All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Megan Markled]

Our beloved Byrd is on today's episode of the Bold and the Beautiful! He's playing a minister and looking sharp in his purple attire!

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

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

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

$4200 to plaintiff

Second (2018)-

Bleached Lawn Outrage! -Plaintiff Carrie Willoughby, suing defendant/landscaper Randy Willis for vandalizing her yard after she argued with him.  Defendant says he did yard work for plaintiff for two years, and was owed $450, but when he asked her for his money, she claimed she never hired him, and didn't know him, and owed him nothing.    Photos of the lawn are submitted, and it does look like someone did kill some grass off.    Plaintiff tries to submit a witness statement, and witness can't come to court. so JJ tells plaintiff to go back locally, and file again in Cincinnati.     My guess is that plaintiff has irritated so many people that the list of suspects for the lawn vandalism is very long.  

Defendant has a counter claim for $450 for yard work, and some concrete work.   

$450 to defendant for his work.  

Unwed Parents Feud -Plaintiff Janetta Hazel suing defendant David Holliday for rent and late fees,  she wants from when they lived together.  Plaintiff has six children (plaintiff is a SSMOS- Sainted Single Mother of Six), including one with defendant, and he moved into her house.    Plaintiff wants 50% of the rent from defendant.  Defendant is counter claiming for a TV, a loan, and other property, and an illegal eviction.

JJ dismisses plaintiff's case, because they were living together.   Plaintiff also claims defendant used her debit card which was hacked, including her PIN number.  

Defendant borrowed money from his aunt, and loaned it to plaintiff to pay the bills, $1,000.   Loan was the month after defendant moved out of plaintiff's home.    

$1,000 to defendant.  Defendant gets his TV back.     Nothing to plaintiff.   

Time for Adult Child to Step Up! -Plaintiff Vicky Cintron suing defendant Carmen Martone, over a broken lease, and for his half of the rent.   The litigants shared a house, and rent was $1200 a month, and plaintiff says defendant should have paid $600 a month, for the many months since he moved out.   However, plaintiff's adult daughter (age 31) lives there too, and only pays $200 a month.    They broke up, and he moved out, and plaintiff wants late fees and rent for his half seven months.     Plaintiff does not have another roommate, just her daughter's $200 a month. 

Plaintiff's case dismissed. 

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Novice Homebuyer’s Fatal Mistake! -Plaintiff/first time home buyer Joshua Vasile is suing defendant Nathaniel Combs over issues with the house plaintiff bought from defendant.  Plaintiff and his family moved in, and plaintiff claims the plumbing was faulty, and defendant should pay plaintiff for the problems.   Plaintiff alleges intentional fraud by defendant.     

Plaintiff had an inspection, but claims inspector didn't look at the plumbing, and it cost extra to have the drains inspected with a tiny camera.    House is in Tehachapi, California.  They bought house for $15,000 off the list price, Defendant bought house in November 2017, and previous owner only had the house for a few months before selling it.   So, I suspect he bought from flippers, which doesn't worry me, some flippers do a good job.   Or it was sold for a lower price because the seller couldn’t afford two mortgages, or a job transfer or something similar, it does happen.    Defendant, wife and two small kids lived in the house for three years.     House was purchased for $15,000 below list, so plaintiff should just stop whining.   

Originally defendant wanted three days past closing to move out, and clean the house after his family moved.   However, JJ establishes the family of defendant lived in the house for almost three years, and lived in the house until a few days before closing, and husband stayed behind to clean the house before closing.   This is relevant because the plaintiff claims defendant didn't live in the home, but flipped it, and screwed him over, and plaintiff claims the plumbing problem was long term, not from his family flushing stuff that shouldn’t go in a drain.    Defendant and family lived in the house for almost three years before they sold to plaintiff. 

This case went to mediation first, before court.  Plaintiff says mediation didn't work, and no settlement was reached.    Plaintiff claims defendant and family couldn't have been living in the house, so that's why JJ wanted to know about the dates that defendant lived in the house.   Plaintiff also claims no one could have lived in the house because of the conditions, but refuses to believe defendant and family lived in the house until they sold it.  

PITA plaintiff brought his plumber to court to testify.   Plaintiff says the washer caused the sewer to overflow.    Plaintiff claims washer overflowed three days after move in, and sewer line had to handle 230 gallons of water from the washer (Huh? That makes zero sense.).  With Energy star washers, they use 14 gallons at the most, so plaintiff and family did seventeen or more loads of laundry in three days?     And then plaintiff says this happened when they used the washer the first time, so plaintiff has screwed up his own testimony.     

If there was an inspection problem (plaintiff didn't want to pay extra for a sewer/plumbing inspection), but plaintiff didn't pay for the drain inspection, then it's no one's fault but the plaintiff.  However, depending on the state (this happened in California) the home inspector may not have any liability after closing, and some have inspection insurance. 

 Since plaintiff didn't pay for a sewer (via a camera down the drains) inspection, the inspector won't be held liable.    (That's my opinion, as a graduate of hundreds of TV judge shows, and watching L.A. Law, Law & Order for years, and also Boston Legal).  

My prediction is plaintiff will go down in JJ history as a real PITA.    Plaintiff just asked JJ how many houses she's bought (he should have asked penthouses, and mansions).  

I'm wondering what the new residents did to the drains, and the washer?   It cost the plaintiffs $6500 to fix the plumbing.

Plaintiff case dismissed. (Producers will give a copy of the case to plaintiff, so he can watch it over and over, until he understands, but he never will understand)

Defendant says the washer drain was acceptable on the inspection report, and that the real issue according to the plumber was a clogged toilet.

The homebuyer case was hysterical.    The hall-terview with the defendant saying the washer had nothing to do with the drain/sewer issue was so funny, that it was a stopped-up toilet instead that caused the flood.   The defendant's household was himself, his wife, and two little kids.   

Plaintiff's household was himself, his wife, and apparently other family members, so I'm suspecting someone either flushed something they shouldn't or someone uses a ton of toilet paper too.   Some people also treat a toilet and garbage disposal as the same items, and that can cause a lot of problems with plumbing. 

(The plaintiff found out what having a short inspection, that was cheap, and not having the sewer, and drains inspected can do to you.    Since the house sold for $15k less than list price, it wasn't the situation of the highly competitive L.A. market, where in multiple bid situations home go for many thousands above asking, and buyers waive all inspections.  The homebuyer was too cheap to get a full inspection, and what happened after that was his fault.   My guess is that he previously lived in apartments, and when something went wrong you called management to fix things.   I'm betting the plaintiff, wife, and family members who moved into the house were nightmare tenants for previous landlords.  

I knew someone who worked his way through college managing a lot of rental houses for a big landlord, and he said you wouldn't believe what people flush sown a toilet, or dump down a garbage disposal, and clog plumbing up repeatedly).  (I love this case, it shows why some people should never buy a house, and that not everything that happens is someone else’s fault.    My guess in this case is that  something was flushed that screwed up the drain, and that the plumber would have been a very interesting witness to hear from on this case.)

(I have a cousin that lives in Tehachapi, and this home is in the  city, with sewer.   This case was quite a big deal when it first ran.       It's just a regular subdivision home.        

Yes, if there is a sewer issue, or for inspections, the plumber can put a fiber optic line down a drain line, and inspect the drain lines.   They usually do that if there is a sewer issue, or a lot of trees around the sewer lines, or an old line that might need replacing.     I think it's a few hundred, but would have been worth it in this case, because I bet some inspectors own the equipment used (if it has to be rented, it costs a few hundred more).   However, I bet a drain inspection would have shown no problems, and I bet the plaintiff and family clogged the drain lines after they moved in). 

Second (2021)-

Pandemic Eviction Prohibition?!  -Plaintiff Steven Davis / landlord, suing defendant Jade Packer/former tenant, for unpaid rent, and property damage.   Plaintiff claims giving defendant a Pay or Leave notice is not an illegal eviction during Covid.   Plaintiff claims that defendant didn't pay her $999 rent (plus utilities, for a two bedroom), and it wasn't for Covid related problems.    Defendant didn't pay June 2020's rent, and on 13 June, plaintiff issues his 3 Day Pay or Quit notice, and nothing in the text string between the litigants mentions a job loss, or anything about Covid. 

Defendant did move out, but there is a lot of trash left behind, a broken wall, and a lot of garbage.   Defendant quit her job, and didn't qualify for unemployment (she formerly worked in some kind of group home situation).     Also, there are piles of furniture, and junk that defendant left outside for months before she moved out.  

JJ is deducting security deposit, minus the damages of almost $900.    She's also not allowing drywall repair, which looks like it took the entire $500+ plaintiff paid to have it repaired.   Defendant quit her job, she wasn't laid off by company, so I doubt the moratorium extends to her.  Defendant claims she didn't quit, but she did.   The amount of mattresses, and junk piled in the apartment is appalling.   The wall damages were from defendant sitting down too hard, and the chair hit the wall and smashed it.     

Defendant didn't pay rent for June or July.      I'm betting he'll win when he takes her to eviction court, of course he'll never see a penny from defendant either.  My guess is the defendant's claim of not knowing about eviction or housing court was bull pucky, and she's another professional squatter. 

 $1334 to plaintiff, and not for rent, because JJ said it was Covid related.

Unauthorized Wig Slashing?! -Plaintiff Teray Wilson suing defendant Reginald Nichols for cutting her four wigs, and he was only supposed to curl and style them.    Plaintiff saw defendant style and work with wigs, and extensions before.     However, plaintiff Teray says when she went to pick her wigs up from defendant, they were cut and unusable.    The four wigs were purchased from a wig maker, for a total of $1490, from a lady in Sacramento.   

Defendant says he sent pictures to plaintiff when the wigs were ready, and he brought the wigs out to her car.  

(Defendant did say that when he flat ironed the wigs, they were uneven, so he trimmed them.  However, wouldn't you have to keep flat ironing them to keep the wig even after that too?) 

$1520 for plaintiff to replace the wigs. ($1490 for the replacement wigs, and $30 for his fee). (Plaintiff says she'll donate the wigs to charity).

Edited August 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My guess in this case is that  something was flushed that screwed up the drain, and that the plumber would have been a very interesting witness to hear from on this case.)

Yes I would have liked to hear from the plumber.  I think finding out what actually caused the back up would have helped.  Was it city sewer or a septic tank???  Frankly have never heard of an inspector putting a camera down a drainage pipe but perhaps that indeed is a thing.

And yes, home inspectors have a very strong disclosure statement that basically (yes JJ hates that word) says they aren't liable for anything.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2013)-

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

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

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

$1500 to plaintiff.

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

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

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Surveillance System Fallout! (2021)- -Plaintiff/home owner Matthew Stetler is suing defendant/home alarm installer Travis Bailey for failure to install the alarm installation.   Plaintiff paid $1700 for the alarm system with eight cameras, and wanted defendant to install the system/cameras.   Defendant said it would be $900 up front, and remainder $915 more on completion.    Defendant says plaintiff needed a router, and defendant bought that, for $150.      However, defendant bought router, and didn't contact plaintiff about the installation.    Defendant says plaintiff gave him two choices of dates to do the installation. 

Then they had a specific date, and then plaintiff had a family medical emergency, so plaintiff cancelled the night before the installation.    The plaintiff never had a firm date after the postponed installation, because he didn't schedule one.  Plaintiff postponed one install date, and then wanted a refund.   Plaintiff will not be getting a refund, and since defendant didn't bring the router, he's not getting the $150 for that back.

Frenemies (2014) – Plaintiff  Kathryn Walton suing defendant Christina Asbury over unpaid rent, unpaid loan, and a smashed windshield.   Defendant claims she never touched the windshield, but knows who smashed it.    They met at rehab, and plaintiff said defendant could stay with her free for a while and then would have to pay $400 a month, plus was loaned $300 by plaintiff.   

Defendant's boyfriend apparently doesn't work, while she does work.    

Defendant claims a person she owed money to for a computer broke the windshield.

Plaintiff will not get money for the windshield, and will have to file a police report against the perp.   However, plaintiff will receive the loan back, $400

Second (2021)-

Haunted by Bad Insurance?! (2021) -Plaintiff Jazmyne Barras suing defendant/former roommate Mariah Howard over car damages, impound fees.       Plaintiff was financing her car, and was required to have liability, and collision insurance coverage, but only had liability.   Litigants were roommates, and defendant used the car regularly, and defendant paid half of the liability insurance.    Plaintiff was buying the car on a 6-year note, and still owes $11,000 on the car.   

Defendant hit a brick wall, mailbox, and a fire hydrant, and was making (according to police) an unsafe turn.  Defendant claims she was turning left, and a motorcyclist cut her off, and to avoid the motorcyclist she hit the mailbox, wall, and fire hydrant.   There were no witnesses.  Police did not cite the defendant.  Defendant hasn't worked in a long time, and now lives with relatives.  

After defendant's wreck, plaintiff had car towed and parked in front of plaintiff's house, plaintiff stopped making payments on car, and car was repo'd by bank from the impound lot (my guess is towed for lapsed registration).   Plaintiff reported car to police as stolen, but it wasn't, since defendant was on the minimal insurance.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, she should have had the proper insurance. 

Who Scammed Who? (2014) -Plaintiff Patience Kofa suing defendant Edwin Lohr over a stereo woofer she sold to defendant over the internet.  Plaintiff sold a woofer to defendant, and when defendant picked it up, he didn't like it, so Amazon (she's apparently a third party seller on Amazon).   Defendant's money was refunded by Amazon, but he kept the woofer.    Defendant is directed to give the woofer back to plaintiff, because he was given the money back by Amazon,      

Plaintiff wants her money for the woofer, but JJ says she's getting the woofer back.  Plaintiff keeps insisting she doesn't want the woofer back, just the money.    Defendant will receive $112 for postage.  Both litigants are being jerks.   Then JJ tells defendant to return the woofer, or she'll cancel his ticket back to New York. 

[parrotfeathers]

On 8/5/2021 at 4:45 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

$1520 for plaintiff to replace the wigs. ($1490 for the replacement wigs, and $30 for his fee). (Plaintiff says she'll donate the wigs to charity).

On baloney.  She be wearing those wigs and be proud of them!

[parrotfeathers]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Frenemies (2014) – Plaintiff  Kathryn Walton suing defendant Christina Asbury over unpaid rent, unpaid loan, and a smashed windshield.   Defendant claims she never touched the windshield, but knows who smashed it.    They met at rehab, and plaintiff said defendant could stay with her free for a while and then would have to pay $400 a month, plus was loaned $300 by plaintiff.   

Defendant's boyfriend apparently doesn't work, while she does work.    

 

Oh that boyfriend!  I just don't understand some women.

Looks like he's on something--check

No job (not only no job-has not worked since she was introduced)--check

Perfect baby mama for this stud--check

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by parrotfeathers

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Teen Boys Looking for Trouble?! -Plaintiffs mother Dr. Barbara Irish, and son Nicolas Hoberg, his buddy Matthew Magruder (witness) are suing defendants father Craig Garland, and son Max over plaintiff mother's car damage.  Plaintiff mother is blaming the defendant son, Max for her car damages.    Both plaintiff, her idiot son, and their witness  were dating the same girl, and I think Matthew is still dating her.    Plaintiff Nicolas says Matthew texted him, and wanted to hang out.   Then both boys got into Matthew's car, and called Max (defendant son) about Natalie (she's dated everyone in the case, and still is dating one plaintiff)).   Plaintiff mother's statement makes Nicolas and Matthew as perfect angels, who did nothing wrong. 

Matthew called Max, and then Max was told to come to an address. Then Nicolas, Matthew, and another henchman, went to Max's house, and parked a block away from Max's house.       Then when Max came out of the house, plaintiff mother claims that Max hit her car with a baseball bat, to drive off the plaintiff hooligans.    

It sounds like self defense to me.    I don't care about the spoiled brat’s car, or the mother's whining over the car.  (Audience applauds, and no one shushes them). 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   JJ says plaintiff son, and his friends should pay for the car damages. 

You Shouldn’t be on TV! -Plaintiff Deneane Ratchford  suing defendant Eric Miller for unauthorized use of her credit card.   Plaintiff claims she only made one charge, a plane ticket for her mother, and defendant racked up a lot of charges in 30 days.   JJ points out that she could rack up a tremendous amount of charges in 30 days on a credit card.  Sadly, another desperate plaintiff who is willing to try to buy a romantic partner.  

Defendant says he didn't use plaintiff's credit card.   Plaintiff produces a list of defendant's charges, as he was an authorized user.   JJ has to circle defendant's name on the credit charge list.   Defendant tries to deny charges to a card in his name.  

Plaintiff receives $3100.

Second (2018)-

Judy Bets on Officer Byrd’s Life -Plaintiff/uncle Richard Carrano is suing defendant niece April and Jeremy Carter, for money plaintiff loaned niece for a car purchase.   Defendant husband has three kids.    Defendant niece is mentally disabled, and has PTSD (her son was run over by a train, so she takes Zoloft).    Defendant wanted $1100, (doesn't match her statement, or uncle's statement).  Total cost of car was $2600, according to some hand written  note.   Defendant husband says wife had $1500 saved, and uncle only gave wife $1,000 to buy her dream car Cadillac.     (My question, what the hell kind of Cadillac costs $2600?).  The usual loan not gift statement comes from defendant husband.

A woman on Zoloft, with PTSD, ferries her grandchildren (two grandchildren 2-years and 2 months) around, and husband claims she's competent.    Uncle/plaintiff says no one paid anything back, but defendant husband claims he did work adding up to $800.   Bank said plaintiff had to take out a $5,000 loan, and he repaid $1500 the same day. 

Plaintiff receives $3935 is the remaining loan amount, plus interest.    

Guilty Tenant? – Plaintiff Jacqueline Norin is suing defendant Mark Arguilez for trashing her rental unit.    The move out was a year before filing this case.   Defendant took responsibility for all damages to the unit, but plaintiff says defendant was hard to locate.  Defendant claims he was going to fix everything, fixed nothing.   

JJ gets pictures of damages.   

$4100 to plaintiff. 

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Australian Puppy Custody Battle! – Plaintiff / dog breeder Michael and Mary Donnelly suing defendant/teenage neighbor Charlee Friedman (female) for refusing to return puppy to plaintiff, trying to neuter the animals, and filing a false police report.  Defendant claims puppy was a gift, and told police plaintiff was trying to break into defendant's home.    Plaintiff had four puppies purchased from a breeder, for $4,300 (two males, two females). 

  Unfortunately, plaintiff woman's top looks like jailhouse orange.   After the puppies arrived, defendant came to play with the puppies, and defendant took one puppy home the next day.    Plaintiff let defendant keep the puppy over night, but defendant didn't return the puppy.    

Then, defendant refused to return the puppy, was letting him out off leash, wasn't bringing the dog home at all.   Defendant was to have the dog available for testing and breeding, but defendant tried to get the dog neutered.   There is no signed agreement between litigants.   

Defendant refuses to return the puppy, follow rules about leash walking, and allow breeding.     Defendant's parents refuse to get involved.  So, defendant wants JJ to believe that plaintiff gave a puppy that cost over $1,000 plus shipping as a gift.     Defendant has called police and claimed plaintiff was trying to break into her house.   Defendant doesn't know the difference between neutering, and vaccinations.    Defendant wanted to chip the dog, but refused to meet the plaintiff for registering (My guess, the defendant wanted to register the chip to herself, another way to establish ownership).     Defendant tried to get dog neutered, and then demanded that puppy get neutered when vet said dog was too young.   

Plaintiff says there are bears and mountain lions in the area, and plaintiff saw the dog off leash right by the road at night.   

Defendant's father lies in court, and says dog is a gift.    The parents are just letting the daughter get away with stealing an animal.    After the dog's behavior at the vet, and having to wear a muzzle in court, I would wonder if the testing will happen?   I wonder if the dog even gets routine vet care?    I suspect that the defendant and her enabling parents will encourage the bad behavior by the dog, so plaintiff won't want him.     I wouldn't want to breed an animal to that dog anyway, he seems to have a bad temperament.   

My question is why is defendant dog wearing a muzzle in court?   Vet says dog has been difficult to work with, and they have told defendant to take him out of their office on at least one occasion. 

I wouldn't let the defendant family have a dog I cared about.   I think dog has already proven to have an unsuitable behavior to continue to breed him.   

JJ says plaintiff has the right to breed the dog, and she will allow neutering after a certain time period, and defendant can keep the dog.   Plaintiff says defendant won't keep any appointments.   For one year, plaintiff can breed the dog five or six times, and genetic testing will be in the order.    I see no way that defendant will follow the agreement.   

If defendant refuses to follow the agreement, then JJ will craft another order for plaintiff with a marshal's help to get the dog back, and that will happen without another hearing in court. 

 Plaintiff should never have let that defendant near her puppies, and this is another case where trying to do something nice didn't work.  In the plaintiff's place, I wouldn't let defendant or her family on my property.    She's already made false police reports, and you know she'll do it again.    I would arrange to meet somewhere else, with security cameras.     

JJ should give the plaintiff the cost of the puppy, and shipping.  Plaintiffs tried to do a nice thing, but the defendant and her parents will never do anything the daughter doesn't want to do. (Personally, I wouldn't want a puppy from this dog, his behavior was awful, and the vet already told the defendant to leave their clinic once.   If the dog requires a muzzle in public, and acts badly, then there's something wrong, either with how he's been raised, or genetically.  My guess is it's the raising.)   

Second (2020)-

Covid Destroys Wedding Celebration!-Plaintiff Ardella Wade suing defendant, event coordinator Amy Ulkutekin (First Comes Love) for doing her wedding reception planning(she eloped in 2019), and wanted to have a big wedding party.   March date was postponed, changed to July, and that was impossible too.   Plaintiff Bridezilla paid defendant $1200.   Signed contract says it must be in writing, no refund even in event of Force Majeure, or Act of Nature/G-d.   Refund will only for planning not done, but not in case of pandemic.    

Bridezilla doesn't seem to understand that she signed a contract, and is SOL.   Contract says anything paid out already by defendant will not be refunded, but company will try to work with client to plan a new event.   Bridezilla still wants her money back for the day of services.   She claims planner did minimal work, not a lot.  The venue that was booked The Prado at Balboa Park, in San Diego gave bridezilla a full refund, some other vendors gave her partial or full refunds.   However, it was nice of the vendors/venue to give refunds, but not required by their contracts either.   Some only gave back the payment, minus the non-refundable deposit.   

Defendant received $1200, $600 deposit, and $600 for services for coordinating and paying booking fees up front.   Defendant paid $954 in booking fees, and other costs.   Defendant doesn't have a staff, but third party contractors who get paid by the type of job they do, and what level of service.    Defendant has shown she's done a lot of work, meetings, bookings, etc for the wedding, easily $1200 worth.

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (I wonder if the bride and groom are still together?   That might be why she's fighting so hard to get all of the money back). Plaintiff should have settled for refund of unused time and services, $265 that defendant offered her.  Now plaintiff gets nothing. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Homeland Security Homeschooling?! -Plaintiff Paul and Fabiola Doyle/former tenants suing former landlord/condo owner David Seidman and wife Jeanne Seidman,  over access to the pool for their three children because they are home schooled, leading to vexatious litigation, and being a big jerk.   They rented for two years.   Plaintiffs moved to another rental in the complex.   

After plaintiffs moved out, they filed to get their $3500 security deposit and that was resolved in housing court (or something similar).   Plaintiff contacted a person with the HOA to get a pool key, and it's a $500 stipulated judgment for the plaintiffs.    Plaintiff claimed defendant violated some tenet of the ADA because his special needs home schooled children didn't have pool access (plaintiff claims he needed access to both pools for his children's needs for physical education credit).  Pool keys are issued to owner, and defendant man didn't have it (his wife did), and three months later still didn't have the pool key.   So as guardian ad litum for his children he filed against defendant wife for the pool key, and received $500 judgment.   As JJ points out, it is not necessary that the children have access to the pool for their physical education requirement, they can do any other exercise or sport.  

