Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

I don't understand why JJ just right off believed the defendant just because she denied the accusations?  

I don't either.   "She says she doesn't have it."  She does that a lot.  Why is the defendant's credibility any greater than the plaintiffs.  Actually, what the plaintiffs in these cases should do, if at all possible, is get someone inside the house and take a photo of the item or items so that when they say they don't have it, toss up a photo and say "Really?  Because you had it two weeks ago."

Okay, fine.  But she DID have it at one point and probably sold it.   If everything was done by phone, the best thing plaintiff should have been smart in this case was have BEFORE video showing everything that was in the house.   "I don't know what a Bowflex is."  Bullshit.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

8 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

I don't understand why JJ just right off believed the defendant just because she denied the accusations?  

I *think* its because the plaintiff has the burden of proof and had nothing that actually proved the defendant had taken (tooken since this is JJ after all lol) the items in question.  She denied, so its he said, she said. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Pre-Valentine’s Day Surprise Break Up! -Plaintiff Trevin Owens got dumped by defendant Emily Tran right before Valentine's Day.   Ouch!

Plaintiff and defendant had a lease, with a whole lot of lease left.     Defendant moved out for a week, and plaintiff stayed, but can't afford to stay.     Plaintiff is suing for lease breaking fee, which each will owe.   $1800+ total.     Plaintiff isn't getting back pay either, or back rent.   

Defendant lost job, and didn't pay, and after she got a job, she didn't pay either, then dumped him.  Splitting up property is the usual garbage.   Defendant claims she lent plaintiff $1,000, but skipped on the rent for many months. 

 Plaintiff gets his half of the lease breaking fee, $925, and defendant gets a three items of furniture back.    

Quickest Way to End a Friendship  -Plaintiffs Amelia and Alvin Hartley suing defendant/former roommate  Emily Bailey for non-payment of rent, trashing her room.  Defendant rented room from plaintiffs, for $300 a month.    She's accused of trashing the room, and not paying rent for 3 months because unemployment, but went back to paying.    Defendant owes $900 for back rent. 

 I hate the defendant, she's entitled, and thinks she owes no one for anything.   Defendant also moved out and left plaintiffs on the hook for two additional months.   Of course, the defendant has the 'shocked, who me?' look at the plaintiff saying there were damages.    Defendant thinks she's on Jerry Springer instead of Judge Judy, and I hope she chimes in again and gets thrown out.   

Plaintiffs get $900 for unpaid rent. plus $206 more for damages, and utilities.   Total $1,106 to plaintiffs. 

Second (2017)-

Slashed Tires and Stolen iPhone?  -Plaintiff Dominique Lomax suing former friend/defendant Stephanie Briggs for stealing her iPhone 7.    Plaintiff was supposed to babysit for defendant in return for the iPhone.  She accidentally left her phone at defendant's apartment, the two argued, and defendant refuses to return it.  Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and only a police report was filed, no medical report.     

Phone cost was $700.    Defendant filed yesterday for a restraining order.    Plaintiff claims she was supposed to baby sit the defendant's kids on three overnight occasions.    Plaintiff was also supposed to accept one package at her place for defendant, but many other pieces of mail came to plaintiff's address for defendant under a variety of names (sounds like a scammer to me).  JJ tells plaintiff to cancel the phone service for the phone defendant still has.   

Defendant says "Hi! Byrd!" when he comes to pick something up, and she needs to stop calling him Byrd.    

(Note to my fellow posters, never let anyone have mail delivered to your place, it's part of establishing tenancy, and sometimes the person is trying to use your address for other nefarious reasons.   If you find out someone is using your address to get their kids into another school district, that's illegal too). 

Defendant claims plaintiff slashed her tires twice, and has no witness to that.

There is a temporary order of protection against plaintiff until a hearing is held, after this case is ended.   

Everything dismissed. 

Moving Violations Bonanza!  -Plaintiff Antonyo Williams is suing former friend/defendant Alexis Richardson for unpaid car tickets, impound fees, toll fees, towing fees, and one month's car payment.   Plaintiff bought new car, but still had $12,000 remaining on old car, and agreement was defendant would take over payments on the car until it's paid off.   Defendant had the car for almost two years. 

However, plaintiff's name was on loan, and registration, and he received proof that defendant racked up over sixteen tickets that plaintiff has proof of.   Defendant claims she only had two parking tickets.    There are red light tickets, parking tickets, several speeding, bus lane parking, expired parking meters, and other violations, adding up to $1900+.      Car was impounded because defendant parked illegally, and plaintiff kept car after he got car out of impound.     JJ tells defendant that it's the equivalent of car rent.   

Defendant claims car was going to be discharged in bankruptcy, and she didn't have to keep paying for car, or the tickets.

Plaintiff claims defendant never paid for the tickets, and he didn't have to pay the other tickets to get the car out of impound in Chicago.   Plaintiff says there were over 30 tickets total on the car, and he paid 14 of them to get car out of impound, leaving 16 more tickets or charges.   

Car loan wasn't discharged in bankruptcy, because plaintiff had bankruptcy application cancelled.   However, plaintiff has to reregister car in a month, and will have to pay the other $1900+ at that time to re-register the car.     Would tickets get cancelled in bankruptcy?  

Defendant claims she notified plaintiff of car impound, but plaintiff doesn't have texts from defendant.  He just has texts he sent to her about the car. 

$2558 to plaintiff. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First

Covid Con Men?! (2021) -Plaintiff  landlord Paul Trejo is suing former tenant Cory Davis for unpaid rent, and a water bill.   Defendant and family were tenants of plaintiff for seven years.   Defendant reduced his rent during the pandemic, because he was afraid he was losing his job (he didn't).    Plaintiff agreed to defer part of the rent, and now wants that money.   

Defendant claims that plaintiff told him to vacate rental home, because plaintiff was selling it to a relative.   At that time, plaintiff gave a 30 or 60 day notice to vacate the house, and tenants were out by 1 January 2021.     Marietta, CA is where this happened.    Plaintiff says deal to sell to family member fell through, and so plaintiff re-rented home to another tenant, at twice the rent.    Defendant actually decided he might want to buy the house.  Plaintiff owns two rental homes.   

Plaintiff also had home mold inspected, but plaintiff denies a flood in the home from burst pipes.      Having a plumber walk through a home is not a mold inspection.     Plaintiff claims the leak was under the slab, not in the walls, and defendant says there was water in the walls. 

Then plaintiff rented home three months later, for twice the defendant’s rent. 

Defendant counter claim is considered. Defendant didn't lose any salary during the pandemic, so his claim is dismissed.   Defendant wants the return of his security deposit.  However, security will pay the reduced rent shortfall that defendant paid for months.  (Defendant claims his family had health issues from mold, but if the dirt in the home was as bad as plaintiff says it was, then I can see that affecting their health)

Plaintiff case dismissed.     

Felony Misdemeanor Bailout (2015) -Plaintiffs daughter Rebecca Vitalec, and her parents Denise and Robert Stout, Jr.  wants legal fees back from defendant attorney. 

A big problem is attorney wasn't currently licensed in Texas when he was agreeing to represent the daughter with her multiple drug cases.  His license was administratively suspended for non-payment of dues (from 1 September to 15 September, but hearing was on 17 September).   Plaintiff's father claims defendant wasn't reinstated by the hearing date of 17 September).    

The parents contracted for his legal services, by paying a retainer, but they want their money back because of the licensing issue.       I don't understand why attorneys or landlords come on this show.   

Paperwork from Texas says he's not eligible to practice law.   I can read, and the paperwork says he's suspended.   Plaintiff did not appear in court during the suspension period,  Defendant met with plaintiff at jail, and met with the district attorney, all while being suspended.  

(Defendant should keep his hair away from open flames, there's so much hair spray or a toupee that he'll either burst into flames, or his toupee will melt).  

Plaintiffs get their refund, $2,500 .   

Second-

The Cell Phone Shuffle! (2021 air date-but this is before the new hairdo, so filmed before Spring 2019) -Plaintiff Mary Hightower suing defendant Crystal Weekes (plaintiff's sister-in-law to be) for the cost of a cell phone.   Defendant says phone was free, and plaintiff admits that.    Defendant is a caregiver, not paid by the state, for her mother.  Plaintiff says defendant returned cell phone to plaintiff, after she smashed it. 

The early termination fee is what plaintiff is suing for, but phone cost is dismissed, because phone was free.     Plaintiff and defendant did not pay the phone bill to AT&T, so service was cut off already.  Phone service got cut off, so plaintiff only paid for her line to be reconnected.   Plaintiff switched carriers after AT&T cut her off.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.   I wonder if defendant is still sister-in-law to be,

Psychotic Officer or Vandal Confession?! (older, but not sure what year) -Plaintiff Lesley Martens  is  suing defendant Tawnya Roozeboom for car vandalism .    However, plaintiff supposedly borrowed $600 from defendant, depending on getting a settlement for a lawsuit, but plaintiff's case failed, so money is not owed.   Plaintiff heard that defendant was gossiping about her, so they were no longer friends.     On Halloween, plaintiff saw her car was keyed.   Defendant denies keying the car. 

Plaintiff contacted the bar she parked at, and obtained the security footage.  There was a witness who saw defendant near the car that night, witness is Kimberlee Gibbons, who lies in court. 

There is also a police report, where defendant admits to the police officer that she committed the vandalism.     

Plaintiff receives $718 for the car damages.

Fire Victim Tragedy (older, but not sure of the date) -Plaintiff Linda Calloway suing defendant  Elizabeth Gunter for the cost of a washer and dryer, and an unpaid loan.  Defendant's home burned down, and plaintiff loaned a credit card to buy necessities, $3,838.   Defendant bought a washer/dryer $1475.    JJ asks defendant how much she received from the insurance payout, $10,800. .   Defendant claims she repaid $4500 to plaintiff.   (I know this is confusing, but watching it was just as bad).   Defendant was only paying $25 a month, interest to Home Depot.  

Washer and dryer purchase wasn't repaid to plaintiff.   Also, plaintiff loaned $500 to defendant, months after the fire and settlement.  

$1365 to plaintiff for the washer and dryer. 

(I'll take the school district mail discussion to Small Talk. )

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Note to my fellow posters, never let anyone have mail delivered to your place, it's part of establishing tenancy, and sometimes the person is trying to use your address for other nefarious reasons.   If you find out someone is using your address to get their kids into another school district, that's illegal too

We are turning out real dunces,  I live in a nice area {area A}  It against the law to live in another town {B}. I was reading the paper--the inquiring photographer--and he asked the kid where do you live City B} and the guy asks the kid what he  school he went to  was so stupid and said school A.  I am ashamed to say I called the BOE and bitched.  Our schools so overcrowed enough without students from another city--we is to go on split sessions as it ...sorry, not sorry. PS--his family had the BALLS to make up a street in city A.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I don't understand why JJ just right off believed the defendant just because she denied the accusations?  

I don't either.   "She says she doesn't have it."  She does that a lot.  Why is the defendant's credibility any greater than the plaintiffs.  Actually, what the plaintiffs in these cases should do, if at all possible, is get someone inside the house and take a photo of the item or items so that when they say they don't have it, toss up a photo and say "Really?  Because you had it two weeks ago."

Okay, fine.  But she DID have it at one point and probably sold it.   If everything was done by phone, the best thing plaintiff should have been smart in this case was have BEFORE video showing everything that was in the house.   "I don't know what a Bowflex is."  Bullshit.  

I think it was because Judge Judy predecided that the plaintiff was being petty and, basically, suing over small things like a can opener.  JJ was not looking for the plaintiff to prove his case by showing before and after pictures, which I think he had, or her saying it didn't make sense for the plaintiff to remove smaller items like sconces and mattresses, take a picture and then sue, when he just as easily could have removed larger items like TVs or chairs, and then said those were not present.  Obviously he isn't crazy, not under psychiatric care, so these items must be missing, let's go through them item by item.  That didn't happen.  Judge Judy could have subjected the defendant to a patented JJ examination whereby she jumps on the slightest, in her mind, inconsistency to make her already determined ruling.  JJ: What did you eat for lunch when you moved to your new place?  D: Your honor, I don't see what my lunch has to do with anything.  JJ: Don't think where I am going, just answer the question.  D: OK, tuna sandwiches.  JJ: Aha, you said you "ate tuna" when you moved into your new home, tuna comes in a can, obviously you brought the can opener with you when you moved into your new home because you wouldn't have time to buy a new one, judgment for plaintiff."  D: "But, your honor, the tuna can opened without a cano...."  JJ: "Judgment for plaintiff.  I said I am done.  Goodbye.  What part of 'we are done' don't you understand?"  The plaintiff here lost because he led with and included small stuff JJ wouldn't care about, had a slow, monotounous drone and JJ thought he made a good enough deal of eight rooms of furniture for (I think) $18,000 and shouldn't have expected everything.  JJ started out looking to claim he had only made a deal for the furniture and things like a can opener would not be considered "furniture" when it seems, based on his not bringing all of the contents of his house from Texas to avoid moving all of his stuff, the deal was for all of the contents of defendant's home save her personal items.  Only defendant's personal items and things specifically excluded should have been removed in that case.  When the plaintiff started expanding his testimony to actual furnishings, she shut him down.   JJ thought the suit petty and wasn't looking hard at the meeting of the minds, the available photo evidence, logical behavior on the plaintiff's part (asking  P what he did with his stuff?  It wouldn't make sense for the  plaintiff to have sold all of his stuff, if he didn't expect everything to be in the new house when he arrived) and for the defendant to actually say anything beyond a mere denial.  People do buy houses completely turn key.  I think that is what plaintiff was intending but it didn't happen.  Defendant removed some items.  JJ thought he was being a petty jerk, so he loses.  This would have been a better case for Judge Milian, who would have cared and went into all of the minutia.  Here JJ felt the plaintiff was stupid to assume everything would be in the apartment and to have gotten rid of his stuff.  The reason plaintiff made the deal was to avoid having to ship a whole household of stuff; to have to then go out and rebuy items he probably just owned would be galling.   Thus the suit.  Easy for a billionaire to blow off the small stuff.  Not as easy for someone who just bought a new property and spent extra to not have to pack and move across states everything from his household and then to have to buy stuff he already owned and just disposed of and had thought he had just purchased. 

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2017)-

Agoraphobic Dog-Owner Heartbreak!-Plaintiff Sarah Bauer  is suing Mary Mcleod /defendant for money she paid defendant for a dog, and punitive damages.    Plaintiff purchased a dog from defendant, to train as a companion animal, and get it certified.     The dog was a Boston Terrier, French Bulldog cross.  Defendant found dog roaming the streets in July, took dog to vet for a spay, and shots, then vet checked for a chip, and vet didn't find a chip. 

Two months later the dog was scanned by the vet at the ASPCA, and a chip was found, and the owner contacted.  Owner lived in Mississippi, and dog was found in Florida, dog escaped on a trip to Florida, and defendant found dog, and kept dog for six months.   Six months later the defendant couldn't keep the dog, because of housing reasons, and advertised the dog for adoption

Original owner never arrived, and defendant advertised the dog for adoption.   Plaintiff paid $200 for the dog to defendant, and because of the chip the vet wouldn't give the dog back to plaintiff.     The original owner finally showed up, and picked up her dog.   

(How does someone with Agoraphobia fly to California from Florida for JJ's show?  How could plaintiff go without a dog for five years, if she has to have a dog at all times?    Plaintiff wants the original $200, and damages to her psyche.  Any place I've dealt with the Humane Society or SPCA, have rules about how long the original owner has to claim a stray dog, and it's not over a week.  Plaintiff wants animal's contact information from defendant for original owner, to keep trying to get the dog back.  There is a text from plaintiff to defendant that she knows the dog has a chip, and the owner.  I hope plaintiff never found out the actual dog owner's name, or I bet she'll show up at their house.)

