Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

I kept wondering why the doctrine of unclean hands didn't come into play.  Whoever paid, the money due was directly related to the commission of a crime.  Why on earth do you get to sue someone because they didn't pay their share of a court fine for committing a felony?

Let's say the defendant hadn't paid a bail bondsman back for his loan to keep the defendant out of jail.  THAT would have been a cause for the bail bondsman to sue the defendant, because that was a contract for a totally legal transaction.

But winning a suit against your co-conspirator for not paying his share of a "joint and several" restitution makes no sense to me.  It's like rewarding the plaintiff for participating in a crime.  The case should have been thrown out of court, or been the first 5 minutes of a two-case day.

JMO.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, 2022, Season 9 Episode 31

“Daughter Dearest”

(Tonya Hancock vs. Tammara Hancock)

Plaintiff (mother) suing defendant/daughter for repayment of loans for a car, and cell phone service.  Suing for $2405.   Acker wants to know the dumbest move defendant made, daughter took out title loan on the car her mother helped her buy, and it wasn’t even paid off yet.  Money was for defendant’s now-ex-girlfriend.  Defendant says there was no due date for the loans, no repayment schedule, so she doesn’t owe her mother anything.   $2080 was car price, repayment from daughter was supposed to be $200 a month. 

Mother admits daughter paid three payments totaling $600, leaving $1800 on the loan.   Then, daughter took out the title loan on the car that wasn’t paid off.  

I knew the mother looked familiar, she works at Fort Benning.  I used to work there.

Defendant fell behind on the title loan, and car was repossessed.  Ex refused to make payments, she also turned off defendant’s phone, and drove the car constantly.   Defendant says the situation of ripping her mother off, makes her feel ‘sort of bad, kind of’.

As usual Acker and Dimango are hard on the deadbeat daughter, but Corriero waffles as usual.   Corriero actually joins the other two judges this time.

$2405 to plaintiff.   

Rerun, 2022, Season 8 Episode 102

“Stench in the Clowns”

(Curtis  Neilson vs. Ronit  Levy)

Plaintiff /former tenant suing defendant/former landlord, for $1690, his security deposit.  

Plaintiff claims landlord was too picky, and defendant says tenant was stinky, and an awful tenant.  Plaintiff kept all of defendant’s security deposit.  Defendant has a counter suit for $580 above the security deposit.   Plaintiff moved after defendant raised the rent by $100 a month.   Plaintiff rented the room for 2 ½ years. 

On move out day, plaintiff wanted more time to clean.    There was no walk through, because plaintiff delayed the walk through until well after 10 p.m.      Plaintiff says he paid $2k for security, but $995 for security, and rent $995 according to defendant.    There was no written lease, so tenancy was month-to-month.    Plaintiff says charges for shower curtain, cleaning, leftover furniture removal, laundry for sheets because of smells on sheets, etc.  were bogus.

     Defendant claims room was filthy, and other things were left behind, price was cumulated in cleaning fee, $185.   Plaintiff claims defendant’s furnished chair scratched the floor.   Defendant says cooking stains on walls mean she’ll have to repaint that wall.   The judges don’t want plaintiff charged for anything.

I’m really disliking the plaintiff with his smirks.  

Plaintiff receives $1,490, minus $200 for the floors.  

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

But winning a suit against your co-conspirator for not paying his share of a "joint and several" restitution makes no sense to me.  It's like rewarding the plaintiff for participating in a crime.  The case should have been thrown out of court, or been the first 5 minutes of a two-case day.

I felt the same way, and couldn't understand the ruling, just as I wasn't sure why the judges fawned over the horrid plaintiff so much. JDiM kindly concluded "There IS honour among thieves", finding something honourable in P's behavior. You just know this train gig was far from the first crime these two miscreants committed to fuel their drug habits and they got caught this time because some other criminals ratted on them to lessen their own fines/jail time. Had they not been fingered they'd still be out there, pilfering stuff to convert to crack or meth.

Should life (and restitution) always be fair for amoral thieves who have no qualms about taking the property of others and didn't give a shit about being fair to anyone? I wonder how much all the victims are still out in uncompensated items. It seems everyone cares more about feelings of criminals than about those of their unsuspecting victims.

[CrazyInAlabama]

(Monday starts the new episode with the two new judges.  According to my cable guide the new episode will be followed by a rerun from 2022.  Monday's new episode looks like a great start for sweeps month, a wild case).

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 154, “Phoning it In”

 (Bethany Smith  vs. Macie Reinin )

Plaintiff suing for a cell phone balance, interest on the balance and late fees, $1150. Litigants were romantic, off and on.   Plaintiff was at an event, she’s an event coordinator, defendant went as a guest, and plaintiff saw defendant making out with a guy.     There are two phones, an earlier phone that plaintiff is alleged to have destroyed.   Defendant claims she didn’t touch the phone.

Plaintiff says the day after the party, her home was ransacked.   Plaintiff’s little daughter lived with them too.  The litigants have been having this toxic relationship for two years.   Plaintiff hired a private investigator.   As DiMango says, they both came into the case with ‘unclean hands’, both assaulted each other, were locked in a cycle of domestic violence, and all in a home with a little kid.

Plaintiff is alleged to stomped on the first phone, second phone wasn’t being paid on time.

So, defendant stopped paying on phone #2.     So, plaintiff took the phone back. 

Defendant is a care giver for elderly.  Plaintiff claims to be a 1st year law student, but really isn’t. Defendant claims to get a replacement phone, plaintiff forced her to sign the contract.

Defendant says plaintiff stomped on her phone (phone #1), and destroyed defendant’s driver’s license. Plaintiff has a restraining order against defendant. (This happened in Eugene, OR).

I hope the decision is to dismiss everything, but Acker says the contract should be honored. DiMango says she doesn’t want to pay them.   Corriero agrees with Acker.

Decision by Acker and Corriero is $774.

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 75, “Peanut Butter & Melee Sandwich”

(Janet Duncan vs. Regina Fong)

Plaintiff is suing defendant/Rottweiler owner over an attack on plaintiff’s late mother’s dog Peanut at a dog park, for $750 vet bills.   Rottie /Lab mix Bowser is claimed to be an emotional-support animal. Plaintiff claims two dogs went after little Peanut.

Plaintiff was in a gated, off-leash dog park.   Then, defendant showed with friends with three dogs, came into the dog park.   They don’t have the sections of the dog park for big and smalls dogs to be separated.   Plaintiff put her dog on a leash, first two dogs were fine, then third dog and one of the other dogs attacked.      The dogs were separated, and plaintiff called her witness to come and get her to take Peanut to the vet.  Defendant says she brought her dog to the park, and the friend with her had three dogs.

Defendant claims plaintiff said she put her dog on a leash because it’s aggressive to larger dogs. As Acker says, off-leash doesn’t mean you’re not liable.  Pictures of Peanut’s injuries are so bad they’re blurred.  Defendant had a hand injury from the fight, and plaintiff’s hand was very swollen.  

Defendant claims Bowser, her ESA, has no bite history.   Defendant claims plaintiff should have left the park, and her adorable, tiny dog was the aggressor. 

Peanut had never gone to a ‘no supervision’ dog park before, but plaintiff put her dog on a leash before the attack too.   

Plaintiff claims defendant said she would take care of the costs.   Defendant denies ever saying she would pay the bills.

Decision is $775 for plaintiff.

Edited October 28, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims to be a 1st year law student, but really isn’t.