 Plaintiffs were given a 60 day notice to vacate, because defendants were moving back to their condo, and then sued for the pool key issue after they moved out.    

Plaintiff is actually suing defendant for harassment, and defendant is counter claiming for the same thing, plus a false police report, and something else I don't care about.        

Tenant claims that tenant and wife have full time jobs, and his is for Homeland Security working from home full time, and the couple still homeschool their children.      Whatever plaintiff does for Homeland Security, (he's a contractor) it must not be high level or it couldn’t be done from the home computer full time.   I bet the plaintiff is exaggerating his importance, and actually works for a contractor, and I wonder if he’s really allowed to do work on confidential files at home?

 I find it amazing that plaintiff is suing over amenities, and other items after they moved out of the rental property.   Supposedly, defendant reviews immigration cases, as a contractor, according to the wife.    Since the plaintiff received $3500 judgment about the security deposit, and another judgment over the pool key issue, $500 (no, I don't know or care what they received), this shouldn't be litigated by JJ again, but she is going to stick her two cents in about the security deposit.   If only landlords would document damages, and send the certified letter list within the required number of days of a tenant leaving, then they could keep more of the security deposit.    

Defendant says plaintiff and wife were nightmare tenants, and the HOA fined him over their rule breaking.   

Defendant says he gave a 60-day notice because tenants were consistently late with the rent, (I've seen leases that said if rent not received by the 5th of the month, you were getting evicted).    Defendant says male plaintiff was overbearing, and harassed himself, and his wife.   Defendant mentions that the plaintiffs moved into the neighboring townhouse, but it's in foreclosure, which doesn't matter to this case.   A court said defendant has to pay the plaintiffs the $3500 security deposit, and lost the appeal.    However, defendants haven't paid the security yet.   (Why is JJ litigating the security deposit case?   It's been litigated before in another court).   There is a superior court lawsuit from defendant, served on plaintiff for damages to the rental property.  

Plaintiff claims to have a video of defendant throwing dog poop at his house.   I hope defendant had good aim.   I also find it interesting that the plaintiffs moved two doors down to another rental in the complex, since they claim everyone was so mean to them.     

I wonder why someone is allowed to take applications files home to review and work on?     Those have a lot of private information in them, so I would wonder why he was working on them from home.  

(Some landlords where I live also rent the townhouse to the tenant, but only include amenities, such as the pool, if the tenant pays the landlord an amenity fee.   Others near me have a limited number of access keys, or cards to amenities, so the tenant only gets access if the landlord doesn't keep the key for their own use.     Unless it is in the lease that tenant gets amenity access, it's not required.)   

JJ dismissed everything, and tells plaintiff and defendant to add harassment to the superior court case. 

Second (2018)-

Drive Away from the Hurricane! -Plaintiff /landlord Brian Semmler, suing defendant/former tenant Jason Beal, for unpaid rent, for replacement charges for benches defendant destroyed to use to board up his windows.   The condo is in Naples, FL.   Defendant didn't pay September's rent, $1100 (hurricane hit 10 September), and he claims the condo had a lot of damages, and claims plaintiff told him not to pay rent and keep the money for his needs after the hurricane.    As JJ says, defendant chose not to evacuate, and defendant says he stayed to "protect the condo he was renting (for four years)"    Defendant and children stayed in the condo.     Since defendant didn't pay September rent, he had $1100 rent money to evacuate with.     

Defendant claims he stayed behind, endangering his two children, to protect the apartment.   Defendant moved to another apartment in the condo complex in October, but that apartment costs $1750.      Defendant hasn't paid October rent to new landlord, or security either.     Plaintiff is being charged by condo complex for the benches defendant destroyed.    Defendant has no receipts for any hurricane preparation, or supplies. 

Replacement costs for the benches were $1,065, paid by plaintiff to HOA. 

As JJ says, defendant is a perennial victim.   Plaintiff gets $2865 (if he put the real total of $3965, he would have had two months’ rent paid, that defendant owed, but he didn't). 

Friends DO Let Friends Drive Drunk! – Plaintiff Cecily Kelley suing defendant Chad Crossman over damages to her car.    When they left plaintiff's place, defendant drove plaintiff's car.   Both decided to drink at the bar, and defendant had an accident driving home.    As JJ says, plaintiff allowed someone who had been drinking to drive her car, and that's her responsibility.    Plaintiff claims defendant forced her to give him the keys.   

Defendant gave plaintiff $120 for car damages.    Plaintiff paid the other $250 to the shop.  Then car shop found more damages.  Each litigant pays half.

Plaintiff gets $64 more, and that's it. 

5 p.m. reruns-

First –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$1462. is paid to plaintiff. 

Second -

Near-Death Experience (2021)- Plaintiff /driver Terrance Taylor suing defendant/driver De'Ray Evens who hit him.   Plaintiff says defendant totaled his car, injured him severely.    This happened on 5 November 2020.  Plaintiff paid $12000 for a used Mercedes, purchased a year before.    Plaintiff went through his own insurance, and received $11,270.   Plaintiff suing for $5,000, for lost wages, and pain and suffering. Plaintiff says his arm injury required a sling, and he couldn't work for the rest of November.   Plaintiff didn't consult an attorney (he's in Worker's Comp insurance).    Plaintiff says he couldn't move his arm, and had to wear a sling for the rest of the month.   Medical report from 6 November is submitted, from the ER, and two other pages of reports.   As plaintiff says, he could have been killed by defendant's bad driving.   

Defendant seems very bored, and I would like to remove his facial piercings with pliers.   (My anger issues are coming up today).   Defendant claims he had Kemper /Infinity insurance.  The night of the accident, plaintiff contacted the defendant's insurance company, and started the claim process.    An adjustor was sent out later, but the insurance company said defendant wasn't covered after his first payment (very common, pay one payment, and get the registration renewed, and then don't pay after that).     Defendant keeps babbling to himself.    

Plaintiff says accident happened like this: Plaintiff was driving, with insurance, was going straight, when defendant made an illegal U-turn in front of him, and defendant hit the driver's side door, T-boned the plaintiff, and the defendant's car is half gone.   Plaintiff is lucky he wasn't killed.   

JJ suspects defendant is high, and asks him if he's taking controlled substances.  He admits to drinking the day before.

$2000 to plaintiff. 

8-Year-Old Takes the Stand? (2014) -Plaintiff Karen Hill suing mother of neighbor child Kim Kelly for vandalism (plaintiff says defendant's son Adrian, was riding his bicycle, and hit her car scratching it).      

Adrian takes stand, and totally changes his story of how the vandalism happened, and who did it. (This is where the little boy testifies, and JJ assures him that she won't bite him, and hasn't bitten an 8 year-old in a long time).    Adrian told plaintiff he hit her car, and now says he didn't, but only said he did because he was scared of plaintiff.    Adrian was riding alone, went to make a left turn, fell off bike onto the sidewalk.    Adrian claimed he didn't hit the car, but just said he did because he was scared.   Adrian went to get his mother, because plaintiff wanted to talk to his mother. 

$874 for plaintiff.

With the Kemper/Infinity car insurance, "Near Death Experience" case, I bet the plaintiff had some paperwork from either their own insurance company, or the insurance adjustor saying why the company didn't cover the car accident.  I bet the letters from the insurance company were already in evidence. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims he had Kemper /Infinity insurance.  The night of the accident, plaintiff contacted the defendant's insurance company, and started the claim process.    An adjustor was sent out later, but the insurance company said defendant wasn't covered after his first payment (very common, pay one payment, and get the registration renewed, and then don't pay after that). 

No need to answer--but if JJ is so adamant about "hearsay" testimony why did she allow this comment by him into evidence.  Of course she hates people who don't have insurance and they aways pay somehow.

[MerBearStare]

I'm really enjoying watching Judge Judy read these covid rule-breakers for filth. Honestly, her new show should just be this. What a group of selfish assholes, all of them. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Rough Playground Plight! -Plaintiff Cathy Asprea is suing defendant/handyman Charles Dichirico over the concrete work defendant did for her playground improvement at her home daycare.   Plaintiff has a home daycare, and she wanted to change the entire back yard from mulch to concrete and pavers.   Plaintiff just decided to replace soft mulch with hard concrete and pavers, and she wanted a rough concrete top, so a soft rubber topper would adhere to the concrete.   Concrete was $3466.   Defendant says he would put a skim coat on the top to level the concrete out.      

Defendant said he was hired by the plaintiff to three more jobs for plaintiff, including a driveway slab, the concrete pavers, and another job for her too, after the backyard patio area for the playground.    Plaintiff submit the skim coat for the patio estimates.    Plaintiff is lying about how defendant did the work.   If plaintiff was so unhappy about concrete work, then why did she have the defendant do three more jobs for her after the playground concrete work?  

Defendant isn't getting anything for his tools, and the skim coat materials he left behind.

JJ says defendant's concrete work is bad, and she's giving plaintiff $1500.

Dueling Traffic Violations! -Plaintiff Lynise Payteon suing defendant Jerlisha Drake over a 2003 Chevy Impala plaintiff bought from defendant, for $750.     Defendant didn't have the title to give with the car sale, but claims it was licensed, and registered.   However, defendant had an outstanding warrant, plaintiff hadn't registered the car in her name yet, (no title in hand), police pulled plaintiff over because the warrant was tied to the car.   Plaintiff also had a suspended license, and warrant, so car was impounded.   

Plaintiff had a suspended license, and defendant's warrant was for traffic violations.    When defendant got the car out of impound, after she got out of jail, she gave keys to plaintiff.  Defendant keeps the car. 

Plaintiff is told car was basically rented for $350.

Case dismissed, because it's stupid.

Second (2018)-

Intimate or Not Intimate? -Plaintiff Kelsey Smith suing defendant Lisa Serbus, for a loan to get her car fixed.     Plaintiff claims they were just friends, and not a couple, but defendant says they were intimate, and he had belongings at her place.  Defendant says they lived together from Thanksgiving until the following February.    Plaintiff had no car, no job, and claims he lived with his cousin, Elwood.     Plaintiff borrowed defendant's car, but claims she was driving the car when it started acting up.    

Car repair cost $430, and she bought new tires.     The litigants met on "Plenty of Fish".  Defendant says when she argued with plaintiff, he assaulted her daughter, while cousin, and plaintiff were packing up plaintiff's belongings.   Police report was not submitted (it needs a subpoena in SD).   Defendant daughter claims plaintiff hit her across the throat with his forearm, and elbow.   Plaintiff denies the assault.  

JJ mentions a good point, if plaintiff didn't have anything at defendant's house, then why was he packing his stuff up at defendant's house? 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   No $470 for lying plaintiff. (actually, JJ awards plaintiff and defendant daughter each $470, so no money.)

Process Server Payback! -Plaintiff Monique Brewer, was a process server for defendant, and is suing defendant/former employer Scott Caywood for unpaid wages.    Plaintiff was free-lancing process serving for defendant.   Defendant says plaintiff did a bad job, and he owes her money.   Defendant says he gave plaintiff 15 cases to serve, and she only submitted four affidavits of service.    Plaintiff claims she served all 15 individuals, defendant says she only served 4, and service was only complete on 1.

$225 to plaintiff. 

5 p.m. reruns-

First –

Indoor Playground Meets Covid?!  (2021)– Plaintiff /playground operator Elena Goldstein suing defendant Shamaiya Hill over failure to pay for her child’s birthday party at their facility.  Plaintiff had owned an indoor event venue, for 23 years, in California.   Plaintiff booked a birthday party for defendant's kid, and it happened in December 2020 (this is in L.A.).   Plaintiff claims there were no restrictions for private facilities in California.     Plaintiff serves food at the venue (two pizzas, and other food).   

JJ reads the rules in L.A. in December 2020, which says no private gatherings, no indoor events, and there were 20 people at the birthday party.    Plaintiff claims the L.A. Health Department approved her procedures, and gatherings.    They certainly weren't essential the way plaintiff says.  (The Under Sea Indoor Playground). 

The permitted events were for people who were in the same household, or bubble.  Plaintiff had another party starting at 3:00 (also 20 people), defendant's kid party was 20 people from 12:30 to 2:30.   Plaintiffs were booked heavily during the month.   Plaintiff has no proof she can have this event center open, and is sent outside to get proof faxed to her for JJ to see.  

Case is recalled, so plaintiff can show proof her business was deemed essential by the Health Department in L.A.      Letter from Health Dept. is dated 11 September 2020, but is for a day camp.  Sorry, it's an event center, not a day camp that the letter refers to.   Plaintiff claims letter says they could have 10 kids for a day camp, but the kids weren't campers, and had at least one person with them (Under the Sea Indoor Playground in Los Angeles).    

Then JJ tells plaintiff she was stupid to risk people's lives by having events, and tells defendant she was equally careless and stupid to have the party like this.  

As JJ says, the parties were prohibited.     The party kid was 1 year-old, and won't remember any of it, and there were many family members attending.   I wonder how many people caught Covid from this?

Plaintiff was paid $265 deposit, and she's not getting another penny. 

Vegas Trip Gone Bad (2013) -Plaintiff Sarah Fay suing defendant/former friend Johnetta  Nabors for hotel costs for a trip to Vegas.    Defendant says plaintiff's boyfriend has always been an issue, and that's why she didn't want to go to Vegas.    Plaintiff and boyfriend went, and paid $400 to defendant.    Defendant decided not to attend, because she never got her ticket.   Plaintiff wasn't 21, so she couldn't book a room.

Defendant says her ex-boyfriend came back, and "people" were taking money off of defendant's debit card.   Defendant is blaming plaintiff for giving her the money.    I felt so sorry for the defendant when she started the rants about people stealing from her accounts.    JJ and Officer Byrd exchanged a look then, and I am very worried for defendant, and wonder how she's doing now. 

Plaintiff gets $400.

Second (2021)-

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

Sorry, but if grandma didn’t file a claim against the estate, then she’s SOL.   You don’t have to pay your relatives debts that aren’t claimed against the estate, or in your name also, when you’re the son.  There is no reason that this case was in JJ's or small claims court, it belongs with the probate of the will, or through the intestate laws of their state. 

After divorce plaintiff took a letter to DA saying her ex-SIL wasn't a deadbeat dad, and the breakdown happened.    Five years ago, grandson says grandmother screamed all kinds of nasty remarks at his 12- year-old sister (she's 17 now).    Defendant witness is the granddaughter, that claims the granddaughter was hateful, and cruel to her.   

Grandmother says her sister had died of diabetes, and granddaughter was just diagnosed diabetic, so grandmother told granddaughter that doctors would cut off her limbs, and she would die like the great aunt did.   What kind of monster confronts a young girl like that?   

In 2017, after the letter to the DA by grandmother was the last straw for the defendant's mother/plaintiff's daughter.     Plaintiff claims her daughter verbally abused the son-in-law.   And she didn't want SIL to pay child support.  Mikayla Tea is the granddaughter, and defendant's witness.   

Plaintiff claims a loan to SIL for $2500, that was not paid back.  Grandson was executor of the estate.   Grandson says he doesn't know if the $2500 was a loan to his late father, or a loan to the grandmother she was repaying.   

Defendant says he's the executor, and the last wife pillaged the bank accounts, and says he saw a holographic will that father showed to him and his sister about six years ago.    As executor, defendant will sell the father's house, and there's not much left after mortgage.   Widow will get 1/2 or 1/3 after debts are paid.   This money should have come out of the estate, not the show budget.  

(I'm tired of JJ applying her experience to the grandmother situation.  She's obviously going to give her the money, so just do it. or start calling yourself Dr. Phil). 

The grandmother giving the D.A. a letter saying her ex-son-in-law wasn't a deadbeat was just an indication of how she like to stir things up.   She had no way of knowing who was paying what to the daughter, and the grandchildren.    However, that showed me that the grandmother loves to get involved in whatever she could, whether it was her business or not.    I suspect there's a great reason we didn't see the ex-wife, plaintiff's daughter.    

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

Edited August 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[KittyQ]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says her ex-boyfriend came back, and "people" were taking money off of defendant's debit card.   Defendant is blaming plaintiff for giving her the money. 

Plaintiff gets $400.

The defendant's statement was confusing and pitiful. I think her argument was that because her friend had a job and income that she (friend / plaintiff) should just write off the debt because she could earn another $400.00 by working. Huh? Where did she get that idea? It sounds like some kind of kindergarten justice. I felt bad that the defendant was apparently taken advantage of by her ex-boyfriend (and other people?) but surely she would recognize that this wouldn't eliminate the debt. Perhaps her friend would accept some kind of payment plan instead of the full amount right away knowing the circumstances, but the defendant can't expect everyone else to may permanent accommodation because she was victimized by someone else.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

And the Most Apathetic Landlord Award Goes To…?! -Plaintiff Stefany Leib /former tenant suing defendant/former landlord, Charles Rupley, for cleaning costs, return of rent, and security deposit.    Tenant claims landlord called them on move in at 10 p.m. asking who the tenants are, and landlord claims he never met Travis before, but Ms. Leib claims they had met before (no I don't care about this part either).    Tenants were Travis (witness), Jan, and Stefany.    Travis signed lease after Ms. Leib did, and she claims he came to look at rental, but landlord claims he's the other roommate.    Ms. Leib complained two weeks after move in that house wasn't clean, and said there was some kind of rodent upstairs, but landlord saw no evidence of a rodent (i.e., no rodent poop).    

After the complaints from tenant, after two weeks, landlord gave them 30 day notice.    $835 security deposit, and $150 pet deposit, were withheld because landlord claim tenants trashed the house.   Two pictures show some trash, but one picture show a room full of trash.  

Plaintiffs get $1820 back for a month's rent, and security and pet deposit. 

The Cadillac and the Ex-Con -Plaintiff John Johnson suing defendants Kristina and Chad Martin   Kristina Martin got out of jail, and wanted to go and visit her children.    She borrowed the Cadillac for two days, and didn't return it for five days, and it was full of dents, and scratches when it was returned.  Plaintiff reported it stolen to the police.    

Defendant claims she doesn't know how the multiple dents happened.    Plaintiff submits photos of the car.   

$2500 to plaintiff for car damages. 

Second (2018)-

 

Turtle Custody, Police and Power -Plaintiff  Patricia Coffey (SSMOT-Sainted Single Mother of Two, not defendant's kids) suing defendant Zak Carron, over an electric bill, her son's turtle, and car vandalism damages.    Plaintiff, and children moved in with defendant, in his grandmother's home.   Plaintiff put electric bill in her name, but defendant paid the bill.   Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized her car, and kept her son's turtle, and claims all of this happened a few hours ago.   Plaintiff applied for a state program that would reduce the electric bill to $50 a month, and plaintiff received that.   

When the two people separated, the autopay was still going in defendant's name, and he still only paid $50 a month for a bill that is now $200 a month usually.    Plaintiff gets $1465 for the electric bill that defendant didn't pay the full amount.    However, grandmother who owns the house defendant lives in sometimes, gets the reduced rate too.  Plaintiff claims she had to pay the $1800 owed on the electric bill by a previous tenant, to get electric service turned on. 

$1460 for electric bill to plaintiff.    Defendant keeps the turtle. 

High Heels on Disability?! -Plaintiff Amanda Entwistle (SSMOT-Sainted Single Mother of Three with defendant) suing defendant Justin Glasier for unpaid rent. 

Plaintiff is on Worker's Comp, for a knee injury, however, she's wearing very high heels, and has been on Worker's Comp for three years now.   After an argument (apparently one of many arguments) they broke up, and there were three months left on the lease when defendant moved out.    Defendant has his six-year-old, then the 3 year old with plaintiff, and she has two other children. 

They had money issues, and plaintiff supports herself and three kids, off of her disability, student loans, and child support.    They had arguments, defendant left and stayed at some other woman's house.   Defendant says he was tossed out with his daughter, and went back for the daughter's stuff, and is rooming with a family friend, and his daughter.   

Sorry JJ, plaintiff told defendant to leave, and take his daughter with him.

$1500 to plaintiff

5 p.m. reruns-

First  -

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

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

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

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

Defendant keeps her phony ESD.    Plaintiff gets zero. 

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

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

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

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

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

Second -replaced by a baseball pregame.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

I’m Glad Your Cat’s Dead! -Plaintiff Olga Aguirre suing defendants/daughters Candelaria (30) and Rachel (19) Ramirez for damaging their rooms in her home.    Daughters say they were told to move out in the next two hours by stepfather.    Daughters also claim mother called and told them she was glad their cat was dead (Mother of the Year material).     Plaintiff says daughters moved out because they both met Prince Charming, and claims they were sneaking the boyfriends into their rooms at her home.   30 year old met boyfriend online, met in person and moved in with him after four weeks.   19 year old met the other sister's boyfriend, and he's friends with sister's boyfriend.    The daughters moved from California (mother's home), and to Texas with the boyfriends.     The girls say they moved out of state with the guys after a couple of in person meetings, because stepfather kicked them out.   

Mother was charging both daughters rent, and they were legal tenants.   Daughters are countersuing for hotel fees, a cat, a cell phone, and tuition.   Stepfather says the boys didn't have a motel room, except one night, and the stepdaughters were sneaking them in at night. 

Older daughter says when mother kicked them out, that daughter was paying the cell phone bills, and mother took them away.  After daughter (30) moved out, and found out she was pregnant, and mother told her she would be a bad mother, and was glad daughter's cat died.   (Sorry JJ, just because your parents liked you, doesn't mean everyone else does, or all mothers are nice people).    Daughters were also paying rent, cell phone bills, and covering the parents’ mortgage.    Younger daughter says mother keeps texting that she's going to come and drag her daughters home, and that the family cat's mysterious death keeps getting thrown in daughter's face. 

Everything dismissed.    (I wonder what's happened in the three years since case aired?)

Second (2018)-

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

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

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

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

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

$5,000 to plaintiff.

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

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

Defendant wants money she put into the car, dismissed. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2021)-

Daughter Gambles with Dying Mother’s Money?!-Plaintiff Christine Espinoza/ sister suing defendant /sister Sandra Espinoza over a car that was supposed to be plaintiff's car from mother, but defendant swiped it.   Car was supposed to go to defendant, but then plaintiff called the bank/finance company to see what payments are remaining, and so plaintiff did the pay off on the car, and grabbed it.    Defendant claims she paid the two payments (April and May) that mother skipped, and paid in June.  The sister in Florida was in charge of mother's finances.    Plaintiff got the car for $3700, and has the title.   Defendant has actual possession of the car.    Defendant says her mother signed car over to her over six months before the mother died.

Defendant says plaintiff also grabbed a lot of possessions of the mother, without an agreement with the other two sisters, there are also two more sisters, and two uncles (mother’s brothers).     

Now we get to the juicy part of this sad case.   Defendant is asked if the joint bank account with her mother was used for daughter to gamble at the casino.      Plaintiff's sister-in-law is the witness.   She testifies that plaintiff and witness found out that defendant had control over some credit cards only in mother's name, and was doing cash withdrawals of at least $3,000 for gambling money, defendant's own bills, and psychic hot lines, etc.    None of this was for the mother, just the defendant.   Defendant claims she had permission to do this, but mother was in the early stages of dementia.   

Defendant's witness is a friend of the late mother.   Defense witness says in the last year of mother's life Sandra (defendant) was the full-time caretaker.   Witness says she never saw the plaintiff before today in court.    Sadly, this case is exactly what the defense witness says mother didn't want to happen, with the family falling apart.  

Defendant has been driving the car for months after the mother died, and can't prove she paid any payments on the car over the $1200.  Plaintiff has the title, but defendant has the car, and has been driving it for months.  Plaintiff wants the car.