There is a text from plaintiff admitting she knew who the owner was, but she still gets her $200 back.  (I wouldn't have given the plaintiff a penny back.)

Sob Story Payday?-Plaintiff Yadira McNair suing her ex-boyfriend, Carl Amones, for an unpaid loan.   Plaintiff is unemployed, and has been for months, after being fired.    Plaintiff received $128,000 for her half of the marital home after the divorce.    Plaintiff moved in with her parents with her two kids, and then met defendant.   Plaintiff claims the two litigants were dating, but defendant says they weren't.    

Litigants met at the gym before, and during her divorce, then he moved, but then their relationship started.     Plaintiff gave defendant $5,000.    Defendant says plaintiff left the check in his glove compartment, but says he didn't ask her for the money.   Defendant says they were just friends, and never dated.   Plaintiff now says they were dating, or 'talking' after her divorce was final.   

Plaintiff says defendant was out of work for disability, but has since returned to work.  His disability was for anxiety and stress, for 18 months.  

Unfortunately for defendant, there are existing text messages from defendant calling the $5,000 a loan.

$5,000 for plaintiff

Second (2017)-

Teen Breaks Off Ankle Monitor!-Plaintiff /grandmother Barbara Miller is suing her granddaughter, Marquette Foster, and Mishawn Gray, her daughter.  Plaintiff says she got custody of granddaughter at 3 months, stayed until age 11, then mother wanted her back, and grandmother got sick, and gave custody back.    At age 12 grandmother had custody of Marquette again.     Custody changed a few times, and at 14 granddaughter went into placement, and back to mom, in placement again, and back to mother.  Granddaughter had an ankle bracelet, broke it to do naughty things, and then took grandmother's card, and charged clothes, and other things, at grandmother's and at mother's home.   (This is so sad, the defendant mother distinguishes between her times in prison, and her times in jail). 

Granddaughter accessed grandmothers Amazon account, and her card was tied into the account.   As JJ says, when the granddaughter used the card at grandmother's home, it was grandmother's role to stop her.   Only bills since December 2016 when granddaughter lived with her mother, and granddaughter charged a lot starting in June 2017 will be considered.    Defendant charged a lot of movies on Amazon, and her own Amazon Prime membership.    Granddaughter ordered hair off of Wish. com using grandmother's card.   

Defendant mother is counter suing for grandmother keeping Marquette's social security checks, but it was for months that granddaughter was in placement, and not in either home.   Granddaughter was getting SSDI, and that started in 2015. 

Plaintiff receives $600 for the charges while criminal granddaughter was living with mother.   Mother's counter claim for SSDI payments is dismissed, because daughter wasn't with her either during that time period.        (I hope someone at the Social Security Administration watched this case, and took the SSDI payments that grandmother kept while the teenager was in placement). 

Dangerous Dog Euthanized-Plaintiff Anna Aldava is suing sister's neighbor Angela Dougherty over a dog attack by defendant's dog on plaintiff's sister's property, and plaintiff wants vet bills paid.  Defendant's dog broke through the fence, and attacked the plaintiff's cute little dog.  Defendant claims the fence was in disrepair on the day of the attack on the small dog.    Defendant had fixed the fence many times over the years.   Plaintiff cute little dog is adorable, and I'm surprised it's alive after defendant's dog attacked it.   

Defendant put her dog down, because it was the second attack by her dog.    Defendant keeps whining about the fence condition.   On the previous attack, the other dog had cancer, and died from the attack.  Defendant still keeps whining about why the fence was bad.   

My guess is that defendant probably will get a replacement that's just as dangerous as her previous dog was.  Defendant dog was only 2 1/2, and had two reported attacks.  Defendant also whining about having to get rid of her other dogs, and pay court fees. 

Plaintiff receives $3553 for vet bills.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First

The Outsourcing Handyman! (2021) -Plaintiffs Adrian Colman, and  (wife) Nubia Stephens, are suing defendant/handyman Janaeja Granderson (wife), and husband / handyman Arthell Bonton for sending a friend to do a big handyman job, instead of doing the work himself.  Plaintiffs gave defendant $7,000 and the keys to the house, but he did nothing on the house.  Plaintiffs claim the deposit was $7,000, and $5,000 more, totaling $12000.  Defendant gave plaintiffs gave a $2600 refund, and some supplies.

The person who showed up to work at plaintiff's house was Jose Garcia, and his crew. Mr. Garcia worked with defendant handyman in the past.  Jose, and Arthell came to the house to give a quote to the plaintiffs. Plaintiff wife says she never saw Arthell at the house again, and he arranged one appointment to meet her at the house, but Arthell never showed. Plaintiffs say that Jose Garcia took the majority of the flooring boxes from the house, instead of defendant's assertion that he left supplies at plaintiff's house. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.  (leaving the plaintiffs short at least $4400)

Loan Expert in Financial Hot Water?!(2021) -Plaintiff Cynthia Montgomery is suing defendant Richard Cohen for an unpaid loan of $5,000, which defendant claims is a gift.  Loan was for defendant to sue an attorney over previous litigation, and that suit was unsuccessful too. or defendant was hiring an attorney to sue someone over an investment, and that suit failed.     Plaintiff gave defendant more money, that defendant claims were for an investment, and that was lost. 

Defendant says he gave plaintiff a check to hold on the legal fees.  Then, he claims plaintiff invested in a failed deal, so he owes nothing (not clear to me either, but that's what Mr. Slick says).     Defendant says that when he took the second deal for the investment to plaintiff, that she was so excited about making a bonanza, that she forgave the $5,000 loan.    Plaintiff is laughing about that story.   Defendant claims he's a wonderful consultant, but why did he lose so much money?  

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

Second-

DUI for Professional Driver (2021) -Plaintiff Julie Smith is suing defendant/moving truck driver Michael Cruz for unpaid loans.    Defendant is counter claiming for child care fees.   Plaintiff paid defendant $1700 for his DUI fees.  Plaintiff also gave defendant $500 for a car down payment before they started dating.    Plaintiff kept a log of every penny she gave or spent on defendant, mostly while they were living together. 

Plaintiff had no expectation of repayment, so her case is dismissed.  Defendant case dismissed also.  

The Twice-Stolen Puppy! (2014) –(aka the Twice Kidnapped Puppy when it originally aired) Plaintiff Marilyn Keiss is suing defendant Tiffany  Spalding for breaking into her home, and stealing plaintiff’s puppy, twice.   Defendant had a tiny puppy, gave it to plaintiff for her to take care of, and then defendant wanted something from plaintiff's house (a CD and $10), and her college textbooks.    Then defendant burglarized the plaintiff's home, and stole the puppy.   When they went to mediation, and plaintiff gave defendant her CD, textbooks,  and $10 back, and was given the puppy back.   

Then plaintiff came home to (after changing the locks) find her puppy gone, and the back door slider and screen had been jimmied to enter her home.  Nothing else was taken, including a laptop, prescription medication, and jewelry in plain sight in the bedroom.  Defendant admits burglarizing the house the first time, and the second time there are no proof that defendant did it, but we all know she did. 

Two days after the dog was back, was the burglary.  Defendant's smirk, and her witness's smirk are disgusting.     I wonder what happened to that poor little puppy?  

$5,000 for the plaintiff. 

The Sound of Shattered Windows in the Morning! (20)-Plaintiff Coyia  Sinclair suing defendant / former girlfriend Lashell Hayes for smashing all of his car windows.  Plaintiff forgot to bring the police report to court today, but he did coordinate his outfit for his TV appearance.   Plaintiff wants $4300 for the glass.   Plaintiff didn't call the police until the next month.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage. 

Plaintiff told to refile and come back to court when he has the police report, with the defendant's name as the person doing the vandalism.  

(The 2021 episodes today are the last of the 25 Year run of JJ, next week there are recent reruns, but no new episodes).  (As far in the future that I can see on TV titan, there will be reruns, with at least one from this last season.   I suspect some of this week's 'new' episodes, but with the old hairdo and the audience were leftovers, and JJ stopped filming.  ). 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/18/2021 at 3:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wonder what happened to that poor little puppy?  

A friend is probably holding onto it until the heats off that piece of shit defendant, who should be in MF'ing jail.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Machine Operator Mom vs. Entitled Daughter-Plaintiff Candise Cordell mom loaned money to defendant daughter, Danielle Cordell, and daughter claims all loans are a gift, and defendant used her mother's credit card for her car tow. 

Defendant claims she gave mother $152 money order for a tow, and mother had charge reversed, so mother came out $152 profit.      Mother is a machine operator at $10 an hour, so she uses credit card for expenses like $1,262, for the daughter's car repairs, daughter was supposed to pay the credit card off and paid nothing.     

Daughter claims car repair was a gift, because she never asked for it.   "That was for her to figure out" when asked how the mother will repay the money.    She borrowed $360 from mom for car payment, and this was after daughter never paid on credit card, so it's $1100 to plaintiff.     

I think the mother and daughter only came to court to get the money all paid for by the show.   $152 credit goes to daughter, so plaintiff receives $1100. 

Generation Z Start Up Fail! – Plaintiff Zachary Hall suing defendant Caleb Belanger (former business partner) for return of money and supplies from their failed business.    Plaintiff drank the Water That Should Not Be Drunk, so he's behind already.   

The two barely legal men were doing marketing on social media, with a combined company, with each their own clients.      Business started in January, and went away in March, because they weren't providing the service they should, and only had two clients left.      They bought things like cigars, and other frivolous 'business supplies', and plaintiff for $593 for his part.        Including four tablets, that defendant has, and defendant is counter suing for a car payment, and doesn't get it (they had a business car).     Defendant counter claims for slander, and produces texts that are not proof.    Defendant also wanted car payments, and other financial items, dismissed.   

Plaintiff gets two tablets back, and that's it. 

Second (2017)-

Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Hammers Car With Brick-Plaintiff Austin Johnson suing ex-girlfriend Angelica Cole, for car damage, moving expenses, and harassment.     Litigants only met a month ago, when defendant was pregnant by someone else, but they started dating anyway.    Defendant found plaintiff was 'talking' to other women, including his current girlfriend/witness.   Defendant stayed the night, and the next morning the litigants had another argument, and defendant went home to her mother's place.   

Litigants had a text message war, over a broken date.    Defendant's phone was stolen during the incident by plaintiff, and fortunately plaintiff has the texts, telling defendant to leave him alone.   Defendant went to plaintiff's place that afternoon, and got mad when plaintiff's witness girlfriend was there, and defendant started beating plaintiff's car with a brick.   Plaintiff's windshield is smashed, costing $190.   

Plaintiff moved because defendant was harassing him, brought relatives over to harass him, but he's not getting moving expenses.  I absolutely believe what the plaintiff said about the defendant's mother being as bad as her daughter.   The defendant mother, daughter, and others in the family confronted the plaintiff, and her mother is lying to JJ. 

Defendant told her mother that plaintiff, and friends jumped her, and beat her.  

$190 for windshield to plaintiff.

Book Launch Fail!-Plaintiff Tana M. Sessions suing defendant Chris Henriquez over his event business not putting on a book party to launch her book. Plaintiff paid $400.     

"Get Your Career Life in Order" by Tana M. Sessions is the book.    Defendant was supposed to supply a tent, TV with stand, chairs and table for 100.   On the day of the event, it's pouring rain, so event moves indoors, and defendant was very late after something on the freeway.   He only wants to give event credit to plaintiff, not a refund.   

Tana Sessions gives JJ a copy of her book.

Plaintiff receives $328 back. 

(The second 30 minute episode is labelled as a Harlequin Great Dane case, this happened the last airing too.)

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Surprise You’re Living in an Airbnb? (2021)-Plaintiff/tenant Jacob Berke suing defendant/Airbnb landlord Joshua Taxson for his security deposit, and rent.    The apartment/ half of house, lower level, was what the plaintiff rented, he paid $3928 for security, and a month and a half rent.  

This happened two years ago, with plaintiff trying to get the money repaid to him.  Plaintiff only stayed on night, when he found defendant was actually living in the laundry room of the house, next to plaintiff's apartment.   Plaintiff says landlord was sleeping the laundry room next to plaintiff’s room.

After the plaintiff left, defendant plead poverty, and wanted plaintiff to help pay his electric bill.  Defendant never sent an itemized list of damages, or returned security deposit, or other funds to plaintiff.  

After the case, plaintiff says the house (since lost to foreclosure) had been 'rented' to others, and they were also defrauded.  

$3,928

T-Shirt Rip-off?! (2021)-Plaintiff Jose Campos is suing defendant Francisco Enriquez ordered 125 t-shirts with plaintiff's logo on it.   $1,003 was the payment for the shirts, and plaintiff received 65 shirts, but they didn't have the logo on them.   

Shirts aren't done by defendant, but ordered from Jiffy Shirts.   Defendant ordered 131 shirts to have a few spares.     When box arrived, defendant opened the box, and submits the packing slip.   I think defendant orders from Jiffy, and puts the logo on them.  Plaintiff received $450 worth of shirts, 65 shirts Championship brand.

Plaintiff had to get more shirts, and find another screen printer to do the logos.  Plaintiff didn't even open the t-shirt box from defendant for a month after he received them.    I can't believe the plaintiff didn't check the order. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second (2021)-

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

JJ wants to see plaintiff son's call log, to see if defendant called him.   If plaintiff son's call log shows a lot of calls from defendant, then the two payments will be assumed, because there is no other reason for defendant to call plaintiff son.   

Plaintiff son claims to have a text message from defendant acknowledging the $7,000 debt a month after defendant claims to have paid the $2,000. and JJ sees that.   If defendant had made two more payments in June, then he would only owe $5,000.    Signed letter in July acknowledges the $7,000 debt.  Plaintiff son has a cell phone photo of defendant's signed and dated $7,000 promissory note.   

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

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

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Hammers Car With Brick-Plaintiff Austin Johnson suing ex-girlfriend Angelica Cole, for car damage, moving expenses, and harassment.     Litigants only met a month ago, when defendant was pregnant by someone else, but they started dating anyway.    Defendant found plaintiff was 'talking' to other women, including his current girlfriend/witness.   Defendant stayed the night, and the next morning the litigants had another argument, and defendant went home to her mother's place.   

 

This is one of those cases where no one behaved well. It is a classic illustration of teen/twenties romantic drama, where no one sees the big picture. I will say that I saw similar dramas among my friends when I was that age, so not much has changed in the past decades. :-)

It is strange (and disturbing) that the defendant got involved so quickly with the plaintiff, especially since she was pregnant at the time with someone else's child. 

The plaintiff seems to be the kind of guy who thinks that casually "dating" more than one woman at a time will have no consequences. (I think his ex/now current girlfriend would be well advised to ditch him, since he has this tendency, but I have a feeling that she thinks she's "won" some prize.)

The defendant took the "relationship" way too seriously and reacted violently when it wasn't what she thought it was. No wonder he thinks she's crazy. He also has bad judgement in reaction.

To top it off, it seems that the defendant's family also has poor impulse control, so maybe she's not so much crazy as poorly socialized. 

Hopefully everyone matures at some point and learns that drama like this is not all it's cracked up to be.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims to be the victim, because in their close-knit Persian-Jewish community, it’s unseemly to sue a fellow member for money. 

