Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Leaks, Mold and the Illegal Tenant -Plaintiffs/renters Jessica Davis and Melissa Rose suing defendant/landlord Marcelino Ortiz for return of deposit, $1250.    The lease is submitted. 

It was a three bedroom house, and right after move in, plaintiffs moved in another tenant, Miss Russ, and her child.    Plaintiffs didn't have extra tenant on the lease, was living there for three months, and paid nothing.   Then defendant found out about the illegal tenant and made her sign the lease, and pay $312 a month, she claims she only visited, and was paying rent elsewhere (no she wasn't).   

 The plaintiffs didn't pay for three months, and moved out 1 August.  The plaintiffs claim they were month-to-month, but lease doesn't say that.   

Lease says one year, not month-to-month.    Also, unauthorized tenant paid nothing, so plaintiffs don't get $1250 deposit back.   A couple of months before plaintiffs moved out, they called the city inspector (city of Sacramento) alleging mold, leaks, exposed wiring, sewage issues, and city inspector took photos, and never talked to plaintiffs again.   Plaintiff Davis statement is that defendant kept trying to date her (not happening).   Plaintiff says defendant intruded often, and left a refrigerator in the home when they were out.

Plaintiff's ridiculous allegations dismissed. 

Drunk and Racist?!   No Way! -Plaintiff Jaman Swearingen suing defendant Tiffany Farlow for rent, living expenses, and a bed.   Counter claim by defendant is for property defendant left behind in a house she was living in/renting in Arizona from plaintiff, and plaintiff packed it up.   Defendant has five days to pick up her property from plaintiff's property.   

Plaintiff says defendant was supposed to pay $400 a month, stayed for six weeks, and never paid any money.   Defendant claims plaintiff wanted her to live in the house to make it look occupied.    Defendant claims plaintiff was a drunken, bigoted jerk so she moved.   Plaintiff says defendant stayed two months, not six weeks.   He also says he repaired her vehicle.  Plaintiff says car repair was $990, and defendant paid him a little in cash, but never received a money order, or Western Union payment from her.   

Defendant claims to have a 501 (c)3, but yet doesn't have record of money she paid plaintiff, because she thought Western Union was safer (and you can't prove who it went to either).   90% of charity money goes to a tiny home community, for seniors or homeless.    Defendant witness keeps trying to interrupt. 

Plaintiff receives $990 for the car repairs.

Second (2018)-

Writer vs. Magazine Owner- Plaintiff/writer Sherri Daley suing defendant/online magazine owner Jordan Rizza (Coastal Connecticut)  for not publishing plaintiff's articles, and refusing to pay her.  Defendant says articles weren't good enough to publish, and not factual.   Defendant says plaintiff's articles were not factual, poorly written, and required major rewriting, and work.  Writers are 1099 independent contractors, paid by the word (20 cents a word).    Plaintiff wanted to invoice for mileage she used for stories, and 50 cents a word.   

Plaintiff seems rather confused about prior payments, topics, and terms of assignments.    JJ sends the litigants out to discuss payment, and to try to come to an agreement. 

(This confirms what I've always suspected, that a lot of the regional magazine articles are paid articles, commissioned by the subject of the article). 

There were eight articles, and plaintiff will receive $1700. 

Act of God Tree Fail! – Plaintiff /home owner Benny Fiorino suing defendant/tree owner Harold Baerg (Newport Beach, CA) for damage from defendant's tree falling on their property, and damaging a fence and gazebo.   The property in question is an acre and a half, and one tree fell over, and crashed through plaintiff's gazebo and fence.    This all happened almost two years ago.   Defendant owns the home, but it's rented to tenants, and defendant inspects the property once a year.   

Defendant claims the tree was in good shape, and not diseased.    Defendant also claims plaintiff had a tree trimmer come on defendant's property, trimmed the tree with defendant's permission, and an Act of God took the tree down. 

 Defendant's witness is his sister/property manager, who simply won't stop interrupting.  So, she gets booted out. 

Defendant claims he paid to fix the fence, and remove the tree.    Receipts are submitted.   JJ says the invoice only covers the part of the tree on his property, but defendant disputes that.   Defendant says his witness can verify that plaintiff sent the tree trimmer, and tree trimmer had to come two times to remove tree.   Fence repair photo isn't good.   (My guess is plaintiff, as he said in hall-terview, refused to deal with defendant's sister who is defendant's property manager.   He wanted to handle it "Man to Man".    I find that disgusting).

Plaintiff receives $1800

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Naughty Grandson Steals from Grandfather?!-Plaintiff grandfather James Billings suing grandson Noah Billings over a car plaintiff co-signed on and paid off, bail, and a stolen $2 bill collection.     Defendant is disappointing grandson.   Plaintiff co-signed a car for defendant, and made payments, but mostly late, varying from a week to three months.   

Plaintiff paid off car to protect his own credit, went to repossess the car, and it miraculously disappeared.   Plaintiff will repossess the car from defendant with the help of a Marshal.   

The car title is joint title with grandfather, and grandson.   JJ will make order to DMV to take grandson's name off title.    JJ gives grandparents the grandson's address, and grandson claims he will return the car to grandfather.   Grandma really won't stop butting in, but this sounds like a horrible situation.   Maybe the grandparents will stop enabling the grandson now. 

If car is not returned in two days, cleaned up, then the car will be reported stolen to police.   

Grandson denies he stole the grandfather's $2 bill collection, collection was worth $100.   Plaintiff claims defendant admitted to stealing the money collection.   

Bail was for probation violation (no idea what the case was for), and bail was $500.   Defendant served 30 days in jail for the probation violation.

$600 to plaintiff (defendant is alleged to have stolen credit and debit cards from grandparents too)   

Ex-Lover Runs Man Off the Road-Plaintiff Samuel Diffendal suing ex-girlfriend Christine Miller  for an iPhone he loaned her, and claims defendant ran him off the road, and it ruined his transmission.     

Defendant says phone plaintiff loaned her was sold.   Defendant says plaintiff also called in false allegations to CPS, and her daughter was taken away for two days.     Counter claim dismissed for defendant, because she kept, and then sold the phone.  

Plaintiff only dated the man a month, and dumped him right after getting the phone.   

Plaintiff says defendant dumped him, and defendant claims she was paying for the phone, but lied.   Then defendant followed plaintiff with her car, and she claims she wasn't chasing him.    

Cases dismissed, no one had any evidence of anything, and they're both idiots.

Second (2020)-

Time to Measure a Pit Bull's Head-Plaintiffs Elizabeth Celikian suing over defendants', Donna and David Quance and Tim Fox,  Pit Bull/Boxer mix's attack on her dog (a 16 lb. Maltipoo), that was in plaintiff's fenced yard.     Defendants were walking their leashed Pit, and claim the plaintiff dog reached between the iron bars on the fence, and bit their dog.   Defendant claims the Maltipoo reached through vertical wrought iron fence, and defendant claims the Maltipoo chomped on Pit's nose.    Defendant wife claims the plaintiff dog made no noise, and was 'lying in wait' for their dog, and attacked silently.   

Plaintiff dog lost a couple of toes in the attack.    Defendant claims his insurance company denied the claim.   Defendants claim their dog's face and head is too wide to fit through the fence and bite the plaintiff.   Defendants seem very prepared for this case, and I wonder if this is their first court case from their dog?  My guess is that it isn't their first rodeo with this dog.   

Plaintiff's son heard the commotion, and claims he saw Pit off leash, and defendant was pulling the dog back.    Defendant neighbor says he was harassed by plaintiff, because plaintiff thought the dog was his.   Defendant never said where he lived to plaintiff, so they were harassing the wrong person. 

The pit head through the fence was bizarre.    From the very easy way the defendant presented his evidence, and the list of excuses, I'm guessing this isn't the defendant's first time justifying his dog's actions.     Also, I suspect that since no one saw the attack that isn't a defender of the Pit, that the little dog was sticking through.   However, I find it ridiculous that the little dog attacked the Pit's nose, the way the defendant said.      I absolutely believe the plaintiff's son was lying about seeing anything.     

I don't think anyone should have received any money, because there was no proof.   I find it interesting that the plaintiff put the wire on her gate, and all of her fencing after this happened.     There was a big gap under the gate, and I bet the little dog was standing at the gate, reached through at the Pit,  and the big dog grabbed the paw then, and that's when the damage happened. 

I think with the gap under the gate, the Pit had plenty of room to grab the little dog.    

I find it ridiculous that the defendants had their dog right up in someone else's gate, with a barking dog on the other side.  I feel so sorry for the defendant’s neighbor (Tim Fox) that the plaintiffs harassed, because plaintiff's thought it was his dog.  Tim Fox lives next door to defendants, and plaintiffs kept harassing him, over a dog that is owned by defendants. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant dismissed.     

Salvaged Survivor-Plaintiff Larry Ward suing neighbor Sylvia Kidd for return of money from a Dodge Challenger she sold him (salvage title) with a lien on it.   Car was repossessed by the lien holder.   (The defendant's neon red wig is bizarre, and hideous.   JJ should give me $5,000 for having to view this monstrosity on defendant's head, and her piercings that look like boogers). 

The salvage title is submitted by plaintiff, but lien holder signature block was signed by defendant, which was fraud.     Defendant told plaintiff lien was paid off, and she was the title holder.   How did defendant get a title for the car?  Don't you have to get a Salvage Title upgraded to a regular title for it to be a legal sale?   That's not given to owner until all liens are paid off. 

$4700 to plaintiff.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/19/2021 at 5:43 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is a juice squeeze

I'm extremely and seriously curious--a juice squeezer as an occupation?

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I'm extremely and seriously curious--a juice squeezer as an occupation?

Yes, all of the juice at the over priced juice bars has to be produced somehow.   I guess the plaintiff was the one who did that for a living, and throw his hard earned money at some woman he barely knew.   I can't imagine the plaintiff was making much money at that job either. 

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Give Me My Sports Car! -Plaintiff Denise White is suing defendant/father of her child, ex-boyfriend, Eric Anderson, for a loan, and child care costs.  Litigants lived together for four years, and have one child together.    Plaintiff says defendant took out a loan against plaintiff's CD for $10k, and paid household bills with it.  Money also went to pay a previous loan of defendant ($2,000), in defendant's name.    Defendant says after they separated he pays child support, and if plaintiff needs more money, go back to court.    Remaining $8,000 went for household bills, and purchased a family car that defendant still has.    Defendant says car is undriveable in winter, and can't get car registered, and insured, because co-owner (plaintiff) won't sign.    Car was $4,000.   Plaintiff won't get any money from the court, until the car title is signed over to defendant.

Defendant says plaintiff was out of work for a year, so some of the loan money went to pay the bills.   There's a $4,000 balance on the loan, which was joint, and that means that each person gets $2,000.    We now get to the totally boring child care expenses by plaintiff, for January to April 2017, when the child support order was in effect.   The court fixed arrears at $40 every two weeks, until the January to April child support equivalency was made up.       Plaintiff wants defendant and JJ to pay money plaintiff never claimed in court, and it's been adjudicated in family court, so it's dismissed.   

JJ tells plaintiff to sign car over to defendant.   $2,000 to plaintiff for her half of the loan remaining.  

When Potted Plants Attack -Plaintiff Paloma Mayorga suing defendant Alyssa Caballos for a potted plant from defendant's balcony, falling and damaging her car windshield in the parking lot below.  Plaintiff was in assigned parking, below the defendant's balcony.   Defendant has five plants in pots.     Plaintiff walked out on 9/11 and her car had a bashed in windshield, and it was a potted plant from defendant's balcony. 

 Defendant puts plants in terracotta and other pots, on the balcony rail (it looks like a wide stucco ledge) for better sun.   The remaining potted plants are over the edge of the balcony ledge too.  Plaintiff car was parked with the front windshield was smashed, and this either was someone bashing the windshield, or the potted plant.   If this is in California, I would worry about strong winds, and earthquake tremors.  

Defendant claims the neighbor with the other balcony has hanging plants, and a bicycle on their balcony.    And defendant claims since that neighbor was moving out, that they dropped something on plaintiff's windshield.  

Plaintiff receives $260 for her windshield. 

Second (2018)-

Victim Payback for Towing Scam?! -Plaintiff Hershel Jones suing defendant/mechanic Dennis Musgrave over repairs to his car, fraud, and vandalism to his car.     Plaintiff's truck broke down, and he called for a tow truck.   AAA towed his truck, and the tow driver, needed gas, so they stopped at a particular gas station, and then tow driver made a long phone call.   Then defendant drives to the gas station, and says he wants to buy the truck, but plaintiff doesn't want to sell.   Then defendant said he could replace the transmission, for $500 labor, and parts, and plaintiff paid $485, and then defendant said truck needed more work, and parts, so it cost $125 more.   Then defendant said plaintiff needed to buy another transmission or drive shaft, and plaintiff opted for the drive shaft.     

