant filed for a protective order against plaintiff, and filed criminal charges.   Plaintiff plead out, and consented to the protective order.

Plaintiff gets $500. 

 Chicken Slaughter! -Plaintiffs James Hatfield and suing defendant Rueben Gonzales for the defendant’s dogs slaughtering 50 of their chickens.   The litigants live in a rural area, about half a mile apart.   The plaintiff raises show, and egg laying chickens,   Plaintiff usually has 75 chickens in the flock. 

Plaintiff witness Mr. Goldsmith,  lives on the property, saw the two dogs in the back yard, killing the chickens, and saw the many dead chickens.   Witness called plaintiff about the chicken killings, and witness followed the two dogs to the Gonzales home.    The next door neighbor at the Gonzales home let the two dogs into the fenced property.   

Gloria Gonzales came home, Witness says wife told him that the dogs had killed their relatives chickens before, and husband gets steamed about that.    Defense witness Mrs.  Gloria Gonzales will testify (She works for the Sheriff's Office in San Luis Obispo).   One dog is part Pit Bull, and the other is mixed, and the description matches her dogs.    Defendant and wife still claim their dogs are innocent, and husband denies that his dogs killed chickens before.   The next day the defendant came to plaintiff's property to help clean up the dead chickens, and repair the coop.    Sheriff's department said that Mr. Gonzales had tried to cover where the dogs dug out, and someone tried to cover it up with more dirt.   Plaintiff says defendant told him he wanted to keep the issue between them, and he would pay for the repairs, defendant lied.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for his 50 dead chickens.  (And despicable defendant gets nothing).

Second (2018)-

Brandishing a Gun, Neglecting a Cat- Plaintiff/former tenant Kurt Moyer, suing ex-landlord (he leases the house from his grandmother) Matthew Lewis, for return of rent, expenses getting plaintiff's cat out of kitty jail, and false restraining order.     Defendant and plaintiff lived in defendant's grandma's house (she lives elsewhere), for $575 a month.     Defendant filed for protective order.   

Police were called three times, including when plaintiff brandished his legal gun, and defendant had grandpa's gun, that is at mom's house.     Defendant claims the plaintiff and then girlfriend were drunk, and was owed work for money, and rent. 

 Plaintiff moved out after attempt to get restraining order, and when he moved, he deserted the cat with an autofeed feeder,  and automatic litter box cleaner, so defendant gave cat to humane society a week later, and plaintiff had to pay a lot to get his cat back.  I feel sorry for the poor cat.   (Eventually, plaintiff sold the cat.)

$575 to plaintiff for rent for August.   

Who Left the Diapers Out - Plaintiff/ former tenant Kaylee Martinez suing former landlord/defendant Viktoria Kirakosian being sued for return of security deposit.  Plaintiff lived there for about 4 years.    Security deposit was $1825, and pet deposit $100, total $1925.    Plaintiff has move-out pictures.   Counter Claim is for $2800 in additional damages.  

The plaintiff's witness is apparently another tenant in the house, and she looks like a deer in the headlights when JJ asks her about who left the stacks of used diapers behind, and former landlord says witness is being sued too.   Plaintiff, and witness claim the neighbors dumped their stuff in the garbage pile.     JJ will only give money for trash removal, but no separate bills for that are submitted.   

Landlady/defendant did not return other tenant (plaintiff's witness) security either, and defendant has filed against her also.  Landlady used the witness/other tenant's security for last month's rent, and damages. 

I will never understand how a tenant can be as disgusting as the two tenants were, and JJ lets them get away with it.   

All of the interior doors had to be replaced.  Since defendant bought the house with tenants already in place, she has no move-in pictures.   Plaintiff claims only the pool table is hers, and everything else is blamed on another tenant.   Plaintiff also claims the neighbors threw their junk on the trash pile too. 

$1825 security deposit back to useless idiot of plaintiff.   

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First

Pity Puppy Custody (2021) -Plaintiff Riley McMillin suing defendant Gillianne Litvack over custody of a dog they bought together while they lived together.     When they broke up, plaintiff paid the lease termination fee, $3500.    They bought a dog together, and when plaintiff moved back to his parent's home, he left the dog with defendant.   Plaintiff wants the dog back.    Plaintiff shows the purchase contract with both names on it. 

 Defendant registered dog under ADA (another phony emotional support dog), after the break up, and with the city.   Defendant claims she registered the dog as an ESD (PTSD, and ADHD), 

JJ laughs about the ESD traveling free, and that landlord (actually that's for a real service dog) can't charge animal fees for the apartment (how does defendant afford her own apartment in that area?), from defendant's email or text.     Plaintiff should have taken dog with him when he moved out.  

Spoiler

(Search the defendant's name, and it will tell you everything you need to know about her, and her career aspirations.   Also, ESA's don't fly free, and don't fly on most airlines any longer.   It's a way to try to take your animal all kinds of places.   However, only service animals can go anywhere, not ESA's.   Many landlords have caught onto the scams of ESAs, and charge pet fees/pet rent, and they aren't allowed in regular housing.   Some hotels have caved to that though). 

Defendant keeps her phony ESD.    Plaintiff gets zero. 

Wedding Rush (2014) -Plaintiff/former roommate Chelsea Roberts suing defendant /former roommate Sylvia Jackson, for not repaying a loan to go to defendant sister’s last-minute wedding, car damages, and unpaid rent.    The two women were on the lease, with a third roommate, plaintiff and her witness still live in the apartment, defendant moved out early.    Defendant owes two months rent, $650 each month, and $325 for January and February (so she could vacation in January, and two friends of plaintiff lived in the fourth bedroom).   $1950 unpaid rent, total.    The loan wasn't a lump sum, so that's dismissed.

Plaintiff had friends coming to visit, and defendant offered to be the designated driver, in plaintiff's car.   Defendant went driving the manual shift car, drove around to practice, then defendant rammed the parking stop at the apartment, and the oil pan was ripped off.

Sorry JJ, but in my opinion, defendant drove the manual shift for 30 minutes before this happened, she knew how to drive it.  I bet defendant mixed up the brake and the gas. 

Sister's wedding loan was $98.00 to defendant.   Defendant blames the wedding trip on the plaintiff.    

Plaintiff receives $1950 for unpaid rent,   $2017 with the wedding loan.   

Second -

Uninsured Camaro Collision! (2021)-Plaintiffs Natalie Seo  and James Seo (husband) suing defendant/delivery driver Jesus Cardona over a car accident on the freeway.   Defendant is a delivery driver without insurance. Since the accident plaintiff later sold her car (which was insured  for liability, but uninsured motorist was separate).   Plaintiff's husband James Seo,  in the owner on the title, and was the sole owner, they had five cars at the time of the accident.  They bought the car in 2018 from a nephew for $18,000.  They sold the car to a dealer (not a trade in, just a cash sale for $11,000).

There are accident photos at the scene of the damages.   Defendant was driving a 2014 Chevy Camaro, without insurance.    The litigants were driving 

Defendant says plaintiff refused to talk to him at the accident scene, and rolled up her window at the scene.      Defendant thinks pulling over after the accident was a choice he made, otherwise it would have been hit-and-run auto.   

 (what the hell did defendant do to his eyebrows?)  Defendant's car damages are $2200, but he didn't get his car fixed.   He actually wants someone else to pay for that.

Since the car plaintiff's car  was sold to a dealer, there is no repair cost.  

Plaintiff receives $600. (I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, for having to deal with the defendant). 

Wrong Side of the Law (2014) -Plaintiff Brianna Caster suing defendant  George Courtney IV, for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff rented a four bedroom house, and defendant rented one room ($695 a month rent).     The security deposit was $695, paid to plaintiff, by defendant.   Plaintiff has text and emails with defendant requiring 45 days notice for move out.    There is nothing in the text and emails about 45 days notice.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant owes $350, but plaintiff kept the security of $695. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but I cannot think of a delivery company that would allow someone to drive for them using their own vehicle without proof of insurance on said vehicle.   Wouldn't be surprised if they registered an insured vehicle when they signed on with the delivery company and swapped out the uninsured one since.  

  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

It is surprising (although it probably shouldn't be) that many of the defendants explain that they "didn't feel" that they needed to pay (rent, damage, loans, etc.) because of something they perceive to be unfair. They never seem to consider that a subjective opinion doesn't matter when it comes to money that is owed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First

Pity Puppy Custody (2021) -Plaintiff Riley McMillin suing defendant Gillianne Litvack over custody of a dog they bought together while they lived together.     When they broke up, plaintiff paid the lease termination fee, $3500.    They bought a dog together, and when plaintiff moved back to his parent's home, he left the dog with defendant.   Plaintiff wants the dog back.    Plaintiff shows the purchase contract with both names on it. 

 Defendant registered dog under ADA (another phony emotional support dog), after the break up, and with the city.   Defendant claims she registered the dog as an ESD (PTSD, and ADHD), 

JJ laughs about the ESD traveling free, and that landlord (actually that's for a real service dog) can't charge animal fees for the apartment (how does defendant afford her own apartment in that area?), from defendant's email or text.     Plaintiff should have taken dog with him when he moved out. 

Defendant keeps her phony ESD.    Plaintiff gets zero. 

Wedding Rush (2014) -Plaintiff/former roommate Chelsea Roberts suing defendant /former roommate Sylvia Jackson, for not repaying a loan to go to defendant sister’s last-minute wedding, car damages, and unpaid rent.    The two women were on the lease, with a third roommate, plaintiff and her witness still live in the apartment, defendant moved out early.    Defendant owes two months rent, $650 each month, and $325 for January and February (so she could vacation in January, and two friends of plaintiff lived in the fourth bedroom).   $1950 unpaid rent, total.    The loan wasn't a lump sum, so that's dismissed.

Plaintiff had friends coming to visit, and defendant offered to be the designated driver, in plaintiff's car.   Defendant went driving the manual shift car, drove around to practice, then defendant rammed the parking stop at the apartment, and the oil pan was ripped off.

Sorry JJ, but in my opinion, defendant drove the manual shift for 30 minutes before this happened, she knew how to drive it.  I bet defendant mixed up the brake and the gas. 

Sister's wedding loan was $98.00 to defendant.   Defendant blames the wedding trip on the plaintiff.    

Plaintiff receives $1950 for unpaid rent,   $2017 with the wedding loan.   

Second -

Uninsured Camaro Collision! (2021)-Plaintiffs Natalie Seo  and James Seo (husband) suing defendant/delivery driver Jesus Cardona over a car accident on the freeway.   Defendant is a delivery driver without insurance. Since the accident plaintiff later sold her car (which was insured  for liability, but uninsured motorist was separate).   Plaintiff's husband James Seo,  in the owner on the title, and was the sole owner, they had five cars at the time of the accident.  They bought the car in 2018 from a nephew for $18,000.  They sold the car to a dealer (not a trade in, just a cash sale for $11,000).

There are accident photos at the scene of the damages.   Defendant was driving a 2014 Chevy Camaro, without insurance.    The litigants were driving 

Defendant says plaintiff refused to talk to him at the accident scene, and rolled up her window at the scene.      Defendant thinks pulling over after the accident was a choice he made, otherwise it would have been hit-and-run auto.   

 (what the hell did defendant do to his eyebrows?)  Defendant's car damages are $2200, but he didn't get his car fixed.   He actually wants someone else to pay for that.

Since the car plaintiff's car  was sold to a dealer, there is no repair cost.  

Plaintiff receives $600. (I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, for having to deal with the defendant). 