Well I sure learned something new when he said this!  Isn't it just as unseemly to not pay a fellow member back?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

  

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Woman Takes Tumble Down Unsafe Stairs-Contractor/plaintiff Ricky Moon  claims defendant Jana Rice owes him $1,000.   Defendant says stairs built by contractor/defendant were unsafe, took five months instead of two weeks to finish, and new contractor claims he saw previous contractor damaging house.      $5800 was paid to contractor, and he wants $1,000 more.    Defendant claims the stairs were unsafe, she owes him nothing, and she was injured on stairs.   Defendant wants medical bills, vandalism, and harassment, and money back on the plaintiff's work.

Picture of project the day contractor was fired are terrible.    Defendant claims paint was bad, dry wall was bad, wrong color paint, floor heights didn't match, and claims she fell off of outside stairs, because one step wasn't screwed down.     Plaintiff has different, better pictures of same areas.     However, defendant claims she fell off the stairs, and was injured, but let plaintiff continue working for three weeks after her fall. 

New contractor claims the previous contractor was fired, and then vandalized the house.    Defendant claims plaintiff unscrewed outlets (not the outlet covers).    Contract says homeowner will paint inside, and outside, no flooring or outlet covers were included.    Strange contract, the defendant only wanted one side of stairs with handrail, and they were going to have another contractor do the other side.     I absolutely hate the defendant, her husband, and the new contractor, and wonder what's really going on here.   My guess, they pull this a lot, and the other people don't sue the way the plaintiff did.   

Defendant's claim dismissed. 

Plaintiff gets $1,000.    

Show Car No Go Car-    Plaintiff Jeremy Williams  bought 1983 Buick Regal Lowrider off of a craigslist ad, took a test drive, and tried to register the car, but couldn't register it because it wouldn't pass emissions tests.     Defendant Robert Green  claims it was a show car, and not permitted to be driven.  Car was advertised for $8200, but plaintiff paid $5250.  

Defendant took the car from show to show on a flatbed.   There is nothing in the ad about "Show Car Only", meaning not drivable. 

However, defendant let the plaintiff test drive the car that wasn't registered for street use, had no plates, and was only a show car.   

Plaintiff gets $5,000.    Plaintiff signs the title back to defendant. 

Second (2017)-

Unwed Teen Parent Turmoil & CPS Visits-Plaintiff Haley Crosby s suing her child's father, Christopher Stevens for filing multiple false CPS reports, and return of property.    Plaintiff says she can decide when defendant sees the child, because she's the mother (Sainted Single Mother of One) SSMO.   

Both litigants are 18.   Plaintiff now lives with a friend, and her friend's mother.    The litigants lived together at defendant's grandmother before the baby was born, and for a while after.   Before that plaintiff lived with family, but was booted out.    

Plaintiff claims defendant is controlling, so she moved in with the friend, who is 17, and friend's mother.     Plaintiff really never worked, but defendant has been constantly employed.   

Plaintiff claims defendant called CPS three times.    The property plaintiff wants back are baby items, and defendant will keep them.    Plaintiff is a jerk, and my guess will do anything she can to stop any relationship between father, and child.   

Defendant was caretaker for his son for months at a time.    

My guess, plaintiff will never get a job for any amount of time.   The last time defendant was 'allowed' to watch his child, she called the police to get the baby back.     She also pulled the old 'I was breast feeding a little" as an excuse to keep full custody.  She was only feeding a little at bedtime, to keep full custody.    

 The woman who lets the plaintiff live with her seems to think defendant has no right to see his own child either.  Jennifer Basset (the woman plaintiff lives with) is just as bad as the plaintiff.    

(Why do I have the suspicion of how well the plaintiff's friend's divorce will go?) 

JJ throws out plaintiff's stupid case.    JJ says to get a mediator, or court order delineating custody, support, and visitation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

The Handyman Who Knew Nothing?! (2021)-Plaintiff Logan Garringer is suing defendant, Colton Wallace, over his failure to install flooring in her house.   $315,000 was the house, in Idaho, purchased from her mother.    Plaintiff wanted to put new flooring in the house before move in, and her dad would purchase the flooring, and for $1800 the defendants would install it.    Plaintiff paid defendant $500 deposit, and then defendant wanted $1300 up front to finish the job, and she paid him in cash, totaling $1800.    (I hate the defendant's ridiculous hairdo).    Defendant admits he's only installed Clip On floors.   Plaintiff's father (Matthew Garringer) bought the materials, and delivered them to the house.   

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

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

$800 to plaintiff.

Illegal Driver (2014)-Plaintiff Laura Bare suing defendant Matthew Pyles for driving her truck while he had a suspended license.   Pyles was going on a test drive, claims he was going to buy the truck, was pulled over by the police.   Since defendant's license was suspended for multiple DUI's, the truck was impounded, and has racked up more than $8,000 in storage fees, and fines.   

Plaintiff claims defendant was going to buy the truck, defendant says he borrowed the truck to pick up his girlfriend.   JJ says the day after the accident, when the cost for the car was only $100, and defendant gave that to her, she should have rescued the car out of impound, but she didn't.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant's ridiculous counter claim dismissed even faster. 

Second-

Gruesome Collision with Unleashed Dog?! (2021)-Plaintiff Kevin Rodriquez suing defendant / dog owner Lacey Migliore, for car damages when defendant’s dog ran in front of his vehicle (suing for $4665).   Plaintiff did not have insurance, was driving and heard a thump, and he swerved and hit some mailboxes.      Then he discovered he had hit and killed the dog.    Even though it's a residential area, the speed limit is 55 (not sure if that's from the police report).   

Defendant spoke to the police at the scene, and claims the dog's body was wrapped around a barbed wire fence post, and the fence.     The fence wasn't down, there is no way the accident happened the way the defendant says.    So, dog had to be outside the fence on the road or roadside. 

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

On the day of the accident, plaintiff didn't have any insurance.    It cost $4665 for plaintiff to fix his car.  Plaintiff claims the car was in his aunt's name, but claims it's insured now. He claims to now have insurance.  I'm torn about the people who drive without insurance, and I don't think someone who didn't have insurance, drove that way for months, and probably still does, should get a penny from Officer Byrd.    Plaintiff had been driving without insurance for months before this happened.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

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

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

$405 to plaintiff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Ultimate Neighbor Fence Dispute-Plaintiff Teresa Clark suing defendant for cost of removing an encroaching fence plaintiff built on defendant’s Tim and Janet Burton property.    This is the one with the nasty woman who built her fence on the defendant's property, survey said it was on the defendant's property, and plaintiff wants to get paid for the encroaching fence which was built from 9" to several feet on the defendant's property.   Plaintiff also thinks it's significant that defendant, husband and children took the fence down late at night.  Big deal.  

 Defendants got sick of plaintiff's encroaching fence, and asked her to take it down, and plaintiff didn't do it, and two years later the defendants took down the encroaching fence on their property, which avoided adverse possession.     Plaintiff didn't get survey until after fence removed, by defendants.   

I agree with defendants, that plaintiff thought she could claim part of their property, and that's why she had the fence put there.   The plaintiff claims the defendant assaulted her when the fence was removed, and plaintiff punched defendant wife three times in the back.     Defendants want money to remove fence posts, and fill in holes, and for assault.    Plaintiff claims she was only brushing the defendant when she was trespassing the trying to stop the fence removal, and she is such a liar.   

I feel sorry for the defendants to have to live with the plaintiff next door.     Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves less, defendants get $ 351, $350 for fence pole removal (eight poles) and holes filled in, and $1 for assault.   JJ giving the defendant wife $1 for the assault was rotten.   Defendant wife only asked for $1 for the assault.    Plaintiff is delusional if she thinks anyone will want to sit down to drinks with her.  

 Plaintiff is an idiot, and anyone who had two years notice about the encroachment of their fence, and didn't get a survey until after the removal from defendant's property, is a passive-aggressive loser.

I know JJ thinks the fence cases are a big fight over very little, but if it was her property, she would sue your butt off for coming one inch on her property.    

Defendants get $351, plaintiff gets nothing.

Wants a $25k Video for Free-Plaintiff Kathy McSherry suing video editor/defendant Louis Stevens for a cancer prevention video that defendant edited.     Woman has patents for anal cancer detection pap smears, and wanted a video about this to publicize this.    Defendant wanted $5k, was paid $3500, and wanted a video that was like a $25k video.     

Plaintiff only paid half, $1750, and then pulled the plug because M.D. Anderson was doing the video for free, and defendant has copy of the email about the stop work, and why, and keeps the $1750 for his work.    I hope the M.D. Anderson people saw this, and dumped this loon.   

Plaintiff case is dismissed, defendant keeps the $1750 plaintiff paid him.

Second (2017)-

Don't Sell Dogs to Teenagers!-Plaintiff Francine Smolkowski sold the 18 year old defendant Halle Frey, a German Shepherd puppy (defendant used to be a student of plaintiff).   When puppy was injured, defendant refused to take dog to vet, until the choice was put the dog down, or do surgery.   Plaintiff loaned the money to defendant for the vet bill.  Defendant and boyfriend are both unemployed, and living with boyfriend's parents.     Puppy gets leg infection, vet said dog needed surgery, or needed to be put down.   Vet bill was $4,169.     

Plaintiff breeds one litter per year.   Plaintiff has texts from defendant saying she would start paying money back.   Why did plaintiff sell the defendant a puppy?   Defendant doesn't have a stable situation in housing, and a spotty employment record.    

Plaintiff wants to buy dog back from defendant. Defendant says she does interviews for money? Sounds shady to me. 

  The plaintiff telling the viewing audience that she wants to buy the dog back was a huge mistake.    I'm sure if defendant had any intention of selling the dog, the price would now be huge.  

Plaintiff gets $4,169. 

World's Worst Roommate-Plaintiff Wendy  Scheller suing former roommate Bradley Bates for unpaid rent, and vet bills.  Plaintiff's witness is another roommate Anthony , and defendant and plaintiff witness were on the lease.    The plaintiff and witness were paid by the roommates, and then defendant paid the landlord, until defendant stopped paying rent for five months.      Plaintiff paid the back rent to the landlord, after defendant stole the plaintiff and her witness' rent money.     When landlord contacted plaintiff and witness, plaintiff paid the back rent, and kicked defendant out.    

Defendant says in the hall-terview that he was sending money to some Catfish online, and is still sending her money.   

Defendant wants his property back, and claims that he owes the landlord or property manager.   However, there is proof the plaintiff paid the landlord, but only has a suspicious receipt for the payments.  I'm hoping plaintiff will be able to show where she took the money out of her bank account for the back rent, $5730.  Defendant claims that since plaintiff Wendy Scheller wasn't on the lease, then landlord wouldn't come after her for money.   What law school did defendant graduate from?   

I think the plaintiff and witness should have filed criminal charges against the defendant.  However, embezzling like this is often not even prosecuted.   $3530 was proven to be paid by plaintiff.

Defendant's claim for his property is dismissed, but he will get stuff back from the front porch (someone else will have to pick it up), and at the appointed date and time items will be there for one hour, and considered abandoned and trashed after that.

$3530 to plaintiff.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

From Boyfriend, to Prison, to Restraining Order! -Plaintiff Cherie Zarate suing ex defendant Daniel Siple for an assault, and not rehabbing the house, $5,000.   Plaintiff and defendant were a couple from 2007 to 2008, but kept in touch.   After defendant got out of jail (for 4 months in 2019), and plaintiff moved defendant into the house, and pay either $400 a month, or rehab the house.  There was a court hearing for the order of protection for plaintiff, from an August 2019 assault by defendant, and supposedly plaintiff received one, but defendant was never served because he was in jail, the TRO was for harassment, and the second arrest was for assault in November 2109. 

Plaintiff confronted defendant over non-payment of rent, and code enforcement was going to fine her for stuff in the yard that was defendant's property.    Plaintiff lives on the property in a mobile home or RV, not the house.    Defendant was in the home on the property, for a year.    When plaintiff told defendant to move out, police came by the next day.   Defendant only came by the house with a police escort to get his property.  

$1500 to plaintiff for her injury.  

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

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

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

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

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

Second (2021)-

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

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

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

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

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-(I don't know how many get the older reruns , but you might want to skip the first case about the Cat Lady.  Not only for the awful facts of the cat's dying, or the callous disregard for defendant allowing his animals to run, but the conditions the cats are kept in look cruel to me). 

Death at the Cat Lady’s Doorstep! -Plaintiff Patricia Apostolakis is suing defendant Daniel Walker for his dogs killing three of her five feral cats.  

However, the cats aren’t house pets, they’re feral, plaintiff has more than 14 cats in her yard, and defendant claims the cats went on the dog’s property.   They're not houses, they're cages,      San Bernardino County gives her vouchers for some spay and neuters.   The kittens come from her barn cat population.    Three cats were the feral cats in the cages, and two more were barn cats.     

Defendant said the cats constantly roam the neighborhood, and claims the plaintiff harassed his father (he owns the home), and the rest of the family

Plaintiff had up to 18 cats, and still has 14 cats in cages.  

Was animal control OK with the conditions the feral cats are caged in by the Plaintiff?  

One Rottweiler owned by defendant was caught on plaintiff’s property.     Two Pit Bulls ran back to defendant’s home.    Defendant got rid of the Rottweiler, and Pit Bulls after the attack he surrendered the dogs to animal control.   This happened over two years ago, and plaintiff had sent the demand letter, and had animal control report two years ago.  

Plaintiff wants repair costs to the cattery, $2700 and she gets that amount. 

Only in America! -Plaintiff Clayton Howard   suing defendant Esteban Morales, for repayment of a loan to pay for a car .  Defendant says he shouldn’t have to repay the plaintiff, because plaintiff works two jobs, lives with his parents, and doesn’t need the money.  

Plaintiff receives $700.

Second (2017)-

Deliberate Finger Slam?!-Plaintiff Brian Fordham is suing former roommate/defendant (didn't catch her name) (she was leasing the property, and renting rooms out) for property damage, loss of food, and stolen property.        Plaintiff says defendant broke locks on his room several times to steal his property, he also claims defendant cut off his electricity deliberately to spoil his food.

Defendant is being evicted after non-payment for part of a month, and another full month.    Home owner is evicting defendant, and defendant who is 20, claims she's been renting the house for three years.    JJ will call home owner and confirm that defendant only failed to pay rent for half of one month, and another full month.   Defendant claims she asked homeowner to evict her, to get rid of plaintiff.   

Plaintiff claims home owner told everyone in the house to leave the end of July because defendant didn't pay the plaintiff.    Plaintiff changed the lock on his room, and defendant wants to be paid for changing them back.  As usual, plaintiff didn't bring the lock change bill to court, after he claims defendant broke his locks, and changed them.  

I hope I get this straight.   Defendant couldn't get into the house, so she went to an open window, tried to climb in, and claims plaintiff slammed the window down on her hand deliberately.     No medical report.

Both cases dismissed because they're both liars.

I'm Not Paying For a Dry Wig!  - Plaintiff hair stylist Laurel McLendon suing former client Patricia Bailey  for the cost of a wig, and check return fees.   Defendant paid for the wig, $370 (for labor for assembling the wig, defendant bought the hair for the wig).    Defendant ordered the wig, brought the hair to the hair stylist, and came to look out the wig, and started complaining about the color, and that the wig looked dry.   

Defendant says the plaintiff said the wig needed to be wet down, put product on it, then blew it dry, and then defendant tried the wig on.   At this point plaintiff acts like a fool, indicating that defendant is lying.    Defendant says she tried the wig on, wrote the check for it, and left.   Defendant also wanted a tighter band on the inside of the wig, made an appointment with the plaintiff.   

The second appointment was on 7 July, and defendant didn't read a text message cancelling the appointment.    Defendant claims the plaintiff didn't show on several other occasions, but defendant kept going back.     On 9 July plaintiff went to cash the check, and check had been stopped. 