Mechanic never fixed the plaintiff's truck, and then some friend of defendant's future daughter in law put a lien on the truck, VW Mike is the lien holder.  Plaintiff's witness is defendant's future daughter-in-law, and defendant claims another man put the lien on the truck, and this man was a friend of Samantha the future daughter-in-law.  The defendant's buddy put a lien on the truck, the same day the mechanic took it.    This was all such an obvious scam.          

$485 to plaintiff.

Beach Day Turns Violent?! -Plaintiff Amanda Roeske suing defendant Tommy Baker, for a false arrest, harassment, an assault, and car value for the gap on her car loan from when he totaled her car.   The plaintiff, and defendant went to the beach, and they got into an argument.   Plaintiff was arrested, kept at the police station overnight, but no one ever came to sign a complaint.  Plaintiff was previously arrested for possession of Ecstacy or Molly, the drug, and was armed, defendant has several arrests in his past too.  Defendant says plaintiff is harassing him.  

Defendant claims someone ran him off the road, and it wasn't his fault.  Accident reports says defendant wasn't speeding, suspended, drunk or high, was not given a traffic citation, and it wasn't his fault (a state trooper witnessed the accident).

The accident was on the way to the Daytona Jailhouse, where the arrested plaintiff was being taken, and then the accident happened, with plaintiff's defendant driving the car with plaintiff's  permission.  There was a no contact order against plaintiff, from the defendant, and but order actually is plaintiff's against defendant after the incident.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Shooting at Murderous Rats! (2021)- Plaintiff Gerald Padgett is suing  defendant/neighbor Edwin Shahvaladian  for damaging the plaintiff's vinyl privacy fence, by shooting a BB gun.   Damages are to the fence, and a window on plaintiff's house.     The fence is the back property line on plaintiff's side.   Defendant was upset about a tree on plaintiff's side that defendant claims rats used as a rat freeway, and killed the defendant's cat.   Defendant's cat was front feet declawed, by a previous owner, before defendant rescued cat.    So, a year ago, after the cat died, defendant started shooting at rats in his back yard.  Then plaintiff noticed the window and fence damages by defendant. 

Holes in the fence are rather big, and window picture is submitted.   There is a police report, alleging the defendant did the damage with his BB gun.   In the police report, there was no arrest, and the report says defendant admitted the damages to the fence, and window.  

Defendant told police he would pay for the fence repair, and window damage.  But defendant and wife both lost their jobs during Covid, and he can't afford to fix the damages.     JJ warns the defendant that the BBs could easily go through the fence and hit one of the grandchildren that live with plaintiff.   Defendant wants plaintiff to buy the supplies, and defendant will do the fence replacement.   Except, plaintiff says he can't find the same, matching fence material.   I feel sorry for the defendant, he's still upset about his cat, the rats, and is unemployed.   Plaintiff says the entire fence must be replaced to make a matching fence.  

$2,507 to plaintiff. 

Daddy’s Girlfriend (2014)- Plaintiff  Nadia Green, is suing her father's ex-girlfriend, of plaintiff's father, defendant  Jacqueline Jones, for unpaid rent, and return of property.   Plaintiff and defendant were sharing an apartment, with both on the lease.  Plaintiff  is suing defendant because she moved early, and didn't pay rent on the litigant's shared apartment.   Plaintiff also says defendant has some of her property.   

Plaintiff's hair is hideous.  

Defendant says she was facing diabetes amputation, and couldn't work, so couldn't afford the apartment any longer.   Defendant stayed without paying for two months, and claims plaintiff had another roommate coming in.    Defendant also qualified for Section 8 housing, and that's where she moved to.   Rent owed is $1475.    Plaintiff's boyfriend moved into the apartment, but plaintiff says he didn't need to pay rent.    Plaintiff also claims defendant took some of plaintiff's property.  

Plaintiff is a model, and they let her keep clothes and shoes she models, and claims the defendant stole that.   Plaintiff claims defendant took the TV her father gave her for her birthday, and defendant denies that. 

$750 to plaintiff. 

Second (2020)-

Pretend She's the Ford Motor Company-Plaintiff Janet Power suing for late payments, riding gear, and damages to a motorcycle she sold to defendant, Cortney Parrish.  Defendant had a contract to buy motorcycle, made a couple of payments (there were weekly $100 payments), stopped paying.   She kept driving the motorcycle, and finally returned the motorcycle, a month later, with damages.  (Both litigants simply won't stop interrupting JJ, and defense witness won't shut up either).   

When motorcycle was returned to plaintiff, the $400 payment was made, and defendant wanted the car plaintiff had, that was used for collateral, from the plaintiff.   Defendant actually said that if the plaintiff was a dealership, she would have kept the bike until it was repossessed, because "that's how they do it in Texas".   Bike was $3750 from a dealership, and plaintiff decided she didn't want to keep the bike.    Bike was sold for $3600, $200 down, and still owed $3400.     Plaintiff is suing for $5k, not the $3400 owed.    Excessive mileage, and gear is not in contract.    

$3400 to plaintiff, and defendant gets her car back.  (Plaintiff wants to keep car too, not happening).    Defendant just won't shut up.   I loathe both litigants, and defendant's witness too.  Defendant witness gets the Byrd boot. 

Two Roommates for the Price of One-Plaintiff Harmony Isaacson suing defendant Erin TIttle for return of rent, stolen property, and an illegal lockout.  Plaintiff rented a bed and bath from defendant, who lived in the other bed and bath in the apartment.    The plaintiff moved a boyfriend in too, and lease said each tenant will pay half of the rent, but boyfriend wasn't included in that lease.   Plaintiff's boyfriend paid nothing, but was living there full time.    Plaintiff claims she was afraid of the defendant's behavior.  Plaintiff brought in a portable AC unit too, 

When defendant realized boyfriend was a permanent resident, she wanted plaintiff to pay 2/3 rent, and utilities.    However, plaintiff decided to move, but moved 8 October, and had moved in 6 days early.    Plaintiff is not getting her prorated rent for October, and did not pay 2/3 instead of 1/2 in September.    

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/20/2021 at 5:49 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

This was all such an obvious scam.          

This is one of those cases where I would love to have an "after the verdict".  I hope someone at AAA watched this case and went back and looked at the records for this tow. The dirtbag defendant gives the game away when he first arrives and asks to "buy" the car.  His MO is to either buy the car for cheap or, failing that, scam the owner out of $$ to do "cheap" repairs which are never done, and "VW Mike" swoops in on day 1 to stick a lien on the car - probably in the hope that the owner would walk away.  Why do I get the feeling that ol' "VW Mike" is the AAA tow truck driver?  Defendant seemed to want to hold daughter-in-law as responsible as "knowing" the lien guy.  Considering that she was a witness for plaintiff, I bet the only time she's ever seen VW Mike is behind the wheel of a tow truck.  Besides, who the hell can take a lien out under the name of "VW Mike" unless it's a business.  I wonder if that lien is actually a bogus document as well.

I hope the daughter-in-law went to the D.A. and spilled the beans on these two "preying" mantises and they're currently behind bars for fraud.  

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I loathe both litigants, and defendant's witness too. 

I disliked the defendant the first time I saw this episode.  This time she was mildly entertaining.  I think she has been and will be in trouble all her life.  Her "back in Texas' attitude gets tiresome fast.  Loved her gestures to her friend (father?) as he was being Byrded out.  Hey, Texas, I can read lips.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Young Parents Bitter Break-up -Plaintiff /mother Anna Soiza suing defendant/father Henry Zamora for the lease breaking fee at their former apartment.        The couple broke up when their baby was two days old.  Plaintiff left two days after the baby was born.   Defendant received a restraining order against plaintiff.   

Eventually defendant moved to Koreatown, and so plaintiff moved back to the apartment.  JJ says plaintiff terminated the lease by moving out first with her parents, and didn't pay anything.   Defendant terminated early because of plaintiff's refusal to sign off the lease.  

Once a week plaintiff came back to the apartment, and came back for her furniture also.   Bills were in plaintiff's name.    Early termination fee should be split, and plaintiff couldn't stay in the apartment without plaintiff taking herself off the lease.   

There is dispute over the belongings in the apartment, such as furniture.    Defendant has a police officer supervise the move out when plaintiff and her relatives came to clean out the apartment.   Plaintiff took the furniture that they were paying on.   Defendant paid the rent, and plaintiff paid the utilities, and other bills. 

Defendant signed the landlord agreement to pay a one month rent equivalent lease termination fee, $1700.  Defendant's counter claim for harassment will be dismissed.   JJ tells defendant to take plaintiff back to family court, and get custody.   Defendant has 20 cards from police officers, who plaintiff called for welfare checks every day when he had the child for visitation. 

$1675 to plaintiff. 

Judge Judy Calls a Witness -Plaintiff  Shadorian  McIntosh  is suing defendant Michael Freeman over a traffic accident.  Plaintiff car was insured, and as usual, defendant' car wasn't.     

Both litigants claim the other was doing illegal acts behind the wheel at the time of the accident.  Plaintiff says she was going straight, defendant was coming from the opposite direction, when defendant turned left and hit her. 

Defendant is now insured, but didn't have insurance at the time of the accident.   Police report says defendant claimed to have Nationwide insurance, but he didn't.    Defendant claims he had USAA insurance for 17 years, but lied about the company to the police.    Plaintiff gives the witness' name and phone number from the police report, and JJ makes the dreaded call. 

 JJ calls the witness (not a friend of either litigant) from her Phone of Justice, and the witness says she was sitting in the left turn lane on the defendant's side of the road, waiting on for plaintiff to clear the intersection, and defendant swerved around her, cut witness off, and turned left into plaintiff's car.   There is no turn arrow at the intersection.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000

Second (2018)-

The Anti-Sleepover Landlord?! -Plaintiff Julia Fahrer suing defendant/former handyman Michael Tabaranza, suing for $5,000 for lock changing fees, property damages, and vandalism.    Plaintiff rents six bedrooms in her seven-bedroom house, she lives upstairs, and tenants are all on the first floor.    Then, defendant developed a relationship with one of the tenants, and defendant would visit his girlfriend, and claims he rarely stayed overnight.   Then plaintiff found out about the relationship between defendant, and his witness/girlfriend.   

When defendant tenant Tracia Earhart, moved out, she moved her own stuff.   Plaintiff had a restraining order against the defendant man, so defendant woman had to move stuff by herself.   Plaintiff alleged in court that defendant, and girlfriend assaulted plaintiff/landlady.     Plaintiff received a restraining order against both defendants, and changed the locks on defendant woman.   

There are a lot of damages alleged.  Plaintiff's new handyman, William Jackson, testifies about damaged to defendant/former tenant's room.  Plaintiff claims defendant man damaged the gate locks, and claims window screen damages by defendant.   Plaintiff's handyman is testifying about damages to the defendant witness' room, and claim it was done, by defendant.   Plaintiff's new handyman did not see any damages to the room done by the defendant, in defendant tenant's room. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  No proof of anything, and no police report. 

Heavily Fogged Motorist?! -Plaintiff Cassandra Stewart suing defendant Lisa Parker over a car accident.    Plaintiff says defendant failed to stop at a Stop sign, and hit her car.    Defendant did not have insurance, plaintiff did.    Plaintiff only had liability, not comprehensive/collision insurance.  There is a police report, that states that the plaintiff stopped, and then turned left, and (it was a 4 way stop), so defendant ran the stop sign, and hit the plaintiff.

 Defendant claims it was foggy, so accident wasn't her fault.  Defendant also claims plaintiff had her cell phone in hand after the accident, (plaintiff was calling 911 for help), and thinks that means the plaintiff was on her phone while driving.     This ridiculous excuse, doesn't even match what the defendant said in her statement.     

I suspect heavily fogged doesn't refer to the road conditions at the time of the accident.  

$1354 to plaintiff

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Texts Tell a Different Story! (2021) -Plaintiff/former tenant  Maria Certo suing defendant/landlady Nancy Barna for the return of her security deposit.    Plaintiff has a text from defendant saying how wonderful the accommodations rented out by defendant were.   Defendant says the two dogs the plaintiff brought in were illegal, and lease says no animals without written consent from defendant.   Plaintiff has a text giving permission for the two small dogs to stay.     

Defendant claims it took weeks to get the stench of dog urine, and dog hair, out of the apartment after plaintiff left.  Defendant says new tenant complained of the smell, so there was no delay in re-renting the guest house apartment.   New tenant saw guest house before plaintiff moved out, and rented it without commenting about dog hair or smells.  As plaintiff was leaving, defendant sent a text to plaintiff saying the place looks great.  Receipt for grout cleaning, and house are inadequate. 

Security deposit to plaintiff $710 , defendant case dismissed. 

Annoying but Not Harassment! (2021)-Plaintiff / former tenant Cheryl Badgett  suing defendant / landlord Ed Schreckengost  for her security deposit, $2000, minus the $1141 that was returned to plaintiff, so $859. Plaintiff lived in half of a duplex for four years.   Defendant is asked for photos of damages, and repair costs.   