Wrong Side of the Law (2014) -Plaintiff Brianna Caster suing defendant  George Courtney IV, for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff rented a four bedroom house, and defendant rented one room ($695 a month rent).     The security deposit was $695, paid to plaintiff, by defendant.   Plaintiff has text and emails with defendant requiring 45 days notice for move out.    There is nothing in the text and emails about 45 days notice.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant owes $350, but plaintiff kept the security of $695. 

Isn’t a court appearance traumatic?  Where was the emotional support animal then?

Defendant seems to embody JJ’s phrase, “beauty fades, dumb is forever” despite the fact that she’s using her cuteness (and hair extensions) to get her own way now.  That will fade, eventually. 

  • Useful 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives $600. (I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, for having to deal with the defendant). 

 

JJ's "reasoning" is certainly not in line with the "law" as she likes to often say.   Pay $600 because that is what the D thought they deserved???   What about the difference in value of the P's car prior to the wreck and what the car brought at the dealer when he sold it wrecked?  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First

Pity Puppy Custody (2021) -Plaintiff Riley McMillin suing defendant Gillianne Litvack over custody of a dog they bought together while they lived together.     When they broke up, plaintiff paid the lease termination fee, $3500.    They bought a dog together, and when plaintiff moved back to his parent's home, he left the dog with defendant.   Plaintiff wants the dog back.    Plaintiff shows the purchase contract with both names on it. 

 Defendant registered dog under ADA (another phony emotional support dog), after the break up, and with the city.   Defendant claims she registered the dog as an ESD (PTSD, and ADHD), 

JJ laughs about the ESD traveling free, and that landlord (actually that's for a real service dog) can't charge animal fees for the apartment (how does defendant afford her own apartment in that area?), from defendant's email or text.     Plaintiff should have taken dog with him when he moved out.  

  Hide contents

(Search the defendant's name, and it will tell you everything you need to know about her, and her career aspirations.   Also, ESA's don't fly free, and don't fly on most airlines any longer.   It's a way to try to take your animal all kinds of places.   However, only service animals can go anywhere, not ESA's.   Many landlords have caught onto the scams of ESAs, and charge pet fees/pet rent, and they aren't allowed in regular housing.   Some hotels have caved to that though). 

Defendant keeps her phony ESD.    Plaintiff gets zero. 

Wedding Rush (2014) -Plaintiff/former roommate Chelsea Roberts suing defendant /former roommate Sylvia Jackson, for not repaying a loan to go to defendant sister’s last-minute wedding, car damages, and unpaid rent.    The two women were on the lease, with a third roommate, plaintiff and her witness still live in the apartment, defendant moved out early.    Defendant owes two months rent, $650 each month, and $325 for January and February (so she could vacation in January, and two friends of plaintiff lived in the fourth bedroom).   $1950 unpaid rent, total.    The loan wasn't a lump sum, so that's dismissed.

Plaintiff had friends coming to visit, and defendant offered to be the designated driver, in plaintiff's car.   Defendant went driving the manual shift car, drove around to practice, then defendant rammed the parking stop at the apartment, and the oil pan was ripped off.

Sorry JJ, but in my opinion, defendant drove the manual shift for 30 minutes before this happened, she knew how to drive it.  I bet defendant mixed up the brake and the gas. 

Sister's wedding loan was $98.00 to defendant.   Defendant blames the wedding trip on the plaintiff.    

Plaintiff receives $1950 for unpaid rent,   $2017 with the wedding loan.   

Second -

Uninsured Camaro Collision! (2021)-Plaintiffs Natalie Seo  and James Seo (husband) suing defendant/delivery driver Jesus Cardona over a car accident on the freeway.   Defendant is a delivery driver without insurance. Since the accident plaintiff later sold her car (which was insured  for liability, but uninsured motorist was separate).   Plaintiff's husband James Seo,  in the owner on the title, and was the sole owner, they had five cars at the time of the accident.  They bought the car in 2018 from a nephew for $18,000.  They sold the car to a dealer (not a trade in, just a cash sale for $11,000).

There are accident photos at the scene of the damages.   Defendant was driving a 2014 Chevy Camaro, without insurance.    The litigants were driving 

Defendant says plaintiff refused to talk to him at the accident scene, and rolled up her window at the scene.      Defendant thinks pulling over after the accident was a choice he made, otherwise it would have been hit-and-run auto.   

 (what the hell did defendant do to his eyebrows?)  Defendant's car damages are $2200, but he didn't get his car fixed.   He actually wants someone else to pay for that.

Since the car plaintiff's car  was sold to a dealer, there is no repair cost.  

Plaintiff receives $600. (I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, for having to deal with the defendant). 

Wrong Side of the Law (2014) -Plaintiff Brianna Caster suing defendant  George Courtney IV, for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff rented a four bedroom house, and defendant rented one room ($695 a month rent).     The security deposit was $695, paid to plaintiff, by defendant.   Plaintiff has text and emails with defendant requiring 45 days notice for move out.    There is nothing in the text and emails about 45 days notice.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant owes $350, but plaintiff kept the security of $695. 

Let's see...where oh where to begin ?

I'll start with sexy fratboy Riley McMillin. Judge Judy pointed out that he 'took his underwear' when he left the apartment, and she said this more than once. I say prove it. She should have asked him to strip down to his underwear so we can all see he's telling the truth. As for his ex girlfriend - she needs to be returned to Mattel. Or Hasbro. Wherever she was manufactured.

 

Jesus Cardona - anyone else notice how ironic it was that a man named Jesus looked more like Beelzebub ?

George Courtney IV - Damn! JJ rolls out another hot hunk on her show. He can live with me for free anytime. Clothing is certainly optional.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

I Was in Rehab for Everything -Plaintiff /current dog owner Charles Green suing defendant /former roommate/former relationship partner DeAnna Rebhahn, to keep the dog that used to belong to defendant, a loan, an assault, and unpaid rent.   When defendant went to rehab, she had just had a baby, born addicted to Oxycontin (child was released to defendant without court approval).   Rehab went for years, off and on.     Defendant's child was in foster care until she was three, and has been with defendant for less than a year (after family court found out the defendant had custody of the innocent child, she wasn't allowed to be near the child). 

Defendant seems to think  it's amusing her child was born addicted, and hasn't been in the same home for any period of time, and has been in foster care for a big part of her life.  

Plaintiff took defendant in as a roommate, and he gave her three months free rent, but wants four months of unpaid rent.  Plaintiff told defendant to leave his home, because of defendant's antics.   Defendant now has a house, with her older daughter, her 14 year old son, a son's girlfriend, and her infant, and a dog she wants back.

JJ dismissing the unpaid rent.     When defendant went to rehab, she had left her dog behind, and defendant's mother told plaintiff to adopt the dog, or dog would go to dog pound. Plaintiff says defendant stole his dog when she moved out, and he has records from Spokane Co. animal control showing his ownership for three years. 

The dog is a Pit Bull named Molly, and the defendant's mother refused to keep the dog when daughter went to rehab.    Defendant mother says the Pit attacked her Dachshund, and wouldn't keep her any longer, and was going to send dog to pound.   Toddler daughter was sitting outside with baby's father, also defendant's current boyfriend, while defendant assaulted him, and took the dog.   Defendant mother keeps making excuses about the dog, and her daughter.   

JJ tells plaintiff that defendant will never stop harassing him if JJ gives the dog to him, and she's right.   So JJ tells plaintiff to get another dog.  However, JJ gives plaintiff an order to get the dog, which is a big mistake on his part.   Defendant will never stop trying to get the dog back.   

JJ takes on the false arrest counterclaim by defendant, the day she took the dog.  What the hell is defendant on?   Defendant claims she never assaulted the plaintiff, only defendant went to court, and it was dismissed.

JJ prepares an order to get the dog back for plaintiff. Defendant start having a crying hissy fit.  

Second (2018)-

Karma the Camera- Plaintiffs father, Jerome Bachmeier, and daughter Patricia Bachmeier, aresuing defendant Alec Eismann for the return of a camera plaintiff’s daughter borrowed, and then loaned to the defendant.    Defendant was given camera as gift by ex-girlfriend two years ago, he used it for 18 months, and she wants it back.    Camera was a gift to ex-girlfriend by her dad, and her Dad wants it back.   

 The daughter borrowed the camera, and left it with boyfriend.      Then she borrowed it back for her trip to Hawaii, and Vietnam, but I don't know if she ever went.     

 It was a gift, but JJ advises him that it would be a good idea to give it back, because he'll never enjoy using the camera, and she's so right.   

Teen Failure Blamed on Tutor-Plaintiff/tutor Jennifer Berman suing defendant/student’s mother Andrea Edmonds,  for unpaid tutoring fees  of $450 for her son Benjamin Edmonds.  Teacher tutored teen in Chemistry and Algebra, for $50 per hour.     

Defendant mother didn't pay for all of the tutoring because son didn't pass.    Not the teacher's fault, and she gets her back pay.     Another snowflake mommy who blames everything on everyone but her special snowflake son. 

After little Benjamin flunks his mid-terms in both subjects, mommy refuses to pay for online tutoring sessions in that month.  Plaintiff says for in person sessions, defendant paid, but then they went to hybrid (some in person, some online sessions).  Plaintiff says defendant mother didn't pay for the online sessions, and defendant claims she didn't know they occurred.    Defendant Mommy says she would have paid, but only if he passed.   Defendant mommy owes $ 450 online tutoring one-on-one.    

This is the case where JJ admits she didn't pass Chemistry, but squeaked by in Algebra.   Byrd did very well in Chemistry, and Algebra.   Byrd says he used his chemistry knowledge to play Jeopardy. 

Plaintiff receives $450 for unpaid tutoring bills

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Grand Canyon Eviction? (2021) -Plaintiff /car seller LaVon Broderick suing defendant/former employee Martina Morrill for repo'ing defendant's car.   Defendant says car was trashed when she bought it (wheel missing, etc).  

The litigants rent RV's, and other facilities to visitors to the Grand Canyon (12 RV's, and 12 rooms).  Defendant's job was to clean the RV's, and rooms.   Defendant lived in the mobile home employee housing.   On April 21 plaintiff sold the car to defendant (after the 1 April shutdown of guest facilities at the Canyon).   

Defendant made $750 down payment, and was supposed to pay $200 a month after that.  Defendant didn't pay in May and June, did  pay in July and August, and also didn't pay for a lot of months.    paid a total of $1,150 for the car, then in November plaintiff repo the car.     

Defendant claims she couldn't register the car in Arizona, but did register it in another state after that.   She also said car wasn't running when she bought it, and she bought a battery, and a tire / wheel for the car.   Defendant keeps crying, I'm not liking her.  

Plaintiff repo'd the car from Idaho, after defendant stopped paying for it. 

Defendant's counter claim is for unpaid wages, return of property, and damages.  Claim dismissed.  

Plaintiff wants $3452 for repairs, and repo fees.  JJ tells plaintiff to sell car.  

Roommate Dispute (2014) -Plaintiff /former roommate Aaran Quincey (pronounced Erin) suing defendant/former roommate Jeremy Arnold for lease breaking fees, unpaid rent, and late fees.    House was 3 bed 2.5 bath.   Both litigants were on lease.   Defendant claims when he moved out, that he didn't have to pay the rent or late fees any longer. 

Defendant admits he didn't pay rent, because he didn't have the money.    Defendant didn't pay rent for four months.   Defendant 487.50 was his rent.   He owes for four months (plaintiff either goofed in her sworn statement, or she wants extra money). 