(Did defendant think she was coming to a cocktail party?   Her dress looks like it is for an evening event.) Defendant loses, and still claims she should get triple damages. 

$405 for the check and check fees. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First-(2020)-

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

Plaintiff will get car back, because car can't be smogged, and can't be registered for that reason in California.    Plaintiff has a stupid reason about not taking car back, and just won't shut up.   Defendant denies having title to car, but plaintiff claims defendant has the car title.   (Most jurisdictions have a way to get a replacement title. If this is California, you fill out a form, pay $20, and get the duplicate title).

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

Brutal Euthanization of a 15-Year-Old Dog?!-Plaintiff Kendra Pezanoski, suing Meghan Morgan, defendant for euthanizing the old dog defendant dumped on plaintiff.   Plaintiff had three Chihuahuas, and could only take two (the 5 and 10 year olds) with her to the new apartment.   So, plaintiff decided to give the 15-year-old Chihuahua away to defendant.   

Plaintiff had credit issues, and couldn't qualify for a place that would allow three dogs.  Plaintiff took 15-year-old dog to defendant, and left dog.  Defendant has five other Chihuahuas.  

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

Plaintiff wants vet bills, but defendant said that if plaintiff had told her what the vet said, she would have made a decision for the dog's welfare.   However, plaintiff never told defendant anything until after the dog was put down.  When dog was at vet, defendant claims plaintiff had dog euthanized instead of $3,000 of surgery.     Plaintiff claims she tried to contact defendant about dog, but was unable to reach her.    Plaintiff is told to show on her phone that she called defendant on the morning from the vet.    

 JJ tells defendant though she had the dog for only a day or so, that she was the legal owner of the dog, and responsible for care. 

JJ says if plaintiff had dog put down without dog's owner, defendant's permission, then plaintiff won't get vet bills, (bills were over $700). Plaintiff has no proof she contacted the defendant from the vet's office.     

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

Defendant said she eventually had to block the plaintiff's calls, texts, etc.    Defendant says the first time that she heard from the plaintiff was the evening after the dog was put down.     

Then the evening of the vet visit, when the dog was euthanized, the plaintiff made cruelty allegations to animal control, and said that defendant is a neglectful dog owner, and had too many animals.    

Plaintiff has zero proof she let defendant know that the dog was either to be euthanized, or defendant would have to pay for surgery $3,000, but is suing for $5,000 for vet bills.  Plaintiff claims she tried to contact defendant that morning, but has zero proof after JJ asks for proof of a call or text to defendant that morning. 

Defendant said after the euthanasia, that the animal control was made by plaintiff, and she finally had to block her on Facebook, because of harassment from plaintiff. 

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

Second -

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

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

$1800 to plaintiffs. 

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

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

$998 to plaintiffs for vet bills for Rocky.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Mystery of the Missing Altima-Plaintiff Ashely Jiles suing defendant Brandon Egans over a missing Altima, and plaintiff is suing for car rental fees, repair costs, and replacement costs for car.  Plaintiff's 2010 Altima ($14000 paid for car-owes $13,000) towed to mechanic, and since it wasn't drivable, she cancelled the insurance.     She paid the mechanic $900 for transmission repair.   Then the car disappeared from the mechanic's shop.   

Plaintiff claims she's still paying the car note, $298 a month payment.   Now plaintiff claims she's paying car note, but there's no way to see the payment.   She's claiming that she made extra payments, and was only a little late on payments.  ( In many states, insurance is mandatory, and if you cancel your insurance, the company notifies the DMV, MVD whatever, and your license and registration is suspended.)

The car came up missing from the mechanics lot after she was late on the payments, repo. is possible.      She claims the bank gave her an extension, on March's payment, but payment was due on 1 April according to the bank letter, not 1 May the way she claims.   

Miss Giles, the plaintiff keeps crying and whining, and I want to smack her a good one.      I wonder if Byrd will do it for me with the Fly Swatter of Death if I ask him nicely?   

Plaintiff cancelled her insurance when the car went into the shop, and the car note is now due in full, since you have to keep insurance coverage on financed vehicles.        Wells Fargo doesn't play, and I recognize the logo on the letter, so she's toast.   

 Plaintiff claims the police report saying stolen proves nothing, and she's wrong.  Plaintiff should be charged with making a false police report.   

Nothing for the plaintiff, Judge Judy dismissed with prejudice to go back to the local Small Claims case.   

In the hall-terview.  Defendant mechanic says plaintiff picked up car, and transmission weeks before she reported it stolen.    

Ex-lover Check Fraud Injustice-Plaintiff Ni-Ima Latimer  deposited several checks from defendant/ex-boyfriend, Michael McCready in her bank account, using her account information, and the checks were bad.   

Plaintiff also claims defendant stole her license plates.   Checks 1900+, 1600+, from Western Beef Retailing.   When plaintiff got copies of the checks her name for To:, was on it, and police couldn't arrest him because they didn't see him touch the checks (total bull). 

  Police report says unknown person.   Defendant boyfriend is on probation for five years for driving with a suspended license (14 suspensions, is that a record for JJ? ).    

If the checks were from the Western Beef in NYC, it's gone, and there are a lot of questions about the closure.  

There are a lot of texts about the checks, and she has them.    Defendant said in texts he will fix the check deposits.     Plaintiff is so stupid she tried to deposit a Nigerian scam check, and send the extra to them, and the bank stopped it.   

So, plaintiff has bad taste in boyfriends, and is totally stupid too.     Why should anyone believe that the defendant did the deposits, instead of plaintiff, since she's tried to put fake checks in her account before?   Not me.   

$3954 for plaintiff, and I suspect she did it herself, or was in on it with the boyfriend. 

 

Second (2017)-

When Miniature Pinschers Attack!-Plaintiff Christina Hilling (dog owner) and Thomas Kohler Jr (dog walker) suing defendant Temmie Rosenthal for vet bills from defendant’s dog attacking  the dog plaintiff (Kohler) was caring for.   $1077 is the vet bill (cute little white, non-shaggy dog).   Defendant claims her dog didn't bite the plaintiff's dog sitting dog.   

Plaintiff was at dog park, and Felix, the victim, and defendant's Min Pin (a Min Pin isn't that big, I suggest a Manchester Terrier or some other possibly larger mix) attacked plaintiff dog Felix.    Defendant showed up at the vet clinic, but never paid anything.   Plaintiff has seen the attacking dog belonging to defendant on several other occasions.    Defendant's witness is now going to lie about seeing another dog bite the plaintiff's dog too.    

After lying to JJ and the court, defendant is very thirsty, and is drinking the Water of Dry Mouthed Liars.     The plaintiff's witness had two dogs at the park too, and plaintiff knew all of the dogs there at the park when the bite happened.    Defendant was yakking with her lying witness, ignoring her off-leash dog, and then showed up at the vet clinic after the plaintiff did. 

 As usual, defendant says her 100 lb. dog is a Service Dog, and some other dog bit the plaintiff's dog.

Plaintiff receives $1,077 vet bills. 

If You Like Me...Take Down Your Dating Profile-Plaintiff Jeffrey Graham Jr suing defendant over a plane ticket to L.A for defendant, Caroline Douglas.   Defendant and plaintiff met online, then once in person, and then defendant was going to meet her daughter the actress at an interview, so defendant could attend the interview with daughter.   Defendant called plaintiff saying she couldn't go to her daughter's interview in L.A., so he bought her a plane ticket.  Defendant is counter claiming for money she spent out of pocket, when plaintiff cancelled the plane ticket.   

Defendant claims she sent a text saying that someone she loaned money to years ago, didn't repay her, so she couldn't fly to L.A. for the daughter's interview.   Defendant says she never asked for the money from plaintiff, he offered to pay for the ticket to help her out.   Plaintiff said that he wanted her to remove her dating profile online, but she refused to.  

$613 for plane ticket that plaintiff paid.    Defendant is a disgusting grifter. 

Eviction Save-Plaintiff Carri Moore suing former neighbor for unpaid loan for rent after defendant, Teresa Aldhmour ,was being evicted.   The Marshals were actually tossing her stuff out, so plaintiff got a money order for $2357 to the landlord to pay the unpaid rent, and defendant repaid $2,000.    Plaintiff wants the other $357 that wasn't paid.    Defendant claims the cashier's check cost $50 per $1000 (no it doesn’t).

The kicker is defendant finally did get evicted.   

$357 to plaintiff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

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

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

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

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

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

Everything dismissed. 

Second (2021)-

Brutal Towing and Loss of Vehicle?! -Plaintiff Reginal King suing defendant Mark Mathis (Mr. C's Towing Co. ) over the towing of his vehicle, and the property lost when vehicle was sold at a lien sale.  Plaintiff parked in front of his residence, in front of a business.   He lives in a gated community next door, and parked in front the of business for about seven hours.    Plaintiff parked near the business, so his car wouldn't be broken into.   Plaintiff claims parking isn't restricted, and is for residents, and businesses.    Plaintiff's property included a taco cart in the back seat, and other property.

Defendant says his towing company was called by the security company that patrols that property, and says car was illegal to be parked there.  The tow driver, Hector Echevaria testifies about the tow.   Driver claims there is a sign at the driveway from the street saying "Private Parking Only".   

Plaintiff did not bring the police records about the car disappearance, or records about contacting the towing company, the same day his car disappeared.    Plaintiff saw the sign with the tow company phone number on it, and called them.    Dispatcher claimed they didn't have plaintiff's car, the same day as the tow.

In March, after SUV was sold, plaintiff was sent a bill for storage.   72 hours after tow, lien company takes over the vehicle, and they do paperwork processing.   The tow company does no paperwork after towing, have no one from the paperwork company, and are SOL.    Why didn't plaintiff call the tow company the next day, or go down to see if they had his vehicle?  

Sounds like a profitable scam for the towing company to me. 

However, who thinks it's alright to park right in front of a business all day?     

Plaintiff receives $2,000 for the Chevy Trailblazer.    

Runaway Truck Destroys Property?! -Plaintiff Nishan "Nick" Khatcherian is suing defendant Steve Hubbard for the damage defendant’s truck caused when it rolled down hill, and across the plaintiff’s yard.    Defendant's property is uphill from plaintiff's property, was working on his old truck, brake failed, and rolled downhill, and through plaintiff's yard.    Truck had to be towed out of plaintiff's yard, causing damages to landscaping from the tow, and the truck.   Plaintiff is suing for his $1,000 deductible from his insurance, for the landscaping damages, and for damages to his car.  

Defendant claims nothing happened to plaintiff's landscaping, and that defendant committed insurance fraud.   Photos of extensive damages are submitted by plaintiff.   The truck went through a very nice, healthy looking boxwood hedge.    The estimate from the landscaper is submitted, $3230.   Defendant says he has homeowner's insurance, but won't claim on it because nothing happened.    I'm am sick of the defendant standing there, slack jawed, and glaring at JJ and the plaintiff. 

$1,000 to plaintiff.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sounds like a profitable scam for the towing company to me. 

The defendant kept sticking his tongue out about 2".  It looked like a male dog's lipstick.

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/22/2021 at 5:50 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

  

 

Unwed Teen Parent Turmoil & CPS Visits-Plaintiff Haley Crosby s suing her child's father, Christopher Stevens for filing multiple false CPS reports, and return of property.    Plaintiff says she can decide when defendant sees the child, because she's the mother (Sainted Single Mother of One) SSMO.   

Both litigants are 18.   Plaintiff now lives with a friend, and her friend's mother.    The litigants lived together at defendant's grandmother before the baby was born, and for a while after.   Before that plaintiff lived with family, but was booted out.    

Plaintiff claims defendant is controlling, so she moved in with the friend, who is 17, and friend's mother.     Plaintiff really never worked, but defendant has been constantly employed.   

Plaintiff claims defendant called CPS three times.    The property plaintiff wants back are baby items, and defendant will keep them.    Plaintiff is a jerk, and my guess will do anything she can to stop any relationship between father, and child.   

Defendant was caretaker for his son for months at a time.    

My guess, plaintiff will never get a job for any amount of time.   The last time defendant was 'allowed' to watch his child, she called the police to get the baby back.     She also pulled the old 'I was breast feeding a little" as an excuse to keep full custody.  She was only feeding a little at bedtime, to keep full custody.    

 The woman who lets the plaintiff live with her seems to think defendant has no right to see his own child either.  Jennifer Basset (the woman plaintiff lives with) is just as bad as the plaintiff.    

(Why do I have the suspicion of how well the plaintiff's friend's divorce will go?) 

JJ throws out plaintiff's stupid case.    JJ says to get a mediator, or court order delineating custody, support, and visitation. 

I might get flamed, but this poor child doesn't have a chance being raised by this plaintiff & defendant if it goes on like this. This case is as good an advertisement for adoption as I have ever seen.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Sister Love Gone Wrong! -Plaintiff Alyssa Olsen suing defendant/sister Dominique Grashoff, and her friend Christine Prater over a very expensive car that plaintiff financed, and put in plaintiff's name, because defendant sister had bad credit.  Plaintiff wants the remaining payments, and for a detailing for the car.    After six months defendant sister gave car back to plaintiff, saying she couldn't afford it any longer.   Two months later, Christine Prater took over the payments, and it went fine for a year.  Prater applied for a loan from the same bank that had the car note.    Prater needed $4k to pay down loan, because car was only worth $13k, not the loan amount of $17k.    Plaintiff was paying for the car for months, had it listed on Auto Trader, and a for sale sign on the car, but no one wanted to take on car loan, and pay the difference.   

Then defendant Grashoff took the car back over, never tried to get a loan for it, and then dumped it back on the plaintiff after a few months, but defendant never got a loan.      Plaintiff wants defendants to pay the remainder on the loan.   Defendant Prater claims she was making double payments to plaintiff for six months, but claims that plaintiff didn't make the payments.

Car was sold by the lender at auction, and the remaining shortfall is $4,489 for the half of the shortfall.    Navy Federal is trying to work with the plaintiff.  

JJ dismisses the case against defendant Prater.    However, defendant sister thinks she owes nothing.   Plaintiff gets $4,489. 

Who Stole My Clarinet? -Plaintiff Nicholas Long is suing defendant Raymond Sanchez for missing belongings, including his childhood clarinet. Plaintiff allowed defendant to move into the apartment, because plaintiff was still paying on it, and plaintiff had property in the apartment, including the clarinet.   

When plaintiff moved his property out, he went looking for a lot of his property, (clarinet, two swim trunks, etc.). When defendant moved, he said he would ask the people who helped him if they saw plaintiff's clarinet.  

Defendant claims he never saw the clarinet.   

Case dismissed.  

Second (2018)-

Car Takes a Hood Pounding -Plaintiff Michael Rice suing defendant Frederick Jackson for denting his car hood.   Defendant is the mobile home park manager (a 15-acre park, with over 200 mobiles on it), who plaintiff claims confronted him when plaintiff was driving the wrong way.   Plaintiff was in the mobile home park working on a construction job at the mobile park, meeting with a site manager for the mobile park for trenching utilities for the entire park.   

Plaintiff was driving a Corolla, was meeting the site manager, when plaintiff pulled into the entrance/exit to the mobile park, because the defendant said plaintiff was driving the wrong way.   The entrance and exits are clearly marked with signs, and arrows on the road.     