However, JJ awards $3700 to plaintiff for the money she paid for the car loan, and that money will be paid when the show gets confirmation when the plaintiff signs title over to defendant.   (What a sad, sordid case.    I bet the sisters will never stop whining about who cheated who, and the split in the family will never heal). 

[Jaded]

On 8/11/2021 at 4:53 PM, MerBearStare said:

I'm really enjoying watching Judge Judy read these covid rule-breakers for filth. Honestly, her new show should just be this. What a group of selfish assholes, all of them. 

I'm hoping her new show will be different enough from her old one that she'll want to actually put in the effort to care about how it comes across to people. I also hope she cuts back on the abusive behavior towards those in front of her for cases that don't deserve it. 

[parrotfeathers]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

$5,000 to plaintiff.

I thought she said the dog bit her??

In any event I don't think she deserved $5,000.  JJ thinks everyone should have a Yorkshire terrier and stay home.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Mom's Million Dollar Settlement-Plaintiff/mother Debra Beebe gets badly injured, gets $1 million plus settlement, then truck driver daughter, defendant Carlie Johnson, borrows a ton for rent, utilities, and other bills, repays a little.  Mother’s other income is a widow’s pension, and that’s all besides her settlement.   Settlement was for a fall mother had, and she was badly injured.   Daughter claims mother wanted to help daughter to change her jobs, by enhancing her transport licenses.   Daughter also claims mother offered to support her for a couple of months while daughter qualified for Hazmat, and other licensing, and switched jobs.   However, daughter wasn’t out of a job for more than two days.  

Then, the big blow up is when live in boyfriend of defendant is busted for domestic violence, and found to have a back child support warrant.     Mother refuses to pay bail and back child support ($1500), for deadbeat boyfriend, and bail, so daughter hits the ceiling.   Daughter claims the money amounts were all gifts, JJ thinks they are loans, and gives the plaintiff her money back.

Plaintiff receives $3,920. (Total bills were $5100, but daughter paid mother back $1,280)

Stucco Job from Hell-Plaintiff Steve Freshour shows videos of stucco washing off his house with garden hose, and cracking and falling off.   Defendant, Antonio Chapa, claims plaintiff wanted quick and inadequate job, and didn't want pressure washing first, because the paint on house was full of lead. 

Defendant says the price was to stucco two buildings, and the lack of sand blasting, and pressure washing was at the plaintiff’s demand.  I sincerely hope the EPA saw this episode, and nails the contractor, and the home owner if this is true.  Plaintiff claims he paid a total of $9,500 in three installments to defendant.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

Second (2018)-

Motorcycle Racing Family Drama-Plaintiff/father, Scott Chick is fighting colon cancer, says son/defendant Michael Chick, stole his motorcycle, and had him falsely arrested.  Plaintiff can’t work, but can race motorcycles?     He was denied disability, then appealed with an attorney, and got 18 months back disability, and bought the motorcycle, but it was registered in the son's name.    He lived with the son's family for six months, then they had a fight, and dad moved out taking the motorcycle.   Son reported the motorcycle stolen. 

Plaintiff moved in with ex-girlfriend, and left the motorcycle in sister's garage.      Plaintiff was visiting a girlfriend, while healing from 10 broken ribs, and got arrested for the motorcycle theft (at Fernley NV raceway), but he had outstanding warrants for something totally unrelated.       Claims the son stole the motorcycle.   Son says the motorcycle was in his name for helping out the dad. 

Dad has been booted by son, brother, and who knows how many others.     Another son testifies for dad, and this one's on disability too, and Dad now lives with him.     How nice Byrd supports the entire family.    The defendant has three kids, the girlfriend has three kids, and two of the girlfriend’s girls live with them full time.   

Defendant son has bike, and all registration, bill of sale, and title is in his name.   

Nothing for the plaintiff.

Single Old Lady Scam-Plaintiff/old lady, Dorothy  Belcher says unlicensed contractor/defendant, Chester Young, scammed her.  (This is the infamous “I bought him a tile cutter, and he did nothing much case”).    The tile cutter was about $350.   

He was supposed to entirely tile her bathroom, insulate, wall board, etc. and barely did anything.   Then he got sick, and he's never finished it.    So, he still has her $200 and the tile cutter.   Personally, I wouldn't want him in my house, since he looks like his basement is full of bodies.      I could have happily not heard about his blockage, and hernia.    Why would someone who just had hernia surgery claim he’s coming back to work lifting and installing tile.  

$532 for the plaintiff. 

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill is $910.00 for ER visit.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Second (2015)-

Catfight at a Custody Exchange – Plaintiff/babysitter, Baindu Mando suing defendant/mother,  Emeldah Chama for an assault.    The melee started when babysitter served papers on mother at a custody exchange at McDonalds (very popular place for custody exchanges, because of the cameras), alleging plaintiff was abusing child.    

Plaintiff is babysitter for defendant’s ex-husband for the two children with defendant.     Plaintiff is hinting that defendant only married her ex-husband Maurice, for ‘paperwork’, is that a green card?     JJ also says plaintiff babysitter staying at defendant’s ex-husband’s on overnights on a regular basis is way over just being a babysitter.   

Little boy had a face bruise, and defendant had no explanation.   Then babysitter/plaintiff claims that when she changed the diaper that the girl had signs of abuse, and babysitter went to CPS.   However, little girl had been with her father and grandmother for at least two days before this.   Plaintiff claims the mother had withheld the children from the father for a month before she was hired, and noticed the issue with the little girl.

Why didn’t the father hire a process server to give custody papers on the ex-wife/defendant? 

Plaintiff witness Marie Carter, knows plaintiff, and “just happened” to be at McDonald’s for the custody exchange, and saw the assault.

Plaintiff claims defendant smacked her with a ceramic coffee mug, while defendant was sitting in her own car, and plaintiff was talking smack to defendant from the passenger side of the defendant’s car.

I’m not liking either litigant.   I wonder what’s happened to the litigants, and the ex-husband, and the children since this aired?

Plaintiff case receives $1, defendant receives $1, so nothing for anyone. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Restraining Order Riot -Plaintiff /room renter Denise Silva suing former landlady Charlotte Caron, (she was a renter also) for returned rent, and a false restraining order.    Plaintiff says she saw an ad for renting a two bedroom condo, and gave defendant $3950 total, and lived in the room for seven weeks.   Defendant never moved out, so the two bedroom condo for rent was a lie, and I wonder if subletting was allowed?    Defendant evicted plaintiff by getting a temporary restraining order, instead of going through housing court.     

The crucial incident that defendant used to get rid of plaintiff was when defendant's nephew came and stayed the night, and defendant claims plaintiff went bonkers.    Defendant and her nephew slept in the same bedroom that night.   Plaintiff claims the nephew's friend was sleeping on the couch the next morning.   Defendant says there was 'nothing incestuous' going on with the nephew.   Defendant says she went to the police station to make a report about plaintiff, but the police station was closed (no way it was), actually it was court.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for rent, the police incident.

Pit Bull Has a Bad Day! -Plaintiff Luis Galano is suing Tony Toledo and Jenny del Valle, defendants over an attack by defendant's Pit Bull.   Plaintiff was friends with defendants, knew the dog well, and even walked dog with defendant woman.   They were all at the lake house, and plaintiff saw a BBQ fire, put it out, and then the Pit Bull latched on to plaintiff's arm.   

Defendant finally admits that "Ice" the pit bit him that day also.  Defendants say dog never bit anyone before this day.   Plaintiff claims he not only had the bite wound, but internal injuries, and medical personnel didn't treat his wounds appropriately.    Defendant blames the bite on the commotion that day.  Defendants' sworn statement blames everything on the plaintiff, and say plaintiff provoked the dog.

Plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance.   

Plaintiff receives $2675 for medical bills. 

Second (2018)-

Teens Terrorize Neighborhood - Plaintiff / former landlord Kara Petron suing defendants Anthony Leuder and fiance Heather Kochevar, for damages to rental home, damages were blamed on defendant’s wife’s kids.   Blended family of defendants, had damage to house caused by girlfriend's three delinquent children.  Former landlord suing for damage to home done by the defendants kids.     Defendants say defendant fiance’s teens (11, 13, and 15) damaged their apartment, and have a long history of police contact for break-ins.

Landlady knew the male defendant from her father's business.    There were repeated police contacts, and defendant's kids were burglarizing neighborhood homes.     Landlady kept $500 security deposit.    Male defendant says kitchen window broken by teen having tantrum, hole in dry wall (same kid), kicked in doors, etc.    I think the door was a hollow core, and had been nailed by a thrown knife, and the 13-year-old had done this also, and knife throwing was alleged to be done by boys at neighbor’s trees. by neighbors.   

Pictures of damage by landlady/plaintiff are definitely more than $500 security covered.    Plaintiff wants carpet from 1997 or 2005 replaced, and that's never happening.   Two broken basement windows also, phone photos undecipherable.   Repair service didn't itemize, and there are very few photos of damage.   

I really hope the homeowner got great pictures, and dropped the rug claim.     I hope the current landlord was watching this, and knows what their future is like, and probably why their neighbors are having break ins. 

Sent back to Minnesota court for damages, if plaintiff can get more proof, and itemized bills.

How Many Times Have You Been Arrested?-   Plaintiff Anthony La Hood suing defendants, mother Shatima High, and  son Kierran High, for stealing his motorcycle.   Both parties have been arrested a few times each.      17-year-old was caught riding the stolen motorcycle, and defendant didn't have a license anyway.    Plaintiff finally got his motorcycle back from the impound after the case is over, two months after defendant son stole the bike, and it was trashed. 

Mother of defendant says no case filed, but the case went to juvenile court, and son got probation.   This is not the defendant's first arrest either.   Defendant's mom doesn't seem to care about having to be in court multiple times with 17-year-old son.      (Since this case is three years old, I’m guessing now 20 year-old son has been in court pretty often since this aired).   If defendant mother thinks looking teary-eyed at JJ is going to get her sympathy, then she’s wrong.

Plaintiff gets $1500 for motorcycle.  (I would have given plaintiff $5,000, $1500 for the bike, and $3500 for irritation of dealing with defendants).

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

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

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

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

(what the hell did defendant do to his eyebrows?)  Defendant's car damages are $2200, but he didn't get his car fixed.   He actually wants someone else to pay for that.  Photos of both cars after accident shows older damage on defendant’s Camaro, one dent is rusty.    Natalie Seo and defendant start arguing at each other.   

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

Plaintiff receives $600. (I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, for having to deal with the defendant, and having to look at defendant's hideous eyebrows). 

Wrong Side of the Law (2014) -Plaintiff Brianna Caster is suing defendant George Courtney IV, for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff rented a four bedroom house, and defendant rented one room ($695 a month rent).     The security deposit was $695, paid to plaintiff, by defendant.   Plaintiff has text and emails with defendant, none mention requiring 45 days notice for move out.   

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

Second -

Home Destroyed by a Tortoise (2021) -Plaintiff/landlord Jonathan Mejia suing defendants/former tenants Jonathan Marr and Tricia Rodriguez for unpaid rent.    Defendant and wife have four kids (I think they're all her kids), and claim they were moving out when plaintiff illegally locked them out.     Defendant wife was working at Family Dollar and Subway, and quit both jobs.   Defendant wife was previously widowed, and lives off of her survivor benefits.    Plaintiff says rent was $1,050, and defendants stopped paying, even though they were both working, or receiving children's survivors’ benefits.     

Neither defendant lost jobs due to Covid.   Defendants wanted to spend $2200 a month for rent on an AirBnb, instead of paying their $1050 rent to plaintiff.    Security was $1200 at plaintiff's place, and photos of damages are submitted.  Pictures of the walls are disgusting.    Yard is trashed.    Defendants had a huge tortoise, who dug a 4' x 4' cave under the house foundation, that went over 6' back under the house.   

Defendants owe $2200, and damages, $3600 added in total $5700.   The house pictures show the defendants are filthy.   

Defendants want their security back, not happening.   Defendants want their washer and dryer back, they don't want the machines back, just the money for it, so that's dismissed. They also claim they were illegally locked out.    

Plaintiff receives $4,500 and keeps the $1200 security deposit. 

Ex-Lover Vacation Spat (2014)-Plaintiff /ex-girlfriend Brittany Bass suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Sean Minney for a trip to Salt Lake City, a stolen debit card, and damages.   This happened after defendant quit or left his job.    This became a loan after they broke up.   

The litigants never lived together, and were on-and-off according to plaintiff.   

However, defendant claims plaintiff came to his place at 5:30 a.m., forced her way into his place, assaulted him, kicked his dog, walked over his roommate's daughter. and she admits she hit defendant. 

$421 for trip, but defendant gets $421 for assault, so money is zeroed out.     

Edited August 17, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Depression Drinking and Deceased Baby-Plaintiff Zulle Foxe suing defendant sister Alexis Foxe over an assault, hotel costs, defamation, and illegal eviction.  This is another family fight, and it sounds like a juicy one.   

 Plaintiff moved into niece's (plaintiff’s mother adopted niece, so they’re actually sisters) house (plaintiff and defendant were adopted sisters), plaintiff came home after four days, and there was a fight.   On 4 April plaintiff was talking to dog in cage, they were all drunk, in kitchen and plaintiff brought up topic of her niece's deceased baby, and claims the niece kept the CARCASS (exactly what she said) around for days.   

Defendant Alexis Foxe (she’s a dialysis patient) claims she doesn't drink, and mother, (defendant's witness) doesn't either, so violent drunk was plaintiff.     Next morning (4 April) plaintiff filed for restraining order against sister/niece, and wanted her removed from the mother's house, fortunately judge disallowed temporary restraining order.     Plaintiff claimed niece/sister assaulted her.    Mother didn't want plaintiff there either.   

Plaintiff returns to house, with police to notify defendant of the trial date.     Mother and sister have changed locks, after plaintiff lived there for four days only.     They never gave the plaintiff a key.   Poor  mom (Johnsie Foxe)testifies that after two days, she told plaintiff to get her butt out of the house.      By 3 April the fight happens late at night.    Plaintiff also had violent fight with defendant's minor son.     

Plaintiff didn't want to move, because residence at the home is a bail condition, and mother guaranteed the bail bond.      Plaintiff claims false arrest.   No medical records for plaintiff.     Plaintiff was trespassed from house on 3 April by police, police detained her, tried to involuntarily admit her to psych ward, released from hospital (doctor said she wasn't nuts enough to keep), and got her stuff from house with escort.  Plaintiff wants money for hotel, etc. and JJ told her to stuff it.     

Plaintiff thinks JJ talking about her background is funny.     JJ also asks the plaintiff if she wants to talk on national TV to 10 million of us about her criminal history, mental health hospitalizations, and other juicy tidbits, plaintiff says that's fine with her.   I was hoping for a two-episode recitation of her criminal history, but no luck with that.    Nobody gets anything.      They should never let that heifer back into the house, or they may not live long enough to regret it.  Mother should also call the bail bondsman, and revoke her bond guarantee.  Plaintiff claims all of her arrests, and mental issues were lies by the defendants.  (This is all Jacksonville, NC).

Plaintiff and defendant’s cases dismissed.

Real Estate Nightmare-Plaintiffs Brian and Quinn Barrett bought house from defendant, Karen Bowdish,  and gave her a 10 day lease back after closing. Schenectady, NY is where this happened.     Defendant claims moving company did damage on move out, including siding damage, foundation damage, damage by Pods.    Plaintiff sent a letter to defendant talking about the siding, and foundation.   

Defendant settled with movers for $1,000 for damage to house she no longer owned, and kept the check.    Plus, the defendant's son hit the side of the house too.   

Plaintiffs get $1,000 from defendant that she claimed from moving company, and $1,500 from escrow.  (Yes, I know that plaintiff are getting the money from Officer Byrd, not the defendant).

Second (2018)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

$750 to plaintiff for the child support.    

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second -

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff is actually trying to get the profits in renting the chairs to her from the defendant.   Defendant supplied what he was contracted to do.     Defendant counter claim also dismissed.

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

[parrotfeathers]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff car was totaled out, but the mother is blaming defendant for driving the car.  Plaintiff mother gave permission for defendant to drive the car.   Why didn't the daughters, and friend, just skip their night out for once?    Staying home would have been the safest of all. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Lawdy that momma was furious!   She should have been very happy her precious daughter that worked so hard to earn that money was in defendant's car and not her own piece of junk.  She got home safe and that is what counted.  P.S. mama you should never have let your baby go out in that weather!

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Poorly Performing Parents-Plaintiff/mother Shelby Hardenbrook suing ex/defendant William “Billy” Perry over a tax refund.   Druggie Mom (only in jail 3 months instead of 9 that year, and with multiple other convictions for drug possession) wants her part of tax refund from child deduction in her year, even though kid lived with idiot, slack-jawed defendants’ grandparents.    The grandparents should have had the money.    Poor child, she doesn't stand a chance.   

$2,000 to plaintiff.

Teacup Yorkie Fail- Plaintiff / dog owner Yuisa Nieves is suing defendant Timothy Myles for vet bills after defendant dropped her Yorkie.   Defendant picked up plaintiff's Yorkie, dog jumped or was dropped, broke leg, and vet bills are almost $9k, and still going.     Plaintiff was moving into a home, and defendant was doing some renovations on the home.   This incident happened months ago, and the poor Yorkie still has a cast on its leg.

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

Trucker Driver Ripped Off?! -Plaintiff/ truck driver Mesa Ziegler leaves her car at defendant/ex-boyfriend's, Rashad Atkinson  apartment.  Plaintiff doesn't pay the payments, it gets repo'd and sold.  Plaintiff wants money from ex-love muffin for the car.   She also has another car that is parked elsewhere.     I hate both of these people.   .   The impounded car was a Ford Focus.  Plaintiff’s other car was paid off, and is still parked at defendant’s place.

Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves nothing.   

Second (2018)-

Get Divorced Faster! – Plaintiff Christine Murray suing defendant/undivorced ex-boyfriend Edward Campbell, for attorney fees to move his divorce along faster.   They met online, defendant was married, but legally separated, and is still in process of the divorce, started in family court for the support order, but goes through Superior Court. (You can't get a divorce in family court, so going to NY Supreme court for the entire divorce, custody, etc. is still on-going in this case).    Plaintiff sent email to defendant saying she paid $5,000 to his attorney.  The Family Court hearing was for child support, but the NY Supreme Court does the actual divorce action.

Defendant says plaintiff demanded he get divorced ASAP, but they broke up a month after they met, and long before this case.   After the argument, plaintiff dumped defendant’s stuff on the lawn at defendant’s house.     Plaintiff claims defendant said he would pay her back the $5,000, from a Worker's Comp check due to defendant for $15,000.   Defendant claims that they were just friends, in his view.  Plaintiff claims they were going to be together forever (which turned out to be a month).  Plaintiff needs to borrow Officer Byrd's sacred ink pen.

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

He Had a Gun!   Read the Constitution?! – Plaintiffs Kim and Kerry St Amand suing defendants/mechanics Todd and Toby Fuller for a deposit for a car, 2006 Chevy Impala.   JJ dismissed something about earth moving by plaintiff, and that can go back to local small claims.

Defendant had a customer who didn't want to repair the Impala, so he bought it from the customer, fixed it, and resold it to plaintiff husband.  Plaintiffs claims defendants ripped them off, and plaintiffs put a nasty review online.    JJ has zero idea what online reviews can do to a business.  

Defendants paid the car owner $600, and fixed the transmission.   Then plaintiffs bought car for $3500, with $2000 down, but defendants never received another penny from plaintiffs.   

$2,000 to plaintiffs, and defendants keep the car to fix up and resell. 

5 p.m. episodes-

First –

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

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

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

Damages for car handles are, $560. Tow fee dismissed. 

Plaintiff did receive $400 for the rental fee.  $560 to plaintiff for the door handle repairs.

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

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

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

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

Second –

Boat Repair Rip-Off?!(2021) -Plaintiff / boat owner James Anderson suing defendant/boat mechanic Gregory Shoemaker says he took boat to defendant to repair, but mechanic did way more than he authorized, or is willing to pay for.     Plaintiff ran the fiberglass boat into a cleat, and damaged it (actually shredded the boat).    Estimate for repair was $400, and the gelcoat $3,000, so $3,400, from defendant.  

Plaintiff says defendant did the repair, but only waxed the boat, and not the gel coat, to fix the stress cracks.   Charge for repair was $2850, and plaintiff wants $2400 back.   

Defendant says they repaired the boat, and gel coated both sides of the back of the boat.  Defendant says both sides of the back lower corner of the boat were damaged.   Defendant gel coated the back corners of the boat, and removed many feet of old tape pin stripe (had been on the boat for 20 years), and had to do that by hand.    Plaintiff submits a finished picture of the boat, which looks spectacular.   

Plaintiff didn't pay to get the gel coat done to get the stress cracks fixed.   However, that wasn't what the estimate covered, and so it wasn't performed.

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

A Family’s Feud (2014)- Plaintiffs Dale and Isabelle Worrell suing son/defendant Pascal Worrell for non-payment of a car loan.  Plaintiffs co-signed for the loan, and father was primary.   Loan was for a $8,000 with Pascal paying $4,000 down, and car was titled in father and son's name.    Parents didn't like the son's schedule, and sent him to live with their pastor.   

Pascal says the father had full control of his bank account, and father was making all of the payments.   Father says he didn't let son take the car to the pastor's house, but had to call home to request the use of the car.    Father gave son $3500, that was part of what son put down, and then father sold the car.   Father is suing for the remainder of the loan from selling the car. 

Father deprived son of his car, his property.   and sold the car after having car for a year.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and I hope Pascal has moved on, far away from these people. 

(This case reminded me of the equally religious parents who wanted their daughter arrested for getting her cat back that the mother kept, after they threw the daughter out.  That set of parents had a bunch of kids, and everyone was estranged from them)

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes-

First (2018)-

Pit Bull Mating Mayhem-Plaintiff Stephanie Alexander is suing defendant Ramon Castillo over a failed mating of Pit Bulls, and for making a false citizen’s arrest.  This plaintiff is the heifer who claimed her pit male was an AKC registered Service Dog.   First, AKC doesn't register pits, that is CKC or UKC, and some others, and AKC doesn't register Service Dogs, but Therapy Dogs.     She had her boy boink the defendant's female, 10 puppies resulted, and heifer was supposed to get pick of litter.     She also loaned defendant $600.     She never got pick of litter, and JJ gave her the choice of pick of one of the remaining 4 puppies, and woman said no, since she apparently wanted to pick from the entire litter, so that goes bye-bye.   

Then plaintiff goes by the defendant's house and threatened him in language that was all omitted from airing on the show.     

So, JJ told woman that since she didn't want pick of litter, to consider the loan of $600 stud fee, and the plaintiff was pissed.

Slashed Tires and Loan Lies-Plaintiff Garryn  Sender loaned $3k to defendant/ex-girlfriend Cassie Wilson  (an aerial fitness instructor), and she got ticked at him, and vandalized his truck and slashed his tires, but has no police report or anything else.   

Sent back to small claims in Texas so plaintiff can get some evidence. 

Tijuana Stray Rescue Regret-Plaintiff Mark Jergesen is suing defendant Steve Huska for a bite by defendant’s dog, dog is a stray from Tijuana.        Dog was off leash at the time, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle in the park, when it attacked him.   Plaintiff found evidence that the dog also attacked a child before too.   The defendant's witness is his dog walker, and she saw the dog attack a child on a scooter, when the dog was off leash, and this happened in 2016.        Defendant seems foggy about everything.    He doesn't know when the bite happened, and totally ignores that his dog attacked before.   Defendant seems either stoned, drunk, or mentally impaired in some way.     

Where ever they were from, the authorities should do something about the defendant and his dog, before someone is attacked again.  