Out of six months, defendant only paid four months rent.   $487.50 was the rent.  

Defendant can't prove he paid the rent for three months.

$1462. is paid to plaintiff. 

Second-

Tesla Rental Disaster (2021) -Plaintiff/car owner Kacy Aakhus  suing defendant/Tesla renter, David Brooks for abandoning the car, and tow fees.    Defendant says Tesla wouldn’t charge, he couldn’t open the doors, and so he deserted the poor car.  Plaintiff says car didn't have an adapter on it, for public charging stations.    Plaintiff rented to defendant (first rental of his car), and Plaintiff charges $175 a day, with a discount for a week or longer, rented out through an app called Turo. 

You need an adapter for out-of-normal charging stations (not a Tesla brand charging station), but plaintiff didn't include that.  Defendant was going a two hour each way trip, couldn't charge the car, couldn't unlock it, and abandoned the car.    Plaintiff says it was stated in the ad where and how you could charge the Tesla.   You need an adapter for a public charging station.   Public charging stations are very slow, can take 8 to 48 hours to reach a full charge, Tesla charger stations take less than an hour to charge to full. 

Defendant claims he had to pry the doors open after it locked when the battery drained.   Then defendant says he didn't pry the doors open.  Plaintiff says because of the driver door damage, then he has to crawl in the passenger side to get in the car.   

Damages for car handles are, $560. Tow fee dismissed.  Plaintiff did pay $400 for the rent.  

Sister Fight (2014) -Plaintiff/sister Shalina Smith  suing defendant/sister Lena Herron for car plaintiff sold to defendant for $2,000.   Car registration was to expire in May, and that's when defendant would register the car.  However, defendant had tickets on car, and it was impounded.   Plaintiff wants impound fees (no tags, no registration, parked on street), and ticket fees.   Defendant never registered car in her name, so when she parked it on the street without tags, it was towed, and impounded. 

Defendant sister gets booted. for irritating JJ (and me, and the audience). 

Car is at plaintiff's mechanic shop, it broke down on the way home from the impound lot. 

$892 to plaintiff, and she will sign title over to defendant. If defendant doesn't get car out of mechanic's shop, and retitle it, in 15 days or plaintiff can junk the car.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Grand Canyon Eviction? (2021) -Plaintiff /car seller LaVon Broderick suing defendant/former employee Martina Morrill for repo'ing defendant's car.   Defendant says car was trashed when she bought it (wheel missing, etc).  

The litigants rent RV's, and other facilities to visitors to the Grand Canyon (12 RV's, and 12 rooms).  Defendant's job was to clean the RV's, and rooms.   Defendant lived in the mobile home employee housing.   On April 21 plaintiff sold the car to defendant (after the 1 April shutdown of guest facilities at the Canyon).   

Defendant made $750 down payment, and was supposed to pay $200 a month after that.  Defendant didn't pay in May and June, did  pay in July and August, and also didn't pay for a lot of months.    paid a total of $1,150 for the car, then in November plaintiff repo the car.     

Defendant claims she couldn't register the car in Arizona, but did register it in another state after that.   She also said car wasn't running when she bought it, and she bought a battery, and a tire / wheel for the car.   Defendant keeps crying, I'm not liking her.  

Plaintiff repo'd the car from Idaho, after defendant stopped paying for it. 

Defendant's counter claim is for unpaid wages, return of property, and damages.  Claim dismissed.  

Plaintiff wants $3452 for repairs, and repo fees.  JJ tells plaintiff to sell car.  

Roommate Dispute (2014) -Plaintiff /former roommate Aaran Quincey (pronounced Erin) suing defendant/former roommate Jeremy Arnold for lease breaking fees, unpaid rent, and late fees.    House was 3 bed 2.5 bath.   Both litigants were on lease.   Defendant claims when he moved out, that he didn't have to pay the rent or late fees any longer. 

Defendant admits he didn't pay rent, because he didn't have the money.    Defendant didn't pay rent for four months.   Defendant 487.50 was his rent.   He owes for four months (plaintiff either goofed in her sworn statement, or she wants extra money). 

Out of six months, defendant only paid four months rent.   $487.50 was the rent.  

Defendant can't prove he paid the rent for three months.

$1462. is paid to plaintiff. 

Second-

Tesla Rental Disaster (2021) -Plaintiff/car owner Kacy Aakhus  suing defendant/Tesla renter, David Brooks for abandoning the car, and tow fees.    Defendant says Tesla wouldn’t charge, he couldn’t open the doors, and so he deserted the poor car.  Plaintiff says car didn't have an adapter on it, for public charging stations.    Plaintiff rented to defendant (first rental of his car), and Plaintiff charges $175 a day, with a discount for a week or longer, rented out through an app called Turo. 

You need an adapter for out-of-normal charging stations (not a Tesla brand charging station), but plaintiff didn't include that.  Defendant was going a two hour each way trip, couldn't charge the car, couldn't unlock it, and abandoned the car.    Plaintiff says it was stated in the ad where and how you could charge the Tesla.   You need an adapter for a public charging station.   Public charging stations are very slow, can take 8 to 48 hours to reach a full charge, Tesla charger stations take less than an hour to charge to full. 

Defendant claims he had to pry the doors open after it locked when the battery drained.   Then defendant says he didn't pry the doors open.  Plaintiff says because of the driver door damage, then he has to crawl in the passenger side to get in the car.   

Damages for car handles are, $560. Tow fee dismissed.  Plaintiff did pay $400 for the rent.  

Sister Fight (2014) -Plaintiff/sister Shalina Smith  suing defendant/sister Lena Herron for car plaintiff sold to defendant for $2,000.   Car registration was to expire in May, and that's when defendant would register the car.  However, defendant had tickets on car, and it was impounded.   Plaintiff wants impound fees (no tags, no registration, parked on street), and ticket fees.   Defendant never registered car in her name, so when she parked it on the street without tags, it was towed, and impounded. 

Defendant sister gets booted. for irritating JJ (and me, and the audience). 

Car is at plaintiff's mechanic shop, it broke down on the way home from the impound lot. 

$892 to plaintiff, and she will sign title over to defendant. If defendant doesn't get car out of mechanic's shop, and retitle it, in 15 days or plaintiff can junk the car.  

1. The RV / Car case was too boring for me, so I FF it while I was still awake.

2. Oh my gosh, 'Ross the Intern' was being sued !! Oh no, wait a minute - that was defendant Jeremy Arnold, trying to imitate 'Ross the Intern'. And as an extra treat he brought along his boyfriend (who looked like every 'dorky' character on every sitcom) to show the world he's taken, lest anyone get any ideas about dating him. JJ wasn't too impressed with Ross the Intern. His fifteen minutes of fame was over quickly.

3. Kacy Aakhus - WOW, just WOW! Forget renting his Tesla, I want to rent Kacy for a week and have fun with him. Handsome face and the perfect male physique. Better than a Tesla.

 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/12/2021 at 10:07 PM, Back Atcha said:

his case is a bit too weird.  WHO declared the defendant's paper was a "manifesto"?  If it's the defendant--beware!  Judge Judy sees them simply as notes. To me, they look a bit scary.

When I saw the word 'Manifesto" I immediately thought of the Unibomber

Edited by One Tough Cookie
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ tells plaintiff that defendant will never stop harassing him if JJ gives the dog to him, and she's right.   So JJ tells plaintiff to get another dog.  However, JJ gives plaintiff an order to get the dog, which is a big mistake on his part.   Defendant will never stop trying to get the dog back.   

All of the people involved here seem kind of "off". The defendant was ok giving the dog to her mother when she went into rehab, and her mother was willing to give the dog to a shelter (because she said the dog attacked her other little dog, I can't say that was totally wrong), but fortunately, the plaintiff took the dog and apparently has had no problems with it. I think that once the mother gave up the dog, the defendant really couldn't expect to get the dog back, especially if the mother had given it to the shelter. She should just be glad for the dog's sake that it didn't end up in a kill shelter. 

It also appears that the defendant is a bit hyper - maybe this is natural, or maybe due to some chemical input - and she's fixated on the dog as a way to return to "normal". She has a lot of other responsibilities, though, so you might expect that putting the dog back into the mix (esp. with 2 young children) would result in chaos. Yet she keeps insisting that she needs the dog. 

I missed whatever good explanation the plaintiff gave for taking in the defendant - he says it is "compassion", but there seemed to be a whiff of some other purpose, although no one said anything about that. I also wondered who the woman was on his bench - another compassionate rescue? 

All in all, this case seems like there is more to the story and will have repercussions in the future. I wonder sometimes what happens to the litigants afterward. Do they just accept the judgements and move on, or do they continue to pursue their misguided goals?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sister Fight (2014) -Plaintiff/sister Shalina Smith  suing defendant/sister Lena Herron for car plaintiff sold to defendant for $2,000.   Car registration was to expire in May, and that's when defendant would register the car.  However, defendant had tickets on car, and it was impounded.   Plaintiff wants impound fees (no tags, no registration, parked on street), and ticket fees.   Defendant never registered car in her name, so when she parked it on the street without tags, it was towed, and impounded. 

Defendant sister gets booted. for irritating JJ (and me, and the audience). 

I agree, Defendant Sister continued to insist the car was in her name.  Can't JJ ask her a simple question, "Sister! If the car was in YOUR name, why and how did the impound lot contact your sister?  Apparently the paperwork in/on the car showed that she was the owner."  Why, JJ?  WHY do you leave questions unasked?

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Man, I'd love to see her come back another year to annihilate those kids.  They don't even know what hit them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

She is being such a bee-yotch to that driver!  Seems like only yesterday she was a Luddite, but today she’s an expert on the capabilities of Postmates messaging apps!  The more she cries “baloney!”, the more I believe the plaintiff.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  Where’s the second dog?!!!!

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Frightened Mother’s Telling Texts?! -Plaintiff /ex-boyfriend Robert Williams suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Vanessa Sandy,  for  security deposit return (actually a loan for rent), then property lost when he was escorted out by police, after another fight.     Defendant was already living in the house, and plaintiff's house was condemned.   So plaintiff gave defendant the security deposit, she claims it was rent.    Only defendant was on rental house lease.   Defendant claims she was terrified of the ex-boyfriend, and claims he threatened her, and her children.   However, ex-boyfriend's texts from defendant tell a different story.   $1790 went to landlord to catch up on the rent, and security deposit to landlord.    Defendant was going to be evicted, and plaintiff has the debt and warrant paperwork from the courthouse.  

So, actually plaintiff loaned defendant the month's back rent.  They had a fight, police escorted plaintiff out.  Six months later landlord evicted plaintiff.   Defendant claims plaintiff was sending death threats against her and her children, but the texts from defendant to plaintiff tell a different story.   JJ wants to know what large items of furniture were left behind, and plaintiff couldn't take when the police escorted him out.   Plaintiff wants his two 50" TVs.    (This happened in Dinwiddie, VA of 90 Day Fiance fame).

Two 50" TVs, speaker board for the TV, a $1,000 bed, $1,000 commercial carpet cleaner (stolen off the porch) so that's gone.    Plaintiff also wants a Dodge intake, for his race car.  He also is suing for a false restraining order, and return of rent.   Defendant claims plaintiff is on probation for perjury (he says no he isn't ).   