There is visible similar stucco damage on other exterior walls, not blamed on the plaintiff.  Plaintiff claims there was a lot of damages in the bathroom when she moved in, but no photos.   

Plaintiff receives $809.     

Engine Blew?  It’s Up to You! (2018) - Plaintiff Darla Rosales suing defendant Lisa Adams, a former friend of her daughter, for car-lease fees, late fees, and emissions charges.  Plaintiff was leasing a car to defendant.    Charges for lease and insurance were $242 a month, but defendant stopped paying because engine blew on lease car, and plaintiff refused to pay for the engine replacement. 

Car is in defendant's mother's driveway, and defendant claims plaintiff was told by her to pick up the car.   However, defendant's contract with plaintiff says defendant will keep car in good working order.  

Plaintiff paid the car lease/loan off, because otherwise the lending company would garnish her salary.   

$1547 to plaintiff. and plaintiff can pick car up at defendant's mother's house. 

Second (2020)

Attack of the Great Dane Puppy-Plaintiffs Shirley Guevara (wife) and (husband) Tomasz Toka suing defendants  David Wang (husband) and Karina Wang (wife)  for a dog attack, by defendant's 90 lb. Great Dane puppy, and are suing for vet bills, boarding, and other costs. 

Defendant man claims this isn't the first false claim plaintiff has lodged against him.   Plaintiff's dog's harness was ripped up by defendant dog. 

Defendant went to the back of the field, took his dogs off leash and let them run, and that's when the attack happened on the smaller dogs. 

 Plaintiffs have two small dogs (about 20 lbs. each, on leash, a Sheltie, and a Shih Tzu).    As usual, defendant woman (Karina Wang) denies her dog attacked, and claims Great Dane was just playing.   Defendants refuse to admit that their dog attacked, and claim plaintiff man had no reason to hit their out-of-control, attacking Great Dane.  (Plaintiff man is one of the few litigants that says thank you to Officer Byrd). 

Video clearly shows the Sheltie being chased by the Great Dane, with plaintiff's running too, and defendant taking her sweet time following.  

Defendant man had two Great Dane puppies, off leash, and the 90 lbs. dogs attacked.    When first dog attacked plaintiff's dog, he picked his dog up in his arms, and had scratches, and bruises on his arm.     When Great Dane jumped plaintiff man, he dropped the Sheltie, and Great Dane attacked again.    The plaintiff dog's harness has a hole ripped in it by the Great Dane, and the little dog got out of his harness, and ran away.   Video shows the Great Dane chasing the Sheltie into the street.   

Defendant finally got the Great Dane captured, Sheltie was gone overnight, and came home by itself, and was severely injured. 

Defendant claims the plaintiff man wasn't injured.   

Sheltie needed vet care, and was boarded for twelve days at vet office (to keep it quiet, and away from other dog at home).   Vet bills were $2081, and boarding was $240, plus $44 for the follow up visit.     

Defendant claims Great Dane was just playing, and accuses plaintiffs of making false accusations against him, and his dogs.   

Defendants are despicable, and cowardly.   Defendant wife is a liar, and keeps shaking her head, and that’s irritating as hell.     Defendant and wife are the worst kind of dog owners, and shouldn't have a dog of any kind. 

Defendant wife claims plaintiff man hit her dog without justification, but that's garbage too.   (Also, was it an off-leash park?   I doubt it).  My opinion is the Great Dane's prey drive is out of control, and combined with clueless owners, is a menace.  

(JJ's theory that Great Dane was being playful, is ridiculous.    How did the little dog's harness get ripped up, except by the Great Dane's teeth?  With defendants attitude, I bet the Great Danes have hurt other animals and people after this). 

Plaintiffs receive $2,365.     Defendants shouldn't own a stuffed dog.  

This Isn't Going to Go Well for You-Plaintiff Joshua Wolfer suing ex-girlfriend Katie Sickmann for the cost to pay off a car loan.     Litigants lived together for just over a year, and purchased a car together (October 2018), and both names were on the title.   

Down payment was $5k, from defendant's father, and car was severely damaged in August 2019, in a hail storm.     There was a $7250 payment from the insurance company, and the pay off amount on the car loan was $2,000. Credit card payment amount was his credit card, and he paid off the debt on the credit card.  

Plaintiff had previously paid off debts on his credit card for defendant.  Defendant just won't shut up, and won't stop interrupting.

JJ gives nothing to either litigant.   Plaintiff paid off car loan, and kept the rest of the money.  

 

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Stealth Assault by Neighbor?! – Plaintiff Curtis Levine is suing defendant Daniel Silva for an assault in his driveway.    Litigants live across the street from each other, in the mountains.   Plaintiff says when a previous neighbor was foreclosed on, the residents abandoned their cats.  Plaintiff claims the defendant trapped the cats, and abandoned them to be killed by predators in the mountains.     Defendant denies this.

Defendant claims that since the only parking easement is on the plaintiff's side of the public road, and plaintiff blocked the road easement off, and puts No Parking stickers on people's cars on the public right of way.      Plaintiff claims the defendant's tenant parked on his side of the road, and at 5:45 a.m. plaintiff went to gather willows for his furniture business.  Plaintiff claims that he gathers willow on private property of friends, but defendant claims plaintiff trespasses on public property, and is illegally gathering willows.

About 7:00 a.m. plaintiff returned home, and pulled into his driveway to open the driveway gate manually.   Then, plaintiff had to close the gate, but defendant had parked his truck in front of defendant's house.    When plaintiff went to open the gate, and he claims defendant attacked him from behind.   Plaintiff claims defendant was hiding behind the defendant's vehicle.   (Another case of people who shouldn't live across from each other).   Plaintiff claims defendant punctured his ear drum.     He also claims defendant accused him of puncturing his tires, and other vandalism.

JJ also upset about what plaintiff wrote on the evidence, on the police report.     Defendant is counter suing for property damage, and harassment.   

I don't care what the plaintiff says, there is a public easement on the street to park on plaintiff's side of the street.  Defendant told police that when he was parked on the plaintiff's side of the street, and says someone (blames the plaintiff) let the air out of his tires.   

Defendant told police he lost it when he saw the vandalism by the plaintiff.     Defendant, and the neighbors dislike that plaintiff runs his compressor outside early in the morning, 7 a.m. usually.  Plaintiff claims 7 a.m. is the legal time to run equipment, still annoying.   I agree with the defendant, and JJ, plaintiff is the awful neighbor, and probably a bit of a nut (JJ's words).    JJ also tells defendant that you don't try to teach a pig to sing, it doesn't work, and annoys the pig.  

JJ is wrong.    The roadside easement on a public road does not belong to plaintiff, and it is for anyone to park there that wants to.  In my view, plaintiff is another person who loves to harass others, and this time he pushed the wrong person too far.    Defendant claims the plaintiff tried to run him over too.   I totally believe what the defendant said about plaintiff’s harassment.   Also, gathering the willow on public lands is illegal.

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Second (2018)-

Classic Truck Fail! – Plaintiff Brandy Clayton and son, Brody Gendron suing defendants Troy Holliday and wife Sheila over a classic truck sold to defendant, and plaintiff claims was never paid off.   However, defendant claims she traded an antique oak table, and a side-by-side refrigerator to plaintiff for the truck.  Officer Byrd says truck is worth $5650 (It's a classic, and has a liftgate on the back).  Defendant husband hasn't registered truck yet, he needs to have more VIN number certifications, and then he can register it.

Plaintiff says table is in bad condition, and not worth what defendant says it's worth.  Defendants received the refrigerator free, and traded something for the table a year or before.    

JJ gives table back to defendants, and truck back to plaintiffs.  JJ tells defendants to sign the title over, or no show money to them 

Gambling, Tax Refunds and Murder? – Plaintiff Casey Morris suing defendant/ex-boyfriend, Thomas "TJ" Ruppel for money she loaned him for a trip to Laughlin, NV for gambling.     Plaintiff, defendant, and two others went to Laughlin.   The murder of defendant's previous wife is brought into the case. 

Everyone shared a room, and the friend drove.   Plaintiff loaned defendant $200 for rent, and the second time $300.   Usually this wouldn't be considered a loan, because defendant never paid plaintiff back, and she had no agreement with him to do this.  However, defendant sent plaintiff texts that say he'll repay the loans when his unemployment arrives. 

Loans were $200, and $360.    

Plaintiff claims she has proof this was a loan, not a gift.   Defendant claims he only sent the texts acknowledging the debt because plaintiff harassed him.    He says he'll repay plaintiff, and bail and other bills. 

Defendant's past history includes his wife being murdered, and he didn't take time off from work until eight months later.  However,  eight months later he was overwhelmed, and quit working for six months, and then went back to the same company.     Wife was shot and killed a year before this case.     Then litigants were dating for the first three months of 2017, and then broke up. Then he took six months off, and then went back to work.   

$560 to plaintiff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Pit Bull Latches onto Arm! -Plaintiff Savannah Brault (daughter Brault, and victim of Pit Bull),  Pamalynn Brault (mother) are suing defendant / next door neighbor Katrina Dyer for defendant’s Pit Bull, named Jack, grabbing plaintiff’s arm, when plaintiff was looking for her lost kitten.   Plaintiff says Pit Bull forced it’s way through a chain link fence, and attacked her.  As usual, defendant calls plaintiff a liar, says her Pit Bull would never hurt anyone, and her dog is innocent.   

Plaintiff daughter was looking for her kitten, in her own front/side yard, and that's when the Pit Bull forced his way through the chain link fence (bottom is undermined by Pit Bull digging).  Pit Bull latched onto plaintiff's arm, and her own dogs (the daughter and mother have three dogs) bit the Pit Bull.   Defendant has a Pit Bull, and Shiba Inu/Chihuahua mix.   

Plaintiffs have one Pit Bull of their own.   Plaintiff put the Pit Bull mix inside her house, then the Lab Mix and Chihuahua mix were still outside fighting the defendant's Pit Bull.    Then, the Lab Mix was put inside the house, and the Chihuahua mix was being mauled by the defendant's Pit Bull.   

Defendant claims her dog was never off of her property, and claims the litigants Pit Bulls were biting at each other's faces.    Defendant claims plaintiff Pit Bull grabbed her dog by the head, and pulled defendant's Pit Bull over the chain link fence (bull pucky).      Defendant's dog is 80 lbs.     

Defendant not only has bad taste in clothes, and is showing too much boobage for court,  but has a rotten attitude towards the entire case, and JJ.    Defendant has pictures of her dog's injuries, but no marks from being dragged over the chain link fence (this is hysterical).    Defendant's dog obviously was a loser to the Lab Mix, and Pit Mix owned by the plaintiffs. 

Plaintiff had bad injuries, and submitted medical records, and photos.   

Defendant's dogs had no shots, and have to get the dog up to date on shots.   Defendant's dog was home quarantined for 14 days, per Animal Control's direction.     Defendant also claimed the plaintiff's Lab mix bit her, (obviously in retaliation for her issues with Animal Control), so the Lab was home quarantined for 14 days.     The plaintiff's dogs are up to date on shots, and always were.    

From the Animal Control report, defendant's 90 lb. dog is vicious and dangerous.   She's actually blaming the attack on plaintiff's dogs being out on their own fenced property.  

Defendant's dog has to be on a leash since the attack.   Defendant keeps sassing JJ, and claims plaintiffs left their dogs in the attic of their home for the three days of the court trip, and no one takes care of the dogs.  Ridiculous.   I think JJ should boot defendant. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

Second (2021)-

Architecture Barter Gone Bad! -Plaintiff/architect  Julia Contaldo suing defendant/contractor Seyed "Amir" Abbasi over her consulting fees, claiming defendant didn’t keep up his end of their contract.   

Plaintiff did the home extension plans defendant wanted for his house, but used the plans, and never paid plaintiff $4,000.     Defendant claims he didn't owe plaintiff money, but he was going to do construction work at her house, and some payment for his part of the deal.   Plaintiff says defendant didn't do any work at plaintiff's house.   

Plaintiff owned the land, was going to build a spec house, and sell it.   Plaintiff would do the designs, and defendant would do the building.     Defendant says he also does the background work to help get permits, financing, and the building construction. 

Defendant claims it was a joint venture between the two litigants.    Defendant says the work designed for his house was higher than his budget, so he didn't go forward.   Defendant says his wife wanted a walk-in closet, and says plaintiff kept pushing defendant to build an ADU instead.    Defendant's proposal was too high for plaintiff to get financing, or approvals.    Then price of plaintiff's spec house went from $1 million, down to $633k, with the design for defendant's house included.    Defendant claims plaintiff's design was faulty. 

Plaintiff wanted $10k for the design work on defendant's home, but dropped to $4k.  Plaintiff did the design for defendant's home, but designed an ADU, not just a garage conversion.   Defendant did not do the ADU, because he didn't want that.  