I haven't seen this but for some reason that gave me a fit of the giggles. 😄

[ECM1231]

2 new female judges have replaced Judges Acker and DiMango. 😞 The show airs at 9 a.m. here and I'm watching right now. 

https://www.abc27.com/news/entertainment/hot-bench-introduces-two-new-judges-to-daytime-court-show/

[AZChristian]

I may tune in to see how the new team works together.  And then I may delete this from my DVR schedule, because they kept my least favorite judge.

[ECM1231]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I may tune in to see how the new team works together.  And then I may delete this from my DVR schedule, because they kept my least favorite judge.

Really? Do tell. I love Judge Corriero.

[patty1h]

The first case with the new judges was a doozy - owners of a split level condo fighting about a water bill and who should pay what percentage of it.  These folks got into a situation where five people are sharing one water bill - plaintiff Narita (moved in short while ago) says the HOA  agreement states that these two owners split the water bill, even though his household is four people.  Defendant Shelley(?) says that agreement was set up when prior owner lived there - a single person, so half was fair then.  Narita wants $4K to pay for a water meter, if Shelley is debating her usage.

This problem turned into a neighbor war where Shelley is shown throwing the middle finger at the plaintiffs Ring doorbell every time she goes in or out, accusation she stole grocery that were delivered, using her garage remote to lock Narita's pregnant wife in the garage, cops called, etc.  More messiness when Narita tried serving plaintiff with court papers and instead of just handing them to her and leaving, they got into a videoed match where Shelley started screaming like a banshee.  I think it was nervy of Narita to think that Shelley should continue to pay half for water she is not using, just because the HOA had it on paper.  The judges deny the $4K request - they say that they can't force purchase of a water meter, that these two hard-heads have to hash that out, but Shelley got a refund for overpayment and was ordered that she is responsible for 1/3 of the bill in future.

It's hard to pick up on the new judges dynamic from the first show, but it seemed like they let Corriero take the lead in the first episode.   He was the first to speak to the participants and spoke the most throughout the case.  Judge Tewolde didn't have a lot of input, but Judge Juarez gave me DiMango vibes - she's there to get facts and rule, not let peoples feelings and emotions sway her.

Edited October 31, 2022 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

First show with new judges, Corriero, plus Judges Yodit Tewolde and Rachel Juarez

New, 2022, Season 9 Episode 32

“Come Hell or High Water Bill”

(Jennifer and Tomio Narita vs Sheryl Land)

It’s a split level duplex/condo, and the agreement put in place years ago is the two units split the water bill, actually all utilities will be split according to the agreement.   Solution is put in another water meter so each unit will have theirs.   A pregnant woman claims neighbor locked her in a garage for an hour, and screamed at her for an hour about a water bill.   Litigants are both attorneys.  The HOA is only the two apartments.    Tomio Narita says there were two previous sales of his condo disrupted by defendant, and that’s why the Naritas bought the condo, because of the price reduction made it affordable.  

There is a video of defendant screaming at the doorway area, plaintiffs claim defendant blasts her radio constantly, the video shows defendant covering the security video camera. Plaintiffs say defendant threw dog feces on their patio, defendant flips them off on the video camera every day, and it shows her stealing their grocery delivery when the plaintiffs were home sick and quarantined.    

Defendant says as a single woman, living on the lower floor, and plaintiffs and two infants on the top floor, with a shared two car garage, that defendant shouldn’t have to pay half the common utilities.   However, is water the only split utility?  

Mrs. Narita says that defendant used the garage remote to lock her in the garage for over an hour, when she was pregnant.  The joint garage is also a problem, with defendant putting stuff on the Narita’s side.   The Narita’s have a TRO pending a hearing.

Defendant called the police claiming a burglar around her house, and when the police came, she claims she didn’t see the police show up.    Cushions on patio on Narita’s side had a white powder on it, and defendant claims that Mrs. Narita overreacted to this, and thought they might be drugs.    I guess defendant never heard of Fentanyl?    Then when Mr. Narita gives defendant the TRO notice paperwork, she screams like she’s being murdered.   

The defendant wants the plaintiffs to pay $4k to get her a water meter.   If she wants a water meter, she should pay for it.  

Mr. Narita has a TRO, without testimony from defendant, and then serve the paperwork, when defendant started screaming.      Mrs. Narita was 8 months pregnant with twins, when defendant pushed the garage door button over 20 times, to lock plaintiff in the garage.   Defendant’s explanation of why she trapped the plaintiff in the garage is ridiculous.   

So, going forward, defendant will pay 1/3 of the water bill.     Good luck with that.    There is zero chance that installing a new water meter will cost $1,000, I bet it will be at least the $4k the plaintiffs asked for.    Putting in another water meter isn't just as easy as sitting one on the ground, and hooking up a couple of pipes.   I bet there will be a lot of replumbing happening, concrete breaking too, and it's not going to be cheap.     I've known people who lived alone, but used more water than a family of four, I believed nothing the defendant was babbling about.   

Defendant’s claim dismissed.  

Plaintiffs get $600 for the other part of the water bill.  Plaintiff wanted $4k to install the separate water 

bill. 

(I feel so sorry for plaintiffs, defendant’s cheese slipped off her cracker years ago).

Rerun, Season 8 Episode 77

“The Roof Is on the Cruze”

(Julie Linder vs. Kourosh “Harry Mah ”Mahgerefteh (landlord) and Martina Exlerova (assistant to landlord ) (I had to rewind so many times to get the defendant's name right).   

A hunk of wind-damaged roof lands on a tenant’s car after landlord ignores her requests to get roof fixed.   Plaintiff saw the garage roof at the rental was damaged in April, told landlord, and he did nothing.  In October, garage roof took flight, hit plaintiff’s car and damaged it.

Landlord claims no one ever told him about the roof.   Defendant Exelerova says she did text plaintiff, and had the roof fixed after the October incident.    Another employee told plaintiff roofer didn’t get paid, so he didn’t fix the roof.   Defendants didn’t bring any records of roof repairs.

Defendant points out the lease doesn’t include any parking of any vehicle on the property.    Defendant assistant dismissed from suit by the judges, she’s just an employee.   Original lease from 2014 don’t prohibit parking.    Plaintiff moved out in 2020, and mentioned she left California too.   

Plaintiff receives $5000 for car damages.

Edited November 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I may tune in to see how the new team works together.  And then I may delete this from my DVR schedule, because they kept my least favorite judge.

I tried to watch this, but had to quit after 3 minutes when Papa Mike was droning on and on in his odd way I find unbearable, i.e., "YOUUUU say you OWWWWWN this place..." No could do.  Unless the other two are more like JDiM and JA and less like Papa, I won't bother either.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Julie Linder vs. Kourosh “Harry Mah ”Mahgerefteh (landlord) and Martina Exlerova (assistant to landlord )

Hated the smirking jerk Def. But hey - if he had only known he needed evidence he would have brought it. It's all there, canceled checks and everything - in his office. What's the problem? Ugh. In the hall he continues to babble that doesn't owe P anything.

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

Shelley is shown throwing the middle finger at the plaintiffs Ring doorbell every time she goes in or out, accusation she stole grocery that were delivered, using her garage remote to lock Narita's pregnant wife in the garage, cops called, etc.

Maybe I should watch this after all, and just mute Papa. 😆

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe I should watch this after all, and just mute Papa.