Defendant claims she was terrified of plaintiff, and he sent death threats against her, and her children.  Texts sent by defendant to plaintiff show that she wasn't afraid of him.   But defendant sent some very nasty messages to plaintiff and brother, that are threatening.  Defendant posted, "good luck finding me, and suing me for your property".   Also, truck in her driveway in the photo, is plaintiff's brother's truck that was stolen from defendant's house.  

 $1518 for plaintiff for rent, loss of property.

Second (2018)-

Girlfriend’s Hissy Fit Damage?! -Plaintiff /ex-roommate Bryan Cunningham  suing defendant   ex-roommate Chris Briscoe for damages, illegal eviction, and return of rent.  Plaintiff does marketing, as a temp, putting up posters.   Defendant does home movie theaters, and smart homes.           Defendant's family have a duplex, and on the top floor with two bedrooms, and then plaintiff moved in with his girlfriend.    Plaintiff claims witness didn't want to stay, and moved back in with her mother.   Then plaintiff says he was locked out by defendant.    The plaintiff witness is the girlfriend with the hissy fit. 

 Wine stains were all over a wall, after a physical fight between ex-lovers, plaintiff and his witness.   The next day the defendant locked out the plaintiff and witness.   The wine on the wall is bad.   Defendant claims plaintiff left his property in the duplex for two months, never came to pick it up, so it was deemed abandoned, and dumped.    Plaintiff stayed with girlfriend and mother for three weeks, then moved in with friends for three months sublet, and are back with mommy again. 

Officer Byrd has to tell plaintiff to shut up.  How dare plaintiff interrupt JJ repeatedly!    Plaintiff is asked to show proof that defendant kicked him out (his 2/3 month rent was the period he was living at girlfriend's mother's house, so why is he getting it back?). Plaintiff is asked for his police report about the lock out, and missing property, no report was made.   Plaintiff never made an appointment to pick up his property.   Plaintiff never went to police to get an escort to get his property back.   

On November 25, plaintiff went to house, to get his property, using a spare key at the house.   Plaintiff then was inside house, Plaintiff claims he paid defendant $250 to keep his stuff, and says defendant picked his stuff up.

$300 to plaintiff for November's rent, minus $500 so defendant gets $200.  

Plaintiff gets 2/3 of his rent back, $300, Defendant gets $500 for repainting the wall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

She is being such a bee-yotch to that driver!  Seems like only yesterday she was a Luddite, but today she’s an expert on the capabilities of Postmates messaging apps!  The more she cries “baloney!”, the more I believe the plaintiff.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  Where’s the second dog?!!!!

There is no doubt that that dog bit the plaintiff.  He was a little slow and couldn't explain and Judy was all over him about the post mates app messaging.  I can't understand why the all knowing Byrd doesn't explain these things to her.  I hated the defendants in that case too. 

Also what about the idiot walking his dog on the big with the long retractable leash.. He couldn't understand how the whole thing was his fault because his dog was behind the plaintiff and she fell over him.  I really think she was using this as a money grab though.  JJ had fun yelling at the defendant throughout the whole hearing of the case.  Also to my point she said she hated the retractable leash yet the other day never said a word about it

Edited by NYGirl
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

$100,000 Dog Attack at the Beach?! (2021)- Plaintiff Preeti Heda suing defendant Adam Lessen, because defendant’s dog knocked her over on the beach, dog came up from behind her.    Plaintiff had major injuries, and may never be back to 100% physically.    Defendant says plaintiff should have looked where she was going, and claims she stepped on his dog.   Defendant also says plaintiff wanted $100,000 for her injuries.  (When an attorney files an intent to sue, they often put a high amount on it, but it's to establish the right to sue.  So the statute of limitations on filing won't pass.    I know of a sad case where there was a tornado, and eight teens died.   One set of parents filed the intent to sue against the board of education, but that was to keep the possibility of suing open, they never filed.   However, many local people really turned on the parents after that.  Also, a knee injury isn't just temporary.   There can be more damage than shows up initially, and there can be long term after effects. ). 

Defendant is counter claiming for lawyer fees, because he hired a lawyer to defend against plaintiff's injury claim.    Defendant was walking his dog Cooper, a Labrador Retriever, on the beach.   This was at Linda Mar beach.   Plaintiff was standing in the water taking pictures.  Defendant was at the edge of the water, with the dog,  Plaintiff was in the water (only at her ankles), and defendant had dog on long retractable leash.   Defendant dog was playing with another dog, and then plaintiff was bitten by defendant's dog.  Defendant claims plaintiff stepped on his dog, which plaintiff says is a lie.   Defendant says the leash was 50' long, not in his control. 

No shock, defendant is the baby of his family.    How was plaintiff supposed to see a dog, and leash behind her?   She certainly can't hear the dogs playing behind her.   Defendant did nothing to control his dog, or make sure no one was injured by his dog.   

Plaintiff submits the knee sprain report from the ER.   For 2 to 2 1/2 months plaintiff was on crutches or bed rest, and a leg brace.   The attorney sent a letter to plaintiff saying defendant doesn't have insurance.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Mother-in-Law Thief? (2013) -Plaintiff Cassie Hochhalter suing defendant/mother-in-law Marie Hochhalter for $4,000 for a car repo'd by her MIL stole the car.  MIL was on the car title, and plaintiff claims she paid MIL for the car, and car was repo'd by MIL, and then rolled and totaled by plaintiff's husband, son of defendant.  

Plaintiff and husband are reconciling, and not divorcing.   JJ can't give a totaled car back to plaintiff, because husband of plaintiff /son of defendant totaled it, and it was junked.   Husband was alleged to be drunk when he wrecked the car.   

Defendant wants money she put into the car, dismissed. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second

English Bulldog Bites Delivery Man! (2021)-Plaintiff/delivery driver  David Tasem suing defendant/French Bulldog owners Scott and Alison Tucker,   for a dog bite during a food delivery.  Plaintiff didn't take a picture of the bite, even though he claims he was bleeding all over his car.   The Tuckers brought one French Bulldog to court (they have two).   Plaintiff was making a delivery, says he was holding his hands out to give the defendant the delivery, and the French Bulldog jumped and bit him on the arm.  

Plaintiff made a few more deliveries, and realized there was blood on the van floor, (his van is also a handicapped accessible taxi).    Defendant wife seems rather bored.   JJ doesn't believe the plaintiff's story.    Plaintiff doesn't have the text/e-mail about the delivery, and the report to Postmates about the bite.  There is nothing on the medical reports saying the scratch was from a dog bite.  Defendant says plaintiff never mentioned a dog bite to him either, and it was three months before papers were served on defendant.   Defendants were never contacted by Animal Control, or anyone else until he received the papers. 

(I don't believe the plaintiff case for a second.   I love the next poster's interpretation of the case).  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Bitter Break Up! (2014) -Plaintiff/car owner Jacob Thomas suing defendant/car buyer Alicia Fox for the balance on a title loan and the return of the car's title.  When litigants were together, they shared a $1200, 20 year-old car Honda, and title was in plaintiff's name.   Plaintiff sometimes drove the Honda, or a Subaru.   When they broke up, defendant took the Honda,   Plaintiff thinks title was in the car, and later the plaintiff repo'd the car. 

Plaintiff says defendant owed for the title loan, and but he wants everything paid off for him.    Defendant was supposed to pay $100 a month for the Honda she took with her, according to the plaintiff.    Defendant paid half for the car. 

Defendant is dating a former friend of plaintiff, and that's when he claimed the car back.  So since she had the title, defendant did a title loan on car.  Car was titled in plaintiff, and plaintiff's father's name, and insurance is under father's name too. 

My view, another plaintiff and defendant who came to court with dirty hands. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.              

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 The Tuckers brought one French Bulldog to court (they have two). 

Hmmm...as another poster asked, WHERE is that other dog?  This one, Dog #2 was so well-behaved I created a little story: plaintiff brought their trainer who was off-camera giving the dog hand signals.  Dog #1 is the culprit and she is in quarantine...yet again.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant wife seems rather bored.

Another story: she told her soon-to-be-ex-husband that THIS IS THE LAST TIME she's appearing in court with him before the final decree...and thanks for the new dress.

Edited by Back Atcha
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt a French Bulldog have  more than a  4' (I am 5'5" and that is the height when I hold my arms out) vertical  jumping ability.   I can see every inch on my forearm.  When he made his next pick-up the cashier didn't mention he was bleeding or he didn't feel the blood dripping down his arm?

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

With 25 years of cases that can be drawn from for re-runs, WHY in God's name are we getting nothing but dog bite cases and puppy custody battles?  Surely they can find cases such as the abominable Kelli Filkins and rerun them.  MUCH more entertaining.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Puppy Death Drama-Plaintiffs  Scott Snyder and fiance, Mariah Hogoboom suing defendant puppy breeder Tonja Miller for the death of the dog. Plaintiff owners blame the puppy breeder for the death of a German Shepherd puppy.    Plaintiffs paid $500 for the puppy.      (viral enteritis is not parvo, it's an intestinal problem). 

However, after the puppy died defendant posted the remaining puppies as German Shepherd/Lab mixes, and sold them for $300 each.    A bargain price for a puppy, isn't a bargain at all, as the plaintiffs found out.  There were seven puppies in the litter.  

   Plaintiff claims puppy had parvo, but vet says puppy didn't have that at all.    Defendant had parvo tests on the rest of the litter, and the tests were all negative.   

I agree with the judge, a few vets over-treat, and I think this puppy either had a virus, or the idiot plaintiffs fed him something he shouldn't have, and I bet they switched his food out too, which can have horrible consequences.    Plaintiffs get $500 back for the puppy, since it wasn't a pure bred.   

The JJ show staff contacted other owners of the puppies to see if the puppies are sick or not.  The plaintiffs spoke to three owners, and both plaintiffs look like they're sad the puppies are okay.     The other puppies were fine, so the whiny plaintiffs get the money for the puppy, but no vet bills, which were $3,000.   Even after plaintiffs are told the health problems of their puppy, they still want the vet bills, and blame the breeder. 

Like everyone these days, they couldn't afford the puppies treatment, and set up a Gofundme page.  (I find it ridiculous the plaintiffs received the $500 back, a purebred GSD would have cost a lot more than $500, even without registration papers). 

Plaintiffs get $500 for puppy price, but no vet bills.

Lightning Strike Strife-Plaintiff/ air conditioner repairman Chris McEntire suing homeowner/ defendant Phyllis Wingo over insurance payment on air conditioning repair.    After lightning strike on heat pump, plaintiff gave an estimate for $6900.  Plaintiff submitted the claim to her insurance company, and they paid the entire amount.   She only paid the repairman $3000, and she pocketed $2300 after the deductible.   

 Repairman gets a well-deserved $2347, but the check from the insurance deducted her $1500 deductible, so the a/c man was screwed over.     I hope the old bat's insurance company saw this, and every workman within a 100-miles of Atlanta puts her on the refusal of service list.  

$2347 to plaintiff, and in my opinion he should have received the other $1500.  (I doubt for her own insurance claims, that JJ does anything with them, and I bet there's a business manager that does that.  JJ just doesn't understand the entire process.   However, I'm sure the plaintiff bought the AC unit wholesale, and did most of the labor himself, so I'm guessing he broke even.) 

Second (2018)-

Man With 12 Sisters Denies Assaulting a Woman – Plaintiff Ashleigh McGee and  Jessica Lopez-Castanon (roommates, with defendant) suing defendant Randon Fleming IV for assault.    Defendant claims since he has 12 sisters, he wouldn’t assault a woman.  The  female roommates say the man assaulted them. 