Plaintiff claims she's still going to build, but defendant claims she told him she couldn't get financing.   However, defendant claims lender told him that plaintiff's loan was approved.   Defendant claims plaintiff didn't give him the paperwork needed for obtaining permits.   

Defendant did the work at his house, but claims he didn't use the plaintiff's drawings. 

JJ awards plaintiff her $4,000.     I wouldn't give her a penny, because she didn't do the plans that defendant wanted, but did her own idea of what he should build.  

The defendant and his wife, wanted a garage conversion with a huge closet and other storage.   Instead of that the plaintiff designed an ADU, that after he looked at the plans defendant rejected. Defendant wanted to spend $4,000 on the garage conversion, not $10k plus on an ADU.      The ADU wasn't what defendant wanted, and the plans wouldn't have worked because of the different issues that defendant mentioned in the hall-terview.   I think the defendant/contractor could look at the plans plaintiff did, and see the faults, like the pool distance.    I know people who can look at floor plans, and detail drawings and pick out problems like the back splash, and distance to the pool .

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Architecture Barter Gone Bad! -Plaintiff/architect  Julia Contaldo suing defendant/contractor Seyed "Amir" Abbasi over her consulting fees, claiming defendant didn’t keep up his end of their contract.   

 

I have to agree with JJ - this case was confusing as well as boring. IMO most construction issues are dull, though, so no surprise there. It is a good example, however, of the problems that arise when responsibility boundaries are not clearly defined.  

Also, in the hall-terview, it sounded as though the defendant was blaming the plaintiff because his addition was too close to his pool and the (kitchen?) window was too low to install a backsplash. But I thought he said he didn't use her plans and instead did the work all on his own. Did I hear that wrong? If that was the case, how is she at fault for any shortcomings? Again - confusing.

Edited by KittyQ
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wouldn't give her a penny, because she didn't do the plans that defendant wanted, but did her own idea of what he should build.  

Me neither.  And JJ wouldn't listen when he tried to tell her the construction industry was not shut down.  It went on as usual down here anyway.

JJ is really a bully in her time before the end of the show.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

CONSTRUCTION may have been booming, but JJ's point was that building PERMITS are required by governmental bodies and THEY were closed during the pandemic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)

Chihuahua Nabbed by Dog Through Fence?! -Plaintiffs Nathan and Hannah McDaniel suing defendant/neighbor Steven White for their Chi's vet bills.    Plaintiffs claim the defendant's dog came into their yard, and attacked the Chi, and claims he witnessed this.   PLaintiffs own two Chihuahuas.    There is no way the defendant's Australian Shepherd got under the fence, or could get their mouth or head under the fence.   Defendant has an adult Australian Shepherd, and a mini Australian Shepherd.   

However, defendant says he has video of plaintiff's Chi's coming into defendant's yard around his Australian Shepherd, and his much smaller dog.    Plaintiff saw Chi's paw in defendant's Australian Shepherd's mouth.   Plaintiff claims the privacy fence is bad, and defendant's dog reached under and nailed the Chi's paw.   Plaintiff claims he saw the Shepherd squeeze his mouth under the fence, and grabbed the dog's paw.   What a bunch of horse pucky. 

Then plaintiff went next door, with the vet bill in hand, and confronted defendant demanding money.   Defendant's wife Shannon White, says that the defendants have told plaintiffs many times that their dogs were trespassing in their back yard, and plaintiffs did nothing.  

There is a video of the plaintiff's two Chi's in defendant's back yard, and defendants say the plaintiff's dogs trespass in his back yard many times.    I agree with JJ, that Chi went under the fence into defendant's back yard, and somehow the plaintiff's dog was injured.     In the past three years, the plaintiff's dogs had trespassed frequently, and plaintiff did nothing to fix the fence.   

The defendants say they have told the plaintiffs several times about the plaintiff's dogs in defendant's back yard, and right up to the back door of defendant's house.  There is a video of plaintiff's dogs in defendant's backyard.    Plaintiff says he put up more wood to stop his dogs from going under the fence, so why didn't they do it before this happened. 

Defendant says he and wife (his witness) heard the plaintiff's talking about shutting their dog's paw in the storm door at their house, and the little dog yelping.    Plaintiff still denies the defendants ever told him that his dogs are trespassing, and he's lying. 

(JJ talking about the ridiculous testimony from plaintiff is causing plaintiff to think he's losing, and he's glaring at JJ). 

 Defendant is counter claiming for plaintiff's assaults, fence repairs, and harassment.   Defendant says plaintiff man came to his front door, was very agitated, was demanding money for vet bills, and defendant brought a neighbor who witnessed plaintiff going to his car, getting a gun, and posing on the front door with his gun, and police were called.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (I'm beginning to think that the number one question you should ask a real estate agent when house hunting is if any of the neighbors have been on Judge Judy.)

Let Me See My Dying Father! -Plaintiff Keith Pavlik suing defendant/sister Christine Ross over restricting him from visiting his dying father, and wants funeral expenses for the late father.       Defendant inherited the house, and lived there for over five years caring for the father.  Defendant also said there was no insurance, and the furnishings in the house were combined between her furnishings, and what her father already had.    Plaintiff paid $1145 for the funeral, and defendant paid $1600 for the funeral portion.     

Defendant is counter suing for harassment from plaintiff .    Plaintiff claims father had a $10k policy, but has no proof, and defendant says she had no insurance proceeds.   Administrator of the estate was the Guardian ad Litem.      JJ says funeral bill is defendant's responsibility, and the trustee for the estate (I know that's not the right term, but wouldn't that be changed by a Guardian ad Litem being appointed?).    

(My guess is the brother/plaintiff was estranged, volatile, and wanted everything even though he did nothing to help the father.   Daughter / defendant lived in the home for at least five years, and was full time care for the father.   Amazing how the vultures circle when someone dies, when they hadn't seen the person in a long time, and did nothing to help them.    I wonder if father wanted to see plaintiff?    I bet plaintiff will never leave defendant alone).   Plaintiff's witness (I'm guessing girlfriend or wife) keeps trying to butt in.  

JJ dismisses the visits by plaintiff to dying father, plaintiff already tried to sue for access to father, court said no.  So that's dismissed.   There was a guardian who allowed a few visits. 

$1145 to plaintiff for funeral costs. 

Second (2018) –

How to Stop Your Dog from Killing You! -Plaintiff Michael Evans suing defendant /neighbor Brendan Boyle for vet bills, when plaintiff's Chow was attacked by defendant's Pit Bull.     Plaintiff says attack happened on the sidewalk, when Chow was on a walk, on leash with owner.      Defendant says not only that attack didn't happen, that plaintiff probably injured his own dog.    Photo shows a sidewalk area, with a 6 ft. cinder block wall between sidewalk, and defendant's house.    Defendant claims the fight was nothing, his dog is innocent, and anything happened in defendant's back yard, and claims plaintiff's dog was loose.  Defendant says attack was a mutual combat, and in defendant's back yard, and claims the Pit didn't bite.

Plaintiff was walking his dog, heard yelling, and then saw the loose Pit come out of the defendant's yard, and attack the Chow.   Plaintiff was wrestling the Pit and Chow apart, plaintiff punched the Pit several times, and Pit let go, and then attacked again.   Plaintiff claims defendant was lying on his own dog, and told plaintiff to get away because defendant couldn't hold his dog any longer.   Plaintiff went home, and then took his dog to the vet for bites.   Plaintiff said Pit chomped on Chow's ear and neck.   

 Plaintiff claims defendant said he had searched on line "how to stop your dog from killing you", and how to stop a dog attack.   Defendant claims plaintiff did nothing, and prevented the Pit from biting.    Defendant says he saw plaintiff's dog in his yard, leash trailing, and it went after his dog.   Defendant claims plaintiff injured his own dog, and says everything was fake. 

Plaintiff receives $1100 for vet bills.

Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow?!- Plaintiff Jasmine Wells, suing Kaleen Blount, defendant for travel expenses for the two photo shoot locations, and the hair plaintiff had already paid for.      Defendant does photo shoots, involving putting the hair on models, and models are solicited to buy the hair from defendant.   There is a stylist doing the hair on the models, and models pay for the hair, but at a reduced rate.   Defendant sold the hair for the second photo shoot, shoot was scheduled on Dec 2, and Dec. 9, and plaintiff paid for the hair, $165.     Defendant claims there was a stylist, and they made the wig, using the hair plaintiff had purchased, and that's who has the hair.   

Defendant claims she texted plaintiff to cancel the two photo shoots, but has no proof.  

Plaintiff receives $165 for the hair, plus $40 for the two trips, $205 total.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Red Light Crash?   Emergency Room Dash! - Plaintiff Cherise Riley suing other driver, Ziro Leyva over a car accident.    Plaintiff had liability insurance, but defendant had no insurance.    Defendant ran a red light, and was driving a co-worker's car, and the car was uninsured at the time of the accident.   Plaintiff's insurance paid $5,000 to her for bodily injuries, but nothing for her car.    Plaintiff's insurance company, and attorney said there was no insurance on the car.  JJ calls plaintiff's attorney to ask about the insurance issue.   Attorney won't talk to JJ, so JJ claims there was no answer at the law firm (not likely). 

Defendant has a counter claim for the value of the car, that he didn't even own on the night of the accident, he bought the car the next day, but the car was already totaled.     However, I bet they thought they would pull a fast one, and get paid for the car by plaintiff's insurance.   That doesn't work when you run a red light, and crash into someone the way defendant did.    I bet defendant wasn't covered by the car owner's insurance, and he wasn't a valid driver.  

Plaintiff ended up in hospital, and needed physical therapy for quite a while.   

It was a four-way intersection, and when signal turned green plaintiff turned left, when defendant hit her car. while running a red light.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

(I believe nothing the defendant said.   Who the hell buys a totaled car the day after they hit another car, and totaled both cars?   The answer is no one.)    

Softie or Sucker?!-Plaintiff Carmen Vera Melgar suing Michael Reshad Hardman ex-boyfriend over an unpaid loan.    Defendant co-signed for loan for school tuition, and later to get her car out of impound.    Tuition loan was paid off by plaintiff long ago, no payments by defendant.    When defendant lost his job, plaintiff loaned him money over a three-month period.    Plaintiff didn't add up the amounts she loaned defendant, and considers paying for dinner a loan.  Sworn statement by plaintiff says $3500, but only can estimate how much she loaned him in each of the three months. 

Defendant is smart, he doesn't recall any loans.    I think I like that, because I loathe the plaintiff.   Notation on plaintiff's withdrawal shows the defendant's middle name, and look faked to me.  

Plaintiff receives $1288

Second

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

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

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

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

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

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

$300 to plaintiff.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

That landlord was a real piece of work. She got all offended when Judge Judy said she had issues, but she literally said a minute or two earlier that she had PTSD from renting to the plaintiff. Also, why in the world would she think that Judge Judy would know what a Karen is? Plus, of the two of them, the landlady seems like the type who would ask to see the manager.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant has a total meltdown about 'Karen' plaintiff's behavior, and then gets nasty with JJ.  Defendant keeps telling JJ about being terrorized in her own home.   

But assures JJ she has no mental health issues and does not need therapy.  Darn she's the one who said she had PTSD.

Well darn should have read the last post before I commented but at least we agree.

Edited by parrotfeathers
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

But assures JJ she has no mental health issues and does not need therapy.  Darn she's the one who said she had PTSD.

Well darn should have read the last post before I commented but at least we agree.

I think if I had to live with that nutjob, I'd probably be calling the police on a regular basis, too.  The plaintiff seemed very composed and in control - and I'm willing to bet if she moved a vase an inch to the right on a credenza, defendant went batshit crazy and screamed at her.  Notice that the other roommate didn't show up to back up the terrorist stories.  And no, ditz, you don't get to keep a security deposit for subjective emotional damages.  And yes, you DID tell Judge Judy you had mental issues.  Do you know what PTSD IS?  The word "disorder" is in there somewhere.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Karen Accused of Terrorizing Landlord?!(2020)

Defendant can only be described  as "bugfuck crazy", and not in a good way.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)

Attorney Pleads His Case! -Plaintiff /attorney David Harsch suing defendant/landlord Domingo Pena, for $1116 in unpaid legal fees, fees were for legal proceedings to evict tenant from one of defendant's rental properties.   Plaintiff was briefly disbarred for six months in 2016.    Plaintiff specializes in evictions.     Defendant paid $150 for the notice to quit to tenant (by letter).   Then defendant paid $430 for further legal action to evict tenant, when tenant refused to leave.   Plaintiff went to court in the case.   Tenant's answer was to claim there were clogged lines in the bathroom, and rats, so she should have only owed $700 less from the $3300.     

Defendant's counter claim is the rent that tenant should have paid him, but didn't because she stopped paying rent, until she was evicted.  