Plaintiff gets $5k, and defendant still knows nothing.      Prior bite 2016, current bite 2017, and my guess is 2018 probably hasn't made it to court yet.   

Second (2018)-

A Woman’s Dying Wishes -Plaintiff /stepfather Michael Perry suing defendant/stepdaughter Rebecca Allen for stealing from late mother/wife's bank accounts, for $24,218.   The mother and stepfather were married over 20 years.  Right after the mother died, the first withdrawal was $5,218, the second account withdrawal was over $19,000.   First account is claimed to be payment on death to daughter (no proof), JJ wonders if defendant forged the mother's name, or if she took a death certificate, and showed she was the beneficiary.    The second account is a savings account with mother/wife's name on it, that was an over $19,000 withdrawal.    The second account had two 50/50 beneficiaries $19,000+.

(The defendant reminds me of Marla Hooch in A League of Their Own)

There is no way that two days after a death that the daughter had a death certificate.   I know someone who lost a relative recently, and it’s 10 to 15 days for a death certificate to be available, after the funeral home submits the certificate information, or the coroner requests one.  

$2600 to plaintiff on the first account.    

Subwoofer Custody Battle -Plaintiff April Lauck suing defendant Johnathan Hogaboom over a van, TV, stereo equipment, and phones.  They were a couple for eight months, and lived together.   Plaintiff bought two phones (as usual, two iPhones) for defendant for a business they were starting, and two gift cards came with the phone purchase.   Plaintiff took the gift cards and bought subwoofers, and a TV for the home.  Plaintiff had an old car, sold her car for $1700, and bought another used car for $1350 for defendant.    And plaintiff drove defendant's Chrysler Town and Country.   When they split defendant took the Town & Country back, one phone, and subwoofer.   Defendant's phone have a balance left, of $386.  Plaintiff also stopped payment on a check to pay for defendant's van/car and so he took the Town & Country back.  

TV and Subwoofers dismissed, because defendant bought vacuum cleaner, and lawn mower for the house, and plaintiff still has the last two.

$1200 owed on minivan (defendant's).   The cargo van payment check was cancelled by plaintiff, and van was repo'd yesterday by the seller.  

Everything dismissed, all of the purchases, etc. cancelled each other out. 

5 p.m. episodes-

First -

Tenant Freeze Out (2021) -Plaintiff /tenant Valentine Linch suing defendant/former landlord Chris Cartwright, and tenant claims there were heating and ceiling water leak issues. Plaintiff moved in during August.   As the months wore on, defendant and property manager were notified, and did nothing.   Defendant/property manager gave a check for the security deposit when plaintiff moved out in January, but the check had a stop payment on it.  Plaintiff is suing for security deposit, moving costs (not happening).     Defendant want the rest of the one year lease paid to him.      Defendant says the plaintiff should have used the wood pellet stove.    

As JJ points out, having no heat in the California mountains in the winter is constructive eviction.  

Plaintiff gets his security deposit back, defendant case dismissed. 

Roommate Rebel (2014) -Plaintiff/former tenant Alek "A.J." Robbins suing defendant/former roommate Jessica  Haney for his rent back.   Plaintiff gave February rent to defendant to pay, they had a dust up over parking, and plaintiff wanted his rent back.  Plaintiff case dismissed.  Contract was $450 a month rent each, and 30 days notice to move.     

Defendant is counter claiming for plaintiff holding her against her will.   Defendant says plaintiff forcibly took her to the bank, and tried to get his money back that way.  Defendant says when plaintiff was moving out, she wanted him to move the truck so she could get out of their way, and he wanted to follow defendant to the bank to get his $450 back.   Then defendant was on her cell phone, and the police showed up.   Defendant said that plaintiff held her against her will, and intimidated her, and tried to force her to give him his money back.   

Defendant says she was blocked in by plaintiff and brother, and she called the Sheriff from her car, and she was on the phone with Sheriff's officers all the way to the bank.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Defendant case dismissed (no police report, or charges filed). 

Second-

 Slum Landlord or Gracious Host?! (2021) -Plaintiff /former tenant Takeisha Davis suing defendant/landlord Safari Sekiyoba, for hotels costs, and security deposit return ($2250).  Plaintiff and her four children were in part of a house owned by defendant, and moved after a murder in front of the house.   Plaintiff also claims there was criminal activity by the front tenants of the house.  Plaintiff's security deposit was $2250, and rent was $2250 for the first month.   

Defendant shows photos of the damages left by plaintiff, and her four children, and whoever else lived there (aren't there always other people that get blamed for damages?).  Damages are the top panel of the front door and the plaintiff claims she replaced the entire door.  Plaintiff didn't bring the door receipt with her to court.   Defendant points out tenant was Section 8, so what?    Plaintiff says defendant didn't do a walk through with her, in February 2021.   Plaintiff has move out photos.    Closet door is damaged, and trim is shattered.   Defendant is asked to submit his receipts for damage repairs.   Bill is not itemized for repairs, just one bill is submitted.    Why do landlords come on this show?   

Plaintiff has a lot of pictures, but it only shows dirty walls, nothing with closets, and the wall paint is hideous.   

One of the bedroom windows is missing entirely.   

Plaintiff blames everything on the tenants who rented the front of the house.   If the other tenants were so shady, why did plaintiff give them the keys when she moved out?    Several electrical outlets have been ripped out.   Plaintiff claims the photos are of the front of the house, not her part of the house.   

Defendant says Section 8 paid the security deposit.

Plaintiff, her four kids, and a foster kid live in Lancaster now.    I didn't like either litigant. 

$2250 to plaintiff (My question is why plaintiff received the security deposit back, when she didn’t pay the security deposit?). 

German Shepherd Scare (2014) -Plaintiff Joanne  Flournoy suing defendant Precious Greer, for damage to plaintiff’s car hood.    There was a loose German Shepherd, and when defendant saw the dog, she jumped on plaintiff’s car hood.  Defendant claims she asked permission to jump on the hood.   Defendant claims she sat on plaintiff's car hood, but plaintiff's fiance who was driving the car at the time, denies that.    Plaintiff fiance says he saw a little kid walking a German Shepherd dog.   Everyone standing around scattered, and defendant jumped on the car hood, and it was badly dented.    

Defendant says she saw the car, and the group around it, asked to sit on the plaintiff's car hood.   JJ points out that defendant isn't tiny, and would damage the car hood.  

$1300 to plaintiff. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Bully or Best Friend? -Plaintiff Jacquelyn Shaw (mother) and son Leo Shaw (he is 17, but has the mental capacity of a 10-year-old) suing defendant Ryan Bancewicz (age 19) over an iPhone, and Apple iWatch that mother says defendant stole from her son.   Defendant is counter claiming for lost wages, and defamation.    Defendant is told to give JJ the name of the thief, but defendant claims he doesn’t know the name of the person.

Someone stole Leo's iPhone, and Ryan Bancewicz got the phone back, and will only give it to Leo if he's paid $350.    Ryan has no proof that he paid anyone for the iPhone.   Plaintiff mother had to tell Leo that defendant isn't his friend, and never was.   Leo gave the defendant a necklace of his mother's, to get the iPhone back from defendant.    Then the mother asked her son about the necklace, and to get that back Leo gave the defendant his iWatch to get the necklace back.    Leo, the felonious defendant (he’s been in trouble before), claims he lost the iWatch the same day Leo gave it to him.

JJ tells defendant that he is going down the wrong path, and his foster father (in court) agrees.   (Someday the defendant will take advantage of the wrong person, and end up in jail, or worse). 

Plaintiff receives money for the iWatch, $470. 

Gather ‘Round for Judge Judy’s Driving Class! – Plaintiff Blake Davis suing defendant Michael Kerner for an automobile accident when he was driving in the median lane.    Plaintiff was making a left turn out of a parking lot, to go across two lanes of traffic, across the median lane, lane turns into left turn lane further down the road, and then wanted to turn left.   However, the defendant was in the median lane and hit plaintiff, when plaintiff crossed his lane without being able to see.

Happens all of the time here, with the same result, and it's the person coming out of the parking lot that is held responsible.   

Plaintiff thinks because his insurance company didn't hold him responsible, that he didn't cause the accident.   Plaintiff claims it's not a travel lane, or a turn lane until 500 ft. further away.  Defendant did get a ticket for misuse of the median for travel.  (I totally hate the ones that try to get in the left turn lane a block before the left turn lane starts).    

So, defendant wasn't in a turn lane, and so I'm thinking it was his fault, and he was trying to beat the left turn signal.   Plaintiff claims his insurance company found defendant 100% at fault.    I agree with defendant's insurance company, and it's 50/50 responsibility.     

Claims dismissed for both litigants. 

Second (2018)-

Mothers to the Rescue of Adult Children-Plaintiff Anthony Chiliberti was shacked up with defendant's daughter, in an apartment that both parents co-signed for, and wants the return of a security deposit, and a false restraining order, from defendant mother, Joann Genzano. 

The young couple lived in the apartment with plaintiff's mother, girlfriend’s brother,  and then mom moved out.   Then the couple had defendant mother, Joann Genzano, move in, and plaintiff claims they didn't get along, and mother evicted him, filed for a false restraining order.   

Plaintiff was arrested at the apartment from a complaint by defendant mother, and he was arrested for drug possession.   Drug case is still on-going, and it's for intent to sell.    Since defendant mother Joann Genzano , was on the lease, she wanted the plaintiff out.   Plaintiff's father Eugene Chiliberti, is his witness, and tries to make excuses for his idiot son. 

Defendant's son was also living there, and was arrested, and his case is pending.   Defendant mother denies her son was arrested.  Defendant and her husband claim her son doesn't have a pending case, but plaintiff says they're both pending trial. 

 The house at one time contained plaintiff, girlfriend, defendant and husband, defendant's son, and plaintiff mother lived there for a few months too.   House still has defendant Joann Genzano, husband, her son, and daughter.  

Security deposit proof comes from plaintiff.  Defendant mother claims she paid cash for the security deposit, and has no proof, JJ says you lie about the court case, you're a liar.    Defendant mother wants attorney fees for the protective order, $3,000, instead of getting plaintiff evicted legally.    Plaintiff filed for protective order also, and both orders were dismissed. 

$2542 to plaintiff for the security deposit.    Nothing to idiot defendant.   

Traffic Circle Mishap-Plaintiff Gene Johnson suing defendant motorist Ebonie Moore for causing an accident in a traffic circle that damaged his car.   Defendant had no insurance (in New Hampshire you don't need insurance, but you have to have proof that you can meet a certain amount of financial means to self-insure).     Defendant claims she's not at fault.    Plaintiff gives estimates, and photographs of the damages.    Plaintiff says he was hit head on by defendant.   Plaintiff was in the left lane that also turns right to exit, defendant was in the exit only right lane.   When plaintiff exited, defendant apparently didn't want to exit, and she hit his car.  

$809 to plaintiff.  

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Don’t Hog the Loading Zone! -Plaintiffs Guy and Amy Puglisi are suing defendant, Thomas Griego, for ramming their car with a metal lumber cart at a home improvement store loading area.    The plaintiffs were at the Pro Services' desk side of Lowe's, in Poway, CA.   (This is under the overhang at the far end of the front of the store, all of the Lowe’s stores I’ve been in).      Plaintiff parked in a regular parking spot, went into the store to complete his order at the Pro Services' desk, and manager wanted plaintiff to park under the overhang at the loading area.   

Plaintiff was in the loading area, and he saw defendant ram his car three times with the big metal lumber cart he was using.   Defendant claims he's a practicing Buddhist, and wouldn't have damaged the car.   (I've been at Lowe's, and Home Depot, there's plenty of room for many cars at once under the overhang).    An assistant manager told plaintiff husband that someone was hitting his car with a lumber cart, and plaintiff saw the last of four hits from the full lumber cart.   

Why does JJ ask the plaintiff a question, then tell him the answer?    Plaintiff says police wouldn't take a report because it was private property (that is common in many jurisdictions).    Plaintiff heard the defendant tell the police he hit the car deliberately, and it was Lowe's and the plaintiff's fault.    

Defendant had two of the lumber loading carts.   Defendant claims he moved his pickup truck to the loading area, but plaintiff's car was blocking the entire pro entrance (no they weren't, I've been to Lowe's repeatedly and an SUV or truck won't block the entire pro pick up entrance.   

JJ is wrong to harass the plaintiff the way she is.      The plaintiff did what many people shopping at Lowe's do, they park in a regular spot, do their shopping, drive up for pickup where the store personnel tell you to park, they load your stuff, and you leave.   You're not blocking anyone where they tell you to park.   

Defendant claims he never answered the plaintiff saying that defendant had hit his car.

There are two long marks on the bumper and rear quarter panel quarter. 

Estimates are submitted, for $1800.  JJ says put it through plaintiff's insurance, and pay the deductible, and watch his insurance policy rates go up.   

$500 to plaintiff for the deductible, and he will have to claim through his car insurance, while defendant gets away with his vandalism.    (JJ's harassment of the plaintiff was uncalled for, she obviously has no idea of what the loading zone looks like, and how it runs.  Defendant is a jerk, and I bet he does things like this constantly.   At my local Lowes a giant canopy is over the pickup area, with actual parking spaces, there’s enough room for a dozen vehicles.  Why is JJ believing everything the defendant says about the situation?  The nasty smirk on defendant’s face when he wins, and JJ believes every word he says is irritating).  

Second (2015)-

Small Dog vs. Smaller Baby -Plaintiff Sharelle Wilson suing defendant Lisa Oliver for return of her dog, Gonzo, that defendant was given the dog after a baby is born, and lost wages.  A restraining order is involved.  After plaintiff had a baby, defendant claims she loaned the defendant had the dog for eight months, and wants the dog back, or the value of the dog.   Plaintiff claims defendant has property she wants back, and filed a false restraining order against plaintiff because of harassment over dog custody.   

Plaintiff’s mother bought a dog in 2011, for plaintiff’s sister, and plaintiff received Gonzo from a litter that a dog owned by plaintiff sister had.   Plaintiff has had the dog since 2011, at 10 weeks old.  

Plaintiff says Gonzo wouldn’t stop licking the baby, so she ‘loaned’ the dog to defendant.   Defendant was also a baby sitter for plaintiff’s baby.     After the kerfuffle over the dog started, plaintiff was upset that defendant unfriended her on Facebook.   Defendant wants unpaid babysitting fees.    Defendant also was paid by the state for the babysitting too. 

Plaintiff only demanded the dog back when defendant unfriended her on Facebook.    After four visits by plaintiff and husband to defendant’s house, twice with the police, the defendant filed for a protective order (protective order was not approved).         

Plaintiff is not getting the dog back, and refuses to believe JJ won’t give her the dog.  Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed.     Defendant drops her claims.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Retaliatory Tenant Rant-Plaintiff /former tenant Julius Gleghorn, rented a home for one year, and claims it was horrible living in the home, but only complained after he moved out.   Former landlords/defendants Jeffrey and Tammy Spinelli, are being sued for illegal lockout, return of rent, and ($900) security deposit.   Plaintiff moved in January, but his lease payments didn't start until March in the new rental.     In the beginning of March, the defendants changed the locks, since the lease was up, and plaintiff hadn't paid rent past the end of February.    There is a certified notice to the landlords, that plaintiff was moving out, and he scheduled a date for a walk-through with the landlords.     Julius Gleghorn says he was paying rent at defendant's place in February, and would start 1 March at the new house.   

After plaintiff had left the defendant's home, he sent a list of problems with the home to the landlords.   He also sent the same letter of issues to the Public Works housing department, listing a bunch of issues, but plaintiff had already moved out.    This is when plaintiff claims there wasn't a Certificate of Occupancy for the home.   As JJ says, plaintiff’s obvious goal was a law suit against the defendant landlords.   

Landlord told tenant Gleghorn that he would do a walk through on the last day of occupancy, and collect the keys on that day.   Defendant said he would not do a walk through with tenant two weeks before move out, the way the tenant wanted him to (who would do a walk through with a tenant two weeks early?), but landlord would do a walkthrough on the last day of occupancy.     Plaintiff was already moving to the new place in January, with all of his furniture at the new location.   

Defendants are suing for unpaid rent, damages to the home, and missing appliances.    Defendant woman has text messages about the walk through, but plaintiff didn't do a walk through.     Plaintiff called the police about the lockout, but it was after the end of the lease.  

Defendants don't get March rent because they changed the locks.   Plaintiff claims he left clothes, curtains and curtain rods, smart TV accessories, and speakers.     Defendant claims plaintiff stole the washer and dryer.   There is no replacement cost for the washer/dryer, so that's thrown out.    Defendant's claim the signed lease says if the plaintiff breaks the lease, he loses the security deposit.   Rent was only paid through 28 February, and in March landlord changed the locks, so no unpaid rent, or utilities to defendants.  

Nothing to the litigants.

Second (2018)-

Moving Company Disaster-Plaintiff Sheila Dine-Arthur  is suing former movers, represented by Eric  Jacobson, after she claims they only moved half of her stuff, damaged property, and were unprofessional.   Defendant mover has been in business since 2005, and has about 30 employees.      Plaintiff hired mover because of the time she needed to move.  Defendant is counter suing for their fees. 

The mover didn't pre-inspect, but quoted over the phone.    The movers told her a price for half a house, because that's what she asked for (1250 sq ft).    Plaintiff is a real estate agent, and should have known how to do a move better than this.   (Sorry they had a 30' box truck, so her stuff should have fit fine in that).   They worked from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. at night.    

Plaintiff claims her lamp, wall unit, computer monitor, bed frame, mirrored dresser, dirty mattress set, and other property was damaged.      Plaintiff claims she bought a very generic looking lamp in Paris from a designer (and in my opinion a butt ugly lamp).    Defendant didn't put in a claim because contract requires plaintiff pays the bill, and then the insurance will be contacted about the damage.   Mover says plaintiff asked for a rate for two men, and a box truck, for 1250 sq ft of property.   Defendant says 2500 sq ft of property, plus patio furniture is what she asked for.    The movers sent two movers, and a moving van.

The mover says they don't take checks, and she refused to authorize her credit card the night of the move.  $1284 to mover, and will be paid before claims go to the insurance company.  (Bet plaintiff didn't get extra insurance, and the moving insurance pays very little for damages, and if she packed items herself, they won't be covered at all). 

$1284 to defendant.  Plaintiff will only get what insurance company pays on her claims.

Roommates-R-Not-Us   -Plaintiffs,   Audrey Price (girlfriend) and Shawn Reid (boyfriend), are suing their former roommate, defendant Brandon Rost  for breaking their lease, and legal fees.  There were three people living there, then one roommate that moved out, and then defendant moved in, and signed the lease.   Plaintiffs want defendant to pay lease breaking fee because he moved out a month before plaintiffs did.   

Defendant says he got sick of the bickering and fighting among the roommates.  Plaintiff woman says that her co-plaintiff weren't in a romantic relationship when defendant moved in, but they are now.   

Defendant says the two plaintiffs were fighting, and mostly over the fact that she wanted to dump her previous (not a roommate) boyfriend, and stay with her co-plaintiff.    Plaintiff actually calls the defendant stupid.    Plaintiff case dismissed, because they won't shut up, and stop commenting to the defendant.    

Defendant is asked if he paid any lease or damage fees, and the answer is he paid his rent until the lease ended.   Defendant moved back in after plaintiffs left, and he stayed for seven months, counter suit dismissed.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.

5 p.m. reruns-

First –

(This is a very sad, graphic case)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norfolk Terrier, is $3500 replacement.   Too bad the other $1500 will be split (JJ should have awarded the other $1,500 to plaintiff for pain and suffering.  Then defendant wouldn’t have received a penny).  

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

(I have no idea what the real title is, this is not the one listed in any TV guide I could locate. It’s also listed as Uber Boyfriend Dispute, which is not shown with the first case)

Defendant claims plaintiff never supported her as a child. 

$2,000 to plaintiff. 

Second –

Fork-Lift Car Drop! (2021) -Plaintiff Michael Reissig is suing defendant Michael Koch over the dropping of his car at defendant’s wrecking yard.  Plaintiff is restoring an old Nissan 300ZX, and his car needed work.   Plaintiff found a suitable part car at defendant's wrecking yard, and plaintiff wanted the entire car.   Plaintiff says car cost $500, defendant wanted $750, and they agreed on the $750, and plaintiff paid $500 cash, and $250 on his credit card.    Defendant's operations manager Daniel Koch (son) dealt with plaintiff, and says they agreed on $750 sales price, and defendant accepted $250 on a credit card, but no cash.    The $500 was supposed to be paid when car was delivered to the plaintiff in Lake Isabela, CA, and $100 delivery fee.    

Plaintiff claims he has a receipt for $500 cash to defendant son.   

So, defendants had $750 of plaintiff's money, and when car was put on the trailer, the defendant's worker dropped the car off of the forklift. 

$750 to plaintiff. (Plaintiff wanted $5,000 for this!)

Biting Dalmatian? (2014)-Plaintiff/cousin Jamie Strobel suing defendant/cousin Rebekah Strobel, for lease breaking fees.     Two cousins leased an apartment together.  Then, plaintiff's Dalmatian attacked defendant.    Plaintiff claims after the attack she was forced to move out for her own safety.    Plaintiff claims the Dalmatian was hit by a car, and abused by a burglar, and has issues with new people, and tries to attack people.     

Plaintiff told defendant that dog would get used to her, and be fine with defendant's presence.   They moved in during January, and in February attacked defendant, trapped her in the bathroom, and bit her leg.   

The photos of the bite are bad.   Then in March defendant moved out formally, but moved out right after the bite.    Defendant couldn't have anyone over, especially children, without the dog becoming aggressive.   Plaintiff wouldn't do anything about the dog, so defendant moved out.    JJ says plaintiff has to get rid of the dog, or pay her own rent.

Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves nothing.   

[KittyQ]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So, defendants had $750 of plaintiff's money, and when car was put on the trailer, the defendant's worker dropped the car off of the forklift. 

A case where someone figures that since the plaintiff "only" wanted parts of the product they bought, getting a a damaged product is just as good as getting what they paid for (undamaged product). Where do these people get the idea that they have the right to decide that getting only part of what you paid for is ok since they figure you won't use the whole thing anyway?  I am contrary enough to demand a refund even if I only wanted to use the sparkplugs, because if I had to buy the whole car to get the sparkplugs, then by gosh, I want to get the whole car. So I am glad the plaintiff got some money back.

[TVMovieBuff]

Sheila Dine-Arthur was a real peevish bitch. I wanted Judy to say "why did you hire them?" when Sheila was talking about what a bad reputation the moving company had, and that they had been sued a lot. 

Another one of those who just simply didn't want to pay.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Crying Jag Over Family Money-Plaintiff aunt Irene Ragan, and grandmother Elnora Ragan, are suing niece/granddaughter Cheyenne Ragan for money loaned to defendant niece by grandmother ($1500).    Grandmother loaned the $1500, and when daughter found out about it, she assumed the loan repayment.    Grandmother is long retired.     Niece lived with grandmother her whole life until she turned 21, and moved out.   

I feel sorry for the grandmother and aunt, but there was no expectation of repayment from the niece/granddaughter.    I'm sure the niece will get every penny she can from the grandmother.    I bet the grandmother will keep giving the granddaughter money too.

Case is dismissed.  

Surgery Craziness-Plaintiff Jenny Heath is suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Anthony Curiel over a loan for medical bills, ($5,000), after he had reconstructive knee surgery.    Defendant went for a cheap medical insurance plan with poor coverage, and paid cash for the surgery instead of putting it through insurance.

My question is, what surgery only costs $5,000 cash?   The answer is this is not possible.  This all happened when defendant worked for AT&T. 

 JJ sends them back to their local court because she doesn't believe any of this.   