Six people lived in a two bedroom/two bath apartment.   $2742 was the monthly lease, in defendant's name, and five roommates all gave money to defendant to pay the rent.   Then, in February there was an eviction notice on the door, because defendant didn't pay the rent that month.   

Defendant says everyone else owed utility payments, part of their rent, and for other things.  Utilities not included in the rent were all in roommate McGee's name, and not paid by the defendant.   Plaintiffs confronted defendant about the eviction notice, and finding an envelope full of cash for the rent, that defendant hadn't paid.  

Then defendant claims a male roommate pushed him, and then someone called the police, and nine officers showed up.     When police showed up, defendant was drunk, told to leave for the night, and he stayed the rest of the month.   Plaintiffs say defendant didn't pay the full rent in February (the month this all happened in).   On March 1, defendant moved out, but left his clothes and a couple of crated in the room.   Defendant says he was couch surfing.   Another roommate moved out after the fights, so plaintiffs had to find two more roommates to move in.

Plaintiff McGee says the defendant assaulted her. 

(I really wish there was a video of the 911 call, and nine officers showing up to handle the defendant). 

Plaintiff gets $657 defendant didn't pay her.  

Trim My Tree…or Else! -Plaintiff Amalitsa Anastasiou suing defendants Micah and Paul Ryan for not paying to have branches from their trees hanging over the fence onto her property, trimmed at their expense.   

After making JJ read a bunch of submissions, plaintiff finally admits the contract to trim the tree was verbal, over the phone.   The trees were on defendant's property, but branches were hanging over the property line onto the plaintiff's side of the property line.    Texts from plaintiff to Micah Ryan are disgusting, and threatening.   Plaintiff actually claims that the defendants should have trimmed the branches on her side of the property line.   My guess is that if defendants had trespassed on her property to pick up the branches or caused any damages, she would have sued them for that too. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Judge Judy Challenges a Teenager!  -Plaintiff Kathy Reyes suing defendant Imare Chandler (16 year old co-worker) and   Sandreka Jones (mother) for damages to her car.   Plaintiff claims Imare drove her car into a pole.    Imare says plaintiff told him to go gas the car up for her,  Imare doesn't have a driver's license, so shouldn't have been driving anyway.   JJ tells him to stand on the court rail, and he declines.    I don't think plaintiff should have received a penny, she told an unlicensed driver to gas her car up for her, and that should be on her. 

The damage to the car is bad

Plaintiff receives $1600.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Repairman gets a well-deserved $2347, but the check from the insurance deducted her $1500 deductible, so the a/c man was screwed over.   

Yeah, JJ screwed the pooch on this one, letting the defendant still get away with defrauding the AC contractor by not paying the deductible which is her responsibility. JJ does not live in the same world as most of us and has no clue how much or normal person works.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

The Great Covid Art Heist?!-Plaintiff /artist August Court suing defendant /gallery owner William Bradfield.   Plaintiff retired 5 years ago, and has been a professional artist since.   Plaintiff saw the gallery, went and talked to the gallery owner/defendant.   Then, defendant called artist and wanted him to do a particular custom painting of a specific size, color palette, subject, and on spec, if the client would like it.   This was in Laguna Beach. 

Artist did the painting, and gave to defendant at the gallery in Feb. 2020.   The painting is rather abstract, colorful, and 48" x 48".    Painting was at gallery for about a month, but client didn't want to buy it.   Plaintiff agreed to leave painting on display with defendant at the gallery, then artist was called and told the art work was stolen during Covid. 

There is a consignment agreement between the two men, so defendant would represent all of plaintiff's artwork, for a 70/30 split in the proceeds (don't know who gets the 70, and who gets the 30).    Plaintiff arranged to pick up the painting, and before the appointment defendant called and said the painting was gone.     

The gallery closed in March, defendant left the gallery's employ at that time, and in May defendant was to arrange for artwork to be picked up.   Some artists actually rent space in part of the gallery, so people were always in and out of the building.    There were four other art pieces missing from the gallery, by different artists.     Gallery personnel looked at security camera footage, but the art work wasn't visible.    Police report states on the last page (defendant didn't submit that), gallery manager refused to talk to the police about the thefts.  Police (I know it's hearsay) say that defendant was still the manager of the gallery.    The person with an insurable interest in the painting, but he didn't insure it, or pick the painting up, instead of leaving it for sale in the gallery. 

Plaintiff witness interrupts JJ, and says totally inadmissible statements, but it's cancelled by the written agreement. 

Plaintiff is suing for $5,000, and thinks the painting was worth $6,000.   

Plaintiff claim dismissed.  Only person responsible for painting is plaintiff, and he should have picked it up in February, or early March.  (My guess is one of the other artists knew exactly where the cameras filmed, and they took plaintiff's painting, and the others for the canvas, and frame.   Art canvas the size of the plaintiff's (4' x 4') are very expensive to buy.   I bet that the paintings were covered over, and now have other art on top). 

Second-

RV Barter Fail! (2021) -Plaintiff /property owner Jose Solomon is  suing defendants/RV space renters Rodney and Nanette Hays for non-payment, and for not working around the property in lieu of rent.    Plaintiff owns 5 acres of property, and defendants wanted a place to put an RV to live, and do work on the property for lot rent.    Ad says that defendants wanted to park their RV, in exchange for work, plus some rent.    Defendant says either pay cash, or work in lieu of rent or part work/cash.    Defendants stayed in RV on the property, after two months free rent, and then $500 a month.   Plaintiff says defendant never paid rent, but stayed on the property.   Plaintiff says defendant barely worked, and wasn't competent.    

Defendant wife offered to buy an RV that was on the property, and there's a contract.  Plaintiff sold the RV to replace the tiny trailer the defendants were originally living in.   $3500 was the price, with $2,000 down, and paid all but the last $200.   The plaintiff says the $2,000 was the deposit, and the other $1300 was supposed to be worked off.   Defendant husband claims he paid cash for $1300, and just didn't pay $200.   Plaintiff gave title to defendants, per the sheriff's deputy.   

Defendant coughs up the title at JJ's order.   Defendant claims plaintiff owes him over $1000.   Defendant claims he paid cash, except the $200, and then also says he worked the amount off, and more in work, so plaintiff should owe him.     

$500 owed to plaintiff.   Defendants already have motor home.   Plaintiff will sign title to defendants. 

Wreck at School (2014) -Plaintiff Nicole Mellon suing defendant Ronisha Erwing for car damages after an accident outside of a school.   Defendant admits she backed up and rammed  plaintiff's car in the school parking lot.   Defendant took her children to school, dropped them off, was illegally backing out of the parking lot (through the driveway entrance to the parking lot).   Plaintiff was coming into the parking lot, and defendant backed into her.    Defendant says it's not her fault. 

I already dislike the defendant talking back and interrupting Judge Judy.    Defendant's mother is her witness.    Plaintiff says because defendant wanted out of the parking lot, and didn't want to wait for the way to the parking lot exit to clear, so defendant backed out the parking lot entrance, and rammed plaintiff's car.     Insurance determined that defendant was at fault and fixed the car.    After the accident report with police, plaintiff went to the ER, and consulted an attorney (bet one that advertises on JJ).  Attorney sent plaintiff to chiropractor for a lot of treatments.     After plaintiff spent a lot on chiropractor and treatments, attorney dropped plaintiff, and she wants her medical bills paid. 

At the start of the case, I really liked the plaintiff, and disliked the defendant, but now I dislike both litigants.    This accident happened in 2011, this case was heard in 2014. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yeah, JJ screwed the pooch on this one, letting the defendant still get away with defrauding the AC contractor by not paying the deductible which is her responsibility. JJ does not live in the same world as most of us and has no clue how much or normal person works.

My thoughts exactly.   I went "What the HELL?" when she only awarded the guy the remainder of the insurance check.  JJ, the unpaid portion of the bill was NOT the insurance payout remainder, it was $3900.  The fact that the defendant, who never DID explain why she didn't pay the guy the remaining money, had a $1500 deductible is not the repairman's problem.  I'd like to think that someone (Maybe Bird?) took JJ aside after the verdict and her dramatic exit from the bench and said "uh, Judge?  The guy was suing for $3900 - he didn't say at any time that he was willing to accept whatever the insurance company paid out."  He submits the ENTIRE bill to her insurance company - it's the latter than deducts the insured's deductible -he is not responsible to collect that from her first and then submit the remainder of the claim.

Edited by Carolina Girl · Reason: Finishing a sentence is always a good idea.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Man Cuts Grandma Out of the Will - not sure how I feel about this one.  My mindset is that GM must not want a relationship with her grandchildren if she feels the need to sue over $2.5K owed by their dead father.   She can't believe that this will endear her with those kids, and she just wants to walk away.

I picked up that she has no love lost for her own daughter but I didn't sense that she had ill will towards the grandson and granddaughter and was on some revenge kick against them personally.  I guess that either she really needs the money now or she's old school and believes that when a debt is owed, you have the right to demand it, family be damned.

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, patty1h said:

she has no love lost for her own daughter but I didn't sense that she had ill will towards the grandson and granddaughter

I have a feeling that grandma and her daughter may not have had a good relationship, and grandma's defense of her son-in-law against her daughter's accusations would aggravate the situation. I suspect that grandma's daughter despised her husband (maybe not from the beginning) and poisoned the grand kids against grandma. The grand kids seemed to me to be pretty antagonistic towards grandma. Whatever else was going on, being a conservator with all of the family frictions would be an awful burden to take on at the age of 20.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Bed Rest Made Me Do It – Plaintiff/aunt LuCreitia MIngo  suing defendant/niece Adryenne Marshall, over unpaid car payments, and impound fees.   Defendant wanted a car,  aunt purchased it in her aunt’s name, and defendant claimed she would pay for it.   Defendant didn't pay for it and it was towed.   To get car back defendant had to pay $1400 to get it back.

Defendant got the car back, then aunt repo'd from her, and had it towed back to the finance company on January 10, after the police report.     The aunt was stupid to trust the niece, and her credit is trashed by this.     Niece owed well over $1,000 with 2 months payments, and fees when it was repo'd.   Defendant's insurance is over $400 a month, and claims she didn't pay for the insurance either.    The defendant niece is a total liar.  Defendant says she missed the car payments because she was ill.

When defendant paid the $1400 to get car out of impound, and missed a payment, and aunt told lender to take the car back.    Niece swears she was going to make the payment, but found the car was gone.  Aunt has statement saying niece had a current payment unpaid, and a previous month also, $390 fees (for the towing of the vehicle, and repo paperwork), and $952 for the missed payments.  Payment was $296 a month, so niece was three months behind in payments.    Defendant's insurance is almost $200 a month more than the payment.    

Defendant wouldn't relinquish the keys to the repo tow truck, so police were called.   

Then defendant didn't pay after that, car was repossessed at plaintiff Aunt's after call to the bank, car was sold at auction, and there was a $9,000 shortfall for aunt.    By the way, when the tow company is calling it a repossession, it wasn't just towed, it was repo'd.     

Plaintiff gets $ 5000 paid to Capital One. toward the shortfall of $9558. 

Worst Teen Driver Award- Plaintiff Ron Sherman suing teen driver Hector Cuadros defendant, (and father Jose Cuadros) over car damages   It took quite a while for plaintiff to track down the defendant, and idiot defendant was driving without a license, but drives constantly.   Defendant's father doesn't see anything wrong with his son driving without insurance, or a license. 