Plaintiff went to mediation with tenant, and they came to an agreement with tenant.  There is a retainer agreement between the litigants calls for $450, but doesn't mention an on-going retainer agreement for $200 an hour, the way the plaintiff alleges.  Then defendant paid $580 more, when plaintiff went to court, and mediation.   Tenant finally left, but never paid the back rent, and it took over three months to get tenant out, when sheriff's office evicted her. There is no retainer agreement between the litigants.    Defendant is suing because he wants the tenant's unpaid rent from the plaintiff.

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (I have never understood why attorneys, or landlords come on this show).

Dad, You Drink Too Much! -Plaintiff Sadae Gant suing defendant/father Bobby Gant, for getting drunk, and throwing a bottle at her TV, breaking the TV.  Plaintiff says father only comes to her place occasionally.    Father wasn't drunk when he arrived, but was drunk after dinner.   

Defendant says plaintiff grabbed the bottle, and it slipped out of her hand, and hit the TV.   Plaintiff claims defendant drank two bottles of liquor, and then the argument happened.   Plaintiff claims when she told drunk defendant to leave he tried to hit her with his bag, and then he hit the TV with the bag, that had the bottle in it.    Defendant was on a medication that said no alcohol while on medication, JJ reminds him that was dangerous, and wrong, and the audience applauds.  

$600 to plaintiff for the TV. 

Second (2018)

Murder, Prison and Conjugal Visits -Plaintiff Theodora Wright is guardian of her convicted murderer brother's two children (man was 19, and his late girlfriend was 16) is suing defendant Jaclyn "Jackie" Dougherty daycare provider for an unpaid loan, and daycare issues.   

Brother killed his girlfriend, and fathered the two children  (ages 4 and 7) while in jail, then mother and prisoner divorced, and mother had drug issues, and can't care for the children.   Defendant would go for the overnight extended family visitation with the two children (they have trailers where the visits happen).   Plaintiff says brother was a juvenile at the time of the murder, so he may get out sooner than 12 years.    Contract was 6 visits a month, supervised by defendant.    

Defendant says she was put on the visitation list for the inmate.    Then plaintiff's brother made a contract with defendant for 50 visits, for $100 per visit.     Contract was with the plaintiff, and money for defendant came from brother's inheritance, with plaintiff in charge of the money.    Defendant did 14 visits, and has to return $3600 to plaintiff.    However, plaintiff says she loaned defendant $3820 to open her own daycare (and to pay off bills to get the daycare loan).     Defendant says the $3820 was for the two children's educational/daycare costs, not a loan (No it wasn't for daycare).

There is no counterclaim by defendant, but she says the $3820 was daycare costs, and private babysitting defendant also did.    Defendant says children's mother paid her bills (she was a counselor), and then in 2017 mother went into rehab, and plaintiff had custody of the children.    However, the loan to defendant by plaintiff was before the guardianship by plaintiff, when the children's mother was still paying the bills for the children, so it was a loan to play off defendant's outstanding credit issues. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.  (Sorry, this case was extremely confusing, so I only wrote what both litigants claim was the truth).  

Don’t Let the Bedbugs Bite! -Plaintiff Subrine Rogers suing defendant Christina Wheeler for the lease/purchase of furniture, and cleaning fees.    Plaintiff purchased the furniture on her credit card, and defendant was paying plaintiff for half of the furniture.   The the usual big argument happened, and defendant moved out, taking her furniture, but defendant stopped paying for the furniture.     As JJ says the logical thing for defendant to pickup her furniture, and keep it or sell it, but defendant claims the furniture has bedbugs in it, because of plaintiff's daughter.   

Defendant claims she was paying $300 a month for rent, and $200 a month for the furniture (all are ATMs withdrawals).   $1861 is left on the furniture payments.   Defendant claims she paid plaintiff half the cost of the furniture, but she left some behind.  Furniture cost $1500+, but then the rental company took the payments, so the price went up.  

Defendant took some of the furniture, and claims some of her previously owned furniture had bedbugs because of plaintiff's daughter (how would you know who was responsible for bed bugs?   They have little nametags says who brought them into the house?)

$1865 to plaintiff. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Covid Inspired Start-Up Turns Violent?!-Plaintiff Chantea Jackson-Washington decided to start a mobile beauty salon because of Covid, and is suing her former employer (chair rental at salon), defendant Lucretia (Cree) Munns.  Salon owner Munns leases the salon from the shopping center owner. 

 Plaintiff wants hair extensions that she left behind at Munns’ salon when the salon shut down because of Covid, but defendant says she doesn't have them.     Plaintiff is suing for defamation from defendant on Facebook.   Plaintiff says defendant owed her $1200 on FB for booth rent, this is the period when the salon was shut by Covid, and defendant didn't pay up rent until after salon reopened from a government Covid relief program.    FB postings weren't done until September.   

Defamation by plaintiff dismissed, hair extensions are gone.   Counter claim by defendant is for plaintiff filing a restraining against defendant for a threat to put gun to plaintiff's head, and other nasty statements (18 pages of statements from FB).  Defendant claims plaintiff took wigs, and blow dryer, and they are returned in court, but defendant wants the money, not the items back.   Defendant claims she should pay her $1200 rent for when salon was shut down. 

Both Cases dismissed.   (My question is does plaintiff owe the chair rent, when the salon was closed?    The salon owner did receive the government aid, and paid her lease, but why should she get chair rent from the other beauticians when they couldn't work at her facility?) 

You Ate the Steak: Now Pay for It!-Plaintiff Michael Taylor (I'll call him Man Bun) suing for return of rent, for a time when plaintiff and his mother lived in defendant, Lucy Wilde's,  rental property.  Lucy Wilde is the landlord.   Plaintiff wants return of rent, moving costs, and damages for an illegal lockout (It's legal because defendant wasn't supposed to be renting it, according to the Housing Authority).   

 The plaintiff and mother moved into a place that defendant owned, and $1400 a month was the rent.    Plaintiff paid rent until December, when he complained to Housing Authority, when Housing Authority said it was uninhabitable.     

However, defendant wants back rent for the time plaintiff didn't pay the rent, but still lived in the home.   Plaintiff will not be getting rent back, because he ate the steak by living there.   Defendant will not get unpaid rent, because it wasn't a legal rental.  

Cases dismissed. (I agree with defendant, that plaintiff and his mother are professional squatters). 

Second (2020)-

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

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

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

Plaintiff receives $696.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

Cases dismissed. (I agree with defendant, that plaintiff and his mother are professional squatters). 

Absolutely agree.  Some people have zero shame.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.   She should have sued customer. 

Mother Illegally Relocates Child?! -Plaintiff Sandra Olivera,  SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One) is suing ex-husband Jose Escobosa, because she moved to another state with the 9 year old child of litigants.   Plaintiff is suing defendant for money she loaned for an airline ticket.   

However, plaintiff moved to Texas, from California, so how was an involved father supposed to keep up twice a month visitation from that far away?   Plaintiff suddenly moved the child to Texas, and defendant found out a couple of weeks later that his son was in Texas.   Plaintiff is "redoing her life, and with a new boyfriend", so she didn't care that the defendant would never see his son.    

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

Every time JJ says it's not legal to take the son to another state without the defendant's permission, the plaintiff just glares at JJ.  

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

Second (2018)

Friends Let Friends Drive Drunk?! -Plaintiff Elena Richardson is suing defendant John Lyles Jr, over car damages from an accident, and a broken cell phone.  The litigants were hanging out and drinking Tequila.   Defendant drove to plaintiff's house in his car.    Then they were in her car, plaintiff was drunk, and scary behind the wheel, and so defendant took over driving, and then the car accident occurred.     They were both drinking Tequila, plaintiff from early in the evening.     

Then they both were driving in plaintiff's car, and were going on an errand (maybe for more Tequila?) and to a friend's, and the accident happened.      When the litigants argued after the accident, plaintiff called 911, and then defendant smashed her phone (he's on parole, and doesn't want to deal with the police).     Defendant claims plaintiff's phone went out the car window, and was broken, but he didn't do it.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because drunk drivers don't get rewarded for being drunk.

Wedding Band Break-Up! -Plaintiff Andre Holmes suing defendant Ashanti Robertson for repairs to his car that he claims she gave him, if he'd fix it up.   Plaintiff fixed up the car, which defendant said if he fixed it up, he could keep it.   Defendant denies this, and said it was a loan.   Litigants bought matching wedding bands, and a wedding set, and plaintiff gives the matching piece to defendant.    (When Officer Byrd takes the band to defendant, JJ tells him it wouldn't look good on Byrd anyway).     

Plaintiff needs to prove what he spent to get car running.   Car has been sitting in front of defendant's parents’ house for six months, and isn't running.     

Plaintiff receives $1066 for car repairs. 

Prove It’s My Fault! -Plaintiff Hannah Huntley, and stepfather Mr. Wofford, are suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Caleb Kamara, for a car accident he had in plaintiff's car, a 2012 Dodge Avenger.     Defendant was turning left, and collided with two other cars that had right of way, and insurance paid for the other cars, and said fault was defendant's.      

Plaintiff submits the police report, it says defendant had two citations for having an expired driver's license, and no proof of insurance.   Defendant's license was revoked a couple of years before this.   Progressive insurance paid for the other two cars, but nothing for plaintiff's car damages because it wasn't fully insured.    Plaintiff was supposed to have full coverage on the car, since it was still being financed, but only had liability.     If plaintiff had full coverage, everything would have been covered. There is no way the insurance company screwed the liability vs. comprehensive insurance up, I suspect the plaintiffs decided to save money, and it bit them in the butt. 

Defendant had a revoked license, and it had been revoked a couple of years before.  Why would JJ give plaintiff money, when it wasn't fully insured, and the boyfriend had no license for years?

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

TV Appearance Fee Held Ransom?!-Plaintiff Chloe Raymond-Smith (a very young age 19) suing Alphonso Cruz for return of money she paid him for a car, $3200, and he resold to someone else.   Car was listed on Facebook Marketplace.    The bill of sale was written by a friend of plaintiff, named Nick, but she can't remember his last name (it's Koe or Poe).    Plaintiff paid $3200 for car through payments, on Venmo, and another app.   When plaintiff took tow truck, and went to pick up car, defendant said car was gone, and hung up on her. 

JJ askes defendant what's wrong with him, apparently terminal gall, and stupidity.    JJ tells defendant that when he pays plaintiff her money, he will receive his $500 appearance fee.   If no money is paid to plaintiff then show will pay plaintiff $3200, but defendant will receive nothing.   (Officer Byrd is really enjoying JJ's ruling).  

(I agree with other posters, sleazy Mr. Cruz will never give up the $3200, in return for $500.   I hope his car engine grenaded on the middle of the freeway on the way home, and the transmission fell out at the same time.  Someday Mr. Cruz will pull this scam on the wrong person, and someone will show him that he's being naughty, and really hurt him.   I want the video of that one.).  

Freeway Pile Up!-Plaintiff  Paulo Recio  suing fellow motorist Jerome Joseph (driver of car #3), plaintiff was first car in three car pile up, and is suing the driver of the  last car. #3 for car damages.  Defendant says police came to accident, but only asked people in first car (Recio) and second car, for their proof of insurance, but didn't ask him.    Defendant was driving his grandmother's car (since totaled in another accident), and wasn't insured, and police failed to cite him for that.   Defendant claims grandmother had the title and registration, but insurance was in defendant's name.   Defendant claims grandmother was driving, and had an accident that totaled the car.  

Traffic was stopped, Car #1 Recio was fully stopped, and car #2 was also stopped, and Car #3 Joseph wasn't paying attention, slammed into the back of Car #2, and pushed that into the rear of Car #1.    Defendant Joseph was speeding at the time of the accident, failed to stop in time, slamming into the rear of Car #2, and causing that car to hit Car #1.   

Defendant was on his phone at the time of the accident, in addition to having no insurance, and speeding.   Defendant was driving for Postmates at the time, looked at his phone for the map, and hit the plaintiff's car #1, and the car #2.   I wonder if defendant's car was insured, but he wasn't a legal driver for that car? 

Cause of collision on police report is defendant, speeding, and looking at his phone while driving.

Plaintiff receives $1200 (or he can get it fixed, and come back to court with the actual costs). (Plaintiff says defendant was trying to leave the scene before police got there, and failed).

(I think someone should explain to JJ that some states don't even respond to accidents unless there's an injury, and if it's on private property, can't, and don't write tickets.  Other places they're overwhelmed, and leave accident investigation to the insurance companies, and that way the officers don't spend endless days testifying in court about some fender bender.   I hated the defendant, he could have killed people, and doesn't even care.   I'm betting that he was driving grandma's car when it was totaled after this accident too.) 