It has some entertainment value if just for seeing a 60ish woman being the ultimate Karen, arguing with neighbors, stealing, lying, screaming bloody murder when served with court papers.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

It has some entertainment value if just for seeing a 60ish woman being the ultimate Karen, arguing with neighbors, stealing, lying, screaming bloody murder when served with court papers.

And she's an attorney!!!!!

[DoctorK]

14 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

And she's an attorney!!!!!

Boy would I love to see some of her TV commercials! Just as long as I have the mute button under my thumb in case of screeching screams. It does seem to me that these shows get litigants from the bottom of the barrel, especially the lawyers.

[Paperclips]

And, this is why I will never take a cruise - I can't imagine being stuck in the middle of the Ocean with these two loons.

Judge facing MC on the left needs to go - she sounds like Minnie Mouse.

[patty1h]

Day 2 with the new judges.   I swear, JSuarez's voice sounds so much like JAcker.  JTewolde spoke more today, and she has a calm and commanding presence, and I found myself looking at her face... she's also exotically beautiful. 

The case today was the farce of a 44 year old businessman named Marin hooking up with a 20 year old guy (Imma call him Red) he met on a dating app and them deciding to be a couple after mere days.  They move across country and then the honeymoon starts to wear off.  Marin finds that Red is still on dating sites looking for hookups, so they decide to take a cruise to try to fix their issues.  Next comes boozy fights, casino fees charged by Red and death threats on voicemail.  Part of Marin's suit is for slander - he says  Red went on the internet and left untrue and malicious comments on Marin's business website, but Red says "it was my friend who stole my phone!".  The judges asked when Red saw those comments from his "friend" why didn't he remove them?  Red says "I tried but Google was closed".   The judges have a good laugh at that.   

I don't even remember how this one ended, but it was a fun watch.  Let's hope that Marin learned a lesson to not play house with the next person he finds on a hookup app.  Plus, Marin doesn't have the best taste -- all that drama and Red was not what you'd call a catch.  Picture Disney's Ichabod Crane with a dyed red fade.

Edited November 1, 2022 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, 2022, new judges, Season 9 Episode 33

“Con Voyage” 

(Justin Hodge (20 years old) vs.  Cesar Marin (44 years old )

(I’m mean, plaintiff looks like a red headed Beaker from the Muppet show, crossed with Howdy Doody).

Plaintiff and defendant used to be friends and roommates, they are now fighting over possessions, Yelp reviews, cruise money.   Hodge met Marin online, then after one date plaintiff moved from Portland to Phoenix to move in with defendant.   

Then, when they broke up, Hodge posted a nasty Yelp review about defendant’s business, and claims he didn’t post it.   Hodge claims the phone was stolen, and someone posted the Yelp review without his input. Then, Hodge claims only Google could take the review down, and ‘Google was closed’, they never close.    The Yelp review was about defendant’s business he was starting.

On the cruise, plaintiff overdosed, and defendant called 911 on the ship.

Defendant says fraud was using the ship credit card for $716.   There are plaintiff’s disgusting, threatening voice mails,

(If defendant keeps taking up with strangers like this, he's going to end up the subject of an I.D. channel crime documentary). 

Judges don’t believe the plaintiff, give the defendant money for defamation.   Plaintiff can make arrangements to get the property back.  $2016 to plaintiff for the charges, and defamation.

Rerun, 2022, previous judges, Season 8, Episode 101

“Juggling Apartments”

(Steve Alexander vs. Lea Moreira) Mona Flaum is plaintiff’s property manager, and realtor, and Flaum is the only one who dealt with tenant.

Landlord/plaintiff Alexander  (property manager Mona Flaum is the only one who worked with defendant.    Plaintiff is suing defendant/former tenant Moreira for back rent, and defendant wants security deposit.     There are two leases, because defendant moved from one unit to another.  Second apartment had a higher rent, $2350, but only one security deposit was paid for the original, cheaper apartment, $1250.    The tenant claims she was given a reduction of $3400 for four months, because of Covid.  

Defendant shows a video, and talks about problems with apartment plumbing and blinds.   Plaintiff Flam says when defendant moved to second apartment it took her a month to move into the second department, so she occupied both apartments for a month.     Plaintiff says defendant had a bunch of people living with her, in a small apartment.  

What a ridiculous case of unprofessional landlord/tenant relationships.    Plaintiff wants four months of rent reduction back, but no proof of payments required to landlord.

Unpaid rent plaintiff wants I bet won’t happen.   There is no mention of repayment of rent discount.

Defendant’s claim for security deposit return is going to be for more, since there’s a signed lease requiring the higher amount.   

Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed, and defendant gets $2500.  

(Preview of tomorrow’s new episode looks wild).

Edited November 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Con Voyage” 

(Justin Hodge (20 years old) vs.  Cesar Marin (44 years old )

(I’m mean, plaintiff looks like a red headed Beaker from the Muppet show, crossed with Howdy Doody).

Ha!  Great description.

[insomniac]

So now Judges Acker and DiMango are linking up with Judge Judy?

Can someone explain what's going on?

[CrazyInAlabama]

I take a try at it.    Corriero, Juarez and Tewalde are on Hot Bench which is a JJ production, and will continue.       

Acker and DiMango left Hot Bench, and are going to Freevee which is a free streaming service, and will have another judge with them and Officer Byrd will be their bailiff, it's called Tribunal.    Third judge will be JJ's son, Adam Levy.  Adam Levy has a very impressive resume.      

Judge Judy owns Hot Bench, Judy Justice, Tribunal.   

 It's another Judge Judy project, and along with her own show, Judy Justice, on Freevee (formerly IMDB TV).  Freevee is available as a free streaming service. It's a free channel on Prime Video. 

https://press.amazonstudios.com/us/en/press-release/amazon-freevee-announces-greenlight-ofi-tribunali-

I think Tribunal starts airing in December?   But I'm not sure. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

Leave to a nitwit like Corriero to blame the DEFENDANT for the insane plaintiff's behavior.

"The review was left when my phone was stolen......oh yeah, my friend left the review and then stole the phone when I yelled at him" 

Best line of the case - "I tried to call Google but it was closed."

[Welshman in Ca]

18 hours ago, patty1h said:

Day 2 with the new judges.   I swear, JSuarez's voice sounds so much like JAcker.  JTewolde spoke more today, and she has a calm and commanding presence, and I found myself looking at her face... she's also exotically beautiful. 

She is absolutely stunning, but seemed very quiet so didn't get enough camera time for me. Yes I'm shallow.

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, patty1h said:

Red says "I tried but Google was closed".

1 hour ago, Welshman in Ca said:

Yes I'm shallow.

Nothing wrong with that!😉

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, Season 9 Episode 34,  (Juarez, Corriero, and Tewolde).

“Two Tickets to Paradise”

(Kathy Spilling vs. Patricia Listek)

On a previous trip, the litigants were going to Paris, but defendant couldn’t fly because defendant’s passport was expiring too soon, so they came up with the Hawaii trip.   Paris would have been $1091 for two airline tickets, plus tours, etc. for the Paris trip.

Plaintiff Kathy Spilling with impaired mobility claims her caretaker abandoned her in Hawaii, and wants $2016 for hotel, travel, etc.        After the argument plaintiff’s previous caretaker, Dennis came to help her, and is the witness for plaintiff.    Patricia and others have been hired to give Dennis Taylor a respite from caretaking

On the Hawaii trip, plaintiff claims defendant/caretaker left her in Hawaii, helpless.   When plaintiff refused to come back to California, defendant called Dennis Taylor, the previous caretaker to come to Hawaii and help the plaintiff.   