After telling plaintiff to turn around, defendant wouldn't move, when plaintiff kept inching forward to make defendant move.   Plaintiff told defendant to get out of his way.    Then plaintiff says defendant dented his car hood.     Plaintiff is lucky that defendant didn't file criminal charges. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

If Your Bed is There, You Are There! -Plaintiff Tyreese Galloway, and girlfriend Celeste Westerby are suing defendant/former roommate Austin Flores.    The three bought a huge TV set, and other items.    Because the plaintiffs shared a room, the roommates were to split rent and utilities 50/50.    Plaintiff male didn't like defendant's constant parties, underage drinking, and underage drunken guests.    Plaintiff confronted defendant over the behavior, and underage drinking, and so defendant moved out.   Rent was $1260 ($630 for each side).     

This is another renter who moves out, leaves their stuff at the residence, and doesn't think that they have to pay rent for the space their stuff is occupying.   However, plaintiff told defendant to leave.     However, defendant didn't move his bed out until August, so he has to pay his half of August's rent.   

Plaintiffs are told that unless they want another roommate, figure out how to afford the apartment without roommates.    Defendant will have to pay for August, but defendant claims Tyreese was mean to him, so he didn't move out until late August.   

$680 received for two months, because defendant didn't actually pick up his bed until the end of September, $840 minus $160 for defendant's security deposit.   And on Halloween at a certain time, plaintiff will put kitchen table outside, and if defendant doesn't pick it up, too bad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First

Camper Fire Nightmare (2021) -Plaintiff Justin Howerter suing defendant Daniel Radford over plaintiff's destroyed pop-up camper.   Defendant was supposed to get insurance on the pop-up trailer.     Then defendant borrowed the camper/trailer, but came back from a trip to the mountains without the trailer.   

Then grinning fool defendant, who seems to think destroying someone else's property is funny, says that he was driving down the mountain, following another vehicle too closely, ran off the road, and there was also a fire in the trailer.    Plaintiff says the insurance he had only covered plaintiff and his wife.  One of plaintiff's rules about lending the popup trailer is that the borrower had to get insurance, but defendant didn't do that. 

(Every time the defendant was standing their lying through his teeth to JJ, I swear I heard the banjos from Deliverance playing). 

There are no photos of the interior, because of damages from the accident, the pop-up no longer pops up.  Defendant first says two guests were with him, and fiance camping, but then says the other people had their own camper, and didn't use plaintiff's camper.   JJ figures out that defendant, and fiance (Natasha Arnstad), came home, leaving the other two men with the pop-up trailer, and they caused the fire.    That's the only explanation that makes sense, because why would the defendant leave the popup behind, if the others weren't using it?   

 Plaintiff says defendant was supposed to be borrowing the pop-up for two weeks, and defendant came home after four days, and didn't call the plaintiff about the trailer for five additional days.    

Plaintiff receives $5,000. JJ tells plaintiff to dump remains of pop-up on defendant's lawn.  

DUI Bailout (2013)- Plaintiff/aunt Erika Patterson suing defendant/nephew, Cesar Witherow over DUI Bail.  Defendant has been arrested for at least three DUIs, assaults, battery, drug distribution, etc.   Defendant seems proud of his long rap sheet.    Plaintiff bailed defendant out for $3500, but defendant repaid her nothing.   

Defendant's girlfriend couldn't bail out defendant, because she was also in jail for DUI at the same time.  

$3500 to plaintiff for bail. 

Second-

Misguided Roommate Rage?! (2021)- Plaintiff Caitlin Zimbardi suing defendant Britney Hill for unpaid rent for a third roommate (dismissed), car damages to plaintiff's car done by plaintiff (dismissed), and unpaid utility bills.   

Plaintiff claims defendant's untrained puppy was the reason defendant argued with third roommate, who didn't move in (that's what the unpaid rent was for).     Another prospective tenant didn't move in either, because she didn't want to deal with Britney, 

Car damages were from plaintiff ripping her mirror off of her car trying to back past defendant's car.    Plaintiff tried to get defendant to move her car, but defendant didn't. I suspect the parking behind plaintiff's car wasn't an accident. 

Defendant should have paid 25% of utilities, but plaintiff wants 33% of utility bills.    JJ says landlord should sue defendant for the unpaid rent. 

 25% of the one bill should be about $270, don't know about the other three.  '

Everything dismissed.

 

Exotic Bird Collector Battle? (2021)- Plaintiff Thomas and Marcy Savage suing defendant Trent Bergeron for non-payment for two huge bird cages, and an indoor feeding perch.   The litigants all collect exotic birds, but plaintiff decided to stop collecting, and sell the bird cages/outdoor aviary.   The outdoor aviary was not sold, just the two huge indoor cages.

Price was $1,000 but defendant only paid $200.  The two birdcages are at least 3 ft. high.    Defendant only paid $200 of the $1,000.    

$800 to plaintiffs.

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

$958 to plaintiff, and defendant keeps the ring. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Incarcerated Mechanic Runaround ? -Plaintiff Talia Sidney suing defendant Nicholas Rowland over a 20- year-old car (car was 1997 vintage, and cost over $2k) for parking tickets, repair to an SUV, and return of car parts payments.     Car needed a transmission replaced.  Parts and labor would cost $800, plus transfer case.   Plaintiff and her witness claim they paid $400 cash to defendant.   Car went to mechanic in April, and in June, plaintiffs were told car needed a $500 transfer case.   Plaintiff witness/fiance  testifies too, about the payments, and discussions about the car, 

Then he disappeared, and defendant's girlfriend said that defendant was in jail, for back child support.  Defendant claims he wasn't in jail, but defendant's fiance told plaintiffs defendant was in jail, and this was at the end of June.   (I wonder if the transfer case in the vehicle didn't fit because it wasn't the original transmission when plaintiff bought the car?).

Plaintiff woman claims they were told by defendant's mechanic that the car was impounded.   Defendant claims after two months of no contact with plaintiffs, he set car on the street, and it was impounded.   As JJ says, apparently defendant bought the wrong transmission, so he had to change the transfer case to fit the wrong transmission.  

$400 for transmission to plaintiff for transfer case. $2100 for car, totals $2500.     

Annoying New Girlfriend Alert! -Plaintiff Robert Tremayne suing defendant Nathan Adkins (plaintiff's daughter's ex-boyfriend, and father of her kid) for an unpaid loan, $5,000, to pay his bills.   

Defendant brought his new girlfriend to court, just to be annoying.    Defendant says he was supporting plaintiff's daughter while she was taking care of their new baby, and another child from another relationship.   The defendant and plaintiff's daughter have 50/50 custody, so no child support, including taking care of the plaintiff woman's first kid.

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

Highspeed Hit-and-Run -Plaintiff Kenadasha Barber suing defendant/former friend, Cierra Goss, for taking her car without permission, and crashing it.   Defendant stayed with plaintiff at plaintiff's place for about a month, and claims plaintiff sent her to the 7-Eleven at 2 a.m. to buy milk for plaintiff's son.   

Plaintiff denies that she ever authorized defendant to go to store, or drive her car.    Defendant claims a truck without headlights, ran her off the road, and she hit the truck, and a parked car

Police report says alcohol involved, Vehicle 2 was hit by Vehicle 1, and then Vehicle 1 fled at a high speed, and hit Vehicle 3, which was parked. 

$5,000 to plaintiff

Second (2018)-

Repo Skirmish ?!- Plaintiff Michael Smith Jr. suing defendants tow company CFO Mike Langley, and tow driver Randall Hutchinson over plaintiff's car repo, plaintiff claims defendants damaged his car.       Plaintiff stopped paying the car payments for five months, but his father was paying the car insurance policy (car was in father and son's names, and car was on father's insurance policy). 

Plaintiff had an accident in October on the father's insurance, for hood and headlight/front bumper damages (tow driver has documentation that damage hadn't been repaired by plaintiff and was still there the next June when car was repo'd). 

Plaintiff and father both claim different amounts for their car repair, and who fixed the damages.  However, the tow company can prove damage was still on the car.   Plaintiff claims someone else caused the accident, but plaintiff's damages mean he hit the parked car.  

Tow driver came to get car about 11 p.m. Tow driver did a temporary hookup, and moved down the road to secure the car, and that's when plaintiff came up to the car.  Tow driver says when he came to repo the car. that he let the plaintiff get his stuff out of the car.  Then plaintiff said, "How do you stop people from taking the car while they're cleaning it out?", and he was sitting in the driver's seat.  So, tow driver told him to leave.   Tow driver also says plaintiff wasn't home, but girlfriend, and plaintiff drove up from another direction.  

 Tow driver says plaintiff pulled a knife out of his pocket, and then told girlfriend to go inside the house, and get the pistol.  

Plaintiff called police, and claims the defendant tow driver assaulted him, and he has no medical records proving that.     Tow truck driver called 911, then the sheriff's deputies arrived.   

Plaintiff and defendant cases dismissed. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

You Can Talk Online Courses Anywhere! -Plaintiff / tenant Keith DaConsta is suing defendant/landlord John Cappello, who plaintiff claims stole his missing motorcycle, stole his belongings,  and has missing property of plaintiff's.   

Plaintiff was homeless for two years, before moving into landlord's home.   Plaintiff says he was saving money, so he could move to Palm Springs (where defendant lives).    Plaintiff was getting $1400 a month disability, and after the move to Palm Springs, and gets about $1400 a month, and is studying solar technology, at a Palm Springs school, and his classes are paid for by some grant.     

Plaintiff goes to College of the Desert, which is an online only school, so he could do that from anywhere.   Plaintiff's school was always online only.  (Some schools do limit you to staying with in the same state though).

Plaintiff approached defendant's church bishop, about a place to live, and lived at defendant's home, for $400 a month, and still lives in defendant's home.    Plaintiff claims he's paid every month's rent, but hasn't been.   Defendant says there are three months plaintiff didn't pay, including when plaintiff went on vacation.     

Plaintiff got his motorcycle out of storage in October 2020, while he was on disability and couldn't work, but he could ride a motorcycle in the desert.     Plaintiff did store his motorcycle in defendant's garage, for free.   Then when plaintiff was on vacation, defendant smelled something, and found drugs and alcohol in plaintiff's room.   

Defendant is sober for 15 years (Good for him!), and house rules say no drugs, no alcohol, and two other renters were violating the sober rules, and they were evicted before defendant found the alcohol, and drugs in plaintiff's room.

After defendant found the drugs, and alcohol, he took the door off of plaintiff's room.  Defendant told plaintiff to move out, plus defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay rent in November (he was on vacation), and January, February.    JJ will deduct the unpaid rent from the claims by plaintiff.   How does JJ think the defendant can get plaintiff evicted through housing court during a pandemic, in California?  Moratorium in California now runs through the end of September. 

Plaintiff claims defendant stole his motorcycle, but there were a lot of people who had access to the house, to take the keys.  Plaintiff made a police report about the motorcycle attempted theft, and blamed the defendant, but no charges were ever filed.   

Plaintiff had a burner in his room too, and it wasn't allowed either.    (I guess we're not talking hot plate, but some drug related burner?).

Plaintiff owes $800, but defendant will pay $1500, so plaintiff scores $700  

Second-

Operation Rescue Baby Tortoise! (2021) -Plaintiffs Zamora Nace, and boyfriend Christian Garcia suing defendant, Joshua Barraza for a tortoise that plaintiffs bought from defendant, and tortoise later was diagnosed with pneumonia.  Baby Tortoise was bought from defendant for $106 in 13 November.    They only have a receipt.   Then plaintiffs noticed tortoise was not right, so they took it to the vet, on 16 November.   Vet diagnosed possible pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection, and after treatments tortoise died.   Plaintiffs want a replacement tortoise, and almost $1,000 for vet bills.       

Defendant is asked if the other tortoises were sick, but he says they were fine.  Tortoise didn't have health guarantees or warranties.  Roxane Barraza (defendant's wife and part time bookkeeper) says there were no tortoise sales on the date in question, but a slightly different price a week earlier.    JJ suggests that employees of the pet store are fudging the books, and pocketing funds.   I suspect JJ is right.  However, the tortoise sale was misidentified on the sales records.  There are no refunds on tortoises at any time since November. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (JJ says pet store owners might give them a replacement tortoise, but it's only a suggestion.  I wouldn't give the plaintiffs a replacement tortoise in the defendant's place.    In spite of the money they spent at the vet, they don't seem to have any real knowledge on how to raise an animal. )

Child Support Fight (2013)- Plaintiff Sirenade Navaez is suing defendant Jose Martinez (ex-boyfriend) for a motorcycle loan, and child support arrest bail, on two occasions.   Plaintiff claims she bought motorcycle, and defendant has it at his house, and has the title.  Defendant says he's never had a motorcycle, and doesn't have one, or the title.    Plaintiff says previous owner's name is still on the title.   

Defendant was bailed out by plaintiff for $500, for a child support bill of almost $10k.    Then defendant was bailed again for $1,000 for the second child support arrest.  Baby's mother, defendant's ex-girlfriend, also changed the baby's name, because defendant was 'trouble' twice, and she didn't want the baby to have his name.    Defendant gave up his parental rights, after the second arrest and future child support is no longer his problem). 

Defendant still owes the $10,000 arrears on the child support to the ex, but does not have to pay child support after the date he signed to give up his parental rights.    (The $1500 bail money went to the ex for the child support, so he only owes $8500). 

JJ tells plaintiff to go find the motorcycle, and sell it.  Defendant still swears that he doesn't have a motorcycle, and doesn't know where it is. 

Plaintiff receives $1500 bail money back. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(JJ says pet store owners might give them a replacement tortoise, but it's only a suggestion).

I don't think that is the defedants' plan at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Repo Mama! -Plaintiff /car owner  Kimberly Kelsey suing defendant/car buyer Niesha Wright for non-payment for car (taking over the payments), and a false arrest.    Defendant took over the payments in March 2017, and plaintiff repo'd the car in May 2017.   Payment was $631 a month, plus insurance was separate.      Defendant did not bring proof that she paid the car payment in April, apparently she thought she was coming to the beach today, not JJ's Court of Humiliation for Deadbeats.     

Defendant took over payments in March, didn't pay in April or May, and car was repo'd in May by plaintiff.    Defendant has one of the dollar store receipt books, and dates aren't sequential, even though the book is bound.    False arrest was in May, plaintiff was following defendant around to repo car, and police arrested plaintiff for disturbance.  After this, plaintiff hired a repo company, but she found the car first and repo'd it.    Plaintiff also gets her car key back from defendant, but it's only a cover to a key fob.   Replacement key is $250 (it's a lot more expensive now, about $350 for my brand).  

False arrest is dismissed.   

Plaintiff gets $1527 for payments, and replacement key. 

Military Man Browbeating? -Plaintiff Crystal Keiser suing her ex, and father of her two kids for medical costs, including braces, and eyeglasses.  Defendant / deadbeat father Kyle Keiser, who was active duty military (he's no longer in the service), goes home to visit family on his military leaves, but for six years that doesn’t include his children.      

Kyle did bring his girlfriend to court, and she gets her considerably wide ass booted from court.   I bet Kyle wasn't too happy with how he was received by his colleagues, when he went back home after the TV case aired.   

 Loser defendant maintains that he saw his children six years ago, and their eyes, and teeth were fine then, so why should he pay anything for their glasses, and braces now?     JJ sees the settlement agreement for the divorce, which includes eyeglasses, and braces for the children.    Defendant claims the braces, and eyeglasses aren't necessary.  

Plaintiff wants half the two children's eyeglasses, and braces expenses.     (Defendant is no longer in the military, but lives in Tennessee, I guess with Miss Wide Load.     He still never sees his children.)  Plaintiff emailed the bill to defendant the day she paid for the glasses.  The same with the braces.  

$2312 to plaintiff.