Second (2020)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Dear Judge Judy:  You may be the "star of the show" but you have evolved into one mean old spiteful woman.  We know you are an expert in living together, marriage, divorce, kids, grand kids, dogs of all breeds, leasing stuff of all kinds (cars/houses) (especially an expert in who deserves to make a profit when selling something), but you are NOT an expert in hair styling.  Please fix your hair cause cause it was the one thing that made you tolerable.

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Dear Judge Judy:  You may be the "star of the show" but you have evolved into one mean old spiteful woman.  We know you are an expert in living together, marriage, divorce, kids, grand kids, dogs of all breeds, leasing stuff of all kinds (cars/houses) (especially an expert in who deserves to make a profit when selling something), but you are NOT an expert in hair styling.  Please fix your hair cause cause it was the one thing that made you tolerable.

Wait, you liked Judge Judy because of her "same for the last 40 years" hairstyle?  That's.... something.

 

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)

Antique Gun Heist! -Plaintiff Martin Ratowski suing defendant Bettie Woody over the loss of an antique gun (for $4500), that was for sale at her antique shop, and obstruction of justice.    Defendant has items for sale, at her antique shop, with plaintiff's booth of under 400 sq. ft., on the second floor of the store.   If a customer sees something in the loft, in the locked cabinet, they would come and get defendant, and she would take the cabinet keys to open the cabinet for perusal or sale.   Then defendant showed the gun to someone, and the next day the shopper broke into the cabinet, and stole the antique rifle.  Defendant was not with the shoppers on the second day.    

This was a crime, but not the defendant's responsibility.     Defendant says plaintiff sets the price, but the $4500 price plaintiff claims sounds very high to her.  Prices are set by plaintiff, not defendant.  Plaintiff claims defendant never called him about a price reduction.    Defendant discovered the rifle was gone, and called plaintiff.   The plaintiff's locked case wasn't secure, because the thief lifted the glass out, and swapped the rifle for a piece of similar shaped wood. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Ungrateful Goddaughter! -Plaintiff Delores Ballard suing defendant goddaughter Kelly Goolsby for charging too much on plaintiff's credit card.  Defendant was given the credit card by plaintiff with an agreed on amount to repair her car, and went over the limit.   Plaintiff obtained the credit card so defendant could charge the repair, and repay her too.   Defendant claims the repair shop estimated $1300, and defendant claims she had that amount.   Defendant paid the $130, and charged the extra $500. 

Defendant told plaintiff about her car costs, and that she couldn't pay for it.   Plaintiff gave defendant the credit card, with a $500 limit on its use.   Defendant used the credit card, charged $530, and never paid plaintiff back.  Defendant only paid $30.

$500 to plaintiff

Second (2018) –

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

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

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

$1500 to plaintiff.

Car Swap Fail! -Plaintiff Zachary Schlichting suing defendant John Terhune over a car swap (no money exchanged, they swapped plaintiff's 1963 Chevy Impala for a 2013 Chevy Sonic hatchback / defendant's).  The two swapped cars, and both were drivable, and a few days later the defendant wanted to swap cars back.     

Defendant had buyer's remorse, and plaintiff gave the defendant's car back.   Defendant left plaintiff's car at the swap point, a dealership.    Plaintiff's car was damaged, inoperable, and had to be towed.    Plaintiff thought it was something simple to fix on his original car, a lot of complex engine issues were discovered, and plaintiff says car looked as if it was wrecked.     Plaintiff said car had new white walls when he traded it, and it hit a curb.    Plaintiff claims the defendant's boss said defendant was driving drunk, whacked a curb, and wrecked the front end.  

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

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

$3,000 to plaintiff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Be Quiet, You're Winning!-Plaintiff Val McLemore, suing her former landlords Vincent and Elizabeth Saldias, for her security deposit not repaid after the walk through of the rental.   Plaintiff rented the two bedroom, one bath for three years, with a one year lease, converted to month-to-month.   Plaintiff wants her $900 security deposit.    Vincent Saldias did the walk through with plaintiff.   (I love the plaintiff's lovely blue hair).     Defendant didn't point out damage written or verbal to plaintiff at the walk through, on 12 March 2020.   

Defendant sent an itemized list (they vacated on 30 March), on 20 April 2020 after plaintiff asked where her security deposit was?   

Defendant claims tenants didn't pay their last 13 days of occupancy.    JJ asks for photos of damages.   Plaintiff claims walk through was 12 March, but 30 day to leave notice from plaintiff is dated 13 March.     The back yard weeds are at least two feet high, and didn't grow in a couple of weeks.        JJ alleges that the friend of defendant that parked a trailer at the house wasn't paying rent, and the friend also parked the trailer there (quoting the defendant) to make the vacant house look occupied.  

$900 to plaintiff.

Grocery Store Slam Scam?!-Plaintiff Jaymes Smith suing Gary Maxwell Jr over defendant backing into plaintiff's car in the grocery store parking lot, plaintiff is suing for $1,000 deductible.   Defendant car was owned by his girlfriend, and he's asked if it was insured at the time of the accident, Debbie Antou is car owner, and car wasn't insured.        Plaintiff was coming from Stater Brothers grocery, driving a big pickup truck with a full passenger area, stopped for pedestrians to clear the parking lot, and was ready to make a right turn after pedestrians moved.   

Defendant claims plaintiff hit the side of his car (not possible the way he describes accident scene and damages).     Plaintiff shows where he was parked, went to the end of the parking lane, and defendant was parked, and backed out into the side driver's plaintiff's truck.   Car damages were $2500, with $1,000 deductible paid by plaintiff.   

At the accident scene, the plaintiff and defendant exchanged information, including insurance.   When defendant's car was found to be uninsured at the time of the accident, the police called him about the car not being insured (it lapsed by two days, and owner was shocked.  Yes, that's sarcastic).   

Don't uninsured drivers, and car owners get tickets, or cars impounded any more?   Actually, I've lived in states where parking lot accidents, or other private property wouldn't have a police response unless someone was injured.  

Damages to defendant's car was to his rear bumper, obviously it was defendant's fault.

Plaintiff receives $1,000.   

Second (2020)-

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

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

(Since this has run at least twice before, I will not comment again on the interesting booty on the plaintiff, and hope I never see her in action doing Zumba)

$1400 to plaintiff.

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

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

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2021 at 6:45 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I will not comment again on the interesting booty on the plaintiff

It is a vast mystery to me how some people are willing to spend great amounts of money and endure the discomfort and pain of multiple cosmetic surgeries as well as having implants inserted in their body to unnecessarily pad various portions of their anatomy, for the end result to be so completely grotesque.

And then they top it off with a too-tight ill-fitting dress along with a fugly wig.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second (2018)

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

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

Plaintiff receives $500

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

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Sister Sues Thieving Sister?!-Plaintiff Cheryl Culjat sister suing other sister Carla Young, who lives with her ex-husband she calls her "Was-band", for stealing her furniture out of a storage unit.  Plaintiff rented storage unit five years ago after moving back to Boise with her Was-band.   In December 2018 plaintiff sister needed a storage unit, and defendant put second unit in her name for sister.    Plaintiff says she used 2/3 of second storage unit, and defendant's furniture filled the other 1/3.     Plaintiff was evicted from previous temporary/transitional housing, and now lives with her father at his house, and gets disability, and takes care of father.      Plaintiff claims father is charging her rent.   

Defendant says father had a home nurse, and VA home care, then plaintiff moved in, and plaintiff's daughter lived there for a while too, but since moved.         Defendant says father isn't charging plaintiff rent, but she pays cell phone, and uses her food stamps for the household of the father's home.     Plaintiff says in lieu of rent she pays the phone bill, and food bills, including food stamps.   

Storage unit was $103 a month, and plaintiff only paid one month, $103 for the unit.    Plaintiff never paid for the storage unit except that one time.   Defendant told plaintiff to either pay the storage unit, or remove her furniture, told her in April that sister's stuff was moved to granddaughter's house (bed, various tables, dresser, etc.).    Defendant left everything else she considered useless stuff in storage unit.   In June of 2020 defendant delivered the rest of the plaintiff's stuff to father's garage for plaintiff, except for the few items in granddaughter's house.   Defendant also says the storage unit items were from another storage unit from before last eviction of plaintiff.    

Defendant counter suing for cost of storage unit.   

JJ says if plaintiff wants used furniture back from defendant's granddaughter, then she has to pay plaintiff the $1,100 for the storage unit.     When plaintiff pays defendant $1,100 (not from the show), then within five days defendant will rent a U-Haul, pick up the furniture from granddaughter, and leave it in father's garage for plaintiff.  (My guess, is that plaintiff never paid the bill, and so everything is still at defendant's granddaughter's place). 

Mercedes-Benz Meets Costco!   -  Plaintiff Martha Andrade suing other driver, Faribors Ettileiy  for accident in parking lot.     At the time of the accident plaintiff had no insurance.     Defendant  was sitting still in a red zone, waiting for a parking space when he was hit by plaintiff.,   JJ asks defendant why he was parked in a red zone, defendant was waiting for a space to open.    Plaintiff looks like she was turning right, and didn't make a square turn, but cut the corner.  

Plaintiff is suing because she had no insurance, and received a collection notice from defendant's car insurance, Mercedes-Benz 2010 was undriveable, and defendant's insurance sent plaintiff a bill for the damages to defendant's car.        The picture shows plaintiff's minivan's passenger side hit the defendant's driver's side front headlight corner.       Plaintiff says she just barely scratched defendant's car, so she didn't total it.   $5500 to the body shop, and defendant paid another $2500.   Plaintiff never paid the bill to defendant's insurance company, so it was sent to collections.  

Defendant says he was standing still, trying to find a parking space, when plaintiff hit him.    Defendant failed to file a counter claim for rental or other charges.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2020)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2021 at 2:54 PM, NightShifter said:

Wait, you liked Judge Judy because of her "same for the last 40 years" hairstyle?  That's.... something.

No.  I said it made her tolerable.  She didn't use to be as mean either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone,

Long-time reader, first time poster from Aus. We’re 5-6 months behind youse in the States.

According to the LA TIMES, Judy’s last ep airs on your screens in September. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2021-06-08/judge-judy-final-episode-cbs-imdb-tv-amazon

Wanted to congratulate @CrazyInAlabama for their reliable synopsises of Judy’s airings. Easiest way for me to know how far behind we are from you. Much appreciated here.

 

 

Edited by Aurora8
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I want to preface this by saying I'm not trying to imply JJ is senile. I've suspected for quite awhile that part of JJ's increased anger and rudeness may have something to do with her getting older, being mad at herself that she's not as with it as she used to be and ends up taking it all out on the people that appear before her that aren't her equals or above her status wise. It explains some of her behavior especially compared to earlier years, that's not to say I think the way she treats people now is ok.

Glad she finally decided it was time to step away from the show.

I've mentioned previously that I had to quit watching even once in awhile a few years ago due to how bad her behavior towards people had gotten especially to poor people. It would be even worse if she found out they were on any kind of governmental assistance because that's when she'd start with her thinking that she could dictate how people spent their money. Her reasoning was the taxes she pays entitled her to have a say even when the people before her weren't wasting the money they received. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Jaded said:

 

I want to preface this by saying I'm not trying to imply JJ is senile. I've suspected for quite awhile that part of JJ's increased anger and rudeness may have something to do with her getting older, being mad at herself that she's not as with it as she used to be and ends up taking it all out on the people that appear before her that aren't her equals or above her status wise.

 

Yes, it's become obvious over the years.  It's really even difficult to like the show anymore.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Jaded said:

I want to preface this by saying I'm not trying to imply JJ is senile.

She supposedly has hearing loss. I know from personal experience it can throw you off. Even with the best equipment, her hearing will never be 100 percent. 

 

17 hours ago, Jaded said:

Glad she finally decided it was time to step away from the show.

There were articles earlier this year she was doing a new show with IMDB.com. I wonder if that's still happening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

11 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Yes, it's become obvious over the years.  It's really even difficult to like the show anymore.

The only way I can even watch it is to have my adult son here...make him watch a part so I can PICK HER APART !!!  He always agrees with me (he's a very smart son).

2 hours ago, babyhouseman said:

There were articles earlier this year she was doing a new show with IMDB.com. I wonder if that's still happening.

https://deadline.com/2021/06/judge-judy-cbs-departure-wall-street-journal-disrespected-1234769943/

Share this post


Link to post

IMDb's 'Judy Justice' to Follow 'Judge Judy' Docket: 'I Do What I Do,' Star Says

By Daniel Frankel May 14, 2021  "Judy Sheindlin says her new Amazon court show won’t be too different from the syndicated one she produced and starred in for the last 25 years."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/26/2021 at 5:06 PM, MerBearStare said:

Also, why in the world would she think that Judge Judy would know what a Karen is?

If Judge Judy knows exactly how much body work should cost (in every case), it's obvious that she's aware of Karens.  She'll probably BE a Karen if she ever retires.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff $5,000. 