Ghost Dating Heartache-Plaintiff Paul Bryne suing ex-girlfriend/defendant Kelly Powell (they knew each other a lot of years ago) for $1105 loan she didn't repay.   Loan was to prevent an eviction.    Defendant claims they kept making plans, and then she wouldn't hear from him for quite a while.    Defendant told plaintiff she needed money, after she saw an eviction notice on her door.     As usual, defendant claims it was a gift, not a loan, and plaintiff spontaneously paid her back rent.     

Plaintiff has text message saying he will make the loan, but she has to pay it back quickly.    Plaintiff receives $1105 (and I hope he's not still in contact with her).   

Second (2018)-

The Diamond Quiz Show-Plaintiff Joanna Yancy is suing ex-husband/defendant Jacob Engelstein for the balance on a loan ($5,000) to purchase diamonds, and has a cancelled check to prove it.   Plaintiff says defendant was hard up for money, and was going to make money off of the diamonds, and pay her back with the profits.   

Defendant repaid $1450, and that's all.   Defendant says money was an investment in his business.   On a prior occasion she gave him money, and profited very well.    The two litigants have had business deals for years.  Plaintiff claims in the

Plaintiff receives $3,000.  

Basketball Team Hotel Rip-Off-Plaintiff  Alicia Taylor suing co-worker / defendant Te’Onna Cambell for hotel charge on a credit card, and other issues, but JJ will only consider the hotel charges.   Defendant says plaintiff had other hotel fees added to the card.   Defendant has a women’s basketball team, and when they went to an away game, the defendant needed to pay for rooms.  Defendant used the plaintiff's card.    There is no way the defendant doesn't owe the hotel money to the plaintiff.   

$3,131 to the plaintiff.

High-End Shoes or Stinky Sneakers-Plaintiff Jewel Hill is suing business associate/defendant Larry Hardeman Jr.  for breach of contract on a sneaker deal.    Litigants traded collectible sneakers online.   Defendant had some Kanye West Yeezys (made by Adidas for Kanye West), and traded them with the plaintiff.  Defendant didn't want the sneakers the plaintiff sent him because they were very used, and were supposed to be new, but he didn't bring them to court, and won't say why.     

The plaintiff traded for two other pairs, that he was swapping for the fancier shoes (Jordan 5s) with the defendant.  Plaintiff bought the Yeezys locally, and bought the other pairs online.  Defendant didn’t bring the sneakers he traded to plaintiff to court, and won’t tell JJ why.    Defendant claims the stinky, used sneakers weren't his.   

 $390 to plaintiff.   

5 p.m. reruns-

First –

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

Plaintiff made a few more deliveries, and realized there was blood on the van floor, (his van is also a handicapped accessible taxi).    Defendant wife seems rather bored.   JJ doesn't believe the plaintiff's story.    Plaintiff doesn't have the text/e-mail about the delivery, or the report to Postmates about the bite.  There is nothing on the medical reports saying the scratch was from a dog bite. 

Defendant says plaintiff never mentioned a dog bite to him either, and it was three months before papers were served on defendant.   Defendants were never contacted by Animal Control, or anyone else until they received the papers.   I know several French Bulldogs, and though cute, they can’t jump as high as the plaintiff alleges this dog did.    A bite on a calf would be possible, but not on the arm. Plaintiff never notified animal control, or tried to find out if defendant’s dog were up to date on their shots.  

Defendant’s dog in court is so calm, and isn’t reacting to the camera crew.  

The plaintiff’s case is garbage in my opinion, and apparently in JJ’s too.   

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second (2015)-

Bash or Crash? -Plaintiff Elizabeth Hall suing defendant neighbor, David House and his girlfriend, Stormy Pearl (Yes this is her name).   This is a he said / she said case.   Plaintiff claims defendant slammed his body into her car causing damage.   The defendant's girlfriend filed for a restraining order against plaintiff, and the order was denied.   Defendant man claims plaintiff tried to run over him with her car.  

Defendant claims everything started with his dog getting out, and triggering a verbal argument with neighbors (no, I don't see why this is relevant).    Defendant claims plaintiff sped up, aimed at her driveway, and grazed him with her car, and hit him when he was in his front yard.  Damage was to the back of the plaintiff's car, not the front where the man claimed he was hit.         

The trailer park sounds like the kind an interesting place to live.     I don't believe a word of the defendant's feeble old lady defense, or the plaintiff's overly dramatic stories.     Plaintiff claims defendant is preparing for another personal injury lawsuit, from another hit by a car a month later.     Plaintiff also is on Worker's Comp. for a work accident two years ago.   

Case dismissed.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Pool Blowout-Plaintiff Patti Swett suing pool contractor/defendants Jose and Natalie Bueno, for not completing the pool job she hired him for.   Plaintiff wanted pool resurfaced.   Smart aleck defendant's wife says the "question is only if they completed the job, and not completed satisfactorily".     $5,125 was the price, paid in full, and pool was resurfaced.    However, in the statement he says he wasn't totally finished (the second coat) almost a year after the first resurfacing.     Plaintiff didn't like the first resurfacing job, then defendant says woman changed the job parameters for the second resurfacing.   (Defendant wife needs duct tape over her mouth, and an eyeliner intervention).     

Plaintiff receives $1550 for the unfinished pool job. 

Abusive Dad Incarcerated-Plaintiff Tammy Gibbs, suing her former daughter-in-law Casandra Thomas, for travel fees, living expenses from Indiana, to Tennessee (where grandmother is).   Defendant has three kids with loser ex.  

Abuse of one of their mutual children is why plaintiff's son is in prison.   After defendant moved back to Indiana with the three children to live with her mother (plaintiff and plaintiff's husband helped in the move) defendant got 100% custody, and nothing for plaintiff's side (good for her).     

Plaintiff says her criminal son is going to court to get charges reduced, (another delusional Mother of a criminal).   The expense of helping move back to Indiana is what Grandma plaintiff is suing for.     Plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for $500 for sports fees.   

Case dismissed, and grandmother should be ashamed.   (My guess is that if her son gets out of jail, that plaintiff will be driving to the children's location, and she wouldn't say a word no matter what her son does.)

Second (2018)-

Designer Breed or Straight Up Mutt? -Plaintiff Maria and Eliseo Rodriquez suing defendant over a puppy that grew too big to be a purse dog, plaintiff’s claim defendant Ben Ashel sold them a miniature Maltipoo.    Puppy cost $2,300.   Another case of buying a puppy mill designer mutt, and expecting to win at Westminster the next week.      When you buy a dog at a pet store, it's from a puppy mill, many times the papers are not the exact breeding they claim, and there is no health testing, or screening, and I’m betting no worming or shots either. 

Yes, plaintiff kept dog in a cage except when she was carting it around in her purse, and claims her carpal tunnel means she can no longer lift the dog.  Dog is chunky, probably from lack of exercise, and overfeeding.   Just two people who swore that they were buying an expensive dog that would be what they wanted, didn't do their due diligence, and then had a dog that was too heavy for the wife to tote around like a grocery sack, and claim it was an emotional support animal (I'm just guessing on that).      I've known quite a few people with carpal tunnel, and they could lift as much as the dog weighed, and dogs were born to use their feet and legs, so the fact I bet they toted the dog everywhere might be a reason it weighs more than it should.   I wonder how much extra food they're feeding it too?   

Plaintiffs still have the dog, and it's outside the courtroom.    Plaintiffs did no research, know nothing about the puppy's genetics, or parents.   

Plaintiff dumped the dog on their son to take care of.

 As JJ says, don't buy puppies from a pet store.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

(One place where I lived there was a small chain of pet stores.   They paid the breeder about 10% of what they sold the puppies for.   The puppies were all kinds of cross breeds, with AKC papers they managed to work out (sort of phony, mostly claiming well-bred dogs were the parents, and they weren't), and the dogs back then (the early 1990s) sold for about $1,000 and up.     Then the pet store owner bought a bunch of his supplier's dogs, and then turned everything out together in a big lot with limited shelter out of town.   He would have combinations like Beagle and Bassett Hounds turned out together, and whatever the puppies look like is what he sold them for.     The pet store had guarantees, but knew you wouldn't sell the dog back once you fell in love with it.     The pet store finally was put out of business, but not for anything to do with being an animal abusing jerk).   

The most I've ever paid for a dog was $200 from a shelter, so the plaintiffs get zero sympathy from me.   I feel sorry for the dog, and wonder if it's really still owned by the plaintiffs.   

Settlement Vultures Swoop! -Plaintiff Alexa Boggs, is suing friend's father Steve Debo, defendant over a loan for his boat.   Plaintiff is 18 or 19, and is a close friend of the defendant's daughter, and had a settlement from a car accident, and received $15,000.     When plaintiff received the settlement she lived with her grandmother, got an apartment for herself, and her new baby.   Then defendant wanted a $3,000 loan for the boat repairs.  

There is a murky account record of movements, and transfers. 

Plaintiff claims defendant signed a notarized statement about repaying the $3,000, but that is not available.   Defendant doesn't remember signing any statement about repayment.  

JJ dismisses case without prejudice so plaintiff can refile locally.  (My guess is that JJ sent it back to the local courts in Ohio so plaintiff could get better proof of the money withdrawals, and maybe find the notarized statement that she claims defendant signed). 

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

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

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

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

Alvin calls Michael a career criminal.    

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

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

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

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

Second -

 Hot Mess Move In! (2021) -Plaintiffs Carl and Gloria Abplanalp suing defendants/landlords Gene and Lois Day over a mobile home they bought from defendants, on 1 November 2019, and plaintiffs moved in on 1 November 2019.       When the plaintiffs moved in, they discovered a water leak, and damages, from a leaky water valve on the refrigerator ice machine (refrigerator space was empty, fridge was not left with the house).   Plaintiff says defendants moved out on 19 October, but closing and move in by plaintiffs occurred on 1 November.    Plaintiff husband won't stop whispering to his wife, and interrupting. 

Plaintiff claims they found the leak on 1 November, and six days later the floor started buckling.   However, the refrigerator didn't convey, and that space was empty on move in, so why didn't they see and fix the leak, and clean up the water?   Plaintiffs claim the damages were behind the wall.   Plaintiff and defendant's insurance companies declined to cover the damages.   My guess is the 'leak' was the connector from fridge water line, to the wall outlet wasn't tight, and needed a turn with a wrench, or the valve wasn't turned off all of the way.    Either one is a quick fix.    I also think that when plaintiffs moved in, that if the water line was leaking in the kitchen, it would have been obvious.    The plaintiffs didn't even contact the defendants about the leak for quite a while after move in, so I suspect the line was fine when defendants moved out.  

Why didn't plaintiffs do a walk through on the house a day or two before move in?  Instead they did their walk through two weeks before the purchase.   Plaintiff blames her own real estate agent for the lack of walk through the day or two before closing.     Plaintiffs are suing their real estate agent too. 

Plaintiff claim dismissed.

Show Me the Money! (2013) -Plaintiff/car seller Joshua Sparks suing defendant/car buyer Ryan Benniventall over a car he sold to him, and he didn't pay for.    Car blue book was $4,500 less than defendant paid for the car ($20,000), and paid one third more than blue book ($20,000) for having a car he wanted to impress people with.   

Plaintiff paid $24630 for the car, when purchased from the dealer he works for, and five months later put up a sales ad for the car.   $24,000 or best offer, and sold for $24500 to defendant.   There were mods added to car to make it worth more than the $20,000 blue book.     Defendant agreed to the price, paid off the $22400 to cancel plaintiff's loan.   Defendant still owes $2400 to plaintiff.

Defendant says his bank paid off the loan, and sent the $2400 to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $2400.

[KittyQ]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 The pet store had guarantees, but knew you wouldn't sell the dog back once you fell in love with it. 

The plaintiffs didn't show any indication that they fell in love with the dog at all, which makes me think it was meant to be purely ornamental, toted around in a purse so the wife could go out to lunch with other ladies and their purse-dogs. Might as well get a stuffed toy for whatever pleasure that dog gave them, in my opinion. I thought that the son who is taking care of the dog since it got too big (huh - that dog didn't look so big), at least said that he loved the dog, so mom and dad should just let him keep it and find some other status symbol to spend their money on.

[KittyQ]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Then defendant wanted a $3,000 loan for the boat repairs.  

Probably bias on my part, but what kind of adult asks for a loan from his kid's friends? What's wrong with a bank loan, or ask his own friends for loans? I think he took advantage of this girl's lack of experience with money, and she thought that she'd be more "grown up" by lending money to her friend's father. This man should be embarrassed that he even thought of borrowing this money, let alone failing to pay it back. 

[KittyQ]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

For me it's a tie, if I want to punch Alvin, or the Grandmother in the loan case more

Haha! I wonder if Alvin realizes how irritating his speech pattern is. He gives the impression that he's trying to patiently explain things to people of low intellect, or to be generous, maybe just people who aren't that familiar with English. I think his brother is pretty sketchy alright, but Alvin clearly feels superior to everyone and has the right to do whatever he wants to do because he is going to take control over everything and everyone.

[One Tough Cookie]

On 8/17/2021 at 6:10 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Home Destroyed by a Tortoise (2021)

And once again she shows her much wisdom-- They are reptiles for crying out loud.

Edited August 27, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Eight Kids is Enough-Plaintiff April Chambers has five children, and Jamie Mejia, defendant, left her three children and a dog at plaintiff’s apartment for three weeks.   Mother of the year candidate case today.   Plaintiff is suing for pet deposit, and child care costs.   Defendant woman with three kids leaves them with a woman with five kids, supposedly for a few days of vacation in the Dominican Republic.     The kids were actually there long enough to get registered in school.  Defendant never paid a penny to plaintiff.  One child was actually enrolled in a regular school, instead of a special needs school.     Agreed on price was $200 a week, but after that plaintiff had to do so much for the defendant's children that she wanted more money.   Plaintiff was gone for a month.   Defendant left children on 9 April, and didn’t return until Mid-May, so five or six weeks.

By the way, Mommy dearest actually went to the Dominican Republic to get married, and then had to do the paperwork, etc. to import her new love muffin.    (How can a woman who is homeless afford all of that time in the DR, and to import the husband?  And who is sponsoring the husband? Yes, I’ve been watching 90 Fiance again, but with the number of children, then the amount of income to sponsor the new husband was even higher.   I can’t believe that the defendant married, and completed the paperwork, and had a visa in hand to import the husband in five or six weeks).   

 I loved when Judge Judy said she was going to report the woman to CPS for abandoning her children.     Defendant wants money for plaintiff threatening to reporting her to CPS, that is dismissed.

Plaintiff receives $900

Bleeding Puppy Neglect-Plaintiff Aimee Uribe/ puppy broker for a dozen breeders, suing defendant Sahil Sharma for a puppy she was reselling to him.  Puppy broker hasn’t gone to visit the homes the dogs come from.    This is the heartbreaking case of the puppy broker (she gets puppies breeders don't want to keep to sell) who sells dogs for $2800 to the village idiot.   Puppy has a bleeding problem, and village idiot buyer doesn't take puppy to the vet for months.     

A new variation on puppy mills, and two despicable people who sell, and buy the poor creatures.  Defendant bought the puppy, and plaintiff claims she refunded the money to defendant.  (Puppy broker, equals puppy mills, even if the dogs are AKC or claim to be AKC registered).

Dog got sick well after he bought the puppy, but still didn’t take the dog to the vet until April.

Defendant claims plaintiff refunded the money, but plaintiff says it was an accidental refund.   However, plaintiff claims he never received the AKC paperwork.   Defendant also claims French Bulldog puppy he had was lethargic, and had a bleeding problem, but was purchased in February, and didn't see a vet until April.   Sounds like Giardia, or a parasite problem.

$2800 to plaintiff.    

Wheelchair Bound Honeymoon Cruise-Plaintiff Auxerre Adore suing defendant Christina Lutz for not paying her caregiving fees when she was caregiver for defendant on the defendant's honeymoon cruise.   Plaintiff was supposed to be paid double for the cruise, because she was the only caregiver.  Then we have the wheelchair bound woman who owes her care giver a lot of money for her hours, but caregiver claims plaintiff didn't pay.  Plaintiff claims she was fired when they returned.  Hours should have amounted to almost $1,000. 

 It was for the woman's honeymoon on a cruise, and they married on the ship.     Defendant is counter suing for the price of a cruise, because she paid for plaintiff's ticket, and a friend of plaintiff.   The cruise was for three weeks, caregiving was $1,000 a week (only one caregiver, not the usual two).     Defendant paid around $2700 to plaintiff.   

Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.    Defendant counter claim is dismissed also. 

Second (2018)-

Cute Way to Sell Alcohol, Rules the Judge! -Plaintiffs Jamie and Michelle King used defendant's, Erica Vincent’s, venue for their event, but are suing defendant/dance studio & venue owner for cancelling the event.    The dance studio/venue owner/defendant only allows booze to be given away at the venue, but the plaintiffs charged $10 per person for a bracelet that was listed in their advertisement as "drink all night for $15".     

They claimed the event was a music festival, and talent show to raise money for the community, (teenagers without fathers) but they aren't a legal charity, and were charging admission, and for booze, and giving door prizes.       Plaintiffs claim they were hosting a musical event, but contract says private fund raiser, and also says no alcohol sales.  $5 admission, $15 for those over 21, talent was paying to perform $50 each.   The talent (performers), had to pay plaintiffs $50 to appear at the event.

 If the plaintiffs weren't charging for booze, then why was the ticket higher for those over 21.  The flyer for the event says you buy a wristband for $15, and unlimited booze all night.   Also, as JJ points out venue owner/defendant has the right to cancel the event the day of because it was on the contract as a fund raiser for a charity, and it was actually a for profit event with $10 extra for booze (venue has no liquor license).    Plaintiffs claim defendant cancelled the event on the day of the event, but defendant says plaintiffs cancelled on her after she emphasized, they couldn’t charge for alcohol.

I wonder if the local liquor license authority was watching this episode?    I hope they investigate further events by the plaintiffs.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant claims plaintiff defamed her, also dismissed. In Hall-terview plaintiff wife says they own two daycare centers, and wouldn't serve liquor to minors.     

Google the People You Date! -Plaintiff Jeffrey Lambert suing defendant Kailani Shaffer for unpaid rent, and unpaid rental fees for using his car.   Plaintiff and defendant met online, and she moved in part time at his place, and after she wrecked her car, he loaned her his car for $15 a day.     Plaintiff says defendant sent horrible emails, and messages to his elderly mother.   Defendant used the rental car for a month.    

Defendant's counter claim is garbage.    

The defendant's nasty text to plaintiff's mother is awful.   Defendant's only defense is "that's not his birth mother".

$41 for gas.   

5 p.m. reruns-

First –

Stolen Meds and Elder Abuse?! (2021) -Plaintiff/former client Dana Pizzuto suing defendant/former caregiver Amanda Maestes for stealing her medications, and endangering her from exposure to Covid.  Defendant used plaintiff's car, had an accident, and was cited for having an expired license.    Plaintiff had a heart attack, and defendant was supposed to take plaintiff to appointments, help her with errands.    Defendant claims she was only paid $500 once, and plaintiff has three cancelled checks made out, and cashed by defendant.    Defendant took plaintiff's car home once.    

Defendant claims she was in Covid quarantine, and was taking plaintiff to the cardiologist, was rear ended in plaintiff's car, and defendant denies she was in quarantine. 

JJ will hear the $2,000 loan from plaintiff to defendant.   JJ is dismissing the medication theft, no proof, and no police report.   Plaintiff loaned the $2,000 to defendant to get custody of her 13- and 15-year-old, children who are in ex-husband's custody.  Plaintiff can prove $1700 loan.  Defendant is counter suing for unpaid wages, no proof.  Defendant's husband gets the Byrd boot. 

Plaintiff receives $2000. Defendant case dismissed. 

Disability Debit Card Craziness (2014) -Plaintiff Shannondoah Baker suing former friend/ defendant Cynthia Wagner for stealing money from her, kicking her out, and refused to return her belongings.   This was after plaintiff was in jail for possession of stolen property, and violating probation.    Plaintiff took a plea, so pled guilty.   Plaintiff claims multiple disabilities, and diagnoses, and gets disability. 

Plaintiff was supposed to pay $300 a month rent to defendant, and gave her disability debit card to defendant.    Instead of $300, plaintiff claims defendant charged over $900 on the debit card.  Plaintiff mother/witness chimes in and claims she took care of incarcerated daughter's Rottweiler/Pit cross.   Defendant is counter suing for rent, dog sitting, utilities, etc.    

Defendant says the sweater plaintiff is wearing in court, actually belongs to the defendant. 

Defendant submits a signed, witnessed contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff denies signing the contract.  Plaintiff claims defendant kept her art supplies, clothes, and kitchen supplies. Plaintiff mother has a son, and his family living with her, but not the disabled daughter. 

Plaintiff claims dismissed.   Defendant counter claim dismissed. 

Second –

Pain Management Unhinged (2021) -Plaintiff Michael They, a nurse practitioner, is suing defendant Gina Wallace, medical biller  for rent since August, lost income since August, and wants $3777   Plaintiff paid $750 in June, to defendant to get him credentialed for pain management with Medicare, and medical insurance companies.   He found defendant, who advertised online that she specializes in helping people credentialed for pain management, but four months later defendant hadn't had plaintiff credentialed with any insurance companies.   

Plaintiff wanted defendant to get him credentialed with fifteen insurance companies.    He fired defendant, and the next person only credentialed him with one company.  Defendant says she was trying to get him credentialed with Medicare first, and she had to keep resubmitting the information because everything had to be accurate, and plaintiff kept changing addresses, and other information, so application to Medicare (Medicare has to be done first), had to be altered.     

Medicare is the primary provider, and that application was done, and redone at least once.    And defendant had applications to nine insurance companies.   Then plaintiff gave her a check using her P.O. box, and a different LLC name, so the applications all had to be redone.  

Everything that went wrong was plaintiff's fault, and not defendant's fault.    

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.

Bad Tenant Punished? (2021) -Plaintiff Cathy Christopher /landlord suing defendant/former tenant Jason Weeks for unpaid rent, after six months of unpaid rent.    Defendant claims that after flooding that he was getting credit for two of the six months’ rent.  Defendant claims he paid four months’ rent.     

In spite of a leaky roof, tenant stayed in the apartment for six months, and claims the two months’ rent were forgiven.     

Fortunately, plaintiff finally got the defendant out of the apartment.     Plaintiff re-rented the apartment.

Plaintiff receives $1200, two months’ rent.  (However, defendant actually owed for seven months, minus two for the water). 

Edited August 27, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 8/26/2021 at 5:36 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff paid $24630 for the car,

Maybe there is something wrong  with my hubby and me, but we would NEVER spend that kind of money on one car.  Both our cars together didn't even cost that much, --if we have  spare 25 thou I'd improve our house.😖

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  (How can a woman who is homeless afford all of that time in the DR, and to import the husband? 

Ask Byrd

[One Tough Cookie]

On 8/5/2021 at 2:29 PM, Megan Markled said:

Our beloved Byrd is on today's episode of the Bold and the Beautiful! He's playing a minister and looking sharp in his purple attire!

 

Man,Byrd is one fine looking man!

[One Tough Cookie]

On 8/5/2021 at 5:45 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

My prediction is plaintiff will go down in JJ history as a real PITA.    Plaintiff just asked JJ how many houses she's bought (he should have asked penthouses, and mansions).

And her highness answered 30.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Bad Boy Fixation?! -Plaintiff Christina Martinez wants bail money she wasted on loser defendant, Ajian Diaz, and also wants money to clean up her credit.     Seven years ago, defendant was arrested, after a traffic stop for speeding, for failure to appear for driving without a license/under suspension.     The bail was $10,000 or so, and plaintiff paid $1500 for her portion of the bail.  

Plaintiff paid $1500 for bail and fees, but it adds up to $2015 with interest. 