Truck Sale Fraud? -Plaintiff J. Scott Sutton suing defendant  Jesse Woodman  over a truck he purchased from defendant.   Plaintiff can't register the truck, it has a salvage title after defendant wrecked the truck,  and purchased it back from the insurance company.   Defendant needs to get a replacement title from state.    Plaintiff says truck had a bad drive train, won't pass inspection, and isn't registered.  

I'm not liking defendant, but plaintiff is really irritating.   

Plaintiff gets $800 back that he paid for the truck, and defendant can pick up truck if he wants.   If defendant doesn't pick up the truck, then plaintiff can call the car lot that sold it to defendant and ask if they want it back. 

Second (2018)-

Disabled Helping the Disabled? -Plaintiff Charles McGuire, Jr. suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Naomi Jeanette Maness for using plaintiff's debit card without his permission. Defendant was being paid by the state to take care of her grandmother, and no longer does.  While defendant was being paid as a caretaker for her grandmother by the state, she was also receiving disability.     Plaintiff received a $44k settlement, and $119k settlement from Worker's Comp.   (This totals $163k). 

Plaintiff and defendant met online, he went and picked her up at the grandmother's place, and 12 hours later she moved into plaintiff's house, along with defendant's friend. 

 Plaintiff was denied disability, and appealed and won, and received a settlement for disability, and worker's comp.  Plaintiff supported himself off the books, and hired an attorney, and won a lot of money.    Plaintiff received the settlement, bought a mobile home, and he claims defendant spent $7,000 of his settlements.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant made $7,000 in charges while they were shacking up, but not after she moved out.   Plaintiff's son is his witness, who never says a word.   Plaintiff's other witness is his first ex-wife, and they're back together (Yes, I hear banjos playing too). 

Defendant counter claims for property she left at the mobile home, and had to rent trucks, and get the police to stand by.   The defendant's claim is going to be thrown out too.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant's ridiculous case dismissed. 

Highway Barricade Collision-Plaintiff Phillip Wiggins suing defendant Kris Garcia (he's the son of owner of the Ford SUV, Vanessa Ayala. Son is 20, so much cheaper for insurance because of son's age to have car on mother's insurance), for a car accident.     The two vehicles were going the same direction passing through a construction zone, plaintiff was in the middle lane, and says defendant in the left lane started hitting construction barricade barrels, and barrels started flying.  I wonder if neck collar plaintiff is wearing is necessary?  (Defendant's SUV looks like a Ford Explorer or Expedition). 

Defendant son says plaintiff was 'rushing' him into the barricades.   Both litigants were due at work by 6:00 a.m., and the accident was about 5:30 a.m. There was also a sign a half mile before the barrels, to move right, because the left lane was closed ahead.   

Plaintiff's car (Toyota Camry) had front end damage, and photo of defendant's car shows a barrel stuck underneath it.    Defendant's insurance company sent plaintiff a letter saying the son is explicitly excluded from coverage by the policy holder Vanessa Ayala (his mother). 

However, Ms. Ayala put car and insurance in her name, and because son is 20, excluded him from insurance policy as a driver, so he wasn't insured, and insurance won't cover the accident.  Watch JJ go ballistic about that, and I am glad about that.   This case is two years old, and I bet the son is still driving a car in his mother's name, and not on the insurance either.  Vanessa Ayala lies to JJ, and says she tried to get insurance for the son.  

Defendant Garcia still drives the SUV constantly, still uninsured.  Vanessa Ayala shows no remorse about her son driving without insurance, and neither does he.  

Plaintiff receives $1,265. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First

Single Mom Daycare Battle! (2021)-Plaintiff Mercy Monarrez suing defendant Felicia Biagi for daycare expenses, and food expenses for the three children defendant left with plaintiff.    Defendant wanted plaintiff to take care of her three kids, including meals for the children.    Plaintiff filled out the paperwork to qualify for state daycare pay, and she was paid in September.   However, for August there was no pay by the state, or the defendant. 

Defendant is counter claiming because plaintiff didn't give her notice, and had to quarantine her kids before entering the next daycare.   Defendant wants lost wages, because she couldn't go to work until she had another day care.  Defendant counterclaim dismissed. 

There was no written contract.   Plaintiff wants $650 for the two weeks, which is half of the monthly stipend from the state for three kids, full-time for five days, was $1300 a month.   Some of the babysitting was overnight too. 

Plaintiff is also a full-time student, but is actually paid to take classes.   $1000 a class is her payment. She also gets child support, EBT, and family helps to support her.  

Plaintiff receives $650.

Car Blow Up! (2014) – Plaintiffs Keith and Alice Kelly suing car seller/defendants Raven Seals, and brother Joe Dodd over a deposit on a car plaintiffs bought from defendant.    Plaintiffs claim car blew up on the way to the mechanic’s shop. 

Plaintiffs paid $3600 for the car, drove car around the block, no paperwork.   However, Joe Dodd, defendant says he left the bill of sale at home (apparently, he thought he was coming to the beach today).   

Plaintiffs put down $3600 for the car.  Instead of taking the car back to defendants, the plaintiffs took the car to the mechanic, and paid the mechanic for repairs.  A week later the plaintiffs paid to repair the car.   As JJ says, treating it as your own means you've completed the sale.   Therefore, the "As Is" rule, and the completed contract sink the chances of any refund. 

Plaintiffs spent over $4500 on repairs.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second-

$123,000 Lego Mini-figure Dispute?!-Plaintiff Casey Millerick suing LEGO seller Beth Jones, for the LEGO parts she sold him.   Plaintiff said plastic storage container was supposed to be 200 lbs. of LEGO parts, for $800, but when plaintiff took them home, they only weighted 70 lbs.  Plaintiff collects the little LEGO figures that come in the LEGO sets, one or two per Lego set. 

 Plaintiff bought the Lego pieces from defendant, and the litigants carried it to his car.  So how could the two people carry that much weight to the car?     70 lbs. weighs a lot less than, 200 lbs. that Legos were supposed to weigh, so the two didn’t notice the difference?  

Then plaintiff weighed the box, and texted the defendant about the missing 130 lbs.  Plaintiff had every chance to weight them at defendant's house.  Alternate scenario, plaintiff could have picked out the figures out of the LEGO box, because he didn't want the LEGO pieces, just the little mini-figures.  

Plaintiff paid $800 for the LEGO tub.   Plaintiff has had the LEGO set for over a month, so as JJ says, who knows if he picked out what he wanted to keep?  Plaintiff said defendant failed to offer a refund, or anything else.  Plaintiff also didn't try to get a better deal from defendant, by bargaining the price down. 

Then the bombshell from defendant, that plaintiff has been trying to sell the LEGO figures on Ebay for $123,000, and plaintiff confirms some came from the box he bought from defendant.  The look on JJ's face when defendant says the price on eBay is hysterical.  (However, last time this aired, other posters who actually know about eBay said that the $123,000 figure isn’t an actual sale price, but was actually the $123,456 price used for negotiable items).

JJ says $300 to plaintiff would be fair.  However, JJ also says it was up to plaintiff to weigh the box.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I find it hard to believe that a physical therapist would believe a tub of hollow plastic  blocks would weigh anywhere near 200 pound man.  The woman's explanation that she estimated it on the weight of her two  young sons who likely only weighted <100 lbs combined does not make sense either  The best estimate would have been a 50 pound sack of dog food which might have fit in the bin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Land Thief?!-Plaintiff Joseph Piskala  put in labor clearing out land he was promised by defendant, Joan Bernier, suing for non-payment of work performed on her property.   Defendant sold land to someone else, after plaintiff cleared the land.    Sadly, real property has to be done in writing, but it wasn't in this case.   Land was $38k, for 8.3 acres, for plaintiff to buy from defendant. 

After plaintiff wanted to buy the property, the defendant said an attorney represented her, but the attorney said he hadn't dealt with defendant for 20 years.    Then, defendant told him another attorney, who never came to an agreement about the sale, and defendant received an offer for twice what plaintiff wanted to give her for the land (he offered $38,000 for the 8.35 acre parcel, and land sold for twice that). 

 Plaintiff went on the land, cleared out a lot of junk and weeds.   Plaintiff wants to be compensated for work done before the sale, and claims the defendant gave him permission to go on the property, but that doesn't mean a written contract.  Litigants had no contract about the land sale, or clearing the land.  

Too bad for plaintiff he worked on property for 3 1/2 months, and never received anything.  (Another losing litigant who claims he's not dropping this matter, he lost, and the agreement he signed for court means this is the end of the matter).

Case dismissed. 

Blown Stop Sign Slam?!-Plaintiff Thomas Granger suing other driver for broad siding his car.   Defendant Selma Strier, hit the rear of plaintiff's car.   (This happened in Phoenix, AZ). 

Defendant claims plaintiff was next to her.   However, defendant pulled up to a stop sign, claims she looks all directions, then plaintiff was traveling through after coming to a full stop at the stop sign, and defendant hit him.    

Police report says defendant was at a stop sign, and came in the intersection, and hit the plaintiff.   Defendant's insurance company refused to cover the damages to plaintiff's car.   (My question is how the insurance company got away with not paying for plaintiff’s car when the police report said defendant was totally at fault?).   Defendant absolutely lied about the accident, and she shouldn't be driving. 

Plaintiff receives $1391 for car damage.

Fender Bender Battle!-Plaintiff Orchid Fredericks, driver and car co-owner, is suing over parking lot fender bender.    Car is co-owned by Ms. Fredericks, and Mr. Redd.   Plaintiff wife was driving, and car was insured.   Defendant's Robert Greene, insurance just lapsed, as usual. Defendant backed into plaintiff in parking lot, but as usual, claims plaintiff hit him.      Defendant was backing out of a parking space when the collision happened.   

Plaintiff was entering the parking lot, going straight, and defendant backed out of his parking space.      Defendant claims he was coming into the parking lot from another direction, and claims plaintiff hit his car while they were racing to the parking lot.    Police didn't ask defendant for proof of insurance.  

Plaintiff receives $1391.

Second (2018)-

Fit of Drunken Rage?!-Plaintiff Constance Cochran (aunt) is suing defendant (nephew) Roy Newman for breaking her house window, car damages, and a small loan.   Plaintiff claims defendant was angry over her wanting the loan repaid, and broke into her house, breaking the window. 

Plaintiff claims nephew threw a log from the back of his truck through her bedroom window (she's a renter, so an angry landlord is in her future).  House window bill is $339. 

There are a lot of charges from the landlord, because plaintiff is being evicted, so her charges include the window, attorney fees, and JJ's guess is that she hasn't paid her portion of Section 8 rent, and plaintiff finally admits she's being evicted for not paying her portion of the rent for two months.   

Plaintiff claims nephew vandalized her car, but isn't in her name, so she gets nothing for the car, so plaintiff can't sue for the car damages.  Plaintiff claims defendant used a log to dent her car.  (My guess, if the car was in plaintiff's name that would affect her finances enough to screw up her disability payments). 

Defendant claims aunt was angry with him, and shot his rear windshield out of his car.  

The eviction agreement is that aunt won't owe $1495 for back rent, damages, attorney fees, and be evicted is she leaves by a certain date.   If plaintiff pays $400+ by January. 

Defendant gets $60, plaintiff case dismissed. 

Social Security Theft?!-Plaintiff Marcus McLeod suing defendant/former family friend Chrissy Harris for stealing his social security disability money.    Plaintiff gets social security disability, since he was six for a back issue, and is now twenty-two.   Plaintiff is also a record producer, and sells online.   

Plaintiff is asked if he makes a lot through the music someday, if he'll still take the disability, and he says yes, he will.    Plaintiff says his mother set this up years ago.    Plaintiff needed a place to stay, so moved in with defendant, and she became his payee.   Defendant was the payee for five months, and plaintiff claims defendant kept two months of his SSD.   However, there was a two-month lag between moving in with defendant/payee, and her actually getting the rent money.   

Plaintiff had back surgery at six years old, but recovered, and later played basketball, still plays basketball, so why still on disability?   Also, he's 22, so why does he have a payee? 

(I’m hoping someone at the Social Security Administration saw this case, and did something about this).

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First

While the Car Owner is Away… (2021)- Plaintiff Jasmine Farr suing defendant Troy Blake for racking up tickets on her car when she was out of state, and defendants were using her car, and toll fees.  Defendant says two of plaintiff's friends were also driving the car, and had tickets too.   Plaintiff leased car to friend and pay expenses (insurance, etc.) for $330 a month for friend, and another friend (this turns out to be Troy, the defendant) would be the only drivers.   Friend of friend wanted defendant to take over the payments on the car, which went from month-to-month, to week-by-week.   

When plaintiff got back in August, (contract with defendant is dated 4 April), she discovered that there were a lot of tickets on the car.  From 4 April to 4 May there were tickets by defendant totaling $249    However all of the tickets, plus late fees, add up to $1269.  After 4 May car went to $75 a week through August, when plaintiff returned.    April to May there were 4 tickets, May to August there were 3 tickets.   

JJ tells defendant that he can sue the witness (one of the other drivers), for her portion of the tickets (However, the ticket money comes out of the award pool, so defendant isn't out any money).    Defendant witness keeps chiming in, and yelling in court.   Witness claims he saw Britney (plaintiff's witness, and another driver of the car) driving in July. 

(As a parting statement, defendant tells JJ she's looking good, and invites her to lunch).   

$630 to plaintiff.   JJ tells plaintiff to sue Brittany for the other $630.

Roommate Disaster (2014)- Plaintiffs Jeremy Bauer and Giovanna  Corado are suing defendant Nathan Osias for rent, and a dresser.   Plaintiffs were girlfriend, and boyfriend, and defendant was the third roommate.  Plaintiffs moved in another roommate, after defendant moved out.   This house has 2 full size bedrooms ($500 each), and a half size bedroom ($300) that they also rent out.     Plaintiffs locked the defendant out the second he left, and couldn't get back in.  

Defendant says previous tenant gave him the dresser.  Defendant paid a friend to store some of his things in a friend's van.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant case dismissed also. 

Second-

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

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

Hallterviews are hysterical.  Defendant says the plaintiffs drink too much, and plaintiff says defendant has too many children. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

Defendant shows the cut, but I can't see much in real court with a very close shot, and this is high definition that shows everything.  I see nothing on her cheek that she claims was slashed open, and she never saw a doctor.     

 JJ asks if defendant is on any medications, and she says no.    Defendant has no medical bills, or medical report to submit, and never went to the doctor.  Defendant has a police report, but didn't bring it to court.    

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

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

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Spiteful Grandpa?-Plaintiff John Kostich   is suing his son's girlfriend/defendant Linda Ramirez , for unpaid loan to pay vet bills for son's dog, and unauthorized credit card charges.    Defendant, Linda Ramirez,  and boyfriend,   John Kostich, Jr.  have been a couple for five years.     Son has daughter, and some charges are supposed to be for child.   Granddaughter is living with grandfather/plaintiff, but she doesn't see her father (defense witness) for the last year.    Plaintiff says son called, and for a vet bill for his dog would cost almost $600, and so plaintiff signed application for care credit, and the bill was charged to Care Credit card.    

Defendant gets $3500 a month for alimony, but not child support (4 grown kids), and alimony stops when she remarries the defendant witness.  She claims she's marrying the fiance in September, I wonder if she did?  I guess that's why the five year engagement.   I can't imagine someone getting endless years of alimony, it simply doesn't happen that way these days.   

Defendant woman claims the credit payment was a gift, not a loan.   Defendant woman claims fiance/plaintiff's son used father's credit card Care Credit to charge at the pharmacy for a lot of items.    Son admits to using the card, not his fiance.    Recliner cost $399 plus tax, and vet bill was $242, plus various charges by son (plaintiff's not able to sue defendant woman for boyfriend's charges).    Care Credit card was maxed out by January for vet bill, and charges by defendant fiance, John Kostich Jr..  Son/defendant seems to think credit card charges aren't real money.  Father will need to sue son for son's charges on the card. 