Dennis Taylor and Kathy Spilling share an apartment, a mobile home, and lived together for a long time.

Defendant caretaker says plaintiff tried to run over with the scooter, and threatened to assault the defendant, so she went back to California.

Dennis says when he traveled with plaintiff, it was as a caretaker, and a friend.    Defendant says she was traveling as a friend, paid for her own plane ticket. 

Corriero wants to know if defendant was a paid caretaker on the trip, or if she was going as a friend.  

I think if the threats, and treatment defendant claim happened were true, then I would have left the plaintiff at the hotel and flown home too.   Defendant also called the other caretaker, who is plaintiff’s partner to come to Hawaii and help her.   

Plaintiff gets $473 for the airline ticket for Dennis to come to Hawaii.     The Paris trip was refunded by the hotel company, and almost all was refunded, except the Versailles tour, and plaintiff didn’t apply for some refunds available.

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 104 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

“Strumming My Pain”

(Robert Spencer  vs. Julian Zelenka ) Gibson Guitar is a 1970 Gibson ES 150D

$2825 is the cost of the guitar, and plaintiff wants a full refund.   Defendant claims it’s ‘as is’.

Plaintiff suing seller of vintage Gibson Guitar of cheating him.  Plaintiff claims guitar is cracked,

Bill of Sale says Gibson ES150D 1970, with “as is” on the BoS.    Plaintiff had guitar appraised and that said guitar is 1974-1975, not 1970.    Defendant says he has owned the guitar for 30 years, and there’s nothing defective about it.  

Then, defendant says the crack in the guitar has been there for 30 years, and never bothered him.    Acker also asks plaintiff why he had the guitar appraised the day after the sale, and not before? 

Why does a beginner get a $3,000 guitar to learn on?   Get a cheaper one, and upgrade if you keep playing.  

Plaintiff offered to drop the matter for a $500 partial rebate, and then a $200 partial refund, but didn’t receive anything.  However, as Acker points out, plaintiff could have had the guitar appraised before purchase.

Plaintiff contacted Gibson company, and guitar is a 1974, not a 1970.   

Plaintiff just wanted a deal, and defendant wanted money, both are SOL, because it was sold ‘as is’.

Decision is to dismiss plaintiff case.   The sale was ‘as is’, no proof the crack hurt anything, and plaintiff could have had it appraised before sale.

[Paperclips]

I took a nap at the beginning of the show and when I woke up, the Judge to the right of MC (facing the screen) was still babbling on. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why does a beginner get a $3,000 guitar to learn on?   Get a cheaper one, and upgrade if you keep playing.  

Because he needed to pay homage to his daddy. Another one who buys without verifying anything but squawks he was cheated. The 5-minute non-sequitur soliloquay he gave to avoid answering JA's simple question, "Why didn't you get it checked out before you paid the money?" was ridiculous. Just tell your little friends it's a 1970 model, just like Daddy's. They'll never know.

And oh, yeah - NOW Papa Mike is a stickler for the "As is" rule, which he invokes according to his feelings about the litigants. A poor little SSM who buys a 15-year-old car she never bothers to check and then wants her money back need not adhere to that rule though, according to him.

[Paperclips]

The new line-up doesn't seem to be working for me.  One Judge will just talk, and talk, and talk and the others look like they can't stay awake.  And it switches back and forth between which Judge is going to ramble on, and on, and on....

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, Season 9, Episode 35, 2022, (Juarez, Corriero, Tewalde)

“Poodlemonium”

(Luna Williams vs. Danyale Givens)

Case about a missing poodle named, Saucy, causing a kerfluffle between man’s wife and girlfriend.  Defendant boasts she stole the dog, then claims she didn’t. The major issue is plaintiff was the mistress of defendant’s husband, and liked to send videos to defendant boasting about the relationship.     Plaintiff claims defendant stole Saucy, the emotional support dog belonging to plaintiff.    Plaintiff witness is Andrew Givens, who is ex-husband of defendant, and he has two children with the defendant.

Plaintiff claims she didn’t know defendant and Andrew were married.  Plaintiff kept sending videos to defendant, showing she’s in a relationship for 18-months with Andrew of the Golden Dick, (there’s no other explanation of the charms of Andrew). 

So, defendant claims the day the car was vandalized, that Andrew kicked Saucy, and said he didn’t care about the dog, just his car.   Defendant witness Sage Brown claims she heard the dog yelping, but didn’t see the kick, and claims at the time this happened defendant didn’t have a dog.   There is a voicemail from defendant claiming she killed the dog, and one from defendant’s niece claiming the dog is dead, sent to plaintiff.

Plaintiff wants $5,000 for emotional distress, and plaintiff claims she had fainting spells from stress from the dog disappearing.   Defendant also wants $5,000 for defamation.   There is no proof the dog was taken by defendant, or who actually took the dog.

Decision is both complaints dismissed.

(So, what happened to Saucy, the poodle?)

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 103, 2022 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

“Accidental Rental”

(Jemal Pulliam vs. Ganene Maldonado)

A man complains a hunk of metal on the highway damaged his car.   However, defendant had no insurance, and drives uninsured constantly. 

Plaintiff claims a big hunk of metal came off of defendant’s car, on the highway, and damaged his front bumper, and headlight.    Because of the damages defendant had to rent a vehicle, and wants $3375 for the rental out-of-pocket.    Defendant claims the metal was on the highway, she ran over it too, other vehicles ran over the metal too, and she’s not responsible for the damages. 

Plaintiff was on the interstate, behind defendant, he claims her bumper was shaking, and a piece of metal flew off of her bumper and there is matching bumper damages on her car.    Defendant’s bumper wasn’t original, but a replacement from a couple of years prior to this accident.   I think plaintiff is right, defendant’s bumper came apart and damaged his car.   Defendant claims the police escorted her off the interstate, and others were pulled over discussing damages to their cars, and she blamed it on the hunk of metal on the interstate. 

The judges just don’t understand, I think the entire bumper assembly was coming off, and whatever was holding in together came off.  In the later photo, the defendant’s entire bumper assembly is coming off, and I think it was what plaintiff thinks that, the bumper assembly ripped off.  (I bet anything that the picture of the bumper with only a slash in it, was an after picture by defendant, and bumper was taped back together.    I think it happened the way the plaintiff said it did, and defendant covered it up). 

No proof of the metal falling off of defendant’s car, but no proof of anything else on the road either.    Defendant didn’t say she saw anything ahead in the road, so either the metal came off of her car, or she doesn’t pay attention to the road.

Plaintiff receives $3,375 for his unreimbursed car rental.  

Edited November 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, Season 9 Episode 36, (Corriero, Juarez, Tewalde)

“The Fast and the Furious”

(Kyle Brown vs. Phat Pham)

Plaintiff suing defendant for car mileage and speed while renting his Corvette, a 2013  Z 51 Corvette, maximum speed 195 mph.  Defendant rented his Corvette, to plaintiff. Car was rented for 200 miles maximum, $300 a day, with a GPS speed and location tracker on it.   Contract says 85 mph max, with a fine for speed, and violations of the miles per day limit, and number of violations. (This is from Bakersfield, CA).

Plaintiff rented car to defendant, with the contract on speed and distance in place.  