Plaintiff admits defendant was arrested at least one more time between the bail, and now.    Defendant admits he’s been arrested at least four times.   Then after a few years, defendant contacts her on facebook, and she claims she gave him $2500 for a friend of his to correct her credit.

Plaintiff receives $2,015 for the bond.

(I wouldn’t give plaintiff a penny, the defendant never repaid anything to her, and he had no intention of repaying anything).

Give Me Back My Father’s Ashes -Plaintiff Cora Birch suing defendant Evan Huffman  for tax return money, property, and her father’s ashes.     Plaintiff is a SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two with defendant).   Plaintiff doesn’t work but receives SSI.      Plaintiff wants her father’s ashes back.   Plaintiff doesn’t work, but defendant does, and pays child support, so defendant keeps the tax deduction for the children.  Each litigant has one child each in their custody.

There is a storage unit, that defendant is paying on, and JJ lets her look in the storage unit for her mother’s and father’s ashes (cremains).     

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it’s ridiculous.   I’m so glad I don’t have to hear plaintiff’s whiny voice again.

Second (2018)-

Ex-Girlfriend's Bulldog Custody Battle-Plaintiff Isabel Chavez suing ex-girlfriend/defendant Amber Jean Jacobs over the dog that was purchased while they were together.  Plaintiff wants the dog back, and is suing over unauthorized use of a credit card, an assault, and a false arrest.   Defendant says the dog is her registered therapy animal, needed after the assault gave her PTSD.   Plaintiff purchased the dog with all of her money, not defendant's.   The dog is a French Bulldog., and defendant claims the dog was a gift to her.  Dog costs $1400.   

Defendant doesn’t even know what a therapy

After a short time living together, the two women broke up, plaintiff went to get her belongings, and the dog.  Plaintiff was removed by the police after the complaint of assault by defendant, and defendant was granted a restraining order for a year, and then charges were dismissed.  This means the suit over false arrest is dismissed.    Plaintiff gets $1400 for the dog. 

The defendant wants to be paid for cat expenses.   Plaintiff says her sister/witness picked the cat up, and gave the cat to the person they got the cat from.    Defendant hid the dog with a friend, and claims the two women came to her home at midnight, threatening her, and that's when the assault happened.    However, the defendant’s arm scratches look very minor, and I think defendant could have done them herself, as plaintiff says defendant did.       

Plaintiff gets $0, and defendant gets $2500.          (I wouldn’t have given defendant anything).  

Are You Buzzed?  -Plaintiff Charles Buchanan suing his sister-in-law /defendant Sheri McEntire for causing his car to be impounded, and junked.   Defendant was driving the car, was driving while suspended, and was pulled over for something, but defendant won’t admit what she was pulled over for.     No way she was pulled over for her warrant (pending drug charges), since license plate traced back to plaintiff.    Defendant says she’s been pulled over for burned out tail light before this. Defendant was also driving while suspended too. Police reports (2) say defendant was pulled over for various traffic offenses.       

Plaintiff didn't have the money to get the car out of impound so it was eventually junked (I guess no one wanted to buy it at auction).      Defendant was supposed to make payments to plaintiff to get car out of impound, and she lied, as usual.

(JJ tells the defendant that she looks buzzed, and she's so right, defendant is actually swaying in the courtroom, and the hall-terview).

As JJ rules, only plaintiff could get the car out, and he didn't, so case dismissed.   

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Heated Custody Dispute! -Plaintiff Whitney and Roger Kramer are suing defendant /ex Anita Barfoot, (the plaintiff Roger, and defendant Anita never married), over her vandalizing plaintiff's car, including slashed tires, and bashed windshield.     This was after a lost custody hearing, and plaintiff's car was vandalized.  The older child is 9, and father has had 50/50, and now 100%. 

There was an incident at a custody exchange in a parking lot, defendant didn't have a driver's license so defendant's sister was driving.   Plaintiff wife says defendant's sister had a ticket for driving while suspended, and at the police station (where they exchange the kids), plaintiff wife brought this up.  Sister Elizabeth Hansen claims (defendant's sister) claims she doesn't remember a ticket, and lies about that.   There was a printout that showed defendant sister/witness didn't have a license, and sister keeps saying "I don't remember".   

So, the plaintiffs said they would not hand the children over to an unlicensed driver.   Defendant's license was suspended for a DUI.   

Then on another occasion, defendant texted, and called ex-boyfriend, and didn't get an answer (she gets phone calls to the children on certain times during the week), and she only gets visitation on Sunday afternoon, and evening from 5 to 7.   Visitation was reduced after the DUI, is my guess.   

Plaintiff wife says they own a mechanic's shop, fix up cars, and park the fixed-up sale cars, and their own car on this lot when they're working.   The Buick Enclave was parked there for three weeks, for sale.    The plaintiffs didn't see the vandalism happen.  

Pictures of the Buick SUV show back windshield shattered, all four tires slashed, and front windshield next to their For Sale sign, was smashed.    There was a big custody change for  Jasmine and Riker (parents are Disney and Star Trek fans?), and no overnights, sharply reducing the visitation, then the vandalism happened.   The husband / plaintiff submits the text messages to him from defendant.    Then, husband texted telling defendant that he will never agree to more visitation for defendant.   

Unfortunately, there is no proof who vandalized the car, (my guess is the sister of defendant).    The police officer helped plaintiffs get a restraining order against defendant and her sister.    TRO or protective order is not finished and approved yet.   Defendant told police "I didn't do it".   As JJ points out there is no proof of who did this, but sister of defendant is sitting there smirking.   Sister of defendant is very short of laughing, and I suspect that we all can guess who did this.  

JJ says when the kids are older, they may object to daddy's rule, and go to live with the mother.    Sorry, I wouldn't have the mother and her awful family around the kids.    Sorry, I disagree, that the mother is a fit parent for the kids to visit.   I wouldn't let any kid around anyone in the mother's family, especially the sister who is the obvious suspect, and won't stop smirking, and giggling.      Are both defendant and her sister / witness stoned in court?    They certainly seem like it. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Which JJ tells defendant that this doesn't mean she's innocent of this. 

In the hall-terview defendant claims she’s working on her recovery.

Second (2015)-

Wedding Planner Nightmare -Plaintiffs Andrea and Franceso Bain are suing defendant/wedding planner Marcy Martin for doing virtually nothing for their wedding for the $1600 they paid her.     Defendant did go to the cake tasting.    Defendant was referred to groom/plaintiff by defendant’s husband, and no references were checked by plaintiffs.     There was no written contract, which is another red flag.   Plaintiffs paid a total of $1600 to defendant.

Plaintiffs met with defendant after they paid the $1400, and defendant would take the balance after the wedding, $600 more.    After the meeting, plaintiffs say defendant said more communication would happen, invitations were horribly screwed up.   For example, instead of one invitation per household, and written inside is “9 people invited”, the defendant sent 9 invitations to one household. 

Defendant did give plaintiffs names of vendors, but they didn’t hire any of the people she recommended.   The vendors defendant recommended cost about double what plaintiffs paid vendors.   Also, defendant was supposed to do “day of” work, but didn’t.    Plaintiff gave money to defendant to purchase the bridemaids’ dresses, the dresses actually cost 50% more than plaintiff authorized.   Plaintiff didn’t pay the extra 50% to defendant for the dresses.    Hair and makeup money was given to defendant by the bridesmaids’, but they used someone else.      The money the bridesmaids’ paid defendant will have to be sued for by them, not plaintiff, since plaintiff didn’t pay the defendant for that.    

Defendant quit a month before the wedding.     All of this was via text.     Defendant wants to keep $1400 for going to the cake testing.    Defendant is suing for unpaid wages, $700.  

(I’m available for cake tasting help, for $1,000 plus travel and hotel).

Defendant counter claim dismissed.

Plaintiff sent an expense sheet of what defendant spent for every meeting, saying amount paid by plaintiffs.    Defendant did 12 packets for each wedding participant, went to the cake testing, found the dresses for the ladies, found the hotel for the day before and after the wedding.   Defendant screwed up the invitations, and not much else.

Plaintiffs receive $0, because JJ says the defendant did $1400 worth of work.

[Aurora8]

On 3/18/2021 at 3:17 AM, Florinaldo said:

I am still trying to figure out why the defendant offered to pay for the paint job out of his commission. It does not make financial sense because the cost of painting would have wiped out most of his fee. Unless he desperately wanted to be rid of that difficult to rent listing and of the owner, who seems to be a real pain as a customer; she does not even have multiple properties to rent so there is no real incentive to give her special treatment. I think that the onus of painting the place should have fallen on her; if she is too cheap to do it, then she loses out on a rental and her long-term losses would be far in excess of the agent's one-month commission.

Because he wanted to secure the commission. If the prospective tenant walked (not liking the I think yellow walls), he would have lost it. The defendant even said that he had done this kind of thing before.

The thinking would’ve been a fraction of a commission being better than no commission.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Aurora8

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Parents Fight Over Imprisoned Daughter-Plaintiff  Robert Priest is father of criminal daughter, and defendant Margaret “Meg” Priest is mother of criminal daughter.    The 20 year-old was arrested, and mommy wanted a private attorney.   Parents are divorced for years, when 20 year-old daughter got arrested.   Mother wanted a private criminal attorney that cost $10,000, and with the two parents splitting the cost.    Plaintiff says his daughter should have used a public defender, and JJ agrees with the mother.   Ex-wife lives off of her parents, and never worked.    Plaintiff paid $5,000 already, and now he wants $5k from the ex-wife.  (this is the entertaining case where the daughter had a safe full of drugs in her car).   

Maybe someone should have suggested daughter shouldn't have done the crime?  I disagree with the father paying more.    However, since ex-wife hasn't worked in many years, he had no expectation of repayment.     Grandpa, who has been supporting his useless daughter  is not going to pay any of this money, and that nasty smirk on his face is revolting.    The ex-wife's smirk is revolting also.   Ex-wife also got $3k from the insurance for the heroin car the daughter wrecked.      

The wife’s father is a buttinsky, and shouldn’t have been allowed to talk in court.   He’s been enabling his daughter and her daughters for 20 years.

My view is the 20 year old is not a child, and the plaintiff shouldn’t have agreed to have a private attorney.   Once the litigants decided to get a $10,000 attorney, then my view is the ex-wife was never going pay a penny, so plaintiff had no expectation of payment.      Is this wild and woolly cases in Idaho week?   Defendant still doesn’t believe her daughter is a criminal, and belongs in prison.  

Plaintiff loses.

(This case may be a little disjointed, we had a pop-up storm that brewed a couple of funnel clouds a couple of miles away, and the funnels touched down very briefly, and so far, no reports of damage or injuries.  So I went in my safe room for a few minutes).

Second (2018)-

Widower with Special Needs Child -Plaintiff /father Noah Schmidt of child is suing defendant/former nanny, Jacqueline Mendez  for a $5,000 credit card debt.     Plaintiff’s new wife, who is pregnant, won’t shut up, and gets booted out of court.     Plaintiff’s ex-wife left town after he had full custody of his son, after son’s mother died.     So, I guess the new wife is at least #3.     Plaintiff pays about 1/3 of his salary for caregivers for son.    After defendant left plaintiff’s employ, he alleges that she used his emergency credit card for $5,000.   

Defendant claims plaintiff owes her unpaid wages.    After defendant claims the $5,000 was unpaid wages, and she was also his girlfriend for a while, the plaintiff’s knocked up recent wife # 3 at least starts laughing, and gets booted from court.  

Both litigants names were on the credit card, but plaintiff claims he didn’t know about the credit card charges.    When the card went into collections, plaintiff has been paying the charges, plus collections, and fees.

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

I Only Smoke Pot Now! -Plaintiff Nancy Bruno suing defendant Chad Freeman, her daughter’s ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan to buy a car.    Both daughter and defendant lived together for almost 18 months, and during that time they got sober.    Defendant says since 2006, he only smokes pot, no other drugs or booze.   Defendant also has six kids, none with plaintiff’s daughter.

Car loan was $1820, while defendant was living with plaintiff’s daughter, they were together for about five months after the car loan.     Plaintiff is still owed $1820 by defendant.  Defendant thinks that because he has six kids, that he shouldn’t have to pay the plaintiff back.

$1820 to plaintiff for the car loan.

5 p.m. reruns-

First -

Ungrateful Ex-Girlfriend?! (2021) -Plaintiff /ex-boyfriend Wesley Sinnathamby suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Catalina Baeza for parking tickets, and car damage insurance deductibles.   Litigants were dating, defendant needed a car, no credit, loan was all in plaintiff's name, and registration.   Then, they broke up, and defendant took car on the condition she would pay insurance, and registration on the car.    Car dealer wouldn't even put defendant's name on title, loan or anything else. 

Plaintiff took the car back (repo), with the help of law enforcement, after two years of making only a few payments, and making some insurance payments.   Defendant racked up some traffic tickets.   JJ tells plaintiff to sell the car, to get his money back.   

Plaintiff can't re-register the car unless he pays the tickets off.   However, plaintiff says the car has damages, and tickets were while defendant was driving the car.   JJ tells plaintiff to sell the car, and then sue defendant for the shortfall on the car sale price.    Insurance company called plaintiff about repeated claims. 

JJ will consider the parking tickets, which are in several jurisdictions in the L.A. area.   Plaintiff had to pay the tickets to get the car re-registered to sell the car.   Deductibles on body work on the car will cost plaintiff $3,000.

Is defendant auditioning for something?   She keeps sticking her chest out in the camera shot.  

Plaintiff receives $783 for the parking tickets.

Porched Possessions Upset (2014) -Plaintiff Sonya Lovejoy suing defendant Randy Ward over possessions stored in a trailer defendant owns.    When they separated, and plaintiff moved to Idaho, defendant told her that he was selling the trailer, and gave her a time to get the stuff out of the trailer (he only gave her three days).   

JJ is upset that defendant didn't give plaintiff more time, but she had moved to Idaho six months before this happened.  Defendant says 7 or 8 boxes, but plaintiff claims a dining table set, big screen TV.  

Defendant lives four hours away from where the trailer was, and put the stuff out on the porch, and when plaintiff and movers showed up to get the stuff it was gone. 

JJ is accusing defendant of trashing plaintiff's stuff, and lying about storing it.   I think the amount of stuff plaintiff is claiming is greatly exaggerated.   She also left the stuff for six months.   How long does JJ think you should store junk for someone?   Another reason why I store nothing for anyone.   

$2,000 to plaintiff.

Second (2015)-

Home Invasion or Rent Evasion -Plaintiff/tenant Lori Coates is suing defendant/former landlord Paul Velasquez, for missing property, illegal eviction, damaged property, and return of security deposit.   after she claims defendant broke into her room and stole her property.   Defendant landlord claims plaintiff skipped out, owing rent.  

Plaintiff hadn’t paid rent for two months when landlord broke into his own house, and packed up plaintiff’s stuff.     Plaintiff moved into the house with her daughter, rented with a man named Morris, rented out another bedroom, and they split the security deposit.    When plaintiff’s daughter moved out, another tenant moved in.      Plaintiff hadn’t paid rent for the last two months, $800, because she was between jobs.   Another tenant also didn’t pay rent at the end of the tenancy too.    

JJ wants to know how much security deposit plaintiff paid $1150, out of $2200 total.     There were four people on the first lease, but only plaintiff and first roommate paid the security deposit, 50/50.  

Plaintiff claims defendant and witness crawled into her room through a window, and stole her stuff.   However, she was behind two months rent, had no contact with the landlord, and landlord thought she abandoned the place. 

Plaintiff receives $550 from her original security deposit.  

Plaintiff claims defendant climbed into the window, but she hadn’t paid rent for two months.   Plaintiff alleges there were a lot of stolen, or damaged items from her room.      Plaintiff says defendant loaded all of her stuff on a truck, and dropped it off at her house-sitting job.   

Manuel Velazquez helped defendant pack the room up.   The room was trashed, but it was by the plaintiff.  Landlord took pictures of room, and stuff before he packed the room up, and it was a mess.

Plaintiff’s $550 from security deposit, and $100 for TV, so $650.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Assault Rifle Misfire-Plaintiff Michael Wilson hired defendant Robin Pruetzel  to be his mother's caregiver, and during plaintiff's absence (for several months).    Defendant would live rent free, and take care of mother while living in the home full time.    Plaintiff suing for property damage by defendant.   Defendant claims to be a registered nurse, but does not have a license, and works as a home health aide.   

 Damages include shooting of TV, and wall by defendant and her drunken friends.  All of the guns were secured in a cabinet, and in his locked bedroom.     Plaintiff's stepson came by the house to check on it, in February, and saw gun cabinet was broken open, defendant's clothes were in the master bedroom (it was supposed to be kept locked).      Defendant asked about cabinet and TV, and blames it on the Airbnb guests (apparently the plaintiff also has an Airbnb in part of the house).   

JJ asks defendant and witness if they didn’t call the police because they were drunk or drugging?    Plaintiff claims the defendant, and witness were living together in the house, using the master bedroom where the gun cabinet was.

I wouldn't let defendant take care of a Gerbil, let alone a helpless person.   Defendant's witness is a scary as the defendant.     Defendant never called the police, or the homeowner/plaintiff.      (Plaintiff says defendant is a convicted felon twenty times over.   So, he has not heard of a background check before hiring someone to take care of your elderly, ill mother, and giving them access to your home for six months?)

$4400 to plaintiff. 

Incarcerated Baby Daddy's Big Decision -Plaintiff Cherye Chandler suing her grandson's baby mama /defendant Bridget Buttars for a loan ($1,000) to bail grandson out of jail.    Grandson has one other child with another woman, and all this by 22 years old.     Grandmother is still focusing on the grandchildren, and how she doesn't see them, but that’s not JJ's issue to hear or decide.     Plaintiff took a title loan out on her car to get the money for grandson's bail.       

Defendant says she talked to the other baby mama, not the grandmother.    How lovely, the grandmother lives in my state, and the rest of them do too.  Grandson has moved on to a third girlfriend now.  The grandson is out of jail, and not with defendant, or the other baby mama.

Case dismissed.  

Second (2018)-

Buyer’s Remorse -Plaintiff Kylee Stroud suing defendants Desirae Whisnant and Anastasia Whisnant  (sisters)  for slander, and for a phone plaintiff bought, and then defendant had plaintiff’s old phone.  Sadly, 20-year-old plaintiff is pregnant.   

Defendant claims plaintiff gave her the old phone, but plaintiff says she sold older phone to defendant, and defendant didn’t make payments.   The older phone was an $800 iPhone 8+.      Plaintiff also transferred an Apple watch to defendant.   Just as JJ says, there’s some kind of scam going on with all of the purchases, and returns and transfers.    Defendant says plaintiff co-signed for a boyfriend’s car.

$577 to plaintiff, defendant counter claims dismissed.  

Don’t Embarrass Yourself -Plaintiff Vicki Hinchley (car owner/mother), and Matthew Hinchley (son/driver) are suing defendant Leslie Hernandez over defendant hitting plaintiff’s car in a parking lot.  Plaintiff son was driving car when defendant backed into plaintiff’s car while backing into a parking spot.   Plaintiff and defendant go to the same school, was parked when he saw defendant back into the parking space, and hit his car.   Plaintiff son wasn’t even in his car when the accident happened, and unfortunately, they didn’t call Campus Security.    Plaintiff mother tried to contact defendant’s insurance company, but the company offered $200 to plaintiffs, instead of the $2156 plaintiffs say damage would cost to fix.  

Defendant claims plaintiff son hit her car, and slid into the side.   It is impossible, since plaintiff wasn’t driving or even in the car at the time.  Defendant didn’t report the accident to her insurance company, and claims the accident was no big deal.

$ 2156 to plaintiffs.

5 p.m. reruns-

First -

Missing Money Mystery (2021) -Plaintiffs Lisa Stern suing defendant/landlord Robert Amogeda for her security deposit.  Landlord rented a room to plaintiff, security was $795, and says he sent a check to plaintiff for the security.  Check was never cashed.   Plaintiff gave defendant her sister's address to send the security deposit.    

Defendant sent a MoneyGram from Walmart, sent it certified mail to plaintiff's sister's address.   Deborah DiMiceli is plaintiff's sister, and says she never received a check for the sister.   Defendant received notice from the post office that certified mail was delivered to sister's address, but no certification receipt was received by defendant. 

I wonder if post office didn't deliver a non-tenant's mail, or it went to another resident of the apartment building?    MoneyGram was never cashed by plaintiff.   Walmart should be able to tell if MoneyGram was ever cashed.    Plaintiff was only tenant in defendant, and wife's house.   

 Defendant claims plaintiff harassed him, posted flyers with his picture on them around the neighborhood, calling defendant a thief, and saying return my refund.    Defendant case dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $790.

Car-Kicking Tantrum (2014) -Plaintiff/driver Scott and (wife) Mary Mason, both plaintiffs are on car title, are suing defendant, Briana Gomez for a fender bender.   Plaintiff was driving, parked at a parking garage, defendant was driving a rental car, and defendant didn't take a damage waiver.   Defendant claims she was terrified of plaintiff, and plaintiff's little son was there too. 

Defendant was backing into the parking space next to plaintiff's car, and when plaintiff returned to his car there were two notes, one from Santa Monica Police department.  Plaintiff was cited for parking by backing into the parking space.   Defendant also backed into her space, then a passersby told her not to back into the space, or she would get a ticket, so reversed, and parked front way in.     Defendant is counter suing saying plaintiff threw a tantrum, and kicked her car.    

Defendant says plaintiff started screaming filth at her, in front of another police officer.   So how did other police officer, and plaintiff know she was driving a rental, had no insurance, and hit the plaintiff's car?      

Plaintiff receives $1,096.  Defendant claim dismissed. 

Second –

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

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

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

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

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

$5,000 to defendant.   Plaintiff claim dismissed. 

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Jet Ski Fiasco! -Plaintiffs Omar and Christina Rodriguez are suing defendants Lisa and Josh Beckham, for damage to jet skis rented from plaintiffs by defendants.   Defendants and four kids, and eight adults went on vacation, had the jet skis for two weeks, and jet skis were returned with extensive damages.  Defendants claims the jet skis were already damaged when they rented them.   Plaintiff have pictures of the jet skis show no damages when jet ski was first given to defendants.    Defendants’ counter claim that they should get their $1,000+ rental fee back, is dismissed.     Defendants claim they couldn’t use the jet skis, because they used the jet skis during the two weeks.  

Defendants admit to one minor incident, but both jet skis had major damages.   Xavier Bocanegra, defense witness, and went on vacation with defendants with wife, claims he wanted to ‘do the right thing’, and replace the bumpers.  However, defendants claim they only damaged one bumper.  Jet Skis were purchased in 2007, so 11 years old at the time of the case.

$1595 to plaintiff.

Hostile Landlord or Squatting Tenants? -Plaintiffs/former tenants Bianna Eaton, Vanessa Perez, and Laura Mills, are suing defendant/landlord Mathew Garcia for the cost to install locks, moving expenses, security deposits, and harassment.   Ms. Perez has the lease copy, and says lease guarantees they can live there until April, but house was only leased by defendant, and rooms sublet to plaintiffs.     The lease with plaintiffs was only with defendant, who was leasing the house, and not with the owner.   Defendant is counter suing for unpaid rent and utilities.

 When the actual owner told the defendant (who was only renting the property, and subleasing bedrooms), that house was sold, and defendant told the other tenants that they could stay for 30 or 60 days.   

Then, after October, and November all three plaintiffs stopped paying rent.  

One plaintiff says the separate agreement with new owner doesn’t require them to pay rent, and they have lived in residence for months without paying.  Three plaintiffs extorted the new owner to not move out or pay rent until after 1 December.   

Plaintiffs lose their security deposits, for October’s rent. Plaintiff cases dismissed.  $750, $700, and $950 for November’s rent each to defendant, because he paid the rent for the three women.