$242 to plaintiff for vet bill.  

Timber!  Healthy Tree Takedown!-Plaintiff Mark Limon suing neighbor Michael Kagan for damaging his fence and storage shed when neighbor chopped down a tree.  Defendant chopped down tree at his rental property, next to plaintiff's rental property.   Both litigants have owned their respective properties for about 20 years, and defendant  has never lived in the house.    Plaintiff rented his property out after this happened, so now both houses are just investment/rental properties.    

Defendant hired tree removal company, tree roots were causing a problem according to defendant.     Plaintiff says he never complained about the tree, and says tree was healthy.   Defendant hired some woman who had a handywoman service, and they took the tree down, nailing the fence and metal shed.   

Plaintiff says defendant claimed he could pay for fence, but didn't pay.    Defendant claims he had fence repaired months ago, but plaintiff says it was a minimal patch job.      Then plaintiff put up new fence to replace patched, damaged fence.   There are no photos of the repaired fence, before plaintiff paid to have fence replaced.   

Shed looks very old and rusty, fence was probably about 20 years old, and falling apart.  However, that doesn't give defendant right to smash them to hell either.   As JJ said, the defendant is just lucky that no one was killed or injured taking the tree down.  

Case dismissed.  

Second (2017)-

Baby's Ashes Stolen?!-Plaintiff/fiance of Famous, Latisha Davenport (age 38), and defendant/Famous' ex-girlfriend (she's 24)and mother of three children of his,  Vernisha Nelson, are fighting over some incarcerated jailbird (his name is Famous, incarcerated on a gun charge) that fathered children with both of them.  Plaintiff is  suing for theft of baby's ashes, false restraining orders, false CPS charges, and harassment.

Plaintiff is SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four), who has been unemployed for years, and is going to school.  She was advised not to work by attorneys, because she's suing for medical malpractice over the baby's death.     Defendant claims plaintiff posted naked pictures of her.   Famous isn't on at least one of defendant's child's birth certificate.   

SSDI gave one child a back payment, so plaintiff Mother of the Year bought a Mazda 5, that Famous used to give people rides for money.  Plaintiff's one child is on SSDI.   Famous has been in jail fairly often.   One complaint is defendant called CPS, and said Famous was molesting one of the children, and that plaintiff was on drugs (no proof about who called CPS).

Defendant, SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three, three boys, apparently with Famous) is a home health aide.    As JJ says, anyone who posts filth like the defendant shouldn't be taking care of elderly, vulnerable people.   Vernisha Nelson says her oldest son won't be like Famous, "because he plays Soccer".     Defendant claims plaintiff sent nude pictures of defendant to all of Famous' friends, and how would plaintiff get naked pictures of defendant unless Famous gave them to her?   

Plaintiff claims defendant broke in to her house, and stole her baby's ashes.    Plaintiff claims she has over 1,000 texts from defendant, and there is a text saying defendant stole the baby's ashes, because of something over defendant's brother.   However, ashes were left on plaintiff's doorstep after the theft.  

When the ashes were stolen Famous was boinking plaintiff, and staying with defendant at the time too.   Ashes disappeared, and then showed up at plaintiff's home three days later.   Plaintiff claims defendant climbed through her window, but window is small, and high up, so how did she climb in?     Trust me, neither litigants' considerably huge butts would fit through that window.  

Plaintiff had a restraining order against defendant, so why is plaintiff texting to defendant after that was issued, and going to defendant's children's doctor’s appointments with Famous?  Plaintiff claims defendant tried to burn her house down. 

Plaintiff loves Famous, and I guess defendant does too.   Defendant claims plaintiff has a husband besides Famous, but plaintiff still claims to love Famous.

Case dismissed.  

Daughter's Bad Behavior Battle-Plaintiff Jennifer Aakjar is  suing former roommate for balance of a lease, and the security deposit (apartment was in Florida).    Defendant Tina West is suing for same garbage.   

Plaintiff and daughter, plus defendant moved in together.    Plaintiff's daughter is a 20-year-old brat, and misbehaved in the apartment, so defendant finally said daughter goes, or I move out, so defendant moved out.    Plaintiff claims her daughter is still a brat, but improving.   Plaintiff wants the balance of the lease, but plaintiff lived in the condo by herself, sometimes with daughter, so that's dismissed.

Security deposit was a month's rent.  After defendant moved out, plaintiff never had another roommate. Defendant will have to pay half of the month’s rent, but will get half of the security deposit.  

Plaintiff daughter is over 20 now, and plaintiff says defendant watched her daughter when plaintiff traveled.   Defendant's worst mistake was ever moving in with the plaintiff and her daughter. 

$735 for security deposit to defendant.    Both litigants will sign check in front of JJ's staff attorney, made payable to the attorney, and he will allot the money to defendant.    Defendant says there was a ton of drug use by plaintiff's daughter, and undesirable friends from daughter, so defendant moved.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First

Political Fight Dissolves Friendship?! (2021)- Plaintiff Richard Awa is suing defendant, TImo Jihani "T.J." Harju, for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff allowed defendant to move in, but said that if defendant stayed more than a week, he would have to pay $500 a month rent.   Defendant lives in Finland, but rents out his house near Loma Linda University, all of the time.   

Defendant also says he owns a car that was at plaintiff's house, and driven by plaintiff's roommate Dan, but wanted to get that straightened out.   Another car was stored at plaintiff's home, but the Dan car was only in defendants name while Dan was in China.     (No, I don't understand anything about the cars).    

The litigants had political arguments, and they weren't speaking by the time defendant moved out.   There was no contract.

Plaintiff case dismissed.   No contract, no payment. 

Sugar in the Gas Tank Threat (2014)- Plaintiff TamekaTurner, is suing defendant /cousin Aliciea Davis, for sugaring her gas tank.   Defendant let her sister-in-law drive her car, no license, and car was impounded.   Plaintiff would get car out of impound (paid the fees), and plaintiff would drive the car until defendant paid the impound fees off, but never did.   Defendant took her car back, without paying the impound fees.  Defendant says plaintiff sugared her gas tank.   Plaintiff says car was impounded, and repo'd at the same time.   Impound fees, and two payments equaled $1198.

Defendant says because she argued with plaintiff the night before, that plaintiff put the sugar in the gas tank.    Defendant's witness is such a liar, and was the accomplice to stealing the car back.  

$1198 to plaintiff.  For the impound and car payments.

Second-(2021)

Designer Sneaker Scam?! -Plaintiffs Leonardo and Alonzo Franco are suing defendant Ryan Padilla over designer sneakers plaintiffs bought from defendant, that plaintiffs think are fakes.   Plaintiffs sell through some third-party auction, after they've been authenticated as genuine for 8%.    The third party does the authentication, and the auction for plaintiffs.      

Plaintiffs saw the Offer Up ad from defendant, and plaintiffs went to look at the sneakers at defendant's house.   Plaintiffs paid $550, and were sent a receipt by defendant for the original purchase of the sneakers.  

Plaintiffs didn't take the blue light (flashlight size) to authenticate the sneakers.   Plaintiffs buy and resale sneakers, and keep some they want to keep.   Plaintiffs used the blue light at home, and it failed, and then plaintiffs took it to authenticators, and it failed again.    Defendant never gave plaintiffs the buy receipt.   

Defendant bought the sneakers off of Offer Up a few days before advertising them, bought for $400, sold for $500.  The problem is that plaintiffs bought from a private party, didn't try to authenticate them with the blue light, and waited too long to dispute purchase with defendant.  Sneakers were purchased by defendant from a private party, and did use a blue light on the shoes, and paid the seller $400.  

Defendant put sneakers on Offer Up for $600, settled for $500 to sell to plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs had every chance to take their blue light with them before the purchase, and could have taken them to be authenticated the same day also.  Defendant claims he had one of the authentication flashlights, and offered to let plaintiffs use it, but plaintiffs didn’t use the light. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

I know this will sound strange, but I usually can find what I posted about an older episode, and just paste it and fix the many typos.   However, this week there are two 2021 cases that don't sound familiar, and I couldn't find at all.    Unless I missed two episodes, which I don't think is possible, maybe we will actually have a new episode or two.   Maybe we'll actually be getting a couple of un-aired episodes this week.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/28/2021 at 6:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Every time the defendant was standing their lying through his teeth to JJ, I swear I heard the banjos from Deliverance playing

I'm dead/

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

On 7/1/2021 at 2:46 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Too bad for plaintiff he worked on property for 3 1/2 months, and never received anything.  (Another losing litigant who claims he's not dropping this matter, he lost, and the agreement he signed for court means this is the end of the matter).

I'd move away from any town where that ANGRY Plaintiff parks his behind.  He's irrational and TOO ANGRY.   Wonder if he's had that scary/angry face/behavior all his life.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The last few weeks of JJ episodes were interesting.  It didn't look as if she even brushed her hair before she went on air.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2021 at 5:21 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant put sneakers on Offer Up for $600, settled for $500 to sell to plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs had every chance to take their blue light with them before the purchase, and could have taken them to be authenticated the same day also.  Defendant claims he had one of the authentication flashlights, and offered to let plaintiffs use it, but plaintiffs didn’t use the light. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

There was something fishy about this case to me.  He wouldn't have bought the shoes if they thought they would be fake would he?  He knew how to authenticate them.  

But if he did not authenticate them before he left the buyer, doesn't the seller have any responsibility at all?  He's going to do that to the wrong person one day and get a butt whupping for sure.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2021 at 5:59 PM, Back Atcha said:

I'd move away from any town where that ANGRY Plaintiff parks his behind.  He's irrational and TOO ANGRY.   Wonder if he's had that scary/angry face/behavior all his life.

Those facial expressions were everything.  No matter how thorough JJ explained the situation to him, he refused to grasp the simple concept - until the land was deeded over to you or you had some sort of instrument regarding the land,  you should have left it alone.

Although frankly, that defendant seemed a little shady to me.  She had an agreement with the plaintiff but was apparently still shopping the land around for a higher price.  And I don't believe for one second that the man was "trespassing" - I think she was perfectly willing to let him clear off that land, remove trash, etc. (probably even encouraged him to do so) at no expense to herself - hell why not?  It would make the land more appealing to another buyer.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I know that people have mentioned JJ is available on Pluto TV's Courtroom Channel. A JJ time capsule is a great thing! 

Yesterday, there was a marathon. Still in season 2? from 1997. Wow, the older seasons were amazing. Interesting stories. JJ had patience and listened and gave some excellent advice. She even smiled frequently. (I can understand that 25 years of people insisting on not listening to her has shortened her fuse.) People dressed appropriately and treated the court and the process and (mostly) each other with respect. Litigants were able to explain their case coherently and answer questions. Well worth a watch—and totally free.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Father Figure Accused of Evil Plot! -Plaintiff Syed Moinuddin is suing defendant (his ex's daughter) Marrisa MIller for unauthorized use of his credit cards, and loans.    Plaintiff says step daughter, and mother lived with plaintiff from age 2 to 4, and had a relationship/friendship for years, daughter is now 21.    Defendant says mother wasn't romantic with plaintiff (not believing that).     Defendant lived with plaintiff rent free as an adult, at two periods.   

Plaintiff claims the laptop he bought defendant was a loan, not a gift, and cost $1390.   Plaintiff made the hideous mistake of putting defendant as an authorized user on a credit account, to build her credit history, with a $200 limit.    However, defendant took plaintiff's bank account information, so money came right out of his bank account.   In October defendant spent $1,000 on credit card.  

Defendant says she never went over $200 a month, but then slips up, and says that the limit on the card was $2,000.    Defendant claims card was in both names, but that's a lie, and over spent the $200 limit every month.   

$1433 to plaintiff for the card charges, and JJ says laptop was a gift.  Defendant is smirking in the hall-terview, so she thinks she won. 

Phantom Driver at Fault?! -Plaintiff Charles "Adrian" Stokes is suing defendant Cynthia Garner for rear ending his car.   He was driving below the speed limit, at 11 p.m., when a dog and a child came out in front of him, and he hit the brakes, and defendant hit his car in the rear end.  Defendant claims she came to a full stop, when someone else rear ended her car, and caused her to hit plaintiff's car.   So, nothing is her fault. 

Defendant submits the police report, which proves her testimony is pure horse s$*%.    Police report notes damage to the front of defendant's car, back of plaintiff's car, and no evidence that defendant was rear ended.  Plaintiff hired an attorney when defendant's insurance (Progressive) was taking forever investigating his claim against plaintiff, and still hadn't paid him for car damages.   

Defendant says her father came to the scene, and saw the glass on the ground behind her car, and the picture is no proof at all.    Damages on plaintiff's bumper, and trunk area are bad.  Defendant's rear end damages don't look fresh, and are very minor, and it's the tire cover on the back of her car.   

Plaintiff only had liability on the car, because comprehensive didn't cover much but theft or fire.    Plaintiff hired an attorney until Progressive refused to pay damages on plaintiff's car, from defendant hitting him.   Then plaintiff hired an attorney to go after Progressive. 

(My guess is defendant lied to Progressive about the accident, and that's why they didn't pay the plaintiff).  Defendant claims her insurance company said she wasn't at fault, because she claimed she was stopped, when she got hit.    

Plaintiff receives $3600.

Second (2018)-

Paraplegic’s Dying Wishes Ignored?!- Plaintiff sister Dorris Duncan suing defendant /roommate  Carolyn Reed for return or value of property taken without permission, after plaintiff's late brother died.      Defendant lived with brother, and took care of him for the last five years, but the plaintiff/sister was paid to be brother's caretaker ($1,000 a month, for 20 years by the state).        

Sister worked in corrections (a canteen manager, not corrections officer) for the state full time, but still scored $1,000 a month to 'care' for brother, and he died with very bad bed sores, so she wasn't doing her job.   

The sister's ridiculous demand for the computer, fax, and printer for sentimental reasons was totally bogus, she just wanted to make every penny off of the brother she could.   Brother told plaintiff/sister that he left money in his safe for the defendant after he was gone, but defendant didn't know about the bequest.   

The second the brother died, the plaintiff sister and husband took the safe from the house, and gave nothing to the defendant. but sister also grabbed the insurance policy to cash in too.  When safe was opened, there was $7,000 in the safe, and defendant only received $5510, not the $7,000, so sister ripped off $1,490 for herself.   

Brother died without a will according to sister, but safe was opened at her home, so there could have been a will too.  The honest thing to do would be to open the safe at the brother's house, with the defendant watching.     Plaintiff claims defendant stole brother's computer, printer, fax, Bose speakers, jewelry, and household items.     Defendant says she only took an electric trash can, and her own clothing, and belongings.    Unfortunately, defendant can't prove how much money was in the safe, and for assault (Several men assaulted her at the funeral, and she thinks plaintiff set them up to hurt her). 

I suspect JJ thinks the plaintiff paid for the brother's funeral expenses with cash from the safe, and I bet she's right. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.   Defendant has no proof, so receives nothing.   (In the hall-terview nasty plaintiff says defendant was thrown out by her family when she came out of the closet, that was another low blow by a disgusting, greedy person).

Mommy Stole My School Money! -Plaintiff Kenneth Travis suing defendant/so-called mother, Teresa Travis for cashing and keeping his financial aid check, $2538.    Her 'defense' is that she needed the money, and son wasn't paying her bills.   

Mother says she took the check because son didn't go into the Navy, and he wasn't paying her bills.  Son made the mistake of having a joint account with the mother.   

