Carolina Girl December 13, 2022 Share December 13, 2022 45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero pulls his usual schtick and says defendant probably helped plaintiff a lot over the years, and I seriously doubt it. The Gospel according to Corriero - never mind the facts put in front of you - what you THINK might be true should govern. I'm rather intrigued that Judy Scheindlin is producing a duplicate show on FreeVee and poached the two judges and left Judge Bozo on the original show, which is also her creation. Wonder if she's sold her interest in the original show (which for my money can just die a natural death). 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 14, 2022 Share December 14, 2022 “Gloom and Board” New, Season 9, Episode 62 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Darren Ho vs. Roshaun Watson) Plaintiff is accused by the non-paying roommate/defendant of being one of the biggest drug dealers in the county (if man was really a big dealer, he wouldn’t need roommates, so I’m not believing this). Plaintiff is suing for $5,000. Defendant paid $1000 security deposit before moving in, but during Covid defendant stopped paying. Defendant claims he caught up on paying rent before move out, but plaintiff claims defendant moved out without notice, and left his room a mess. This was a one bedroom apartment, defendant had the bedroom, and plaintiff had the living room. Defendant claims plaintiff was sending coded texts, to cover drug deals. Defendant says he was worried about a home invasion, or enraged drug customers robbing them. Plaintiff shows a video of the bedroom, and living area before move in by defendant. The pictures after moveout are disgusting. Plaintiff can’t find payment from defendant for two months rent. Plaintiff receives $1,075 plus the $1,000 security deposit, and $550 cleaning, and skip trace $300. So, how did he end up with $975. “ Rid Me of My Roommates. Part 1” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 32(Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Shanty Hughes (apartment owner) vs. Jose “Angel “Luna and Ernest ‘Ernie’ Welker) Plaintiff listed a room for rent in her apartment, and says a defendant showed up with a towel, ready to take a shower. Hughes and Welker worked together importing and exporting to Indonesia. Luna and Welker had a fight, and one showed a handwritten lease to the police, after plaintiff found out Luna was living in her apartment while she was in Arizona. Welker allowed Luna to move into plaintiff’s apartment without her permission. She wants $5,000 from Welker. She wants $5,000 for unpaid rent from Luna, who plaintiff says is a squatter for 10 months in her apartment. When Luna went to move in, he says Welker handed him a handwritten lease, purportedly from Hughes, when Hughes was out of town. Luna claims plaintiff claimed to be on some clinical trial for medication that would make her big bucks (no, doesn’t make sense to me either). Then, plaintiff went out of town, and when she returned, Welker and Luna were living in her apartment, with Luna not paying. Then, Welker changes his testimony. This case is totally bizarre. Welker says plaintiff gave him the lease to print, so Luna could sign it, but Luna says plaintiff gave him the lease. Luna claims Welker is Hughes property manager and is who would receive the money for the apartment. So, Welker gave the lease copy to Luna, and gave him keys to the apartment. Irvine PD showed, and bounced Luna out, then Luna claims police called him and told him to leave the apartment. Plaintiff says she never leased the apartment to Luna. She also wants money from Welker for letting Luna move into her apartment. Handwritten lease is a mess too. Hughes claims she never accepted a penny from Luna, and never gave Welker permission to rent apartment, and that’s by text. Hughes didn’t evict Luna, (This case is continued on tomorrow’s show. They didn’t say continued, just ended, so I checked the cable guide) 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 15, 2022 Share December 15, 2022 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: This case is totally bizarre. No kidding! I thought JDiM's head might explode while trying to get any of the litigants to say anything at all that made sense. Even Papa Mike seemed a little steamed. "He came to my house disrespectfully with a towel to take a shower...I was SUPER DUPER busy!" They're all crackpots and I could not make heads nor tails of this lunacy. I don't know if I can take another installment of this tomorrow but it's so zany I might try. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 15, 2022 Share December 15, 2022 “May Old Acquaintance Be Forgot” New, Season 9, Episode 63, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Teri Brown-Jackson vs. Kathryn Marcus ) Landlord and tenant dispute faulty wiring and illegally held security deposit. Plaintiff says washer broke down, and was spraying water everywhere in the middle of the night. Defendant says washers don’t break down in the middle of the night (she’s wrong). Plaintiff should have received an itemized damage list within 21 days after plaintiff left, but she didn’t receive a list for 63 days. (Home is in California, defendant landlord lives in Atlanta). Plaintiff could only inspect part of the house before move in, because current tenant would only let them see less than half of the home. Plaintiff claims on move-in house was a filthy, cluttered mess from the previous tenant. Plaintiff/former tenant is suing defendant/former landlord for return of her security deposit. Plaintiff only bought home in 2015, lived there a while, and then rented it out. Previous tenants only rented separate halves of the house, and plaintiff is the only tenant that rented the entire home. Plaintiff’s husband was going to fix up house (painting, etc.) but husband passed away too, so things didn’t get fixed. Plaintiff’s adult son says house was in bad shape, with electrical issues (house was 99 years old). Defendant only moved out of her side a month or so before plaintiff moved in, and took photos, but plaintiff claims rug is awful, but defendant says she walked on rug in socks, and barefeet, and it was fine then. Plaintiff said washer didn’t work with large loads, but she didn’t tell defendant about that. Plaintiff also says she didn’t have her husband drill into an antique cabinet, just put one nail in it. Defendant says the antique cabinet cost $1,000 to fix after plaintiff’s mounting the TV. Corriero says time period to send the damage list is unacceptable, but defendant asked for a delay because of Covid, and the death of defendant’s mother. Plaintiff stayed over a few days on her rental term, admits to chipping the tub, and the antique furniture. Plaintiff will get $569 back after the deduction for the antique furniture damage. Defendant’s delay will result in nothing more for her. Defendant needs a property manager who will take move in and move out photos, and take care of issues. (This case is why renting to friends, or relatives is a terrible idea) “Rid Me of My Roommates. Part 1” (This is continued from Wednesday’s show) Rerun, Season 8, Episode 32(Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Shanty Hughes (apartment owner) vs. Jose “Angel “Luna and Ernest ‘Ernie’ Welker) (Part 1-Plaintiff listed a room for rent in her apartment, and says a defendant showed up with a towel, ready to take a shower. Hughes and Welker worked together importing and exporting to Indonesia. Luna and Welker had a fight, and one showed a handwritten lease to the police, after plaintiff found out Luna was living in her apartment while she was in Arizona. Welker allowed Luna to move into plaintiff’s apartment without her permission. She wants $5,000 from Welker. She wants $5,000 for unpaid rent from Luna, who plaintiff says is a squatter for 10 months in her apartment. When Luna went to move in, he says Welker handed him a handwritten lease, purportedly from Hughes, when Hughes was out of town. Luna claims plaintiff claimed to be on some clinical trial for medication that would make her big bucks (no, doesn’t make sense to me either). Then, plaintiff went out of town, and when she returned, Welker and Luna were living in her apartment, with Luna not paying. Then, Welker changes his testimony. This case is totally bizarre. Welker says plaintiff gave him the lease to print, so Luna could sign it, but Luna says plaintiff gave him the lease. Luna claims Welker is Hughes’ property manager and is who would receive the money for the apartment. So, Welker gave the lease copy to Luna, and gave him keys to the apartment. Irvine PD showed, and bounced Luna out, then Luna claims police called him and told him to leave the apartment. (This makes zero sense, but that’ standard for this ridiculous case). Plaintiff says she never leased the apartment to Luna. She also wants money from Welker for letting Luna move into her apartment. Handwritten lease is a mess too. Hughes claims she never accepted a penny from Luna, and never gave Welker permission to rent apartment, and that’s by text. Hughes didn’t evict Luna, continued today) “Rid Me of My Roommate” Part 2 Rerun, Season 8, Episode 33(Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Shanty Hughes (apartment owner) vs. Jose “Angel “Luna and Ernest ‘Ernie’ Welker) (Continued from Wednesday) Police told plaintiff that she needed to evict defendant, and Corriero says you can evict non-paying tenants/squatters during Covid. In