Second (2018)-

Dog Blinded at Kennel -Plaintiff /boarding kennel owner and dog trainer, Ursula Pettyjohn suing defendant/owner James White of two dogs, for not paying his boarding kennel bills.  While at a boarding kennel, one dog lost an eye.   Defendant bought in two healthy dogs, with a total of four eyes, and when he picked the dogs up, one dog had been mauled and lost an eye.  

Plaintiff witness and kennel employee, Celeste Rodriguez,  found the injured dog, in the two dog’s kennel run.   One dog was a Boston Terrier mix, and the other a Bully mix, and the two dogs were in the same kennel run.    Plaintiff witness Rodriguez says dog owner wanted big dog fed first, and the second dog would eat out of the same bowl when first dog was finished.    That’s the dumbest excuse I’ve ever heard from the kennel personnel.

Lead Me On Boarding Kennel’s contract waives everything that might happen with any boarded animals.    The kennel is in Olympia Washington, not to be confused with a few other kennels with a similar name across the country.    

Vet bills for Boston Terrier are submitted, $3500.    31 December was when plaintiff called the defendant, dog was dropped off 14 December.  Dogs were picked up 4 January by owner.    James White is in the Army, and was kenneled the dogs at least 10 times while he owned both of them, for a total of 68 days.   Instructions from owner say “Separate to Feed”, but plaintiff witness says owner said to feed them out of the same bowl.    Plaintiff’s hall-terview’s excuses are ridiculous, she says boarding a dog and having it come back without an eye is just like a kid getting injured at Soccer camp.  

$3500 for vet bills to defendant.  Plaintiff case dismissed.

Car Beaten with Golf Club -Plaintiff Samantha Stout suing defendant Suellen Pittman for vandalizing plaintiff’s car with a golf club in the middle of the night.   Defendant admits that she was an invited guest at plaintiff’s home that day, but denies plaintiff’s eyewitness statement that plaintiff saw defendant vandalizing her car with the golf club.    

A week before plaintiff and defendant argued, because defendant alleged that plaintiff was dating someone, and that was someone defendant had dated too.    On the night in question, defendant dropped by, knocking on the door at plaintiff’s, and plaintiff’s live-in boyfriend answered the door, (not the same guy plaintiff and defendant were involved with), and plaintiff claims she witnessed defendant vandalizing the car.   Plaintiff claims defendant returned, and vandalized two doors on her house.

Plaintiff’s boyfriend claims he only saw defendant driving away from their house on the second visit, and couldn’t tell who was driving.   On the first visit boyfriend says he didn’t see defendant driving her truck.     

Plaintiff gets paid for car and door damages.

5 p.m. reruns-

First -

Cannabis Yoga Studio (2021) -Plaintiff /tenant Liston Grace suing defendant/landlord Lizbeth Rodriguez for evicting him, and loss of property in a leased space.   Defendant owns a building, and plaintiff claims his buy wholesale, sell retail clothing business (I think t-shirt printing, or printing on other items too), and claims he subleased from the legal tenant of the space.  Defendant never had a lease or payment from the plaintiff.  The building was supposedly rented for a Cannabis Yoga business.   

Defendant says she never received any money from plaintiff, or met him before she saw him in her space.      Plaintiff was directing someone repairing a part of a burned roof (roof is claimed to be burned twice).     Plaintiff says he paid original tenant $2,000. 

When defendant saw him in October, she told him she had rented the space to someone else, and he needed to get out.    A week later defendant changed the locks, with the sheriff's department's help.     Defendant started getting messages from plaintiff, about his stuff.   As JJ says, plaintiff is a squatter, and not a tenant.        Plaintiff says defendant tossed his stuff in the fenced front yard, and he wants his fridge and microwave back. 

Original tenant was for a Cannabis Yoga studio, and they were the original tenant, and code enforcement told defendant to get them out of the building.   Also, plaintiff was living in the 'yoga studio', which is also illegal.   There are photos of plaintiff's stuff inside the 6-foot wrought iron fence around the studio.     Plaintiff put clothing sales items, in storage containers in the driveway for plaintiff to pick up.    

There were two fires on the roof of the building, but no one admits to doing it.  Plaintiff claims he has a security video of two people pouring gas on the roof, and lighting it.  However, video is unavailable.   

Defendant says the fire was caused by illegal electrical hook-ups. 

Defendant case dismissed.    

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Three’s a Crowd (2014) -Plaintiff/roommate Kyle Craig is suing former roommates Evan Towle, and Stephanie McGuigan for their share of damages to their apartment.   They rented the apartment together, split the rent three ways.    Plaintiff moved out months before the end of the lease, after defendants say they asked him to leave, and plaintiff paid his third of the rent through the end of the lease.   Plaintiff said he just left. 

McGuigan/defendant wants to be paid for cleaning the apartment.   The total for damages were $1800, which plaintiff paid the entire amount.   Plaintiff wants $600 each from defendants.    Defendants blame everything on plaintiff, and his drinking.   

$1200 to plaintiff.  

Second –

Undisclosed Death (2021)- Plaintiff/tenant/pastor John Kim suing defendant/leasing agent Kenneth Um for not disclosing a death in the house he rented, fraudulently rented him a house, and plaintiff wants his security deposit back.  Plaintiff claims a burglar stole his paperwork.   Plaintiff claims he paid all of the rent owed, security deposit, and left to do missionary work, and it was a dangerous area.   

Plaintiff found out there was a murder-suicide in the home, and not disclosed by defendant (in California, any unnatural death within three years has to be disclosed to prospective buyer, or tenant).      Preacher went to Tuba CIty, AZ for three or four months, but his family of three moved to another home.  Security deposit was $3700, and rent was $3700.  Defendant says he didn't get a rental commission, because plaintiff never paid the security deposit.   Oh no! the "Ate the Steak speech". 

JJ says the 3-year rule is valid in California.   Defendant's fee for renting the house wasn't paid because plaintiff never paid security deposit.    Rent is owing for November and December, $3700 each month.    Plaintiff claims he couldn't get copies of his checks. 

Personally, I would disclose any death in a sale or rental home in three years, and a crime much longer time period than that.    Somebody is always going to know about something, and tell the resident.

Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof. 

Fresh Mouth Takedown! (2014)- Plaintiff Jessica Reyes suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Andrew Gile, for a loan for car repairs.    Plaintiff says defendant needed his car to deliver newspapers, and needed car parts, so plaintiff paid for the parts.    Plaintiff has AutoZone auto parts purchases on her bank account, and separate purchases for tires. 

Defendant just sassed JJ.     I bet Officer Byrd stopped doing his crossword puzzle.  JJ didn't take sass from defendant very well. 

Plaintiff receives the car repair bills. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Brother From Another Planet-Plaintiff/sister Mary Gay suing defendant / brother Leroy Jackson for car damages, but the brother claims that sister was driving.    Of course, brother shouldn't have been driving, no license, and car had no insurance.    Plaintiff is suing brother for car damages, and claims brother spray painted the damage.    Defendant didn't even use Bondo, and spray paint, just spray paint.    Defendant seems very impaired in court, and can barely keep his eyes open.   I keep waiting for him to topple over, it's very sad.   Brother kept asking sister to use her car, and sister kept saying no, and claims sister would drive him to the store.   Brother claims sister was driving when she hit a pole.     Driver's door was so dented it wouldn't open, so driver had to crawl over the seat to get in and out of the car.   

Sister/plaintiff says she let brother drive the car to the store, and he damaged it by hitting a pole.    Plaintiff can't open the car door, and she's still crawling over the seats to get in and out.    Plaintiff says brother still had insurance from his repo. car, because it was the same month his car was repo'd (no, it really doesn't make sense).    Plaintiff's car was uninsured at the time of the accident, because she's a Sainted Single Mother, and can't afford insurance.   I bet the reason the brother was on the hook is because plaintiff thought his insurance would pay for her car.     

Since plaintiff seems to know so much about repo cars, and insurance coverage continuing through the month, then I suspect have a repo vehicle is not new in the family.

When JJ tells plaintiff that she shouldn’t have let her brother drive, and JJ wouldn’t trust him to drive a tricycle, the brother looks very hurt.

Plaintiff does not have clean hands, so case dismissed.        Plaintiff stomps out of court, and I really enjoyed that.   

World's Worst First Date-Plaintiff Jillian Lumbert suing former date/defendant Tyson Moorefield for the remainder of her car loan, after defendant totaled her car on their one and only date.    Car had gap insurance, but gap insurance didn't cover the car because the initial traffic ticket was reckless driving, and downgraded to inattentive driving.  GEICO declined to pay the gap insurance even though it wasn’t a criminal conviction.    This all happened in December of 2016, so she waited three years to come to court.    GEICO didn't pay because of dishonest, criminal, illegal or intentional act, which is their right.    GEICO doesn't owe any money to plaintiff.   

Since defendant plead guilty, he owes plaintiff $2700.    $2700 to plaintiff. 

Second (2018)-

Dog Trainer Travesty -Plaintiff/dog trainer Russel Avison suing defendant/dog owner Min Zhao for dog training fees, when she stopped payment on a check she paid him with.    Dog is Australian Shepherd/ Husky Mix (or something like that), and probably isn’t very trainable without extensive work with a trainer, and cooperation from the owner.     Owner went to plaintiff’s community center six week dog training class, and called plaintiff to come to her home for a private lesson with dog. 

Rate for a private lesson for 1 visit, for up to 1 ½ hours, was $179, and defendant paid by check on Friday.  Then, on Sunday evening defendant stopped payment on the check.   Defendant actually thought that a 90 minute session with a dog trainer was going to fix her dog.  

Defendant doesn’t even want the recommendations from plaintiff.   

$179 to plaintiff.     

Personalized Engagement Ring Payback? -Plaintiff Carey Peterka suing defendant /former fiance, or maybe not fiance, Marcus Bennison, wants money back for engagement rings.   Defendant says he wasn’t engaged to the plaintiff.   Plaintiff no longer has ring, but has a photo of the ring.

Plaintiff claims the rings were custom made, and engagement rings, but says she first wanted promise bracelets.     Defendant claims he wanted a custom chain fixed, and plaintiff went with him, and wanted a ring made with each of their names on it.

There’s some garbage about fixing a tow truck for defendant to drive, and I don’t care about it at all.  Plaintiff spent $3517 to fix the tow truck for defendant.     Defendant claims plaintiff broke in a vandalized his rental house, and didn't even call the police.  

Plaintiff receives $3517. 

5 p.m. reruns-

First -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second –

You’re Giving Me a Heart Attack! (2021) --Plaintiffs Beverly Stanley and Keri Wahwassuck suing defendant Martha Hooper, were renters of a 4-bedroom house.   Keri's daughter lived there too.   Martha and the daughter didn't get along, and defendant was living in her RV, or with other relatives.   In a couple of months lease expires, and Keri will move on, and Beverly will too.  Martha already left, and is being sued for her portion of the rent after she left.    

Martha and Beverly had an argument, and Martha said she was leaving.   Martha and Beverly argued often.   Their first argument was over Bev's shower curtain, and then over cabinet space in the kitchen.   Martha says her heart is failing, and Beverly's harassment was killing her. 

Martha claims as she was packing, Beverly said her grandson would be moving in.   Otherwise, defendant owes for $375 for 5 months.  

$1575 to Bev and Keri for the rent.

Daddy’s Good Deed Punished? (2014) -Plaintiff Rick Fugate suing defendant Joshua Smith, (fiance) and Tonya Fugate (plaintiff's daughter) for damages to his RV.   Daughter graduated a year early, and worked full time, and moved out the day she turned 18.     Plaintiff bought an RV to remodel, and sell, for $1500.   Plaintiff let defendants live in the motor home, and he claims they trashed it.   Defendants moved after they say plaintiff unplugged the electricity, and forced them to move.  

They did damage the mattress, and a few other parts of the RV.   Defendant claims the plaintiff slapped her. 

$1100 to plaintiff, defendant claim dismissed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Redneck with a Laser Pointer?! -Plaintiff Skylor Foshee suing defendant Garrett Maddox for ruining her iPhone with a laser pointer.  Plaintiff was doing a Snapchat video, when defendant hit her iPhone with a laser pointer, frying the phone.   (this happened in Hot Springs, AR).    This is the same device that people have used to blind pilots. The laser is stronger than the little red dot type that cats chase. 

Tyler Waters, defense witness owned the laser, but defendant used the laser on the phone.  Plaintiff has the video she was filming when the laser pointer zapped her phone. 

Why is it almost always an iPhone?   To confirm the plaintiff's and defendant's various stories, JJ will make a phone call.   But as JJ points out, witness and litigant should get their stories straight before coming to court.   Defendant claims plaintiff asked him to do a laser show.   There is no proof of either story, and so JJ tells plaintiff to pay for her own phone. 

Plaintiff receives $0 

Engine Blew?  It’s Up to You! -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 (2018)-

Homeless and Helpless?! -Plaintiff Michael Holden suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Lupita Gutierrez for a pool table, and other property, an illegal eviction, and false accusations to police.   Litigants lived together, in defendant's house, and then broke up.      Defendant sold the pool table for $300.   Defendant owns the house, and there was not a written lease with plaintiff.       For once JJ calls a live-in in defendant's house, a guest not a tenant.  Illegal eviction is tossed out.  

Defendant says plaintiff left his bed behind, and two TVs go to plaintiff, plus a lawn mower, BBQ pit, tires with rims, dishes, play station, surround sound speakers, DVDs, and other boxed items go back to plaintiff.    Pool table was sold for $300, and fridge too.    However, defendant was unemployed, and sold the fridge and pool table, but she also paid for the move.   Defendant pays $162 a month for storage, but plaintiff never paid for storage or moving costs.     Defendant lost the house to foreclosure

JJ wants to know when plaintiff sent a letter, or text requesting his property back?   He filed the suit eight months later, and defendant says his first request for his property was four months after the split, and the move.         He actually says defendant should have paid all of the storage and moving bills, and keep his stuff for him.

Plaintiff has five days to pick up the storage items, with a marshal standby.   Anything plaintiff doesn't pick up after five days, is considered abandoned.    Defendant rent is dismissed too, no lease (or else the illegal eviction would come into play).  Defendant isn't getting paid for anything either.  

Deceased Father’s Debt Drama! –Plaintiff/brother David Meraz is suing defendant/niece Christina Roman for a loan plaintiff made to his late brother/defendant's father, to pay defendant's father's property taxes.    Defendant is executor of her father's estate, and claims father paid plaintiff the debt back, $3923.     Defendant has to show the proof of $3900 payments to JJ.   Defendant claims uncle/plaintiff repaid himself the loan, and he says $219 each for 14 payments.  

JJ adds it up, and says plaintiff is fully paid.  Plaintiff case dismissed.

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Father and Son Brawl! -Plaintiff Katherine and Benjamin Fuentes (husband and wife, woman is sister to defendant and daughter of Cesar Sr.) father Cesar Cuevas Sr, are suing defendant son Cesar Cuevas Jr. over an assault, and truck damage to Benjamin's truck.    They were all living in the same house (except the husband).  Katherine says brother only came to visit, didn't have a room in the home.    There are three daughters living in the house, each girl had her own room, and defendant slept on the couch sometimes.

Father testifies daughter Katherine, and son were fighting in the kitchen.  Father says son was chasing the daughter around the house.   Then son was fighting the father next.   Son stays with his girlfriend/baby mama sometimes.   Son says sister was hostile to him.  Son claims he never chased the sister, but claims father attacked him.  Son claims he hit a glass, and sister claims he was throwing stuff at her.   When son left, sister claims he bashed her truck, and son admits grazing the truck leaving.   Son plead guilty to vandalism on husband's truck, but restitution was dismissed.  Son was in jail for 10 days after this.   

Plaintiff daughter is the driving force, and you can tell she wants anything she can get against the brother.    Father doesn't want anything for the assault, and to me it sounds like mutual combat.  

Plaintiff Benjamin Fuentes claims truck cost $15000 to fix, and his insurance company paid that, minus the deductible.  He also claims damages to personal property, and that 'personal property' is the truck,   

How convenient that princess plaintiff has a video of everything.   Does she video everything in her life?   My guess is she does, and I bet she sends out her fascinating video so everyone can see what a great influencer she is.    

I doubt everything plaintiff Katherine said about her brother.   Brother Cesar Jr. was composed, and totally calm in court, and that was with sister/plaintiff baiting him in court.

$1,000 to plaintiff for the deductible to plaintiff Benjamin Fuentes.

Second-

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

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

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

$499 to plaintiff. 

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

I Want My Mongrel Puppy- Plaintiff Jeannette Plenzick suing defendant Cassandra Lipsey for $3230, for hotel fees, boarding fees, and vet bills.  Two women fighting over a puppy from an accidental breeding of a Husky and a Pit Bull.  Two litigants moved in together, each had an unspayed (5 year old) Husky (defendant's dog)/ unneutered (6 month old) Pit Bull dog (plaintiff's dog), and a breeding occurred.       Plaintiff claims defendant sold one puppy, and plaintiff wants the money.    The two women argued, plaintiff moved out, and plaintiff wants hotel, and boarding fees.    Plaintiff also wants either one puppy, or the value of the puppy.    There was no verbal or written contract.  

Plaintiff’s witness’s hair color is from the Bozo the Clown hair color collection, not a good look.

Someone wanted to pay $1,000 for one of these puppies!    I don't believe it.   Counter claim for defendant is vet bills.     

Case dismissed because all of the litigants, and witness are idiots.  So, Officer Byrd boots both litigants, and their cast of witnesses.

How Not to Write a Contract-Plaintiff/homeowner Emad Sedlek suing for return of money he paid defendant/handyman Charles Headley (Bubba’s Handyman by Charles is the name of the company) to paint the inside of his home.   Signed contract is a generic one off of the internet.   

The defendant didn't bring the Statement of Work to court.    I guess he thought he was going to a Tea Dance.      Plaintiff claims defendant never finished the paint job.  Plaintiff says defendant moved living room furniture into the dining room, cut trim for one room, and that's about it.   

$1500 for plaintiff.  

Second (2018)-

Black Mold Mess!-Plaintiffs Carly Lobdell, and Alexandra Tabetznick, are suing former roommates Tori Laugle, and Logan Peil, for breaking the lease on the apartment, which was $2580 a month for a two bedroom, unpaid money for furniture, and lease breaking fees.   Apartment complex put all of them up in a hotel to remove the mold, for black mold, dust, and dirt. 

Defendants said they were signed off of the lease by the apartment complex, but they moved out on the 31st of the month.  However, plaintiffs still had to pay the full rent, formerly paid by the four tenants.    Defendants left the plaintiffs on the hook for April's rent, but claim they put online ads for a new roommate, or roommates.   This was filmed in May, and no new roommate yet.    However, how could they get another roommate with the issues going on?

Defendants claim they found another roommate, but no one has moved in yet. Defendant woman found another roommate, but plaintiffs didn’t want that person.    I wish the one plaintiff would stop scratching, or whatever she’s doing, it’s making me itchy.     Defendants are counter claiming for harassment for their portion of the rent for April, which is dismissed. 

$1250 for rent to plaintiffs.  

Grocery Store Romance Sours-Plaintiff Felicia Novoa suing former girlfriend/defendant Alicia Hufnagel for $1500 for a car loan.    Defendant says until they broke up that it wasn't a loan.      However, plaintiff never pressed for payment, or set up a payment schedule.  Defendant did pay $300 to plaintiff, so it's a loan, but then plaintiff included the $300 in the car loan.  

Plaintiff and defendant talked, and plaintiff gave the $300 back to pay her bills, so that wasn’t on the car loan. 

$1,500 to plaintiff.

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Daycare Trauma – Plaintiffs Anna and Michael Bean suing defendant/daycare owner Valeri Clark for ruining their credit, car repairs, and for daycare money back.   Parents are accusing daycare provider of ruining their credit, and car damages.   Provider is suing for defamation of character, attorney fees,  and breach of contract. 

Car note was $390, and daycare was $460, and defendant would be driving the plaintiff's car or buying the car, and paying the car note, and not charging for daycare.   A few months later the plaintiff took child from the daycare, and they were notified by lender car was in default.  It was plaintiff's responsibility to pay the car note.  Plaintiffs have the car back.    

There was a blown out tire, a bumper issue and spray paint on part of the car body, and that will cost $350.   Plaintiffs claim defendant dumped their infant at other daycare locations, and claim child was cold (this was in August).     However, other daycare location is plaintiff's other home location.   Also, plaintiff's wife's friend worked at the second location. Defendant said that there were too many kids dropped off at the usual daycare location, so baby was taken to other location where there were more providers.    After this, baby was at the daycare for two more months.   

Anna Bean, and her friend who worked at the other facility, started their own licensed daycare facility (this was in Utah).    Plaintiff didn't start the courses until after she took child out of daycare, the daycare was in her house basement.   Utah only required a few three-hour online courses, and get a kitchen and fire department inspection from authorities. 

Then, plaintiff called and filed a CPS complaint (plaintiff wife denies she's the complainant, or knows who is. This is Bull pucky in my opinion). There are social media postings by plaintiff wife saying she reported actual violations to the state, and she was lying.  This was after she got her daycare license, and was a competitor to defendant.   Plaintiff wife is glaring at JJ, which really irritates me.   (This case is when JJ finally realized the devastation that online postings can cause to a business, and a person’s reputation).

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant receives $5,000.  (This means the entire award money goes to defendant, and plaintiffs receive nothing).

Second -

Don’t Date My Ex-Wife?! (2021) -Plaintiff Timothy McCarter is suing defendant, Paul Frutiger, for harassment, loss of his job, and a false CPS report.   Plaintiff's ex-girlfriend is mother of defendant's child, they have a 3 year-old child together.   Defendant admits to calling CPS, and denies contacting plaintiff's work place.   There is a court custody, and visitation in place.    Primary physical custody, is defendant's, but they are going back to court soon over custody.   

After the CPS complaint, plaintiff was told by CPS to move out or child couldn't stay with mother (she was living with plaintiff).    So, plaintiff left after the CPS report, and moved back to Escondido.    Plaintiff claims defendant caused him to lose his job.  

Court ordered that child could no longer have contact with plaintiff.   As JJ says, there is no requirement that CPS interview plaintiff, but they must have had a reason to keep plaintiff away from the child.  False CPS complaint is tossed by JJ.

Plaintiff was working at a nursing home for 8 months, and then fired.   Plaintiff claims he was never tested dirty on the drug test, which JJ keeps asking about.   Plaintiff signed the separation agreement at his last job, and then was terminated shortly after.  Plaintiff’s previous nursing job was in Sacramento.   Plaintiff was terminated in late December by nursing home, but court order was issued a week earlier, and plaintiff stayed at child's mother's place for another month.   This job was plaintiff's second at a nursing home in San Diego in less than two years.     

Defendant denies he ever contacted the plaintiff's employer.  Plaintiff submits defendant's 'manifesto', which are notes to himself, so how did plaintiff get this?   Also, defendant claims that plaintiff only admitted to two nursing home jobs he had, that were in San Diego, and he was terminated from.   Defendant starts to say something about another job plaintiff had in Sacramento, across the street from... and JJ stops the testimony (I wish JJ had let the defendant blurt out what was interesting about the Escondido job).    However, defendant was formerly at a job in Escondido, that he doesn’t list on his resume.

Plaintiff claims he's going to get an attorney, and sue for visitation with a child that he's not biologically related to, and he wasn't married to the ex-girlfriend.  Plaintiff will never get visitation with an ex-girlfriend's kid, that's not ever going to happen.   I know people who were stepparents to kids for years, no visitation after divorce unless the ex wants it, and plaintiff and child’s mother weren’t married.    

Plaintiff's case dismissed. 