$2538 to plaintiff.  I hope he closed the account with the mother's name on it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2015)-

Horrifying Dog Death?  -Plaintiff Allison Nugent claims her dog was hit by a neighbor/defendant Steven Langford, after dark on a snowy road.  When plaintiff went to get the dog he bit her, she's suing for vet bills, and medical bills.   Defendant Steven Langford, claims the dog is never on leash, and in the road all of the time.    Defendant may be out of control, but I think the plaintiff lets the dog off leash.  

The plaintiff claims she almost always has the dog on leash (defendant says the dog was never on a leash).    Plaintiff says it was after dark, dog was off leash, and on the other side of the road, claims she tried to slow the driver down, claims the truck ran right over the dog, slowly.     Plaintiff says it's a private road, but the state still maintains it (around here that's a public road once the state or city maintains it).     

Steven Langford, defendant, brought his attorney for advice, so I'm wondering how much that cost him?     Apparently, the defendant said to the plaintiff that his son was driving the truck.    If Langford had shut up, the off-leash situation would have sunk the plaintiff, but he just won't shut up.    I wonder how much the attorney charged for the trip, and court?   The attorney/witness says the police did an investigation, and looked under the truck and found no damage, and no marks, and there are four other identical trucks on the same road.    

Plaintiff has no case, walking dog without a leash on a dark night, walking in the road, and it's all her fault.   No money to plaintiff.     

Bad Driver Caught on Tape! -Plaintiff Elyssa Lampton says defendant Angela Trotter, owes for damaged from auto accident, in a parking lot.   Plaintiff was backing out of a parking space.      Defendant claims the accident wasn't her fault.   

The video shows someone running into a vehicle coming out of a parking space.    The car traveling down the driving lane should have right of way, but she's going very fast for the parking lot.      

Defendant says her car was insured, but the plaintiff's car wasn't covered by insurance (Progressive), because she only had liability.     The defendant says Progressive said the plaintiff wasn't covered at the time of the accident.    Sadly for all of us, Angela Trotter, the defendant is a Medical Transport Driver, and she drives like a bat out of hell.   

JJ rules it's comparative negligence, and they're responsible for their own damage.      If the defendant wouldn't have been speeding, then things would have turned out better for her.   It costs $400 for the defendant's damage, and she has no proof of payment.    Plaintiff gets $500, for 50% of the deductible, and that's it. 

Second-

Unbelievable ATV Story! (2021)- Plaintiff Teresa Anderson suing defendant Michael Blake over a used ATV plaintiff bought from him.   Plaintiff claims defendant guaranteed the used ATV, and would pay her for repair costs.    Plaintiff picked up the ATV at defendant's place, with a trailer. 

 Plaintiff bought the ATV in May, and only drove it twice, once in June, and once in July.   After two months, ATV was not working right, and was sent to the mechanic.     On July 4, plaintiff sent defendant a text saying she only rode the ATV twice, and it had broken down.   The mechanic's bill was $3200, and plaintiff wants that from defendant.

"Guarantee" was verbal, and only plaintiff claimed there was a guarantee. There was no bill of sale, just the signed title.   Defendant denies he ever said he would fix the ATV, or pay repair costs, or ever gave any guarantee on the ATV.

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

A First for Judge Judy! (2021) – Plaintiff Nathaniel Allenby, and fiance Alexandria Lothian suing former landlords  Antoinette Fusco, and husband Stephen 'Pat' O'Hara for vandalized car, security deposit, rent back, and harassment, and punitive damages.   

There was a written lease for the house, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2 parking spaces, and other storage spaces.   However, Antoinette Fusco claims they just rented a room in the house, and the lease was printed off of the internet.  There is nothing about plaintiffs renting a room, with other people living there as tenants too. Vandalizing of car is dismissed, no proof of who did anything to the car. 

There was another tenant that was renting a room in the house also.    The lease says both plaintiffs rented an entire house, and this was signed by both parties.    There were two tenants in the house at various times, and one living in the garage which was also leased to the tenant.  

Since the defendant's violated the lease, the plaintiffs will get all of their rent back.  (This is a first for Judge Judy).    

Plaintiffs receive $1300 for security deposit, and four months rent back, $5,000 court maximum.

Redecorating Disaster (2013)- Plaintiff sister Claudette Stepp suing defendant sister Denise Persson, for trashing and painting her room in plaintiff’s house, while defendant was pet sitting.  (Plaintiff's wig is hideous, probably from the producer's wig closet maintained for people who think no one will recognize them when they wear a cheap wig). 

JJ is not impressed by plaintiff claiming sister not only painted the room hideous, hard to cover colors, but ignores the stoner party that defendant threw too. 

$500 to repaint for plaintiff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Steven Langford, defendant, brought his attorney for advice, so I'm wondering how much that cost him? 

I would guess the attorney is a relative or friend, so maybe the trip alone was compensation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Yappie Yorkie Takes a Hit?!  -Plaintiff/Yorkie owner Debra Stokes, is suing defendant/ German Shepherd (GSD) owner Nicole Christner for vet and medical bills, and punitive damages. Plaintiff says defendant's dog was off leash, and attacking her, and her Yorkie.   Defendant's dog grabbed plaintiff by the leg, and she fell, then realized her Yorkie was in the defendant's dog's mouth.    German Shepherd mix did not have rabies or other vaccinations.    Plaintiff says defendant's dog was quarantined ,and euthanized after the attack.    Plaintiff was standing on her own yard, at the side of her own house.    As usual, defendant is blaming the plaintiff, and her dog for the attack.   Defendant claims her dog was being walked on a leash, pulled out of the collar, and then the attack happened. 

Plaintiff was on her property, with her Yorkie on a leash, and when defendant and dog trespassed on plaintiff's property, plaintiff picked her dog up, then plaintiff turned towards her porch, and the defendant's dog attacked her.   GSD went after plaintiff's face, and leg, and Yorkie fell out of plaintiff's arms.   Meanwhile, defendant and the two men with her did nothing.  At this point the GSD was holding the Yorkie by the neck.   Plaintiff says the defendant's dog was not on a leash.   Theodis Stokes, plaintiff's husband saw this, and came to help his wife.  

Plaintiff says defendant said to her that the neighbors complained about the GSD, so she had to chain him in her back yard, or he would jump the fence.  

JJ is adding the vet and medical bills with her Calculator of Justice.    Medical bills were $103, $187, 149, and vet bills were $106, and $157 .   Plaintiff had to stay home for a week, but doesn't have doctor's note saying to stay home.   

Defendant doesn't get it, a 10-day quarantine is to see if the dog has rabies, and I bet the restrictions on the GSD were too much for defendant to want to do.   Also, no renter's or homeowner's insurance. (Where I live, it’s a 10 day quarantine after an animal bite, but if the animal isn’t vaccinated for rabies, then it’s six-months quarantine at the home location, in a fenced yard).

$2500 to plaintiff. 

World’s Worst Music Deal?!-Plaintiff Jordan McGraw is suing defendant/ singer Robert Walker for not showing up at the event he was booked to perform at, and he wants airfare repaid, and punitive damages.         Teenage singer offered a headliner gig at an event in Detroit, and plaintiff paid for air fare for defendant.    Plaintiff claims everyone worked for free, because the others were working for the publicity, and plaintiff would keep the profits from the ticket sales. 

Defendant says he didn't go to Detroit because the air ticket was only one way, and defendant's name was nowhere on the flyer.   Plaintiff says he would buy the return ticket with profits, and since there were no profits, I bet defendant would be stranded.   After expenses plaintiff says he didn't make a profit, and actually owed money.  Defendant was told he was expected to sell tickets to the event. 

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.   

Security Deposit Dog Drama! -Plaintiff / former tenant Ashely Setzer suing defendant /former landlord Regina Lettieri for her security deposit ($750).   However, defendant withheld the deposit because plaintiff had her dog going potty, and poopy on the lawn at the rental.  There was no written lease, just an oral contract.    Plaintiff lived on the second floor of the house, in a separate apartment.   

Defendant re-rented the apartment after plaintiff moved out.   Defendant has had other tenants over the years.  Defendant claims damages to lawn (no photos), a cabinet (bad photo). 

$750 to plaintiff.

Second (2018)-

Rent Control and the American Dream!-Plaintiff Kenneth Scalir suing defendant Eric Polivka/former room renter for room rent.   Plaintiff was living in a rent control, SRO (single room occupancy) in California, and rented the room to defendant, which was illegal. 

Apartment was one bedroom, 940 sq. ft., for $1040 a month, and tenants had the bedroom. .    Plaintiff claims the management allowed him to have a roommate, and paid 10% extra for that (he didn't actually pay 10% more rent).   When management found out about defendant/tenant, management brought eviction proceedings against plaintiff.  Plaintiff was going to be legally evicted, for having an unlicensed tenant.    Plaintiff said defendant was his seventh tenant since he had lived there (he lived there for 20 years).    

Plaintiff says when management found out about the tenant, they filed to evict the plaintiff, and claims he stopped paying rent. Defendant is counter claiming for property the plaintiff withheld.    Plaintiff withheld rent, and after the eviction process was over, the judge said no more roommates, and he had to pay the back rent anyway.    The order from housing court says that plaintiff could stay, but would have to pay 10% extra for any tenant, and plaintiff paid the rent he withheld.    Defendant was locked out by plaintiff

Plaintiff still lives in the apartment, but has no tenants (or claims he doesn't have tenants).   

Plaintiff case dismissed because it's ridiculous.

Defendant wants his property back, and now lives in a halfway house, and has an order to pick up items in the next five days, with a police escort, 

Outrageous Drinking and Driving Excuse!-Plaintiff Sabrina Campbell suing defendant/ex boyfriend Curtis Davis for unpaid bail.   Defendant was arrested for going 127 mph, and was legally drunk, and arrested for DUI.     

Because plaintiff paid the bail for defendant, and defendant never paid for his bail, now plaintiff's wages are being garnished.    Defendant says it's the plaintiff's fault, because she asked him to pick her up, so it's not his fault.   Defendant was in jail for 14 months.  

$4746 to plaintiff for the bail.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. reruns-

First

Security Deposit Sabotage?! (2021)-Plaintiff/former tenant Heather Starley suing defendant/former roommate Gary Watson and wife Madison Watson, for her security deposit, $1800, eviction,  U-Haul costs, damages, and moving costs.  Plaintiff rented the house (for three years), and defendant Gary Watson, and his wife moved into the house as sublets, for three months.      Plaintiff claims her roommates trashed the house..   Plaintiff has photos of the damages she claims defendants damaged the home.   Before defendant and wife moved in the police were never called to the house, but during defendants three months police were there three times in one month.    Defendant and his wife claim they called police twice during July.   

Defendants are another case of professional squatter.     Defendant says plaintiff loaned him a refrigerator, and then took it back and dumped his food on the floor.   Plaintiff received not one cent of the security deposit, and plaintiff and all other residents were evicted by the landlord/owner.     Plaintiff claims defendant witnessed the defendants pouring lighter fluid on the floor, and flooded their en suite bathroom (no pictures).   Defendants are accused of smashing plaintiff's sons' insulin bottles, and their injection pens.    The plaintiff moved out, and three days later, when she went back to clean the house out, pick up her son's diabetic medication, she found the flooding, lighter fluid, smashed insulin devices, and medication.   At least she took pictures.    

Pictures of damages show a ruined shower stall, lighter fluid, flooding in master bath,  Landlord spent $15,000 fixing the damages to the house. 

I'm surprised the plaintiff, and sons could find another rental after being evicted, and the issues with the house.   Defendant has no pictures on move out.   As JJ says, plaintiff and sons lived in the house peacefully for over two years, and it only went wrong after defendants moved in.  

$1800 to plaintiff.

Oblivious Driver! (older, with an audience)-Plaintiff Ryan Rolen is suing defendant Andres Herrera for an accident on the freeway, car damages, and lost wages, plus medical bills.   Plaintiff was buying the vehicle from Max, and is still paying on it, but has a title, and bill of sale from previous owner.   Defendant claims he had valid insurance on the day of the accident, but he lied.    Defendant claims he paid the insurance bill right before the accident, and it didn't take effect until the next day. 

Plaintiff was in left lane, when defendant in the right lane, and defendant claims another car that was merging into the freeway cut him off, and defendant went to plaintiff's lane suddenly, and hit plaintiff's car. 

Plaintiff car was purchased for $1500, and JJ thinks paying $650 for the ruined bumper is outrageous.   JJ is being vicious to plaintiff.  Plaintiff did everything right, had insurance, but defendant was driving like an idiot, and had no insurance.  

$400 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Covid Parties and Stolen Meds?! (2021)- Plaintiff/former tenant Nicole Cook-Pitman is suing defendant/former landlord Matthew Maxson, for security deposit $875, returned rent, and moving costs.     Defendant says plaintiff partied constantly, during Covid, and then items started disappearing from his home, money, his medications, and other items.  

Defendant claims plaintiff moved her property out, and used her own moving company to move her out.    Plaintiff claims defendant trashed her property when she moved out, but defendant has a text from plaintiff stating that she took all of her property out.  

Plaintiff will get $875 security deposit back.   

Too Young to Live Alone (2014)- Plaintiff Alexis Stotz suing defendant /former roommate Kaitlyn Wilson for a broken lease.      Plaintiff is too young to live on her own.    Plaintiff and brother moved into the apartment in March, with her brother, and he left in June, there was another roommate for a month, then Kaitlyn, defendant, moved in during August on the lease.  Defendant paid September's rent, $500 and has a receipt.     

Defendant says she had no choice but to break the lease and move. Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to move in some 18-year-old who was going to sleep on the floor, and wanted to move in with a 16-year-old girlfriend.

Defendant moved out in October, to another apartment, with a real lease, and hopefully, better roommates.    Plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay for October, but isn't sure of anything about rent or utilities.   

Everything dismissed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/21/2021 at 5:51 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Hammers Car With Brick-Plaintiff Austin Johnson suing ex-girlfriend Angelica Cole, for car damage, moving expenses, and harassment.     Litigants only met a month ago, when defendant was pregnant by someone else, but they started dating anyway.    Defendant found plaintiff was 'talking' to other women, including his current girlfriend/witness.   Defendant stayed the night, and the next morning the litigants had another argument, and defendant went home to her mother's place.   

What a couple of classy litigants,no?

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff car was purchased for $1500, and JJ thinks paying $650 for the ruined bumper is outrageous.   JJ is being vicious to plaintiff.  Plaintiff did everything right, had insurance, but defendant was driving like an idiot, and had no insurance.  

EXACTLY!  The body shop doesn't care how much a customer PAID for a car.  The body shop knows the cost of doing business (and making a profit) and estimates accordingly.  When is that tiny harridan going to retire?

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

EXACTLY!  The body shop doesn't care how much a customer PAID for a car.  The body shop knows the cost of doing business (and making a profit) and estimates accordingly.  When is that tiny harridan going to retire?

I thought the same thing.  Someone needs to remind JJ that SHE's not an expert on car repairs.  That estimate was perfectly reasonable and she had no business discarding the PROFESSIONAL's estimate for the repair.  I did notice that defendant had the same old tired "I paid it that day!  But it was going to take 24 hours to activate."  Uh, I don't know about you guys, but when my son switched auto insurance, the policy was effective immediately once the payment was processed.  I'd love to see a time/date stamp on that policy.  $10 says he ran to an agent and got the insurance AFTER the accident and they denied the claim because the accident occurred before the policy was purchased.

 

10 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

When is that tiny harridan going to retire?

She's retired from this show and is bringing her biased brand of justice to IMDB-TV next year.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

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

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

 

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size