Six-Year-Old Takes the Stand! -Plaintiff mother Jamesha Harris, daughter Jatavia Harris, are suing defendants,  Cornell and Gwendolyn Ricard, over broken TV, and damaged property, damage was done by defendant's children while defendants and children were living with the plaintiffs.  Defendant split with her husband, so defendant took her children and went to live with plaintiff mother.  A month later the defendant husband moved in with his wife and kids into plaintiff’s home too.

Plaintiff, the child's mother, also  claims a pregnancy pillow, mattress, and carpet were also damaged.   Plaintiff mother says the defendant's kids ruined the mattress by peeing on it.   Mattress was Tempur-pedic, $2143, the TV has no proof of when it happened, dismissed, pregnancy pillow $71, and carpet cleaning.     Plaintiffs claim that defendants and children damaged the mattress, carpet, other pillow, and you don't want to know how it happened.     

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

$2214 to plaintiffs for mattress, and pillow. 

Second (2018)-

The $9,000 Favor! -Plaintiff Lourdes Torres suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Peter Riendeau, over an unpaid loan to pay his debts.   Defendant calls money a gift, not a loan.  Plaintiff missed a flight in Houston, and was late for court.    Defendant showed up in court on time.    Litigants lived together for just over a year, and in December 2016, plaintiff loaned defendant $9,000 to pay off his credit card debt.   

Plaintiff received $9,000 from a lawsuit settlement (she says she signed a confidentiality agreement, and can't discuss the details, but needs to prove JJ where the money came from).   Plaintiff also bought a house for cash.   Defendant claims he knows about the lawsuit and offers to tell the entire audience about the details, and JJ tells him to zip it. 

$5,000 to plaintiff for the loan. 

Boyfriends’ Trip to Spain Fail! -Plaintiff Justin Whitfield suing defendant/ex-lover Donald Umphenour for the cost of a trip to Spain, and credit card charges.  Defendant is accused of cheating, and home invasion. Defendant is swilling the Water That Should Not Be Drunk.   Plaintiff can't prove charges by defendant.  Plaintiff denies he cheated on the defendant.  

Defendant has no pictures of damages, or any proof of the home invasion/burglary.   Defendant has a restraining order against plaintiff.    Home invasion police report is submitted by the defendant.  There are no photos.   There is a security camera photo of plaintiff's friend robbing the defendant's place.  

Plaintiff receives $2376 for trip to Spain.  

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Landlord’s Day-in-Court Nightmare!  -Plaintiffs / former tenants Jonathan and Sarah Santibanez are suing defendant/former landlord Dave Shaffer over security, and a bonus to move out during the Covid moratorium.  Landlord was going to pay tenants to move so he could sell the place, a bonus and security to leave by 1 October 2020, and cooperate with realtors doing showings, all outlined in a letter to tenants.    There is nothing saying cooperation with the realtor is required.   House still isn't for sale, since move out 1 October, because of improvements defendant is making to house.   However, house wasn't listed, so there was no broker to cooperate with.   If tenants hadn't moved out, then defendant wouldn't have been able to evict them, because of court closures, and Covid eviction moratoriums. 

Defendant's witness is his future broker on the house.   Broker must have wanted to come on the show to promote his real estate business, because he's useless for anything else.  Defendant says cooperating was to let the broker look at the house any time he wanted to.    

$4050 to plaintiffs

Friends Don’t Let Friends Become Roommates!  -Plaintiff Emily Foley suing defendant Amber Moonier over an apartment they were going to move into, but didn't.   Plaintiff transferred $1500 into defendant's bank account, but after apartment told litigants that apartment wouldn't be ready on time, plaintiff could either wait for another apartment, or get refunded.   

Plaintiff says defendant received a refund for everything but the credit check, and application fees.   Defendants said she would only give plaintiff $400, because she purchased a kitchen table for the apartment, and other items for the apartment.    

JJ finally drags out of the defendant that she kept the kitchen table, and is using it at another apartment she lives in now.   Also, defendant says she had to pay for renter's insurance on the first apartment, but did get a full refund back.   Defendant is giving me a headache, and JJ is about to have Officer Byrd whack the snot out of defendant with a flyswatter.  

(My view, plaintiff is lucky she never moved in with defendant). 

$1350 to plaintiff.  

Second (2021)-

Down and Out Divorcees! -Plaintiff Thomas Mercer suing defendant/former wife Jennifer Mercer over a car loan.    They have four children together, plaintiff claims all four children lived with him after the divorce, and defendant claims the 11 and 8 year old child moved with her (they were 1 and 3 at the time).     Plaintiff got the house, with the children.    Plaintiff had physical custody of all four children, and there was a three year trial determining the divorce, custody, and property issues.    In 2017 defendant moved back into the marital home until recently, with ex-husband, and four children.     By 2018 defendant needed a car, so plaintiff took out a loan in 2019, for $3500 for car repairs, and then $9,000 for another car.   Defendant claims the loan also was to pay for home repairs, not just her car.  

Plaintiff says defendant has issues telling the truth.   

JJ says they were shacking up, so it was marital debt, so plaintiff case dismissed.  

Eviction Relief is not for Squatters -Plaintiff Artin Sarkissian suing defendant/former tenant Adela Zamora over unpaid rent.  Plaintiff bought an apartment building, and issued new leases to tenants, including the defendant and her family.   Plaintiff wants the last nine days, $558 rent for the nine days she went over to the next month.    Defendant claims the house was horrible, but she stayed there over three years.   Plaintiff will not get $5,000 he's suing for, because defendant's brother moved in, wouldn't leave, is still living in the apartment, never paid rent.   However, plaintiff had brother on the original lease.   

Plaintiff will have to sue defendant's brother for squatting in the apartment.   Defendant's brother, wife, and two children live in the apartment also, and have since October.    JJ tells plaintiff that the moratorium won't end until at least March 2021, so brother can't be evicted until then.   However, defendant claims brother works at Wingstop, and plaintiff says Wingstop says brother doesn't work there, so plaintiff can try garnishing, but it won't work.           However, JJ points out the moratorium was for people who lost jobs due to Covid, and defendant brother claims he's had his hours cut, but was never laid off.   

(Supposedly, the rent is due in total at the end of the moratorium, if it ever ends.   So, brother will be in big trouble.  However, the apartment owner will be lucky to ever get the brother, and his family out, and if the apartment isn't totally destroyed I would be shocked.   Why do I bet that the squatters are still in the apartment?)

$558 for unpaid rent to plaintiff.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/27/2021 at 5:43 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Murder, Prison and Conjugal Visits -Plaintiff Theodora Wright is guardian of her convicted murderer brother's two children (man was 19, and his late girlfriend was 16) is suing defendant Jaclyn "Jackie" Dougherty daycare provider for an unpaid loan, and daycare issues.   

Brother killed his girlfriend, and fathered the two children  (ages 4 and 7) while in jail, then mother and prisoner divorced, and mother had drug issues, and can't care for the children.   Defendant would go for the overnight extended family visitation with the two children (they have trailers where the visits happen).   Plaintiff says brother was a juvenile at the time of the murder, so he may get out sooner than 12 years.    Contract was 6 visits a month, supervised by defendant.    

Society is doomed..DOOMED

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Supposedly, the rent is due in total at the end of the moratorium, if it ever ends.   So, brother will be in big trouble.  However, the apartment owner will be lucky to ever get the brother, and his family out, and if the apartment isn't totally destroyed I would be shocked.   Why do I bet that the squatters are still in the apartment?)

I am so glad I am not in the rental business.  The landlord will never recover one cent from this guy.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(My view, plaintiff is lucky she never moved in with defendant). 

 

and in the hallterview, defendant kept insisting that she owed the plaintiff nothing. Based on...I already spent the money??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Daddy Debt Deployed to Japan? -Plaintiff/former mother-in-law Sandra Silas suing estranged son-in-law, Maurice Richardson for housing money he was paid while he was stationed in Japan, and an unpaid loan.     Soon to be ex wife and child moved back with plaintiff, and defendant received a housing allowance, when he was stationed in Japan.       For 2015 defendant lived in government housing in Japan, and when he moved off post, he had a housing allowance.   (What the hell is on plaintiff mother-in-law's forehead?  Calling Dr. Pimple Popper). 

Plaintiff and ex-wife received  $700 (witness ex-wife Ms. Richardson)  plus $700 more, while defendant was deployed.  JJ tells plaintiff witness to wake up and testify.    Plaintiff has had daughter, and grandchild (7 years old) living with her for three years now, but they're divorcing, and she is no longer allowed to have a housing allowance.     

Plaintiff whines because defendant stopped paying one car payment, while he was in Japan.     Defendant actually asked to have a bill forwarded to him, so he could pay it, it arrived at MIL's house, and she didn't do it, so his wages are now garnished.    It was on a Military Star card (a credit card used at the base exchange, commissary, food outlets, car repair, furniture shop, etc.), and it was used to buy a bunch of electronics for the family home, and MIL is proud to say that everything he bought was pawned.    Plaintiff also says she used a credit card to fix defendant's car, while defendant and ex were still married.  Car repair loan is dismissed, as marital debt.     Plaintiff daughter/ex-wife actually is complaining about car issues from 2012.)

$1450 was sent to plaintiffs monthly, and will now end.  (This is why when the military divorce, that they get the ID card back, and cancel the ex’s medical, commissary, and other store privileges. The ex only keeps privileges if they were married over 10 years, I’m not sure if that’s 10 years on active duty or not.  After divorce his child support will be deducted by the government, and the child will keep medical and other benefits, if that's legally his child.)

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

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

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

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

Second (2018)-

Sobriety, Cheap Housing and Dangerous Heating?! – Plaintiff /former tenant, Mike Madani was living in a sober living house in Long Beach, (but claims he doesn't have a problem with drugs or alcohol), and is suing defendant/former property manager Jan White, and former roommate,  Andy  Deffinbaugh, for assault by roommate, illegal eviction, and moving costs.     

 Sober living house isn't subsidized, but is licensed.   There are eight apartments in the facility, with 2 bedrooms, and 2 baths in each apartment, each bedroom has two to three beds, so up to 48 residents.    Defendant Andy Deffinbaugh, and plaintiff wanted an affordable place, and could only find the sober living facility.   

Plaintiff was there for six months, and didn't pay for January, and was told to leave.  Plaintiff claims the place had roaches and rats, but he still  stayed for six months.   Plaintiff is 67 on social security, and hasn't worked for 10 years.      

Defendants say it's only a sober living facility, because it doesn't allow drugs or alcohol.  But isn't subsidized, but is licensed (and yet they pack two and three in each bedroom?).  Plaintiff moved to some other place in L.A.  from the defendant's flop house in Long Beach.

JJ dismisses illegal eviction, and no moving costs either.  JJ will consider the assault by Deffinbaugh.     No police report by plaintiff.  Plaintiff submits dental bills from assault in December, but dentist wasn't until February.  Plaintiff claims defendant Deffinbaugh broke his teeth, and elbow.  (JJ doesn't get that packing people in with two or three beds in each bedroom, in 16 bedrooms, equals cheaper rent). 

Everything dismissed.

Sneakiest Insurance Scam Ever?! – Plaintiff Precious  Bilingsley suing defendant Iyanta Burns over car damages.    As usual, defendant didn't have insurance until after the accident.   

Plaintiff says she parked, and when she returned to her car, she found a note from defendant, saying defendant had backed into plaintiff's car.    Repairs are $1210, and plaintiff made a police report, and talked to claims adjuster.  Adjuster claimed defendant had called to get insurance 15 minutes after the defendant hit plaintiff's car, so disallowed claims.   Defendant wasn't covered by insurance until the day after the accident. 

As JJ says to defendant, she probably only left note, and then went to get insurance, because people saw defendant back into plaintiff's car.  

$1210 to plaintiff

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Judge Unimpressed by Aspiring Rapper! – Plaintiff Erica Fulcher suing defendant, Kishawn Holmes, an unemployed musician, for extortion, crashing her car, and overspending on her credit card.    (I'm so glad this isn't on The People's Court, or the defendant would be performing endlessly).   Plaintiff rented cars for him, and she let him use her credit card.   Defendant also admits to 'accidentally trashing the rental car'.   

Plaintiff is 35, and defendant is 25, and they aren't dating. (She finally says they were dating, defendant denies it).  As JJ says, they were in an intimate relationship, and she gave him the credit card after the car destruction happened.  Defendant says dating is only when you're exclusively, not when you're dating others too.   It was dating, this defendant calls "Talking".  

Defendant was using the rental car to film a music video, and doing tricks, and hit a wall.  Plaintiff wanted the keys back on the second rental car, but this was when another woman came to look for the defendant at plaintiff's home.   