some towns, you can’t evict for non-payment even after Covid moratorium ended. Corriero is actually angry with Luna, defendant. Defendant told police that if plaintiff wanted him to move out she needed to pay him thousands. Acker is really steamed at defendant. I’m surprised Bleeding Heart Corriero is mad at defendant too. Acker is mad at Welker too, for the lease language. Hughes claims she never wrote the handwritten lease, and never agreed to have Welker as her property manager. Defendant also said he would pro rate the rent, and wanted $2,000 to move out. Luna keeps interrupting Acker, and she’s angry, and I agree with her. Defendant Luna swears he paid plaintiff for the rent and deposit. Defendant claims his dispute with plaintiff led to him being fired. Defendant wants $5,000 for defamation of character, and claims his son was thrown out of school because of plaintiff. Defendant claims plaintiff said he burglarized her apartment, and police questioning him outside of his work site led to him being fired. Defendant gets nothing. Plaintiff gets money for the broken screen door, plaintiff was a squatter, and never a paying tenant. Acker says defendant Luna is a squatter and an extortionist, by trying to get plaintiff to pay her to leave. $5,000 to plaintiff, from Luna’s case, and $1,000 from Welker to plaintiff, but either way plaintiff gets $5,000. 1 1 Link to comment
Welshman in Ca December 15, 2022 Share December 15, 2022 That guy from the rerun is the sort of asshole that I could gladly beat the living daylights out of & then do it again once he recovered from the first beating. What a **** he is. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 16, 2022 Share December 16, 2022 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Acker is really steamed at defendant. I’m surprised Bleeding Heart Corriero is mad at defendant too. Acker is mad at Welker too, for the lease language. That Luna - wow, what a sociopathic parasitic con artist. NOW I believe he showed up in shorts with a towel. Amazing how some litigants do not care how unwanted they are. It would take dynamite to get that creep out. Trying to reason with him or get a straight answer to a simple question was a maddening exercise in futility. He's disabled but has had the same job for 17 years? I think JA would have ordered Luna cuffed and thrown in the slammer ( or put in front of a firing squad) if she could have. Her anger was justified. It was a nice change to see Papa not try to make excuses for a litigant's outrageous behavior but then Luna is not a very young man or a woman so he gets no sympathy. Def Welker was just a bizarre-looking weirdo and either he's very slick or doesn't know if he's afoot or on horseback. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 16, 2022 Share December 16, 2022 “The Fast and the Furious” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 36, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (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 with Corriero, 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. I bet after this aired, that the only thing defendant can rent is a 1990 Yugo, he won’t be speeding in that.) Plaintiff gets charged $394, for one violation on speed, and the mileage. “Hit & Run & Hide” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 117, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Petra “Ana” Pham vs. Porfirio “Adriana” Ortega) Plaintiff says defendant/driver fled the scene after sideswiping her car, but mysterious drag racers are blamed by the defendant. Defendant ended up at Taco Bell, but claims she wasn’t fleeing the accident. Plaintiff was on the freeway, hit on the driver’s side rear wheel well, and defendant got stuck on plaintiff’s tire. (On a tacky note, what the hell is that awful wig on defendant’s head, and who did that makeup?) Plaintiff was struck, but couldn’t find defendant after the accident, until she found her by chance at the Taco Bell parking lot, where plaintiff claims defendant admitted responsibility. However, defendant’s testimony is that two unknown drag racers were endangering her, so defendant changed lanes, and that plaintiff pulled in front of her without warning, claims plaintiff stomped on her brakes, and so it was plaintiff’s fault. Corriero actually questions plaintiff if she slammed on her brakes, and changed lane suddenly. Did the judges ask defendant if she had a valid registration, insurance and driver’s license? Why am I guessing she doesn’t? Acker actually asks defendant if she tried to find the imaginary drag racers? Then, Acker says plaintiff’s damage estimate is way too high. DiMango finally asks, and defendant doesn’t have a license or insurance. So, defendant gets away with driving illegally, hits plaintiff, and now the judges screw plaintiff over again. $3500 to plaintiff. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 19, 2022 Share December 19, 2022 “2 Wrong Wigs Don’t Make a Right” New, Season 9, Episode 64, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Stephanie Stanton vs. Latalia Gomez ) Plaintiff ordered the wig online from defendant, and she liked the wig, and then ordered two more. Plaintiff ordered a blonde wig from defendant wig maker, and received a brunette wig instead. Defendant has a no refund policy, and she says she’s not giving money back so Corriero says “She not splitting hairs”. Defendant says there are no refunds on wigs because of sanitary reasons. There are two wigs on the Styrofoam heads, plaintiff ordered 1010 (very blonde), and #2730, which is pretty blonde, but not as light as 1010. The two wigs plaintiff received were in one case light brown, and the other one is a shade or two darker brown. The video from the Facebook sale outlines the no refund, no return policy. The blonde wig on the video is very blonde, nothing like the wigs received by plaintiff. Then, plaintiff says defendant models all of the different wig models on her FB show, and says she’s sure defendant is reselling the used wigs she wears on the sale video. Defendant brought the two wigs to court, and says the light wig on her desk is the same as plaintiff’s wig. Plaintiff says the FB live sale is an hour of church first, so she doesn’t watch that, so plaintiff claims she may have missed the no refund policy. However, plaintiff saw the no refund policy on the order form. Corriero can’t relate to the wig case. This case is over $75. I wouldn’t give plaintiff anything, the no return policy is right on the order form. Plaintiff gets refund for the first blonde wig, not the second. Juarez will refund for the second wig not the first. Unanimous verdict, plaintiff gets $37.50 for one wig. (I would have made plaintiff give up the one wig they paid her for, you know she's still wearing it. ) “Unbrotherly Loan Love” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 52, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Laura Padron and Jose Vaca vs. Samuel Vaca ) Plaintiff / brother wants a loan repaid from defendant/ brother of defendant’s lawyer fees in a divorce, and for his uninsured car impounded, but statute of limitations may cancel the loan out, $3,216 is the total. Defendant brother is homeless and unemployed, so how was he supposed to pay the loans back? Defendant says there was never an expectation of repayment, he says he didn’t want the lawyer for the divorce anyway. No written loan contracts. DiMango says it’s outside the statute of limitations, including when defendant was out of the country, the loan period would be paused. Defendant says he didn’t want an attorney, but plaintiff brother says defendant begged him for the money for the divorce and custody cases. Now Corriero starts praising the relationships between brothers, is he kidding? Plaintiff Padron says court clerk told her that she could only file a suit against defendant if he had an address. Plaintiff Padron didn’t forgive the debt, but Plaintiff Vaca did. Then, DiMango discusses the statute of limitations. Plaintiff receives $0. Acker and DiMango side against Corriero. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 20, 2022 Share December 20, 2022 Wigs, wigs and more wigs... wrong wigs, oily wigs, ruined wigs, and on and on. Enough. This is nearly as boring as unpaid utility bill tiffs. 19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Now Corriero starts praising the relationships between brothers, is he kidding? Wasn't that something? Did he bring up Cain and Abel this time? I cut out when he started that crap. It was almost as bad as the "Love thy brother" sermon for a plaintiff whose drunken, violent brother knocked him to the floor and stomped his head. Papa needs to switch professions from law to preaching, maybe in one of those old-timey tent revivals. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 20, 2022 Share December 20, 2022 (edited) “Table for One/VanWrecker” New, Season 9, Episode 65, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) “Table for One” (Sabrina Rojas vs. Irvin Garcia-Santiago) Plaintiff/mother sues for damages after a flying table wrecked her car while her baby was inside the car. As usual, defendant didn’t have insurance at the time of the accident. Plaintiff is the car owner, and plaintiff’s boyfriend Jacob was driving her car with the baby in a carrier in the back. Defendant says the collection agency’s letter wasn’t itemized enough for him. Plaintiff had three different rental companies, and defendant didn’t pay those costs either. Plaintiff boyfriend Jacob