 Corriero says the penalties for defendant’s driving were excessive, and defendant shouldn’t be punished for breaking the contract.    Corriero’s bleeding heart is gushing today.  Tewalde is agreeing about the punishment in the contract.  Juarez is also whining about defendant’s charges.

 Defendant says less than 10 people have had the penalties for speeding, out of numerous rentals of this car.   Defendant claims he didn’t read the contract before signing it. 

Plaintiff has an app that shows real time the view from the car, showing the speedometer read out. 

Plaintiff wants 18% interest on the debt, with a payment plan for defendant.

Defendant tries to claim he’s not the one driving, and there’s no proof it was him driving.   Corriero tries to say that it was over zealous to charge the punitive damages to defendant, according to the contract defendant signed.  Judges think plaintiff charged too much interest also.

Defendant exceeded the speed, and the mileage limit also. 

(The defendant signed the contract, I would have upheld the contract, and paid plaintiff every penny he was allowed.   I bet defendant couldn't rent a hot car from the car rental places either.  )

Plaintiff gets charged $394, for one violation on speed, and the mileage.  

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 105, (Acker, Corriero, DiMango)

“CON-struction Man”

(Peter Grabicki vs. Carlos Escoto, Jr)

Plaintiff wanted a studio apartment from a garage, paid defendant $5,000, and nothing was ever built, or even started.   There is a signed contract.

Homeowner claims he hired defendant to build a studio apartment, and paid him $5,000.  Plaintiff claims he only received a rough sketch, and no work was performed.  Contract has no start date, cost of materials (bought by plaintiff), and $14,000 cashier’s check to defendant.   Defendant is not a licensed contractor, and plaintiff says he knew that too.    Defendant took $5,000 of the money, plaintiff kept $9,000, and for that money defendant did a rough drawing of the studio apartment, with no work done.   Defendant claims the sketch is worth the $5,000, and that defendant turned down other jobs, and had a lot of travel time to the job site.  Defendant drove 200 miles each way, for two trips.  He claims he did 16 hours of work, plus 16 hours driving time. Total price of the conversion from garage to studio was estimated to be $40k.

Plaintiff wanted the $5,000 applied to labor costs for the conversion, and labor costs were estimated to total $30k.   

Corriero wants to give $2500 back to plaintiff, but Acker and DiMango don’t want to give plaintiff a penny back.

$0 to plaintiff, and defendant keeps $5,000.

Edited November 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

Today - rented corvette. Corriero remains a total sanctimonious uninformed jerk. Really? Use the cruise control in a high speed sports car? I am surprised that he didn't require the driver to put a box of kleenex and a hat on the package deck in the rear window (you have to be pretty old to pick up on this reference) when you drive a high performance car. Also, the judge to our left was aghast at charging for just under a minute at 91 MPH - sorry lady, at those speeds even 45 seconds is a long time and a long distance. Corriero kept harping on ambiguity of the penalties - BS, they they were perfectly clear (although of questionable legality). I really (still) can't stand him. Incidentally, the kid renting was a whiny twit who admittedly didn't read the contract he signed.

[Taeolas]

I agree, I'm on the Corvette owner's side on this, and the kid should've been charged more. 

I can understand why the owner's fine system had some flexibility and why he'd be "arbitrary" over what he fines and didn't fine. And I didn't really get the judge's stance on it; any arbitrariness the owner shows would mean he'd get LESS money overall. 

Still, if I were him I'd probably establish a more concrete fine system. He knows how fast and how long a driver is going over over speed.  Instead of a fine for each occurrance going over 85, he should charge for how long they are going at that speed (with multipliers for how much over they are), maybe taking the fastest time over each minute or something like that. 

Anyways, as far as the new judges go, I'm fine with them. They're still getting their feet under them (and this was Case #1 so probably the first filmed case of the season), but they seem to be strong enough to stand up to Papa most of the time. 

[DoctorK]

50 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

they seem to be strong enough to stand up to Papa

I suspect this is more a result of Corriero's pencil neck geek contrarian persona on the show. Acker and Di Mango had no trouble walking all over him whenever they felt like it.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I suspect this is more a result of Corriero's pencil neck geek contrarian persona on the show. Acker and Di Mango had no trouble walking all over him whenever they felt like it.

Yesterday, in the case of the flying metal part with two prongs that went through D's bumper without making a hole, the deliberations were so contentious I thought JDiM or JA just might bop Papa one right in the chops. Papa got more riled and pissed off at them than he ever does at vile scumbag scammers appearing here.

[insomniac]

CrazyInAlabama, thank you for your explanation about the judges being transferred. (And I'm happy that Byrd will be involved.)

Also, I appreciate your descriptions of the various cases. Very informative, and needed!

[Paperclips]

I think they are doing a lot of cuts from these episodes.  Haven't noticed it before the new group.  They are having problems jelling - maybe it will just take some time.  It's pretty easy to see where they are cutting and going back again.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Paperclips

[Paperclips]

And while I am babbling on about Hot Bench, I don't think MC should be in the middle.  I'd put, facing the screen, the Judge to the right of him who looks half-asleep most of the time in the middle.  Might wake her up. I'd get rid of the one on the left.  Put MC back in his original spot.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Loan Snark”

Season 9 Episode 37, (Corriero, Juarez, Tewalde)

(Luciana Simpson vs. Juan Ampuero ) 

Judges call plaintiff a loan shark for the interest she’s charging defendant. He borrowed $2,000, and the interest would be $5200 with the penalty plaintiff charged on the original loan.    Original loan interest was 10%, penalty was $100 a week extra.   Legal interest in California is 10%, and the interest plaintiff is charging works out to 50% interest. Defendant already paid $600 on the loan.    Plaintiff is suing for $4,000, which works out to 100% interest.

Defendant also bounced a check to plaintiff, after he came down with Covid, and after he asked her not to cash the check.

Verdict is the interest was excessive, and usurious.    Plaintiff gets $1600.

“Nothing But the Tooth”

Season 8, Episode 141 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Matthew Wood  vs. Nick Lua )

Plaintiff suing defendant for dental bills after defendant assaulted plaintiff, during junior year in high school.  Plaintiff says defendant punched him at high school, and knocked out his front tooth, he’s suing for $5,000.         Defendant says it was self-defense after plaintiff bullied him.  Defendant claims plaintiff has been bullying him since sophomore year.   First plaintiff threw eraser shavings on defendant, and claims it was all just a joke.    Photo of broken tooth shows the tooth broken off at the gum line.   Tooth was crowned. 

Defendant says he was never friends with the plaintiff, but claims plaintiff was bothering him for years.  Defendant says plaintiff made homophobic remarks, and harassed him for their two years of school.  

(I believe everything defendant said, and nothing plaintiff said.)   Plaintiff witness, Abner Massis, a so-called close friend of defendant, doesn’t even know where defendant lives, or his address.

DiMango defends what defendant did, and believes nothing plaintiff and his fake witness said.  Corriero defends plaintiff and says he’s not a bully.    DiMango is glaring at Corriero.  Acker is claiming it wasn’t severe bullying.    DiMango is right, plaintiff had an on-going attack of a typical bully.    DiMango opposes any money to plaintiff.

Plaintiff case is only for dental bills, $524.     DiMango dissents, and doesn’t think plaintiff should be paid anything, and I agree.