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Big Wedding?  Meet the Coronavirus! -Plaintiffs Zuki Khorasanee, and wife, suing defendant /wedding venue operator (Corinthian Event Center), Christa Mekki, for their $3,000 venue deposit, after the plaintiffs had their wedding over Zoom, instead of at the venue.   Defendant says on the date of the wedding, they could still do 50 people total at indoor weddings (this was to happen in November 2020).  After the middle of November, no more indoor weddings.   Plaintiffs wanted to have 150 guests, in person, at an indoor venue.     For their ceremony, on 8 November, they actually had 8 people at the wedding, and the rest were on Zoom. 

On November 8, the 50-person limit was still allowed for events, and zero guests indoor started on 13 November. (My view, the plaintiffs could have had 50 people at the wedding, and the rest on Zoom, or other live streaming, so their wedding wasn't cancelled, just limited). 

JJ gives the $3,000 to the plaintiff.  (I wouldn't have given a dime back to the plaintiffs).

Second (2021)-

How to Pry Off a Pit Bull -Plaintiff Donna Cullum is suing defendant/Pit Bull owner Nicole Anderson for an attack by defendant’s Pit Bull on her two small dogs when plaintiff and her dog were injured.   Plaintiff was walking her two dogs on the sidewalk, and across the street plaintiff saw defendant and boyfriend walking the Pit Bull, and Basset Hound.       Plaintiff couldn't get to her home without crossing the street, where the Pit Bull attacked her terriers.  Defendant witness Dylan Tripp was at the site of the fight.  Defendant claims both litigants were on the same side of the street, which is denied by the plaintiff.  

Plaintiff claims the Pit Bull got away from the defendant, and defendant lost control of her dog.    Plaintiff says the defendant's dog attacked her dog, plaintiff went to grab her dog, and the Pit Bull grabbed the dog, and plaintiff was on the ground.    Defendant witness got the Pit Bull off of plaintiff and her dog.    Plaintiff witness Mr. Cullum talked to defense witness, and defense witness said he got the dogs loose by yanking on the leash.    However, plaintiff witness/husband says defendant witness researched how to get a Pit Bull off of another dog, and claims the Pit broke the leash.   Defendant witness lies and says he took the leash from the defendant.   Defendant witness said he had to punch the Pit in the back of the neck three times, to get the Pit to release the small dog. 

Plaintiff receives $5000 for vet bills, and medical bills. 

Child Slides Down Dad’s Car! - Plaintiff Rocio Blauer is suing defendant/former husband Drew Blauer for car damages when defendant threw himself on her car hood.     Plaintiff and defendant were divorced, but defendant moved back into the home for five months.   Plaintiff, defendant and son slept in the same bed.    Litigants have a five year old son, and defendant says while plaintiff was supervising the son, he used the father's car as a slide, and damaged it, and defendant's counter suing for damages to his car.   

 Both litigants, and son all slept in the same bed, for almost all of the five month period.  Son is autistic, and likes to climb on defendant's car and slide down the car, and damaged the defendant's car.   Plaintiff also likes to sit on the car, and slide down the windshield and hood too, and says when defendant saw the plaintiff and son on his car, is when he threw himself on the hood of her car, and damaged it. 

JJ tells plaintiff to live with her car damages.  Defendant is counter suing for his car damages, after plaintiff wrote "I need child support" on his car, but he didn't see her do it.   

Everything dismissed.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

ge Unimpressed by Aspiring Rapper! – Plaintiff Erica Fulcher suing defendant, Kishawn Holmes, an unemployed musician, for extortion, crashing her car, and overspending on her credit card.    (I'm so glad this isn't on The People's Court, or the defendant would be performing endlessly).   Plaintiff rented cars for him, and she let him use her credit card.   Defendant also admits to 'accidentally trashing the rental car'.   

Plaintiff is 35, and defendant is 25, and they aren't dating. (She finally says they were dating, defendant denies it).  As JJ says, they were in an intimate relationship, and she gave him the credit card after the car destruction happened.  Defendant says dating is only when you're exclusively, not when you're dating others too.   It was dating, this defendant calls "Talking".  

Defendant was using the rental car to film a music video, and doing tricks, and hit a wall.  Plaintiff wanted the keys back on the second rental car, but this was when another woman came to look for the defendant at plaintiff's home.   

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Well I did have a glass of wine as I watched this.  Defendant seemed like he could charm the pants off anyone he met.  I sort of liked him actually.   Maybe I should not have had the wine!

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

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

$684 to apartment complex, and other two roommates will have to pay $684 each to apartment complex out of their own funds.   

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

$2750 to plaintiff. 

Second (2018)-

One Sick Puppy! -Plaintiff Nicole Isaac suing defendant Ricardo Williams, over a puppy he sold her, and later had to be euthanized.  Plaintiff refused a replacement puppy, but wants a refund, vet bills, and other things.    It was a German Shepherd puppy (GSD), purchased for $150 deposit, with paying $400 on pickup of the puppy.   Defendant owns both mother and father of the pup.   There is no health warranty or guarantee in the receipt, bill of sale.    Puppy was taken to the vet almost two weeks after purchase, puppy had issues (bloody stools, lethargic, can't keep down food or water), and plaintiff said puppy ate rabbit stool (rabbits carry a lot of diseases).    Vet report says owner said puppy was well when she took the puppy home from defendant's home.

Defendant says one dog he kept is five months old, and is fine.   Defendant offered her the last puppy from the litter, and plaintiff refused. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Abuse of the Court System? -Plaintiff Christopher Brown suing defendant Amy Van Nieuwenhze over iPhones purchased for defendant and her children, and a couch she purchased, and left behind when she moved out, when they were shacking up.   Plaintiff says when defendant left, she took the phones, and other property with her. Defendant was staying at her 20 year old daughter's place for a short time, then moved into plaintiff's new rental apartment with her 15 year old son.   

Plaintiff still owes $3200 for the phones, and defendant will return them.   (Why are they always iPhones?). 

Plaintiff has a cheap couch, and dining table, so he doesn't need furniture from defendant.

Phones back to plaintiff.   

Deceased Man’s Golf Cart Giveaway?! -Plaintiff Beverly Ange suing defendant / nephew Edward Crane over late uncle's golf cart.     Plaintiff took possession of the uncle's home, and her daughter lives there now.   Plaintiff wants the golf cart for her daughter that lives in the house.   Defendant took possession of the golf cart.  From 2014 to 2017 plaintiff's daughter and grandchildren were using the golf cart.   Plaintiff claims daughter moved into the house in 2014, from PA (this is all in VA).    Defendant stayed in the house for six months before daughter moved into the house, and he used the golf cart then.       Plaintiff also says daughter doesn't live in the house yet.   Defendant took care of the disabled relative, and he took care of him after the uncle died.     

Defendant has golf cart and keeps it. 

Golf cart looks very old, and in poor repair.   Defendant paid to fix the golf cart. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant keeps the golf cart.

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Video Reveals Harassment Truth! -Plaintiff Aviram Kayvan is suing defendant Alan Hanft over a false restraining order defendant filed against him, and attorney fees to fight it.  The two men are the tenants in separate condos in the penthouse.   Then plaintiff started renovations, and defendant claims to be afraid of the plaintiff, and his dog.    The video of the argument shows defendant yelling and advancing on the plaintiff.  

Plaintiff took down his side of the awning (solid metal, from the 60's apparently, but condo didn't make plaintiff put the awning back (they're still in negotiation with the HOA).    Fine over awning removal for HOA could be almost $10k, and is still on-going.  There are nine condos on the penthouse level.   Plaintiff is suing for nearly $5,000 attorney fees after defendant filed a protective order application against him.    The awning removal in November 2019 was the start of defendant's allegations against plaintiff.

Defendant doesn't look reasonable to me.   For some reason, defendant is gazing off to the left, not even at the camera, but looking down and left.   Defendant claims on 9 May 2020, plaintiff was mean to him, and that was when the video happened.    Defendant is counter claiming for attorney's fees, harassment, and other stuff.    The video shows that defendant is the aggressor, and totally out of control, and plaintiff doesn't do anything to defendant on the video.   (I have the feeling that as a kid the defendant whined a lot about "They looked at me funny")

Defendant is told to show his emails to the HOA about plaintiff, and the only thing the HOA contacted him about is the aluminum outside awning (which sounds ugly as hell to me).    Defendant is warned to stop interrupting, and stop acting strange by JJ.   

Plaintiff seems perfectly calm, and rational, in court, and on the video. 

Protective order application by defendant was dismissed.   Defendant still lives in building, and filed for protective order in June 2020, and hearing was in August, but postponed, and in September 2020, defendant withdrew the application.  Defendant also claims plaintiff lives in the unit, but he hasn't lived in the building since the gut renovation of his condo started.   

(I'm very happy to watch the plaintiff testify, and his accent is adorable, so I'm glad he came on the show.   I'm hoping that the HOA, and plaintiff can settle the awning issue, and have him replace it with something that is equivalent, and the fine will go away.   The HOA board seems to realize that defendant is a pushy bully, too bad for him he ran into someone who would not back down from him.  On a shallow note, I'd like to thank the plaintiff for making the quality of litigants on this show improve by 1,000%.  )

$4875 to plaintiff for attorney fees, and now $5,000 with the fee to subpoena the CCTV film footage from the HOA for the protective order hearing.   

Second (2021)-

I’ll Take the Shotgun, Not the Wedding! -Plaintiff Leslie Orm is suing defendant Lori Mosley, his ex-fiance, for unpaid loans (a cruise deposit of $300, and for two airline tickets for defendant's son and daughter in law), and a shotgun.    Defendant lied to plaintiff and said her son has the shotgun, but then defendant fesses up, and says she sold the shotgun.  

All of this happened two years ago, so what was the delay in filing by the plaintiff?   When defendant told plaintiff she was being evicted, and moving, that's when he wanted the shotgun back, and that was recently.   Plaintiff didn't claim for the engagement ring, which he could get back.    Defendant changes her story about the shotgun changes constantly, so plaintiff gets $500 for the shotgun.   The $300 cruise loan was a gift, not a loan, so that's dismissed.    The tickets for defendant's relatives are now in question, but it was a family trip, so plaintiff doesn't get money for the airline tickets.    

Plaintiff receives $500 for the shotgun

Crashes and Lies -Plaintiff Kaneshia Davis suing her sister, Shemika Davis, defendant/driver over car damages from defendant driving the plaintiff's car on a stormy night, defendant skidded off the road, and totaled the plaintiff's car.    Litigants switched cars in October, so plaintiff took sister's truck to move.   On Halloween, defendant was driving plaintiff's car, and claims another driver did a hit-and-run, and she went off the car.    Defendant's children were in the car, and were not injured.    2003 Dodge Stratus owned by plaintiff only had liability on it.  

Defendant says they had a verbal agreement, and plaintiff would drive her car until she could replace it.   Defendant claims plaintiff bought a car that was repo'd after a week.   There is no proof except defendant's story about the accident.

$1500 to plaintiff, and defendant counter claim is gone.     

Tomorrow's recent rerun is the Novice Homebuyer in Tehachapi, who claims the seller/defendant sold him a defective house. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant doesn't look reasonable to me. 

I wonder if the defendant has some emotional / mental issues. Some of what he described sounded as though he suffers from paranoia. As long as things stay the same, he might be able to maintain himself, but change, especially from a person who has a more dominant personality seemed to push him way out of his comfort zone. 

This case goes to show that you never know what your neighbors are really like, and in close living circumstances you have few options to isolate yourself from them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Video Reveals Harassment Truth! -Plaintiff Aviram Kayvan is suing defendant Alan Hanft over a false restraining order

watch the plaintiff testify, and his accent is adorable, ... On a shallow note, I'd like to thank the plaintiff for making the quality of litigants on this show improve by 1,000%.  )

He's some eye candy, that's for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I’ll Take the Shotgun, Not the Wedding! -Plaintiff Leslie Orm is suing defendant Lori Mosley, his ex-fiance, for unpaid loans (a cruise deposit of $300, and for two airline tickets for defendant's son and daughter in law), and a shotgun.    Defendant lied to plaintiff and said her son has the shotgun, but then defendant fesses up, and says she sold the shotgun.  

All of this happened two years ago, so what was the delay in filing by the plaintiff?   When defendant told plaintiff she was being evicted, and moving, that's when he wanted the shotgun back, and that was recently.   Plaintiff didn't claim for the engagement ring, which he could get back.    Defendant changes her story about the shotgun changes constantly, so plaintiff gets $500 for the shotgun.   The $300 cruise loan was a gift, not a loan, so that's dismissed.    The tickets for defendant's relatives are now in question, but it was a family trip, so plaintiff doesn't get money for the airline tickets.    

Plaintiff receives $500 for the shotgun

 

Both of these people seemed insufferable to me.  She's clearly someone who lies without a care and he seems like a bully.  What did make me laugh was at the end when they were talking to him he huffed  "I'm gonna just stay away from women!" 

No worries, pal.  I have a sneaking suspicion they weren't beating your down down anyway.

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Its always amusing to watch Judge Judy "man-handle" guys who are used to talking over or down to women.

  • Like 5

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