Montelongo was driving, when defendant’s truck had a table fly out, and then a second table. Plaintiff wants the car repaired, the rental car, the car seat replacement, and defendant isn’t doing anything about the bills. Plaintiff took out a loan to pay for the first car rental. Plaintiff was under 25 at the time of the first rental, so her mother had to rent the car for her. Why is Juarez whining about how much the plaintiff is suing for? I’m sick of excuses made for drivers without insurance. I would give her $5,000. Tewolde only want to pay for the car rentals, and car seat, and the minimum for car damages. $1016 to plaintiff for the car rentals, and car seat, and the interest on the loan. “Van Wrecker” (Sean Jones vs. Michael Carter) Plaintiff/daycare owner sues a volunteer driver after his wife failed to mention her husband had a history of multiple accidents. Plaintiff hired defendant as a volunteer driver, for about two months. Then, defendant totaled the van, fortunately no children were in the van at the time. Defendant claims plaintiff should have had insurance, but plaintiff only has liability. Defendant wasn’t on the insurance policy, but was judged to be at fault in the accident. Defendant claims he was rear ended. However, van is crunched on the front passenger side. Police report says van driver failed to yield at the stop sign, and hit the other vehicle. The vehicle that hit the van was knocked into another vehicle. Then, defendant’s prior bad driving record came to light, but plaintiff didn’t check the driving record, and went by the recommendation of defendant’s wife. Defendant’s wife, Sheila Burt, admits her husband totaled several other vehicles, then says husband only wrecked one of her vehicles. I’m wondering if plaintiff’s employee screening is a lax as with the defendant? Plaintiff claim dismissed, he didn’t screen the defendant’s driving record. “Bad Car-ma Wash” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 47, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Andrew Garcia vs. Lydia Chavez (daughter and driver) and (mother) Sandra Vera) A supposed fraudster claims he was rear-ended in an automated car wash by a young girl, who is joined by her mother in court as they refuse to give in, and present video evidence with solid logic to defend themselves. Plaintiff was driving, when he claims defendant daughter rear ended him. Car wash case went nowhere, so he’s suing the defendant daughter. Plaintiff claims $9,000 in car damages (set his air bags off), and a dent in his back bumper, and claims the back tire damage was from the collision, and hitting a machine in the automated car wash. Plaintiff had no insurance, and hasn’t had insurance for a long time. Defendant daughter submits photos from car wash video showing the damages on plaintiff’s car was before the supposed accident claimed by plaintiff. Video of car wash is discussed by police report, from police officer viewing the surveillance. Then, defendant’s insurance hired a private investigator, and another angle shows daughter’s car didn’t hit the plaintiff. Defendant mother shows the video from the car wash, and when the attendant comes over to the plaintiff’s car, there is no air bag deployment visible, and the plaintiff signals thumbs up to the attendant. Then, after the car wash, defendant daughter vacuumed her car out, and left the car wash. Photo of plaintiff’s car entering the car wash, shows the same damages before the supposed accident. Plaintiff called police, claimed the defendant daughter hit his car so hard the air bags deployed, and then left the car wash. Plaintiff case dismissed. The police and insurance company should charge plaintiff with filing a false police report, and driving without insurance. Defendants receive $5,000 for having to deal with false allegations, and having to deal with plaintiff. Edited December 20, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 1 Link to comment
Carolina Girl December 21, 2022 Share December 21, 2022 I remember the Car Washout fraudster. This guy probably went to an attorney within 24 hours after the accident, who was bombarded with a fistful of lies from the plaintiff and an erroneous police report. Of course Slippin Fall, Esq. sent him right away to his chum the chiropractor to make an immediate diagnosis of spinal injury (I notice they NEVER send them to a neurologist or an orthopedist to have an MRI performed). Fraudster apparently took the insurance payout, a good percentage of which would have gone to attorney's fees and costs, and to pay Chummy the Chiropractor, and Fraudy got what was left over. So now greed sets in and he wants more and decides to sue everyone else. And Slippin Fall Esq. is probably more than willing to do so. But NOW the