Edited November 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Paperclips]

I'm pretty sure I just saw Don King, Jr.  Somebody needs to shut up the Judge on right of MC and wake up the Judge on the left.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow”

New, Season 9 Episode 38 (Corriero, Juarez, Tewalde)

(Lynne Ostreicher vs. Haywood Wilkerson)

Plaintiff suing defendant / hair dresser for her hair falling out after he dyed it silver.  She wants $4500 for the 10 years the damage will take to grow out, damaged hair, and $50 tip, and cut cost $325.   Hair color took 3 hours, turned out orange and yellow instead of silver, and started falling out right after the procedure.  

Before picture shows dark brown hair.   She claims she wanted streaks of silver not all over color.  Plaintiff’s hair looks like 6” of silver growth, so why not just let it grow out?    Plaintiff claims she had a cosmetology license after college, and she does do her own color at home, but uses good products, so not an amateur “kitchen beautician” home colorist.  

Defendant says he told plaintiff that her hair would be damaged, and he didn’t really want to do the color, but he went ahead anyway.   He claims plaintiff said she was going to risk the damages. 

Why didn’t defendant refuse to do the color?   He should have had her sign a statement that she accepted the risk. 

The initial bleach session was 1 hour 45 minutes, that didn’t make the hair silver, so plaintiff wanted more bleach.    After the second bleach session, the hair still wasn’t silver, but yellow/orange, and falling out.   

In my amateur kitchen beautician opinion (yes, I’ve dyed my own hair at home, with box color since the early 90’s), the silver streaks over the darker color wouldn’t have worked to disguise growing the whole head of hair to silver, it would have had a partially dark bottom.

Defendant says the plaintiff’s hair wasn’t the color she left the salon with, but something else has been done since.  Plaintiff denies she’s colored her hair since.    Defendant says her hair was white when she left the salon, not the yellow it is on the bottom now.    

Plaintiff tipped the defendant $50, after the color.

Juarez wants to give only the cost of color back to plaintiff. $500 is the entire color and cut. Tewolde says only for the color.  

$325 for color, plus $50 for tip, so $375 to plaintiff.

“Exes Baggage”

Rerun, Season 8 Episode 143 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Julie O’Leary vs. Susan Staebler)

Plaintiff suing for $5,000 for defamation, defendant called her a hooker, assaulted her.   Staebler/defendant claims plaintiff said she was hooking since she was 14.   Defendant is a friend of plaintiff’s ex, Ginger.   Ginger is witness for plaintiff.   Defendant claims plaintiff and witness blocked her from talking with her ex-husband.    Defendant claims plaintiffs stole many jewelry items from her during her hospitalization, since only plaintiff and witness were in her house while defendant was hospitalized.    Plot twist, witness is ex-husband of defendant.   Defendant claims she doesn’t have FB, but there are several phony FB profiles she claims were done by plaintiff.   

(Is this a left over case from Springer?)

Defendant’s ex is plaintiff’s witness, and live-in paramour. 

Defendant claims she was assaulted by plaintiff in Walmart’s parking lot, but no police report, photos, or anything else to prove the assault, or thefts.  Defendant claims her son, her witness, saw the assault.   Defendant claims plaintiff left her previous husband, for defendant’s ex.  DiMango doesn’t believe the assault story by defendant.

Defendant claims ex called her and wanted a threesome with plaintiff, and himself. 

This all happened in Sheridan, Oregon.

(Yes, plaintiff's witness and current partner is the ex of defendant). 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.     

Edited November 9, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

He claims plaintiff said she was going to risk the damages.  Why didn’t defendant refuse to do the color?   He should have had her sign a statement that she accepted the risk. 

My stylist would not perform a procedure on my hair that was likely to result in severe damage, no matter how much I asked her to do so.  She would have told me to go to another stylist.  

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing for $5,000 for defamation, defendant called her a hooker, assaulted her.

Hot Bench? Are you fucking kidding us with this? I don't object to a good freak show, but this is way too far. I lasted 60 seconds and decided I've had enough court TeeVee for this week.

A sex worker and her "partner"? This is some kind of hoax, right? RIGHT?

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Blinded by the Light”

New, 2022, Season 9 Episode 39 (Tewolde, Juarez, Corriero)

(Richard B. Smith and Anne Smith vs. Jessica Lynn Harris )

Plaintiff man says when he found 30 lbs of Weed, he told defendant to leave.   Plaintiff is suing for lost wages, she used the flatbed for additional storage, because he needed it for work, she refused.    Even after he called the sheriff and she was told to leave, she didn’t.  Defendant claims the flatbed had a cracked frame, and had a salvage title, and wasn’t usable for transporting anything.    Defendant lived in a mobile home on the property free, and used the flatbed for storage for her other property, and used a storage shed on the property also.   

Finally, plaintiff was told to leave by the sheriff, but didn’t, so plaintiff changed the locks, and gate codes, so defendant says she couldn’t get her property.   Defendant also says she was ranch manager, castrating and dehorning livestock, and other ranch duties.   Plaintiffs say defendant never did work on the property.

Plaintiff wife says the sheriff was at the ranch for over 30 times during defendant’s squatting term.

Judge Tewolde hears defendant say she’s had spinal fusions, so she couldn’t move her stuff off the flatbed, and out of storage, and the trailer.   Defendant says she couldn’t move her stuff, but admits she did take the 30 lbs. of weed with her. Sheriff’s office said defendant had 72 hours to move, but she didn’t move for months.

Defendant failed to prove her case.   Plaintiff gets his $5,000.

“No Good Breed Goes Unpunished “

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 144 (Acker DiMango, Corriero)

(Gary Dahl vs. Mikayla Michael)

Plaintiff suing defendant over a dachshund named Emily.    He purchased Emily to breed, and as a pet.     Plaintiff says dog developed an overbite, and he was told not to breed her.    The overbite is hereditary. So, dog is useless as a puppy factory.

Defendant says Emily was a farm dog, and not a breeder, but from an oops litter.   Defendant claims her male and female parent dogs don’t have an overbite.   

Plaintiff’s claim is he should get half of the $1400 purchase price back, because Emily can’t be bred.

Last line of the Bill of Sale for Emily says All Sales are Final, and he thinks the statement saying Emily is in great health covers the overbite.

I can’t tell how much I loathe both litigants, who obviously are backyard breeders of the worst kind.

Plaintiff claims he intended to breed Emily twice, and make thousands from the puppies.  Plaintiff claims it will cost him at least $500 to spay the dog, and for dental work because of the overbite.  Plaintiff has an unneutered male Dachshund, sounds like a breeding operation to me.    I wonder how many other breeding animals plaintiff and defendant have?   Plaintiff claims he was on defendant’s waiting list for Emily for six months.   That makes defendant a volume breeder.

Since Emily hasn’t been spayed, I’m guessing that she will be bred until her uterus falls out.  

Defendant claims to not be a breeder, but she obviously is.   Plaintiff is just as bad. 

Plaintiff claim dismissed.

[Paperclips]

I'll say it again, the new group isn't working.  MC was yelling a lot today.  They need some casting changes.  At least it wasn't a dog case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Wish Upon a Car”

New, 2022, Season 9, Episode 40, (Tewolde, Juarez, Corriero)

(Keith Brum and Dora Medina-Brum vs. Jade Jackson )

Car cost $3700 for a VW Passat, and 15 minutes later the car started smoking, and mechanic said car could need a new engine.    Plaintiff suing for $3700, and defendant agreed to refund the money, after car was delivered to her mechanic. 