Defendant claims he gave the right number to plaintiff, but no one every answered it.  To find the defendant the plaintiff had to sue the defendant in Downey court, from a police report. 

Defendant changed lanes without looking, and hit plaintiff.   Defendant was in the left turn lane, and changed to straight ahead lane, and hit plaintiff.     Phone number the defendant gave was wrong, and it took two months to get the defendant's information, and track the loser down.     Defendant didn't pass the driver's test, and has never passed the test, or had a license.     Defendant says he only drives to and from work. 

 This accident happened quite a while ago, but plaintiff couldn't track down the lying defendant.    Father of defendant is as stupid as his idiot son. 

The police didn't cite the son for driving without a license.   

Plaintiff gets $1922.      

Second (2018)-

Irresponsible Child or Greedy Parents?-  Plaintiff parents Rosaline (mother) and Steven Richards (stepfather) are suing defendant / daughter Keneishia Baldwin for rent, utilities, and other money.    I'm already voting for Greedy Parents from the preview.    Parents (step dad, and mom) are suing defendant daughter for rent, utilities, etc., but they didn't pay her way through college either, but mom says they wanted rent because they wanted to teach daughter responsibility.     The parents, their other daughter, and defendant lived in the apartment together.  $3626 rent is demanded by the parents, mother wants $5,000. 

Apartment was in stepdad, and defendant's name, with mom, and the parent's 15 year-old daughter (daughter of plaintiffs, they've been together for 17 years, but married 4 years) living there.      Stepdad wants back rent, and to stick it to the stepdaughter.    The parents wanted one third rent, but there were four people living there.    Mom says daughter should pay 1/3, because she had a job.    I really want to punch Mom in the face several times, and her attitude sucks.   

Mom is in a wheelchair, but only gets $300+ a month (why such a low payment for a major disability?).  Step dad gets Social Security (claimed it at 62), but works at two churches playing piano for money too, and I wonder if it's on the books? Or if his income is over the income threshold?     The parents are still living in the apartment, and paying the full rent too.    Guess they couldn't find anyone else to leach off of.   

Mom wants $3626 rent, plus utilities.    $1770 is the total rent, and the parents wanted her to pay one-third ($590).   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  The look on the parent's face at the dismissal is so funny.  

I wish the defendant the best

Haz Mat Cleanup, Drug Use & Police-Plaintiff/landlord James Clemenson suing former tenants/defendants mother Mary Rose Muhonen, and son Brian Wekseth (age 43), for unpaid rent, and a hazmat crew to clean out drug den of a house.  Mother and freaky son rented duplex for $975 a month, and they were supposed to pay back rent in three installments, and landlord got that agreement through housing court.     The son looks like a whack job too. 

 Mother didn't bring proof of rent payments.    Tenants didn't pay the utilities either for a stupid reason, and claims there had to be separate meters, not split utilities.      Plaintiff's video shows defendant space cadet son's room is a drug polluted hovel, with visible drug residue and paraphernalia all over the place.       (In 20 years defendant mother never had a police call at her house, in the two years the defendant son lived with her, the police came to see son eight times). 

I bet the son has a long history of police interactions.  

Mother and son were evicted, and stayed a full month after housing court told them to leave.      The landlord has a video of the premises on move out (eviction).   Drug paraphernalia all over the son's room, drug residue, all of the lights were broken out.   

The son claims he works for the police.   I didn't know being a snitch or confidential informant was 'employed', and I hope his little friends saw this episode the first time around.   

 I feel sorry for the landlord, and the neighbors who had to live with constant police calls, and druggies running in and out of the house.     Mom needs to get a clue.    Mom says "the cleaning bills are outrageous", but they are when the guys in the hazmat suits have to clean up your used syringes, and handle drugs.     

Housing court settlement was that defendants would move out the end of August, and pay back rent in three payments.   They also owe for half of the water / sewer bills. 

Plaintiff gets $2975, which is more than his cleaning bills.  

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Man Cuts Grandma Out of the Will?! -Plaintiff /grandmother Yvonne Baker  suing defendant /grandson Nathan Tea for a loan she made to his deceased father (her son-in-law), and father didn’t repay.   Grandmother's daughter was married to and divorced from son-in-law, when SIL died.    Defendant grandson and his mother have no relationship with plaintiff.  

Sorry, but if grandma didn’t file a claim against the estate, then she’s SOL.   You don’t have to pay your relatives debts that aren’t claimed against the estate, or in your name also, when you’re the son.

After divorce plaintiff took a letter to DA saying her ex-SIL wasn't a deadbeat dad, and the breakdown happened.    Five years ago, grandson says grandmother screamed all kinds of nasty remarks at his 12 year old sister (she's 17 now).    Defendant witness is the granddaughter, that claims the granddaughter was hateful, and cruel to her.    Grandmother says her sister had died of diabetes, and granddaughter was just diagnosed diabetic, so grandmother told granddaughter that doctors would cut off her limbs, and she would die like the great aunt did.    In 2017, after the letter to the DA by grandmother was the last straw for the defendant's mother/plaintiff's daughter.     Plaintiff claims her daughter verbally abused the son-in-law.   And she didn't want SIL to pay child support.    Mikayla Tea is the granddaughter, and defendant's witness.   

Plaintiff claims a loan to SIL for $2500, that was not paid back.  Grandson was executor of the estate.   Grandson says he doesn't know if the $2500 was a loan to his late father, or a loan to the grandmother she was repaying.    Defendant says he's the executor, and the last wife pillaged the bank accounts, and says he saw a holographic will shown to him and his sister about six years ago.    As executor, defendant will sell the father's house, and there's not much left after mortgage.   Widow will get 1/2 or 1/3 after debts are paid.

(I'm tired of JJ applying her experience to the grandmother situation.  She's obviously going to give her the money, so just do it. or start calling yourself Dr. Phil).   The grandmother giving the D.A. a letter saying her ex-son-in-law wasn't a deadbeat was just an indication of how she like to stir things up.   She had no way of knowing who was paying what to the daughter, and the grandchildren.    However, that showed me that the grandmother loves to get involved in whatever she could, whether it was her business or not.    I suspect there's a great reason we didn't see the ex-wife, plaintiff's daughter.    

$2500 to grandmother of the year.    I agree with the hall-terview with grandson and granddaughter, saying they have no relationship with plaintiff, don't want a relationship with her, and want her to leave them both alone.   

Second (2021)-

Mudslinging Brothers! -Plaintiff/son  Alvin Strickland of defendant,  suing defendant/brother Michael Strickland over a car he left at mother’s house when he finally moved out.       Defendant mother says his ‘property’ made her house look like a junkyard.  Defendant moved out of home in 2015, and plaintiff, his then girlfriend, and her daughter moved into mother's home.    Plaintiff moved out (sort of) in 2020, blaming Covid.    Plaintiff paid $500 a month to mother, but hasn't for a long time.   Alvin claims to technically live at mother's home, he's using mother's home as a mail box.  

(This is why you never let someone use your address to get mail).   Plaintiff and now wife, and stepdaughter moved out of mother's house, but claims he was still a tenant.   Plaintiff left two cars at the mother's house, took his PT Cruiser when he moved out in March 2020.     Plaintiff moved to the house he's owned for 20 years.     PT Cruiser had a non-working registration since 2018, but still drove car sometimes.    Plaintiff also had two other vehicles, so a total of four cars were parked next to his mother's home.   

Mother Marion Smith is witness for defendant son.   Mother told plaintiff to move his four cars, and then Alvin claims mother is getting Alzheimer's, and is an unreliable witness.   Witness says she told the plaintiff to move his cars, but he left the PT Cruiser behind when he moved out.   (Unfortunately, Michael needs to see Dr. Pimple Popper to get rid of the forehead cyst).      Alvin claims his mother and Michael never told him to get the PT Cruiser away from her house.    Michael finally junked the PT Cruiser.  

Alvin calls Michael a career criminal.    

Alvin claims he stopped a foreclosure on mother's house, and Michael and mother are having hysterics laughing about this.   Alvin claims he paid everything on the mother's house, but had his own house that was empty while he lived with his mother.   

Alvin claims Michael sold the car to a criminal friend of Michael's.   Michael claims car was sold to junk dealer.   Mother testifies about the PT Cruiser being towed away.  Michael received $100 for the car.  (My guess is that Alvin was getting some kind of Social Security or some other pension, and didn't want to report rental income for his house.   Or he rented the house, and the IRS wasn't told, so the four cars are dumped at his mother's house). 

I think the mother was very uncomfortable testifying on national TV about the issue with her son.   She certainly remembered the tow away very distinctly.    I think the brother and mother telling Alvin to get that car out of there was plenty of notice.   I wouldn't have given him a penny. 

JJ will give $200 to Alvin for the car.  (For me it's a tie, if I want to punch Alvin, or the Grandmother in the loan case more).   All Alvin had to do was move the car to his house. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Strickland brothers - this was a very weird case. In amid all the confusing issues with possible foreclosure, home maintenance, etc. I still couldn't understand why Alvin left his car (cars?) at the mother's house when he had a reasonable alternative at his own house. 

I can kind of believe that Alvin helped his mother avoid foreclosure, but that wouldn't require him to move into her house, unless he planned to care for her and the house, but it didn't sound as though that happened. Also, it did seem as though he missed a potential revenue opportunity of renting out his own vacant house rather than letting it just sit. Of course, some people don't want the hassle of renters, but then why not consider selling it if he planned to live in the mom's house long-term.

The other brother, Michael, also came across as a bit shady (and vindictive) by junking his brother's car. It sounded as though this was a way to get back at a brother he doesn't like. Certainly, he didn't seem to use much effort to notify the brother about the car other than phone calls. Maybe try a registered letter? OTOH, when someone constantly dodges your attempts to contact them and refuses to take responsibility for their property, it is really tempting to just take action and get rid of it yourself.

Sadly, the mom did seem very unclear and I can believe that she has early stage dementia, which could make her vulnerable to whoever is closest to her at any given time, so I suspect her testimony is a bit questionable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2021 at 8:45 AM, parrotfeathers said:

 Plaintiff blames her own real estate agent for the lack of walk through the day or two before closing.     Plaintiffs are suing their real estate agent too. 

The real estate agent ("the assistant") is fully responsible.

On 5/14/2021 at 8:45 AM, parrotfeathers said:

I think JJ got this one wrong.

She did...but the real estate agent should be ultimately responsible.  And...we'll never know.  Judy will CERTAINLY not allow anything questioning her decision to be on HER show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff submits the knee sprain report from the ER.   For 2 to 2 1/2 months plaintiff was on crutches or bed rest, and a leg brace.   The attorney sent a letter to plaintiff saying defendant doesn't have insurance. 

Even though the dog-owner defendant was in the wrong on the legal side of the case, I was hoping Judy would have given her the smack down for asking for 100k.  Ri-DIC-U-lous.  

 

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/21/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Man Cuts Grandma Out of the Will?! -Plaintiff /grandmother Yvonne Baker  suing defendant /grandson Nathan Tea for a loan she made to his deceased father (her son-in-law), and father didn’t repay.   Grandmother's daughter was married to and divorced from son-in-law, when SIL died.    Defendant grandson and his mother have no relationship with plaintiff.  

Sorry, but if grandma didn’t file a claim against the estate, then she’s SOL.   You don’t have to pay your relatives debts that aren’t claimed against the estate, or in your name also, when you’re the son.