insurance company, which no doubt has a duty to defend clause in the auto insurance policy for the defendants, says "oh HELL no" and gets the goods on this lying sack of crap after the investigation. At this point, the lawyer kicks him to the curb faster than a bag of dog crap and the insurance company tells him they aren't ponying up anything further and if he persists in a lawsuit, they will file a motion to dismiss, and seek attorneys' fees and costs. So he takes it all to small claims (since lawyers are not involved, duty to defend doesn't kick in. Where he loses spectacularly. I imagine the original payout was not much, because from what I could tell, the insurer didn't come back after the conclusion of the investigation to reclaim the payout that was due to fraud. And unless they complain, the DA won't charge him. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 21, 2022 Share December 21, 2022 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The police and insurance company should charge plaintiff with filing a false police report, and driving without insurance. That moon-faced piece of shit was infuriating. The defs hit him so hard the air bag deployed, but he didn't really feel anything. Amazing. "I'm not going to answer that". "Oh, I'm suing everyone - Allstate, the car wash, etc." "To be honest (as though he knows the definition of that word) the L.A. police are a little lackluster." "To be honest", he just always drives with no insurance. So? *shrug* Airbag Boi needs to grow a brain if he wants to be a successful scammer. All the judges, even Papa Mike, hated him with the heat of a million suns. I really would hope the defs send a copy of this to their insurance company, but it was gratifying to see them awarded 5K, and zero for the dumbshit. 7 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said: Fraudster apparently took the insurance payout, a good percentage of which would have gone to attorney's fees and costs, and to pay Chummy the Chiropractor, and Fraudy got what was left over. I started to mention that in my post, but couldn't remember if he did the ol' "Ambulance chasing lawyer sends scammer to chiropractor" or not. I hope it cost him a lot after the lawyer promised a big payday for his nonsense. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 21, 2022 Share December 21, 2022 “Loan Snark” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 37, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (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. It sounds like plaintiff routinely does high interest (usuriously high interest) loans, what is she a loan shark? 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. “Covid Stress or Hostile Workplace?!” Rerun, Season 7, Episode 147, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Cassidy Stanford vs. Taylor Coe) Defendant Taylor was plaintiff’s supervisor, and litigants lived together with defendant’s boyfriend and dogs for a while. Plaintiff says defendant owes plaintiff over $700 for security deposit. Coe, boyfriend and two dogs moved in with plaintiff. Plaintiff lived with other co-workers at first. Defendant was two months behind paying the electric bill. Plaintiff says in one month she received nothing from defendant or boyfriend, about the rent and utilities, and boyfriend Sage Thomson got mad, and then defendant’s safe disappeared from the apartment. Plaintiff says the boyfriend stole her tip money, over $200 on one occasion. Boyfriend of defendant is Sage Thomson, and he denies everything. Liz, plaintiff’s co-worker and witness. Plaintiff says defendant was a long-term friend, but refused to help her when customers harassed her. Sage Thomson also told others that plaintiff stole from him. Plaintiff says after she complained about a hostile work environment to Taylor, that her work hours were cut, and nothing was done about customer harassment. Then, the apartment damages and security deposit came up, and defendant claims she lived there for a few months, and nothing was her problem. Taylor also claims she doesn’t set work hours, but the General Manager does. I’m betting the supervisors do have input to the G.M. about hours, and employee performance. Plaintiff discusses the damages to the apartment, including pet damages from defendant’s dogs. Defendant and witness claim they didn’t know about the allegations of thefts by plaintiff. Plaintiff claims both defendants were gossiping about her at work, and were hostile. Damages for apartment look long term to the judges. Landlord withheld $3200 in damages from security deposits, leaving $600+ left to pay in damages to the landlord. HOwever, defense witness says they 'cleaned up after the dogs before leaving the apartment', that does nothing to help the damages, leaving residue and stains behind. Plaintiff gets $1100 in utility bills paid, everything else dismissed. 