Defendant says paperwork that went with the car wasn’t there, for the title, all mechanical work paperwork, and no paperwork was in the car when she got it back. Defendant will have to replace the title, and says she had the car checked by mechanic before the sale, and nothing was wrong with it.   Defendant says plaintiffs must have done something to the car in the few days between sale and return. 

Video shows car leaking like a sieve from underneath.   (This was in Merced, CA) Plaintiffs claim they only drove a few miles after purchase.    Mr. Brum claims he found coolant in the trunk, and the coolant discovery was before the sale.   Judge Tewolde blames the mechanic shop for misdiagnosis of the car’s issues before sale.

Defendant claims the mechanic looked at the car for almost 3 hours before sale, and no leak.    The mechanic shop did a pressure test on the coolant leak, and nothing was leaking.   The litigants met at Walmart, so Mr. Brum claims they couldn’t get a mechanic to look at the car.  That’s an excuse, but not a realistic one.

Text from defendant only says return car to my mechanic, and I’ll refund your money.    No other conditions.

$3700 refund of purchase price to plaintiffs, and defendant keeps the car.   Documents are returned to defendant also.

“Retaining Balance”

Rerun, Season 8 Episode 138, (Acker, Corriero, DiMango)

(Deanna Sherman-Figueroa vs. Jorge Resendiz)

Plaintiff claims her grandson’s father owes her for attorney fees, after he’s charged with three counts of battery against women.  

Plaintiff witness is the ex-girlfriend of defendant, (Alyssa) and plaintiff’s daughter, and father of plaintiff’s witness’ child.   One month after defendant got out of jail because of Covid, he moved in with plaintiff daughter, and they broke up again.   Plaintiff took money out of her 401k to pay for defendant’s attorney.    Defendant says he never asked for an attorney, and intended to plead guilty anyway.  While daughter was pregnant with the baby, Resendiz was still living with his previous baby mother who has more than one child with defendant.   After plaintiff and daughter visited the first baby mama, she kicked him out, and he moved in with plaintiff and pregnant daughter.

Defendant loser says ‘it was only domestic violence, nothing more’.    Guess how much Judge Acker hates the defendant, and so do I.

Plaintiff took defendant to court for the case, and she had his power of attorney, and she sold the car, and it was worth $1,000, but there is still $5,000 owed on the attorney fees. Acker is right, why did plaintiff rely on defendant to repay her?  Defendant did give plaintiff a $200 money order, and a text to say he’ll pay plaintiff off.

Defendant says he only agreed to payment to get plaintiff off his back.   Defendant is also a deadbeat dad to child with plaintiff’s daughter.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“All A-boat a Family Feud”

New, Season 9 Episode 41, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Ramona Arella vs. Rachel Castro )

Plaintiff and defendant are sisters.   Plaintiffs are Ramona Arella, Eduardo Flores, Jose Gomez  (siblings).   Plaintiff sister says she inherited the house, and she had two boats and trailers stored on the property.   Defendant sister says their brother, Robert the defense witness,  had the boats towed, not her, for the father’s memorial service.    Plaintiff says there is a quit claim, naming her owner of the home.   Plaintiff says her defendant sister has lost three properties, and is desperate for money.  Defendant is claimed to have towed brothers’ cars, multiple boats and trailers, towed away.  

Defendant witness brother Robert says he actually had everything towed, for the parents’ memorial service at the property.    Robert is wearing a bandana across his mouth, because of tooth issues, or is it so he won’t be recognized on TV?

Regina Castro, fiance/partner of brother, says no one told her about towing vehicles that belonged to her fiance/brother to litigants.  Plaintiff says late brother’s fiance/partner (Regina) of 25 years and family weren’t even invited by her to come to the memorial service.  Two brothers died this year, a month apart. 

Adult Protective Services told Robert and defendant to move off the property, but plaintiff felt sorry for them, so she let them stay. 

Plaintiff says mother signed property over to her as a co-owner.   Brother Robert was living on property when mother lived there, allegedly he was asked to leave because he abused his mother.   

Defendant says plaintiff is a gang banger, meth head, lives in a trailer park, and has had three homes foreclosed on.    Defendant claims the home belongs to the siblings equally. 

The overhead map of the property looks horrible, with cars and boats all over the front driveway.  

Plaintiff says 50 guests showed up at the house for defendant’s memorial service, no one else in the family was invited.  

There is a pending lawsuit over the ownership of the property, so why is plaintiff suing on Hot Bench about the boats and cars being towed.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, everything will have to be decided in probate court, and then the towing will be adjudicated once property ownership is decided by Superior Court.

Tewolde says since the deed shows plaintiff as the owner of the property, she wants to give the plaintiff the money she wants.   Juarez says Robert had the vehicles towed, and he was living on the property.

Corriero says to dismiss without prejudice.   Juarez says Robert was a legal resident, so plaintiff should be suing him.   Tewolde goes for plaintiff’s case.

Decision is to dismiss plaintiff case pending decision of Superior Court/probate court for lack of jurisdiction, because it’s in Superior/Probate court now.     Tewolde tries to mediate like Dr. Phil, and fails.

“Smokey and Mirrors”

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 146, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero).

(Nicole Lecheler vs. Tracy Pena)

Plaintiff suing for vet bills after neighbor’s Pit Bull Smokey, attacks Oliver the plaintiff’s terrier, suing for $5,000.   The litigants lived in the same condo complex for many years.   Fortunately, the litigants are in two separate buildings.  (This was in San Jose, CA)

Plaintiff was walking her dog Oliver, says she tries to avoid Smokey, because her dog is afraid of him.   Defendant chains her dog up on a concrete base, and ring.     Defendant has two other dogs, another Pit Bull, and a Chihuahua.  

Plaintiff was walking Oliver in the common area.   Defendant’s garage was partially open, Smokey ran out of the garage, and immediately attacked Oliver without warning.   Defendant, her fiance and daughter finally showed up at the fight, but claim there was no fight.  Defendants were in the garage, and dog was outside off leash, as usual.

Defendant says plaintiff never said her dog was attacked, and dog didn’t make any noise.    Defendant daughter Sarah (age 13), and boyfriend Ramone Chavez got to the scene first.    Defendant was upset because plaintiff was yelling at her daughter.     Defendant says Oliver wasn’t barking, or upset, so the claim was fake.  Defendant claims plaintiff accused another of her dog, and an older daughter, for a dog attack, and claims that was a fake claim of attack too.

Acker asks why plaintiff had a lawyer send a demand letter for $10k for the attack, instead of the medical bills.   Oliver had to have hip surgery too, after suffering a broken hip.    Plaintiff submits a video of Oliver a day or two after the surgery for his hip damages.

The pictures of Oliver show major damages, and surgery. 

DiMango really hates defendant’s ridiculous testimony, but Acker is harder on plaintiff’s claims. Corriero is making excuses for the defendant, and claiming plaintiff shouldn’t have been within 20 feet of defendant’s garage.   It’s the common area for the condo, so everyone’s property.   

Garage door is open only a few inches, and a solid metal door, not the separate panels the way many doors are.  I doubt the defendants' story about how little the garage door was open.   

Acker is still whining about the bills for Oliver’s vet care. 

$5,000 to plaintiff. (After the decision, Acker says the two women need to find a way to work together.   Is she kidding?)

Edited November 12, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Paperclips]

This wasn't as bad as the last ones.  Sleepy Judge woke up, Non-Stop Talking Judge stopped for 2 minutes, MC wasn't yelling his ass off.