Maltipoo Attack! (2014) -Plaintiff Toni Carranza suing Mara Foley, defendant over defendant's white dog  a Maltipoo, biting plaintiff.  However, defendant admits the plaintiff was bitten, but claims it was the brown or black small dog that bit, and not the white Maltipoo that plaintiff says it was.   Why is my guess that the white dog would chomp anyone near her, and the other dog is in court because it's not vicious.        Plaintiff was walking across the street to her car, when defendant's dog ran out from the house, and bit plaintiff on both ankles, one after the other.     Why does defendant claim the brown dog bit plaintiff, when plaintiff says it was the white dog?   My guess is Maltipoo has a record with Animal Control.  

Defendant came out of the house, retrieved her dogs, and asked if plaintiff was bitten.   Defendant claims her dogs have their shots.    When plaintiff got home, her leg started bothering her, and she didn't go to the doctor, because she doesn't have insurance.   Defendant refused to communicate with plaintiff about the injury.   Plaintiff reported the dog bite to animal control.

Defendant claims plaintiff was chasing her dogs, stomped on the white dog's tail, (what garbage that is).  

Defendant claims her dog would be put down if it bites another person (why do I guess that Maltipoo has a bite history, besides this incident?), and expects sympathy for that.   Defendant claims plaintiff getting bitten has hurt her family.  

Plaintiff receives $1500.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Crazy Reminder from Landlord-Plaintiffs/former tenants Justin Everett, and girlfriend Melissa Maloney are suing former landlord/defendant Jeffrey Sonsthagen for return of rent, illegal eviction, and other garbage.   Is there a time tunnel from Haight-Ashbury to Judge Judy's courtroom? The plaintiffs look like it.    What a couple of losers the plaintiffs are.   I bet his family is so sick of that loser, and now his girlfriend, showing up at their door every time they get evicted. 

I love how he was supposed to buy a relative's trailer, squatted there for 17 months, and then got the boot when he never paid a cent in rent/purchase, but paid lot rent.   Then, the plaintiffs moved into the defendant's house (rented a room).      They didn't pay for two months, before they were evicted.   Rent was $500 a month.  

What was on that woman's head, a poodle?    Shampoo is cheap, she should get some.    I love Judge Judy saying to get rid of their left behind junk.   Not paying for two months makes them professional squatters, right?    Plaintiffs claim the landlord kept turning their electric power on and off, as a hint to pay their rent.      Plaintiffs moved on 1 May, after not paying rent for two months, after defendant kept cutting their electric power on and off.

  Rent was overdue, so plaintiff tried leaving $50 cash on the landlord’s car weighted down with a rock ($1,000 was due).    Plaintiff's claim the defendant stole their window air conditioner.   Defendant says plaintiff’s junk is still at his home, and JJ says to throw it out. 

Plaintiff receives $0, defendant receives $0

Judge Judy Learns What a Slim Jim Is   -Plaintiff/meat buyer Rocky Hegwood is suing former butcher shop owner/defendant Clayton Emillienburg for $700 he claims he paid for beef sticks, and other meat, but you can't resell any of it commercially.   Meat is not USDA approved, so can’t be sold commercially.    What on this earth would someone do with 700 lbs. of summer sausage, and beef sticks if they can't resell them?  And if they had no place to store it?   What a lovely Christmas presents the plaintiff must give, inedible meat. I wonder if the people he gave the meat to survived?   

Plaintiff wasn't even dealing with the original owner after August, and what a loon the plaintiff is.   So, plaintiff is suing the old owner, who didn’t own the store, or the stock after August.   

I think that someone needs to go to Slim Jim rehab.     

I love the hall-terview by plaintiff (who had nowhere to store the meat), "If I knew they were getting rid of it I would have picked it up", and stored it where?  I have a vision of him picking it up, throwing it in the back of his pickup truck, and having flocks of vultures following him.   Plaintiff picked up some of the meat, has no proof of how much, and still wants the entire $700 back?   (They cut this out of the hall-terview now).

(My mother could be locked in a room, have only Slim Jim sticks to eat, and she would starve.  However,  she will eat pork roll.   Don't google it, that stuff is too disgusting to know what it is.    Some people never eat beef sticks, because they're worried about the interesting ingredients, I guess.    I once saw beef lips as an ingredient on a package of a beef stick, so I'm not fond of them either)

Case dismissed. 

Second (2018)-

When Pink Floyd Albums Attack?   - Plaintiff Kathi Weaver suing former landlord Edmund Scallion over her illegal eviction, a false restraining order, and the loss of her Pink Floyd Album, and other property.  Plaintiff moved into the room at the defendant's house, for $950 a month rent.    Plaintiff’s husband had a stroke, and moved into a nearby care home. 

Evicted after 19 days?   That's not even a record for this show.    Plaintiff certainly looks like a potential bunny boiler, doesn't she?     This woman is exactly why I would never have a roommate from Craigslist.      Defendant says they want extra money for rent, but also his family enjoys meeting compatible people (no, I didn’t make that up).  Defendant wife says another tenant has lived in their home for four years.

Plaintiff says the altercation, and argument started over defendant not returning her Pink Floyd album, that she claims she loaned to defendant.   Defendant says plaintiff gave the album to him, and he sold the album at a garage sale.   Plaintiff says defendant shoved her into a wall, but defendant called the police.   Then the police showed, and the TRO was given to defendant.  

Then, after the landlord got a temporary restraining order they had to stay five feet apart, then the police showed up because she violated the order.   The plaintiff scares me.    She was chewed on by a police puppy, after the landlord got a restraining order, and the litigants had to stay five feet apart, and the police showed up because she violated the order.  There was a temporary protective order that both litigants would stay 5 feet away from each other.   So, the woman plaintiff claims homeowner stole her Pink Floyd album, pushed her, then the landlord called the police.

The second police visit was the violation of the TRO, when the police broke her door in, sent the police dog in to root the plaintiff out.  I wish I could get the body cam video of the police rooting her out of her room, and the police dog going after her. (I swear I saw the video of this situation on the old Cops show, or something similar, with the dog rousting her out).      I love a good police dog biting video, with appropriate screaming and crying by the perp. 

The final protective order hearing was after plaintiff moved out, and neither litigant showed up for the protective order hearing, so it was dropped.  

Defendant says the police asked him to watch her dog, until she could come back and get the dog, that was when she tried to break down the front door of defendant’s house, took her dog, and left. 

After the plaintiff moved out, she got arrested again with her dog in the car (for other warrants?), after she tried to break in the house.   Poor dog disappeared, and I guess went to animal control, so I hope it has a nice owner now. 

 And she was in jail for five months, she claims it was for missing a couple of court dates for trespassing on other property, so that's trying to be a squatter I guess?   Does five months in jail for missing a couple of court dates seem a lot?        Kind of forgot to mention that stay in jail, didn't she?

Defendant says his family was renting the home, and when homeowner found out about 10 police cars, restraining orders, doors breaking down, etc.  he evicted the defendants and family.   The two long term roommates who lived with defendants moved also. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant counter claim for damaged property is dismissed because it's over a year old. 

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Tragic Family Breakdown -Plaintiff/ daughter Grace Honeycutt (19 years old) suing defendant father Lawrence Honeycutt over a car title.     At the end, father says when he signs the title to daughter, that he no longer has a family.   Defendant separated from ex-wife in 2017, divorced in 2019, daughter lived with her mother.      Plaintiff is a horse trainer, and no longer works for defendant father.      Plaintiff had two horses, in father's name, and she wanted them signed over to her, and a car also.   Defendant signed horses over to daughter when she turned 18. 

  Car was purchased by defendant father, and daughter wants defendant to sign title over to her.   Title was originally in daughter, her mother, and father's name.    Mother signed title when daughter turned 18.    Mother was SAHM, and plaintiff mother purchased the car from her own money, out of joint funds.    

Defendant father looks very upset over the car financing issue.   Plaintiff claims father's car was sold for $28,500 (a van owned by father's business), and daughter’s car was purchased from joint account from father's business.     Mother gets alimony from % of income from ex-husband's business.    Daughter / plaintiff lies like a rug, about money from van going into mother's account in lieu of alimony, and mother bought car for $5500 from that account. (Hope that's accurate, it's damn confusing.   Daughter claims father punched her in the chest too.  

They paid everything off, that's why the ex-husband gave the money to the ex-wife after he sold the van.  They paid the van note off, some credit cards for the business, and personal credit, and bought the car.   The ex-wife still had $10k left

Defendant signs title over to daughter, and says car was bought from the business account, and daughter was supposed to pay him back with interest.    Then, mother and daughter didn't want to pay interest, or for the car purchase amount.   There is about $14000 after van payoff, car purchase, credit cards, and $10k remainder was given to plaintiff mother.    Defendant has to pay half his income for younger child's support $1,000 including medical insurance, and he's current in the child support. 

 Plaintiff mother says defendant never gave her $10k, but $21k went into her account, to pay the credit cards, debts, and buy the car.  Plus, child support for the other kid is $600 a month, plus $400 for medical insurance, and defendant is up to date on that.    Even with SAHM (or dads) the court don't do long term alimony anymore, they do it for a while so the person can get more training, or work on getting a job, but it's usually not forever the way it used to be.   

The ex-wife also has the house too.   I don't see the defendant as a bad guy, but I can see the daughter, and ex-wife are out for all they can get.   

Defendant father is very emotional about the daughter suing him, and states that when he signs the title, that it's the end of his relationship with daughter. He says, "when I sign this, she's lost a dad".   I bet she doesn't care either.    I believe the father, because I’ve seen too many people who try to use their kids as pawns in the divorce, and the mother is just to smug, and enjoying this case too much.

 The daughter was supposed to pay him back for the car, but didn't, and the relatives were mad he wanted interest too.    He was more than fair with the ex, and I see the ex, and her daughter as a matched set.     I bet when the mother, or daughter needs money, then they'll want to get back to the father then.     

Daughter not only has the title, but wants to submit more evidence.    JJ tells defendant to sign the title.  Note to daughter, "crying", and actually producing tears is a lot more effective, than just faking it.     

Plaintiff gets title signed, and I hope she's happy.  (When this originally aired, we were split between people who saw the father as vindictive, and the mother and daughter as vindictive.   I was on the father’s side, who seemed to be more than fair with the money split with the ex, and the daughter).

Second –

Drinking, Driving and Vandalizing?! (2021) -Plaintiff Daniela Rodriguez suing defendant Elmer Bonilla (he's plaintiff's live-in boyfriend's former friend), for keying her car.    Defendant was so drunk the night of the party that he doesn't remember anything about that night.   Plaintiff claims defendant keyed her car.   Plaintiff and boyfriend were having a party, defendant went to the party at plaintiff's home.    Defendant got there about midnight, left at 2:00 or 2:30 a.m. after an argument with plaintiff.     When defendant was leaving, he fell down the house stairs, and that's all he remembers about that night. 

Plaintiff shows photo of car scratch.  Car is a brand new 2021, plaintiff hasn't even made the first payment on the car. 

Plaintiff receives $1,300 for the damages.  (As JJ says if it was a bigger amount, she would say use the car insurance, but plaintiff's deductible is $1,000, and her insurance would go up). 

Breast Cancer Faker (2013) -Plaintiff Krystal Lopez suing defendant Julia Alamillo over money plaintiff loaned and gave defendant for her cancer diagnosis.   Defendant never had cancer, and plaintiff gave her a total of $8,000.    Plaintiff says defendant told her that she had breast cancer, would need surgery, chemo, and needed money to pay for her medical treatment.    Defendant claims she found a lump, that had a sonogram (ultrasound). 

(the next commercial right after this case introduction is for a drug to treat metastatic Breast Cancer, how ironic). 

 JJ asks defendant if she was diagnosed with cancer, or ever was treated for cancer, defendant finally says no.  Defendant has absolutely no shame.   Defendant claims plaintiff kept gifting her money.   When defendant started lying to plaintiff, she already had the sonogram results, and there were no further tests.    Defendant stole $8,000 from plaintiff.   Plaintiff says defendant had a walker, an IV in her arm (gauze wrapped around her hand), and went to Vegas.   (OK, my guess from my medical knowledge from watching Grey's, ER, etc. is defendant had lumpy breasts).    Plaintiff claims defendant also slept with her husband, and that ended her marriage when plaintiff found out. 

$5,000 to plaintiff, meaning grifter defendant loses $3,000. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[khyber]

Wow, that Julia Alamillo  was a piece of work.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Marijuana House Rules-Plaintiff Paola Lopez-Olivo suing former roommate/defendant Lissette Fajardo  for moving out early, return of security deposit, and stolen property.    Defendant says plaintiff smoked weed whenever she wanted, and refused to limit her smoking of weed even when defendant's father was visiting.   Defendant also says plaintiff gave her seedy boyfriend a key, and he came into the apartment any time he wanted to.   Plaintiff gets very little money.   

Plaintiff had been living with her 9 year-old daughter, at her mother’s home, where she was kicked out.  Then moved in with defendant at defendant’s mother’s place, and then to their own apartment.  Plaintiff was a roommate, but hadn’t signed the lease. 

Plaintiff denies boyfriend had a key and let himself into the apartment at least five times, but defendant says that plaintiff is lying. 

The poor defendant certainly picked the wrong roommate, and she needs another hair dresser.     I want a video of the fight over the missing items.    The argument started over boyfriend, and plaintiff hit defendant in the head with a speaker, and defendant called police. 

 How does someone who has a 9-year-old, can't get their own apartment, and apparently buys tons of weed, still afford to buy super expensive face cream?     Her ex definitely had his own key, and stayed there a lot, and sounds like a lovely person for a jerk.   The woman over the defendant's left shoulder certainly had the world's biggest pout today.    

Defendant says plaintiff paid the security deposit, and defendant paid her half back.  Rent was $2225, and half was $1190.   Plaintiff wants money for moving expenses, last month’s rent, and the security deposit back.    Moving expenses are tossed.   Plaintiff wants half of April’s rent, $600, and security.    Defendant wants her emergency room bill after the assault.  Part of assault reason was plaintiff had stuff missing out of her room, right after boyfriend was in room alone, including Chanel moisturizers, and Lululemon pants.   Assault was with a heavy Bose speaker.   Plaintiff asked defendant about the lost property, grabbed the defendant’s speaker, and plaintiff said she would return the speaker when her property came back.    Then, defendant was attacked by plaintiff. 

Defendant did need ER care.  Police were called by both litigants, and the neighbors.

Plaintiff claims getting evicted by defendant means she and her son (not the boyfriend’s son), means she’s homeless.  JJ tells her to go home, apologize to her mother, and move back in.    Defendant claims ER bills, damaged property, and for the assault.

$2500 to defendant, minus $600 to plaintiff, so $1900 to defendant.

Obnoxious Witness Thrown Out of Court-Plaintiff Jordan Stachovich suing defendant Troy Stoffel for car accident damage.   Defendant ran a stop sign, had no insurance, and is totally at fault.     Defendant claims plaintiff was driving 30 mph over the speed limit.  

Defense witness keeps chiming in, and gets the Byrd boot.    Defendant keeps rolling his eyes, and disrespecting JJ. 

Plaintiff gets his money, $250 (I would have given plaintiff the full $5,000, so defendant wouldn’t get a penny of the award pool.   Plus, plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance).  

Second (2018)-

Vandal Carves His Own Initials on Car?!- Plaintiff Casey Hutchins/homeowner suing defendant James King, for a bad stucco job on his house, and vandalizing plaintiff's car.   It is alleged that defendant carved his initials multiple times on the plaintiff's car.   Plaintiff also claims that the stucco job was not complete, and defendant ghosted.    $450 was the contract on the stucco, with half paid up front.  

Plaintiff hired private detectives to find the defendant, to serve the lawsuit on him.   Plaintiff will receive $225, plus $88 for materials, totaling $313 for the stucco job.

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the state contractor licensing board against James King, and James King was notified.   Letter to plaintiff from the contracting board outlines the disposition on the complaint, and it was sent to the county D.A., that James King be criminally prosecuted for contracting without a license.    Defendant wasn't notified about the complaint, because the contracting board had no way to reach an unlicensed contractor.   

The months from having defendant hired, until the complaint came through, nothing happened to the plaintiff's property, or vehicle.    Defendant asks JJ why he would carve his initials into the car, and JJ says because he's a moron.  Then, a couple of days after the contract board decision, the vandalism happened.    

$1602 is the vandalism remediation, plus stucco fees, and plaintiff gets $2,000. (I would have given plaintiff $5,000 for having to put up with defendant, and so defendant didn’t get any money).

Storming the Mini Bar – Plaintiff Mercedes Ciono is suing defendant/former friend Norhan Askar for using her credit card, for smoking in a motel room, and raiding the mini bar.    Defendant rented a motel room for her own birthday party, and ended up sticking plaintiff with the bill for the room, and damages.  

Defendant prepaid the room with her debit card, but when she arrived at the hotel, she didn't have the debit card and I.D. at the motel, and she needed both.    So, defendant asked plaintiff/former friend to use her I.D. and credit card to secure the hotel room.   Then, the drunken defendant smoked in the room, and raided the mini bar.    Since the plaintiff's credit card and I.D. were used, the bill was sent to her. 

$498 for plaintiff. 

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Eye-Candy Car! -Plaintiff John Rea suing defendant Tory West for $800 for a car plaintiff sold defendant, and wants impound fees.   Defendant’s father was a friend of plaintiff, and passed away.   Plaintiff bought a 1997 Grand Am from the father's widow, and plaintiff wanted to sell defendant the car for $800.    Defendant already has a garnishment for child support for arrears, and garnishment was about $700 a month.    Garnishment was because children were getting state aid, and they took it from defendant.

Plaintiff knew about the garnishment, and it would be paid off by the new year.   Plaintiff was going to take payments starting when the garnishment ended.    Defendant took possession of the car in September 2019, and quit working in November 2019.   Defendant didn't renew the registration, and car was parked at the curb in front of defendant's house, and plaintiff gave defendant a Bill of Sale.     Defendant and a son, moved in with his mother, for four years.      Defendant claims he didn't drive the car, and his sons didn't either.  

The car was towed from the curb in front of defendant's house, and he never paid plaintiff a penny.    Six months later the car was sold at auction, and plaintiff received a bill for impound.   Defendant denies he ever had a Bill of Sale for car.   

Plaintiff gets the $800 purchase price, and $1450 impound fees, total $2250. 

Horses Make a Run for It?! -Plaintiff Connie Bradley suing defendants, Shandon Young (husband) and Katina Young (wife) over disappearing horses.   Plaintiff bought horses from defendants, but sues when horses aren’t delivered to her barn.  Plaintiff had two previous horses, and they were killed by animals.     Plaintiff bought two horses from defendant, for $2300.

Defendant said plaintiff was supposed to pick up horses, but instead defendant father sent the two of his sons (age 21 and 16) to deliver the horses.   Then the truck or trailer broke down, and horses vanished.

Horses never arrived, and defendant offered replacement horses.   There is no reason the horses weren't delivered, and plaintiff claims that the defendants are scammers.  (The father sort of implied that the horses were back with him, but I don't believe that.    Since the defendant offered replacement horses, then I think the horses were resold by the sons, and I'm afraid it was some low end auction). 

Plaintiff receives a refund for the two horses, $2300. 

Second (2021)–

Vicious Dog Attack Tracked by GPS?! - Plaintiff /mini Schnauzer owner Thomas Pelly is suing defendant/German Shepherd Dog (2 GSDs) owner Harish Kathuria for attack by defendant’s dogs on plaintiff’s Schnauzer.    Defendant claims his dogs have no bite or other history.   Plaintiff has a map showing his GPS movements, was jogging in the park with his 11 year-old mini Schnauzer, when defendant, and the two GSDs approached in the park.   

They were approaching each other across the park.  Then the GSDs started barking at plaintiff and his dog, and one GSD got loose, grabbed the little dog by the neck, and pinned the little dog down.   (I find it unbelievable that this was the GSDs first attack of any kind).    Plaintiff's dog was on a flexi-leash.   A bystander separated the GSD from the Schnauzer, the other GSD just stood and watched, and defendant did nothing to help.   

The witness that helped save the plaintiff's dog, wasn't friends with either litigant, and from what JJ said, his statement supported the plaintiff's story.   The plaintiff was jogging on the outer sidewalk of the big park, when the GSDs started barking at his dog, and then the one slipped his collar and attacked.   The plaintiff and his dog were on the outer path, were nowhere near the defendant and his dogs, and did not do anything to the GSDs.

I refuse to believe the defendant's statement that his dogs have never had any other incident with people or animals.   The plaintiff in the hall-terview said that everyone avoids the defendant's dogs, and they are not well behaved, and people are afraid of them.    I think the defendant is another deluded person who refuses to accept his animals are a menace. 

The plaintiff's Schnauzer is totally quiet, and happy in court.   

There is a report from Animal Control that supports plaintiff’s statement, and with  witness statements.    Vet bills were $2870.     

Plaintiff's says his 11 year-old Mini Schnauzer is a JJ fan, and jumps on the TV screen when she's on.   I'm surprised that an 11 year old dog recovered so well from the injuries. (I've had several mini Schnauzers over the years, and 11 isn't young). 

Defendant admits his one dog bit the plaintiff's dog.   Defendant says dog was leashed, but ‘got away’ from defendant.    Witness statement to animal control contradicts what defendant says in sworn statement to the court.    Defendant claims he saw plaintiff, stopped walking, and shortened his leashes, and says plaintiff ran right up to the GSDs.    

$2870 to plaintiff for vet bills. 

Marriage Proposal to the Judge?! -Plaintiff Jarrett Cole suing defendant Robert Roehr for the value of a cargo container, and the property inside the container.   As a part of a business venture, the plaintiff bought a storage container for $1200, on defendant's father's property, and container is still there.   Defendant decided that plaintiff was flirting with his girlfriend, and dissolved the partnership, and claims the container is abandoned. 

Defendant claims the container isn't up to holding heavy weight, and is dangerous.  So why does he want to keep it?    The container looks like the usual pod storage container.  Defendant's foundation improvements to the pod are not going to be plaintiff's responsibility.    

Plaintiff gets his container back with a marshal's order in eight days.   If plaintiff doesn't pick up the container, then it belongs to defendant.   Then plaintiff proposes to JJ.   JJ says no.  

Edited September 10, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 9/1/2021 at 6:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dog Breeder vs. Dog Trainer! (2021) -Plaintiff/dog breeder Jacqueline Marshall, suing defendant/dog trainer James Fairbanks, over an agreement to split a litter of puppies. 

This case made me so angry steam was come out my ears.  Puppies are a living breathing thing and shouldn't be used like a xerox machine,😢

[KittyQ]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Horses Make a Run for It?!

Did I miss when they said what happened to the horses? I thought I was paying enough attention, but all I got from it was that the horses weren't delivered to the plaintiff. They didn't say that the horses ended up back with the defendant though. You'd think that the question of what exactly happened to them would have come up, since JJ is such an animal lover (although not all dog and cat lovers care that much about horses, I suppose).

[Cozytea]

19 hours ago, KittyQ said:

Did I miss when they said what happened to the horses? I thought I was paying enough attention, but all I got from it was that the horses weren't delivered to the plaintiff. They didn't say that the horses ended up back with the defendant though. You'd think that the question of what exactly happened to them would have come up, since JJ is such an animal lover (although not all dog and cat lovers care that much about horses, I suppose).

JJ said the seller couldn't keep the money and the horses.  They didn't really explain why he ended up back with horses. 

The plaintiff at the very end when talking to the camera explained, she tried to get his truck fixed so she could get the horses from him. She also mentioned that she heard from a woman that claimed the defendant did the same to her. He claimed his truck broke down that time as well.

Did anyone else see the episode of the lawyer suing a hairdresser for a $10 bad haircut? JJ had his number, he was definitely trying to get noticed.