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 22, 2022 Share December 22, 2022 (edited) “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. (In the interest of disclosure, I’ve been doing my hair color at home since the early 90’s. So, I guess I’m a kitchen beautician, but I’m not paying thousands a year to color my hair.) 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. As the hair grew out, she would have had a darker bottom hair, with the streaks on the surface hair, and with growing out roots. She should have just let her hair grow out, and lived with the 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. Her current hair is silver/grey on the top 6 inches, with blonde/brassy bottom 6 inches.) What plaintiff wanted means you have to do a double process, strip the color to white, and then put the streaks of color over it. Defendant shouldn’t have ever agreed to do this. 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. “Dog Gone” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 48, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Jeffrey Wood vs.Rustie Anne Shelton Morris) Plaintiff suing after defendant’s fence jumping Pit Bull, Houston, attacked and killed, plaintiff’s on-leash puppy, Oscar, a 5 month old French Bulldog. Plaintiff’s dog died, and defendant doesn’t care. Vet costs, cremation costs, and emotional distress for $5,000. Defendant says plaintiff’s dog must have taunted her dog to jump over the fence. Houston was put down after this. Plaintiff was doing his usual dog walking route, and claims he didn’t go in front of defendant’s property. Defendant’s property is around two corners and down the block from where the attack happened. During the attack, plaintiff had his dog on leash, when the Pit Bull attacked his dog, and only one person came to help plaintiff. Neighbor had to pick up the Pit Bull to separate the dogs. Plaintiff came home, knew his dog was dead, and ran into his house, the plaintiff’s 16-year-old daughter didn’t accept her dog was dead. Defendant has the gall to tell people walking in the public street to walk on the other side of the street, who the hell does she think she is? Unless she owns the street, anyone can walk on it. Defendant claims her dog must have jumped over a six-foot fence. Plaintiff says he went back to the scene with the police and animal control, and defendant drove over to the scene. Defendant refuses to admit that her dog (she only had this dog for a few weeks), had already attacked before. Houston had previously escaped the yard, and so defendant bought an outdoor chain link kennel, and animal control said dog could only be locked up or on a chain for a certain number of hours a day. So, defendant stopped kenneling the dog. Then, after the attack the defendant says police and animal control wouldn’t cite her if she put the dog down, so she did. DiMango shows a photo of the fence around defendant’s house, it’s falling over, it’s not six feet tall, it looks like a 4 foot chain link to me, and it's falling over. The gate is barely standing up either. Houston was estimated to be less than a year old. Defendant says after the attack that plaintiff posted on social media about the attack and her identity, and she claims people drove by her house cussing at her, and honking their horns. The texts were submitted to the court, and Corriero says they were condolences to plaintiff. One text says plaintiff didn’t name the owner of the attacking, vicious dog. Plaintiff was told about a prior incident with defendant’s dog by animal control, and the second attack resulted in dog being put down. This happened in Auburn,California, unfortunately where the earthquake happened this week. $5,000 to plaintiff. Why am I guessing that she has other vicious dogs by now? Notice she didn't say what her other dogs were? I noticed the name variations she used, and thought that was shady, it makes searching her harder, and I wonder if that's the point? Edited December 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 1 2 Link to comment