After divorce plaintiff took a letter to DA saying her ex-SIL wasn't a deadbeat dad, and the breakdown happened.    Five years ago, grandson says grandmother screamed all kinds of nasty remarks at his 12 year old sister (she's 17 now).    Defendant witness is the granddaughter, that claims the granddaughter was hateful, and cruel to her.    Grandmother says her sister had died of diabetes, and granddaughter was just diagnosed diabetic, so grandmother told granddaughter that doctors would cut off her limbs, and she would die like the great aunt did.    In 2017, after the letter to the DA by grandmother was the last straw for the defendant's mother/plaintiff's daughter.     Plaintiff claims her daughter verbally abused the son-in-law.   And she didn't want SIL to pay child support.    Mikayla Tea is the granddaughter, and defendant's witness.   

Plaintiff claims a loan to SIL for $2500, that was not paid back.  Grandson was executor of the estate.   Grandson says he doesn't know if the $2500 was a loan to his late father, or a loan to the grandmother she was repaying.    Defendant says he's the executor, and the last wife pillaged the bank accounts, and says he saw a holographic will shown to him and his sister about six years ago.    As executor, defendant will sell the father's house, and there's not much left after mortgage.   Widow will get 1/2 or 1/3 after debts are paid.

(I'm tired of JJ applying her experience to the grandmother situation.  She's obviously going to give her the money, so just do it. or start calling yourself Dr. Phil).   The grandmother giving the D.A. a letter saying her ex-son-in-law wasn't a deadbeat was just an indication of how she like to stir things up.   She had no way of knowing who was paying what to the daughter, and the grandchildren.    However, that showed me that the grandmother loves to get involved in whatever she could, whether it was her business or not.    I suspect there's a great reason we didn't see the ex-wife, plaintiff's daughter.    

$2500 to grandmother of the year.    I agree with the hall-terview with grandson and granddaughter, saying they have no relationship with plaintiff, don't want a relationship with her, and want her to leave them both alone.   

Second (2021)-

Mudslinging Brothers! -Plaintiff/son  Alvin Strickland of defendant,  suing defendant/brother Michael Strickland over a car he left at mother’s house when he finally moved out.       Defendant mother says his ‘property’ made her house look like a junkyard.  Defendant moved out of home in 2015, and plaintiff, his then girlfriend, and her daughter moved into mother's home.    Plaintiff moved out (sort of) in 2020, blaming Covid.    Plaintiff paid $500 a month to mother, but hasn't for a long time.   Alvin claims to technically live at mother's home, he's using mother's home as a mail box.  

(This is why you never let someone use your address to get mail).   Plaintiff and now wife, and stepdaughter moved out of mother's house, but claims he was still a tenant.   Plaintiff left two cars at the mother's house, took his PT Cruiser when he moved out in March 2020.     Plaintiff moved to the house he's owned for 20 years.     PT Cruiser had a non-working registration since 2018, but still drove car sometimes.    Plaintiff also had two other vehicles, so a total of four cars were parked next to his mother's home.   

Mother Marion Smith is witness for defendant son.   Mother told plaintiff to move his four cars, and then Alvin claims mother is getting Alzheimer's, and is an unreliable witness.   Witness says she told the plaintiff to move his cars, but he left the PT Cruiser behind when he moved out.   (Unfortunately, Michael needs to see Dr. Pimple Popper to get rid of the forehead cyst).      Alvin claims his mother and Michael never told him to get the PT Cruiser away from her house.    Michael finally junked the PT Cruiser.  

Alvin calls Michael a career criminal.    

Alvin claims he stopped a foreclosure on mother's house, and Michael and mother are having hysterics laughing about this.   Alvin claims he paid everything on the mother's house, but had his own house that was empty while he lived with his mother.   

Alvin claims Michael sold the car to a criminal friend of Michael's.   Michael claims car was sold to junk dealer.   Mother testifies about the PT Cruiser being towed away.  Michael received $100 for the car.  (My guess is that Alvin was getting some kind of Social Security or some other pension, and didn't want to report rental income for his house.   Or he rented the house, and the IRS wasn't told, so the four cars are dumped at his mother's house). 

I think the mother was very uncomfortable testifying on national TV about the issue with her son.   She certainly remembered the tow away very distinctly.    I think the brother and mother telling Alvin to get that car out of there was plenty of notice.   I wouldn't have given him a penny. 

JJ will give $200 to Alvin for the car.  (For me it's a tie, if I want to punch Alvin, or the Grandmother in the loan case more).   All Alvin had to do was move the car to his house. 

Grandma and the Grandson - How many times have cases like this been presented on Judge Judy for the past 25 years, where people are suing for money owed by a dead person (estate) and JJ has said time and time again "When a person dies, their debt dies with them."  As a matter of fact, thanks to JJ this advice came in handy last year for me when my elderly dad died (though he left no estate, but had a few small credit card bills).  Why didn't JJ tell the plaintiff that she was out of luck - the debt died with the son-in-law ?

 

Alvin and the Chipmunks - I think Alvin was telling the truth. 100%. I believe he got the home out of foreclosure, and I believe everything else he said. He was living with his mother for about a year, his mail and his license had her address on it - so he was legally living there, as he said (and proved). JJ doesn't like when someone gets one over on her (how many times has she asked a litigant where their mail was going, and what address was on their license just to tell them 'that's your address!'.

JJ didn't like Alvin because he was calm, cool, collective and presented professionally. He had all his ducks in a row, and no matter how many times JJ tried to play 'Gotcha!' she failed. It makes no difference why the car was parked on the side of the house - it wasn't blocking anyone or interfering with anything. The brother Michael  didn't own the house either, so he had no right to have it towed. JJ failed to tell them this. She was so wrong on this one - all because she lost at 'Gotcha!'

BTW, for 66 years old, Alvin was a sexy guy. So was his brother in a 'bad boy'  way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Why didn't JJ tell the plaintiff that she was out of luck - the debt died with the son-in-law ?

In my state, debts don't die with the deceased.  Creditors can put claims against the estate.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

It makes no difference why the car was parked on the side of the house - it wasn't blocking anyone or interfering with anything. The brother Michael  didn't own the house either, so he had no right to have it towed.

It's Alvin's mother's house.  She did NOT want the tarped car parked there.  She had asked Alvin several times to move it. Just because she's soft-spoken and polite, Alvin wasn't cooperative.  She decided to have it towed--even if it was suggested by the "lifetime criminal" son. It's too bad the criminal assisted his mother by making the phone call and helping with the details. I agree he had no legal right to "junk" the car and accept the money.

It was interfering with Alvin's mother's peace of mind and her idea of a nice home.  Alvin's place is probably a showpiece.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/21/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

$2500 to grandmother of the year.    I agree with the hall-terview with grandson and granddaughter, saying they have no relationship with plaintiff, don't want a relationship with her, and want her to leave them both alone. 

Agreed.  The soft voice didn’t fool me.  The father was lucky enough to NOT have to pay child support for years because the mom had enough money to care for the kids.  Sounds like he got annoyed when he was asked to financially support the kids.  Grandma got involved for the fun of it because it dIdn’t sound as if the kids’ safety was at risk with the mother...she just wanted to state that he WASN’T a deadbeat.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

$8,000 Designer Sneaker Fight! -Plaintiff Leah Jones suing defendant and   Reginald Bowden girlfriend Camille Foremen for the $8,000 worth of sneakers she bought from defendant.  Plaintiff bought 14 pair of sneakers.  Plaintiff submits defendant's rap sheet, which is long. Plaintiff was driving from Dallas to Houston, for the drop date of the sneakers at the store defendant worked at.    Plaintiff paid $6500 to defendant for 16 pair of sneakers, and she would resell them.   When the sneaker box arrived, it was empty.   Defendant blamed everything on his girlfriend, who mailed the sneakers to plaintiff. 

There is a picture of the empty box.   Sneakers were ordered from defendant in March, and were supposed to arrive in November.   Plaintiff is very prepared, she has the entire text thread between litigants printed out.    Defendant buys the sneakers from the retailer, but gets the employee discount, and resells them.   Defendant man gets the shoes two weeks before they hit the market.   Girlfriend has the receipt for shipping, with the pounds shipped, and date.   The Fedex receipt says 8 lbs., but defendants claims they were sent in two boxes via Fedex.    The box that plaintiff's mother signed for, box had a ream of paper, and with tissue paper, and box, Fedex weighed the received box at 8 lbs. 

Defendant man says plaintiff ripped him off, and says plaintiff didn't put in the insurance claim for $8,000.     Defendant's rap sheet looks rather extensive.   Defendant says he and his father have the same name, so it's dad's rap sheet.  However, defendant's rap sheet has mug shots attached of him, not his dad. 

$5,000 to plaintiff, still out $3,000 profit. 

Sister Mustang Feud -Plaintiff Terri Jackson suing defendant/daughter Angel Davis over a Kia Optima down payment loaned to defendant, and never repaid.   Bobbie Blue  (another daughter of plaintiff) testifies.   Plaintiff witness drives a Ford Focus, and a Mustang (belonged to defendant sister), and has never had a driver's license.    

Witness never had a license, and apparently never will.   She still drives the Ford Focus, and she's now 18. 

Plaintiff says she paid half of daughter's rent, and so defendant gave her the Mustang instead of repaying for the Kia Optima down payment.   Daughter had two cars, and defendant was going to turn Mustang over to plaintiff sister, and plaintiff registered car in her name.   However, when defendant needed her car back, plaintiff had loaned it to Bobbie's father, who is plaintiff's live-in boyfriend.   Defendant was divorcing, and her remaining car croaked.     

2004 Mustang value is $6512, and the Kia Optima down payment was $4,000 loaned by plaintiff mother.

Plaintiff told to sell the Mustang (too bad her baby daddy has to walk now). 

 

Second (2018)-

Human Trafficking?-(I remember this, mother thinks her daughter is being trafficked, and in danger, won't stop harassing daughter, and  mother is nuts!) -Plaintiff Sandra Eckler, was charged with making false statements to police, and hired an attorney to defend her.  Attorney is Erik Jensen, defendant.   Plaintiff wants her $3500 back from the attorney.  

Criminal proceeding was because she made eight police reports about her daughter, who was "missing" for two years, (daughter is not missing, she's hiding out from her mother's harassment, and delusions)  she hired a P.I. who said daughter might be at a house of prostitution, and so woman calls 911.    Police supposedly told plaintiff to stop bothering them, after multiple calls, visits to neighbor’s house, and police contacted the daughter who swore out a complaint against the mother.     I can see why daughter doesn't talk to mommy.    Daughter was never missing, and has a restraining order against the mother. 

 Philadelphia attorney Erik Jensen has a signed retainer agreement with plaintiff, and she paid $3500 ($2500 flat fee, plus surrender and book session was $1,000).    Plaintiff had a bench warrant, and had to surrender.     Kimberly Keenan is paid $25 an hour for court appearances, she's a junior associate, so was paid $50, and Kimberly and plaintiff talked on phone about $12.50 extra.     

Preliminary hearing was going to cost $2500, but at the last minute, plaintiff was going to hire another attorney, and put in a notice of appearance.      Police officer didn't show for preliminary, and case was dismissed.     JJ thinks law firm should charge less because they have junior associates, but I think they should charge plaintiff double for being a PITA.   

 Defendant partner attorney talked to plaintiff for hour, talked to police officer, faxed letters and made several phone calls to client plaintiff, and investigating officers.     Plaintiff will get a bundle back $2500, but attorney did the work, and it's not his fault that the plaintiff is unhinged.      Plaintiff's daughter has some kind of protection order against mother too.       