[patty1h]

Dude, Where's My Cat?    Today's case involved Sweetheart, the homeless cat, and a defendant who could have used some sedatives.  The cats owner (Susan Lewis) became homeless/living in her car and her friend (defendant Leslie Potter) offered to keep the cat for a while, but is refusing to return Sweetheart because she thinks Susan is not in an appropriate living situation for the cat.  Susan is asking for $5K in lieu of the cat, while  Leslie wants $5K in reimbursement for the time she had the cat.   

Those two women entirely too wound up and invested in each others lives, dropping shade about drinking, homelessness, boyfriends and pet care capability.  Poor Sweetheart also got hit by a car while in Susan's care, and Leslie is using that as another example why she won't give the cat back. There is even a video of these two messes yelling at each other.  This case had so much drama about a cat, I could fill a page with the details (cops called, firemen called, taunting texts, some 'mean girl' action with a friend coming between plaintiff and defendant), but it's Monday and I don't have the energy.

Towards the end of the case Leslie Potter dropped the revelation! that she was an alcoholic herself, I said "we were all fooled... NOT!".   Leslie kept making this weeping face through the whole case, but I didn't see a tear, and after a nice deranged rant, she dropped her request for $5K.  The judges awarded the return of Sweetheart to the plaintiff.  I'm sure that after the case, both of these women ran to the nearest bar/liquor store.

Edited November 14, 2022 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Dude, Where’s My Cat?”

New, 2022, Season 9 Episode 42 (Tewolde, Juarez, Corriero)

(Susan Lewis vs. Leslie Potter)

Two women fighting over custody of a cat, named Sweetheart.  After a house fire (sounds more like an eviction after a fire), plaintiff couldn’t afford a place to live, and was evicted, so she had defendant keep the cat.   Defendant says if she can’t keep the cat then she wants $5,000 for cat boarding, food, vet care.   Plaintiff claims they were only friends for a couple of years, but defendant says they were acquaintances for years.   Plaintiff wants the cat back.

Plaintiff says she visited the cat every week.   Defendant says there were two cats, plaintiff only had Sweetheart after one cat went missing, and presumed dead.   Then, a man ran over Sweetheart at Hermosa Beach, but he paid for the surgeries, and plaintiff had the cat in her car.   Defendant says plaintiff was a neglectful cat owner, and is bothering the other tenants when plaintiff comes by demanding her cat back.   The video of plaintiff harassing defendant is appalling.  

Right after this, plaintiff called in a welfare check and the fire department broke down defendant’s front door.    Corriero says defendant was taunting the plaintiff on the video.   However, plaintiff wants the cat back to give to someone else to keep for her.

Defendant’s witness says cat was living under the storage facility, and will live in plaintiff’s car.

Then, both women admit they were alcoholics, or my guess is they still are.    Why does plaintiff want this cat back?   She doesn’t have anywhere to live with the cat, and sounds like she never will.    I bet next case is plaintiff suing the next cat caretaker, because you know she’ll get the cat back.

Both litigants are out of control, and defendant isn’t much better than plaintiff, but she does have a place to live in.

Within two weeks, the litigants, minus defendant’s witness Michelle, must meet in a neutral place, and plaintiff gets Sweetheart back.   No money for either side.   Nothing said about fire department report about a welfare check, that caused defendant’s door to be broken down.

(I wouldn't let either litigant, or their s$*% stirrer witness, near a live animal.)

“A Ring of Truth”

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 142, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Derek Williams  vs. Catrina Roper)

Plaintiff /ex suing defendant/ex for $400 for property, and $2,000 for an engagement ring.   Defendant said she returned the ring to plaintiff, but plaintiff says it’s a fake ring.   The two were on and off while defendant had to get her criminal issues taken care of.   Plaintiff says defendant has legal and substance abuse issues.  The final argument started when the litigants took kids and grandkids to an amusement park, and she was late, and she claims plaintiff was abusive.   Then claims plaintiff got very angry, and was screaming and swearing at her, and that was the last straw.  Plaintiff wants money for the ring, and property, but defendant wants the money she spent on his kids during their relationship. 

They go to buy the ring after dating a few months.   However, he had the credit line for the ring a few years ago, before he met the defendant.   

The litigants exchanged the ring in front of a police officer, and plaintiff took it back to Jared, and claims they told him the ring is fake. 

What ridiculous case.

Plaintiff didn’t prove the ring he has is the same one they bought at Jared, and that can’t be done.   Nothing to plaintiff.    Defendant claim for $140 is granted.  

Edited November 15, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Paperclips]

Hot Bench wasn't bad today.   No pet cases thank heavens.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Not so Hot, Dawg”

New, Season 9, Episode 43. (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jack Drasner vs. Steve Prevo)

Both litigants were co-workers and friends for 20 years at a previous company.   The two litigants both moved to Florida, and were partners in “Hot Dogs Plus”, in Florida, until plaintiff put up a “Make America Great Again” flag, outside of the hot dog cart.  Defendant did the licenses, plaintiff came up with the idea, equipment of almost $5,000.     Plaintiff suing defendant for $5,000.

There’s a written contract, that says the resigning partner can’t take property with him.    So, defendant put everything up for sale. 

This hot dog cart business was only for two months duration.    Defendant claims selling everything and taking the profits is his right, because the plaintiff resigned.   Plaintiff wants his $4,000 back, and defendant wants his $1100 back.  However, hot dog cart is only worth about $4,000. 

Decision is plaintiff gets $4,000, defendant gets to sell the cart and keep the proceeds.   Why is defendant getting the chance to make a big profit depending on how much the cart sells for?

“Mama Drama”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 136. (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Marisol Ortiz vs. Tracee Bautista)

Plaintiff daughter suing defendant mother for the return of a drill and a pillow, suing for $1040, and for identity theft for mother putting an electric bill in her name.     Plaintiff daughter claims because of her mother’s treatment of her, that daughter contemplated suicide.   Daughter and (mother emphasizes that daughter’s not married to partner, Daniel Ortiz) partner not husband, built an addition on mother’s mobile home.  Daughter says she lived in the addition with husband/partner and children, paid rent, until mother assaulted daughter.  Daughter says she wasn’t raised with siblings, because the mother never had custody.   Mother claims everything daughter says is a lie.   Police were called, and both women were arrested.  There’s also a pending case against Daniel Ortiz about assaulting plaintiff.

There’s a pending case against Daniel Ortiz after the assaults and he claims he didn’t hurt anyone.   Daughter claims mother was married 13 times, and there are 5 to 7 siblings that she has very little contact with.    Defendant claims she protected her daughter from partner.   

Plaintiff claims mother kept her property.    Jose Daniel Ortiz has a restraining order against him, daughter’s legal name is Virginia Marisol Ortiz.    Defendant will give back pillow and drill to daughter.  Daughter claims mother kept the game consoles, but mother claims she’s owned the consoles for years.  There’s a receipt for the game consoles in Mr. Ortiz’s name.  (This was in Provo, Utah).

What a sad, sordid little case.   I believe the daughter, and nothing the mother says.

Plaintiff claims mother used daughter’s identity for the electric bill, using daughter’s social security number.

Mother claims daughter put electric bill in daughter’s name when she was 16. 

A video shows the two women arguing over the game consoles.  

Property gets returned to plaintiff, curtains, pillows, and drill.  Plaintiff gets $670 for the game consoles.    Electric bill opened in plaintiff’s name is dismissed.