Since the attorney did so much work, and did do the booking session, I would have only given $1500 back to the plaintiff, and told the law firm to get a trespass order against her, and a no contact order too, because Sandra Eckler doesn't just stop bothering anyone.   

 I thought about it some more, and think that Sandra should be put on the vexatious litigators' list, if Pennsylvania has one.      And the police should have a list of people who are just using them to harass others, like the daughter, and ignore her further reports about the daughter.      I think the attorneys put in a lot more time and effort into this case than they're getting credit for.     

However, since it's not a real court, the nut case gets $2500 from the show, and the attorneys keep their money anyway.     I bet the young attorney is happy to get a job as a lawyer, and is bidding her time until she can get a full-time job.    I bet she's just doing this job to get experience, and I bet if there's an opening in the partner's firm, then maybe she'll get a shot.   

Sandra Eckler is a nut case, and I feel so much sympathy for her daughter who apparently will have to sign up for the mission to Mars to get away from mommy.   

Sandra Eckler is going to get $2500 back, and still keeps whining about it.      

Plaintiff gets $2500, and should spend it on a nice strait jacket.

(I just saw online, the final episode of JJ is 25 June 2021).  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

My life is very dull: when I’ve helped friends and family move, throwing footballs and having camp fires never were part of it.  Just lots of carrying things and reassembling furniture.

Didn’t like anyone involved in the case, but the look of triumph the plaintiff shot the defendant when JJ was lecturing defendant seems at odds with plaintiff’s self-assessed non confrontational manner.  Every time either side spoke, the personalities kept getting uglier.  Very depressing case.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Direct Hit by Drunk Neighbor! -Plaintiff Kristine Santos suing defendant Jillana Marshall over hitting her in the head with a rock.    Plaintiff and some friends were moving her cousin into her newly purchased home, over Labor Day weekend 2020.    Defendant claims the home is an Airbnb, but it doesn't agree with her sworn statement to the court.    Plaintiff was visiting cousin, with Seth Torian (boyfriend, and plaintiff witness), and helping move in.  There were seven people working on the move in, and staying over for one night.

Defendant claims it got very loud at the neighboring property, and on her second visit to complain, defendant threw a rock, it hit plaintiff in the head.  Defendant was arrested.   Defendant says plaintiff is exaggerating her injuries, or blamed for plaintiff's miscarriage at the hospital.    Plaintiff said she didn't know she was pregnant, and didn't know how many others were going to be helping with the move in.   (This happened at Big Bear, California).    

Plaintiff also says defendant said that the plaintiff, and others at the house should "go back to the other side of town, where they belong". 

 This was at 4 p.m.   Second confrontation by defendant was at 11 p.m.    (the plaintiff seems to be rather the neighborhood snoopervisor).     

At 11 p.m. plaintiff and boyfriend were sitting out in the back yard, when a rock flew from front yard of the house plaintiff was at, and struck plaintiff on the right side of her head.   Plaintiff's friend followed noise from front yard, and it was defendant who threw the rock, and she admitted it.  Same rock hit plaintiff in the head, and it also bounced off of her head, and hit another person in the knee.   Defendant claims everyone threatened her after the rock throwing, and she called the Sheriff's department twice that night for help, 

Defendant was previously arrested for reckless driving, no headlights, and two previous arrest for DUI (often DUI will be pled down to reckless driving). and other traffic incidents. Defendant claims she wasn't on the plaintiff cousin's property, and just tossed a rock over the house.   Defendant was arrested.   Defendant's witness chimes in, claims plaintiffs threatened defendant, and her dog before the rock throwing. 

(My guess is with the defendant's long list of arrests for DUI, some downgraded to reckless driving - a common compromise, JJ figured that defendant was soused, and was definitely less than candid about her actions on the day in question.    The defendant's ridiculous claim that she was harassed by the plaintiff's group was after one of them was hauled off to the ER in an ambulance.   I bet rock throwing is her favorite hobby, and she often misses, except this time.).  

Bill is $907.00 for ER visit.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Second

Pack of Pit Bulls Kill Terrier (2021) -Plaintiff Milton Vasquez, suing other dog owner / defendant Sandi Thoms for her six dogs killing his dog.   Defendant claims her dogs aren’t vicious.   However, plaintiff’s dog was killed by them, and he had to carry his dog’s body home. Plaintiff was walking a Yorkie, Norfolk terrier, mini Labradoodle, and two other small dogs.   Then while plaintiff was walking his dogs, leashed on the opposite side of the street, a garage door opened, and six Pit Bulls attacked his dogs, and the plaintiff's Norfolk Terrier was killed.    Riverside, CA is where this happened.   Defendant rents a room in a house, and all Pits belong to defendant. 

Dogs were identified at the vicious dog hearing by Animal Control, were Guppy Moses Blue, Pepperoni, and Mobley, all belonging to defendant. Defendant claims she has four Pits, and two German Shepherd dogs, but not the dog that killed the Norfolk Terrier, belonging to plaintiff.   

Defendant claims they weren't her dogs, but they were declared vicious animals by animal control.    Defendant claims the dog that killed the plaintiff's Norwich Terrier, wasn't hers (the "Other Dude Did It" defense for negligent dog owners). 

According to animal control all of her dogs must be leashed except when her room, and she needed a kennel license.  She's moving to the county next week, so no more kennel license.  

Defendant claims two dogs were put in a car after the attack, and driven away, and weren't hers.   Defendant claims she saw no blood, and blames everything on someone else's dog, and a door was propped open so it wasn't her fault.   Defendant claims her dogs are too feeble to attack, and are small. 

Plaintiff's dog was killed instantly, and he carried the dead dog home.   His mini Labradoodle got out of her collar after she was attacked, passersby held his dogs while he retrieved the Labradoodle, and picked up his dead dog.   There was no vet bill, the dogs were treated for free.    On animal control report three of plaintiff's dogs had bite marks, and defendant keeps making remarks to the plaintiff.      

In hall-terview defendant still claims it wasn't her dog, but plaintiff saw her dog go back to her house, and defendant was with her dogs.   Defendant didn't care that her animals are now deemed vicious, and I wonder if Riverside Co. doesn't have vicious and dangerous dog rules.      

Norfolk Terrier, is $3500 replacement.   Too bad the other $1500 will be split.  

Daddy Rip Off (2014?) -Plaintiff/father Gary Davis suing defendant/daughter Tanisha Davis, for three cell phones, and appliances for her house.   Defendant promised to pay plaintiff.   Plaintiff is suing for $2,005.    Father only receives $877 a month from disability, so how is he supposed to pay the daughter's bill she ran up on his account?    

(I have no idea what the real title is, this is not the one listed in any TV guide I could locate. )

Defendant claims plaintiff never supported her as a child. 

$2,000 to plaintiff. 

 

 Uber Boyfriend Dispute -this is in the TV guide but not the episode shown.

 

 

(Last JJ episode will be 25 June 2021)

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Direct Hit by Drunk Neighbor! -Plaintiff Kristine Santos suing defendant Jillana Marshall over hitting her in the head with a rock.    Plaintiff and some friends were moving her cousin into her newly purchased home, over Labor Day weekend 2020.    Defendant claims the home is an Airbnb, but it doesn't agree with her sworn statement to the court.    Plaintiff was visiting cousin, with Seth Torian (boyfriend, and plaintiff witness), and helping move in.  There were seven people working on the move in, and staying over for one night.

Defendant claims it got very loud at the neighboring property, and on her second visit to complain, defendant threw a rock, it hit plaintiff in the head.  Defendant was arrested.   Defendant says plaintiff is exaggerating her injuries, or blamed for plaintiff's miscarriage at the hospital.    Plaintiff said she didn't know she was pregnant, and didn't know how many others were going to be helping with the move in.   (This happened at Big Bear, California).    

Plaintiff also says defendant said that the plaintiff, and others at the house should "go back to the other side of town, where they belong". 

 This was at 4 p.m.   Second confrontation by defendant was at 11 p.m.    (the plaintiff seems to be rather the neighborhood snoopervisor).     

At 11 p.m. plaintiff and boyfriend were sitting out in the back yard, when a rock flew from front yard of the house plaintiff was at, and struck plaintiff on the right side of her head.   Plaintiff's friend followed noise from front yard, and it was defendant who threw the rock, and she admitted it.  Same rock hit plaintiff in the head, and it also bounced off of her head, and hit another person in the knee.   Defendant claims everyone threatened her after the rock throwing, and she called the Sheriff's department twice that night for help, 

Defendant was previously arrested for reckless driving, no headlights, and two previous arrest for DUI (often DUI will be pled down to reckless driving). and other traffic incidents. Defendant claims she wasn't on the plaintiff cousin's property, and just tossed a rock over the house.   Defendant was arrested.   Defendant's witness chimes in, claims plaintiffs threatened defendant, and her dog before the rock throwing. 

Bill is $907.00 for ER visit.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.

 

That was a pretty easy case actually. Defendant admitted throwing the rock. It doesn't matter how loud the music was, you can't throw a rock at a bunch of people. 

That rock was thrown with a lot of force; Jilliana has an arm! To have enough momentum to hit the Plaintiff, bounce off and hit someone else on the knee, that is no misfire from "aiming at the roof". Dumb lie. Defendant is a habitual buttinsky and troublemaker, all those arrests. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2020 at 3:24 PM, Bobby88 said:

has anyone else noticed a certain pattern with some litigants in recent years where the seemingly normal, calm, articulate ones (usually female plaintiffs like this one) actually seem like or end up being the real instigators while people like the defendants who come across as disrespectful and generally less educated are at least partially in the right?  I have little doubt that the plaintiff can be just as (as the kids nowadays say) ratchet as the defendants when she feels wronged, but knew what JJ likes to see and hear and as a result, the judgement was in her favor. There's obviously appropriate courtroom behavior and everyone who enters a court should try to be as respectful and prepared as possible, but these really stark contrasts between plaintiffs and litigants seem really contrived. The irony is that in this case and other similar cases, the bumbling defendants usually admit to some wrongdoing on their part and only really object to the situation being exaggerated. It's the well-dressed plaintiffs who usually keep insisting on $5,000 because they felt "threatened" over nothing.

I wrote this about a different case a few months ago and I think it's mostly applicable to the case of the rock thrower. In this case, I think it was kind of a perfect storm of the wrong types of people coming together and shit hitting the fan. The defendant was clearly an emotionally troubled woman. And she absolutely had no right throwing the rock and is 100% responsible for any medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff. 

However, the plaintiff and her boyfriend (and I'm sure their friends) are clearly spoiled brats who think they can do whatever they want wherever they want. I think they were in fact blaring their music and being obnoxious twenty-somethings. I absolutely believe the defendant when she said that she nicely asked them to turn the music down and that she was met with profanity.

And I absolutely do not for one second believe the plaintiff's claim that the defendant told them to "go back to the other side of town where you all belong" She's Asian and her boyfriend is Black and/or Latino. It's obvious she was implying racial bias which I don't think was in any way a factor. I'm getting tired of this recent trend in some cases lately where minority litigants will just casually throw out "Oh, yeah, and he/she is a racist too!" when it's obvious that their own hands are dirty. 

After the plaintiff said she didn't have pictures of her injuries and JJ asked about medical bills, was anyone else half-expecting her to say she didn't seek medical attention either? Maybe it was because I couldn't stand her. but I kept expecting JJ to catch her in some kind of lie and say "You both acted like idiots. Case dismissed!" Or was it just me?

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

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

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

 

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size