Carolina Girl December 23, 2022 Share December 23, 2022 That pit bull owner is one of those see you next Tuesdays that make me, a 69-year-old woman, want to walk up and beat the ever-loving SNOT out of her. And I can guaran-damn-tee you that a jury in Placer County wouldn't convict me. 2 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 23, 2022 Share December 23, 2022 (edited) “Two Tickets to Paradise” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 34, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Kathy Spilling vs. Patricia Listek) 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 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. 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. How can Juarez say defendant was hired as a caretaker, and should expect abuse from plaintiff? If plaintiff’s partner Dennis was so worried about his life partner, then he should have gone too. 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. “Botched Mitzvah; Sims Games” Rerun, Season 6, Episode 10, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “Botched Mitzvah” (Colette Rudishauser vs. Heidi Gilbert (mother) and (daughter) Mia Holmes ) Plaintiff caterer is suing defendant and daughter for non-payment for daughter’s bat mitzvah. Defendant complained about the chicken, and had her credit card company reverse charges for $1,000. Plaintiff’s company Chef DuJour has been in business for 10 years. Chicken dried out because venue staff put the chicken on skewers in a chaffing dish to stay warm. Daughter complains about the appetizers served to one of her relatives. After complaints, plaintiff refunded $270 for the chicken to defendant mother. Defendant is counter claiming for $2200 more. (This happened in Portland, OR). Defendant mother says food was inedible, and she should get all $4,000 back she paid for catering. Why are the judges whining that plaintiff’s company/employer has been in business for 10 years, but plaintiff only worked for them for two? I don’t like the defendant mother at all. She looks like an “ate the steak” person. Plaintiff and defendant claims dismissed. (My guess is that defendant has a hard time getting vendors for anything ?) Defendant already received $1200 back from the vendor, and the credit card company. I hope that when the defendant mother needs a caterer, that no one will sign a contract with her. “Sims Games” (Christopher Simms vs. Cody Keller) Plaintiff suing defendant/former employee for remainder of a $3500 loan, leaving $3300. Defendant says he helped plaintiff move, and that repaid some of his debt to plaintiff. Plaintiff says right after he loaned money to defendant, defendant ghosted him, and only repaid $200 one time. Dimango says defendant should have sold the trailer he lived in, to repay plaintiff. Is she kidding? In the discussions, all three judges are laughing about the man selling his trailer to pay off plaintiff, and being homeless. They have no compassion. $3300 to plaintiff. Edited December 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 23, 2022 Share December 23, 2022 34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff caterer is suing defendant and daughter for non-payment for daughter’s bat mitzvah. OMG. Years and YEARS of planning end in disaster. The chicken was dry! Ninety-four-year-old Great-great aunty got a COLD appetitzer! Great-Grandma(?) had to leave the party and forage in the street to try to find some food she could eat! Maybe she starved to death! This tale of unimaginable suffering and tragedy, in which a young girl is brought to court to hear her momma explain why she stiffed the P, brought tears to my eyes. Not that it matters for this incredibly nit-picking, cheapskate case, but I've had many a spanakopita(sp?) and they were all room temp and utterly delicious that way. I don't recall ever getting hot ones. Oh, but these ones weren't just room temp. They were actually COLD! Oh, the horror! P, who is a caterer who thinks pouring water over cooked chicken will make it moist - like, WTF? I'm no chef and still know that is not the way to go - offered 270$ back, but that's not nearly enough for Dragon Momma, who wants much more, like 1,000$ back since everything else - the hotel, the party, etc were ruined by this dry chicken and cold appetizers. I wonder why Dad wasn't here to tell HIS tale of woe and catastrophe? I couldn't finish this heart-rending tale - just the thought of dry chicken traumatized me - so thanks CrazyInAlabama for giving the verdict. 2 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 26, 2022 Share December 26, 2022 (edited) “Not so Hot, Dawg” Rerun, 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”, a food cart, 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? “My Nephew is a Thief?; Medicine for the Heart” Rerun, Season 6, Episode 27,(Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “My Nephew Is a Thief?” (Traci Parson (aunt) vs. Alan Alsobrook (nephew)) (During the first case, a fan shouts out to her favorite judge). Aunt and Nephew have a dispute. Aunt said nephew could have a mower(riding mower purchased for almost $2000) and propane fire pit other lawn equipment in return for clearing her lawn of leaves, just bagging not removing. Plaintiff gave the mower and other lawn gear without looking, says nephew didn’t finish the job. Nephew says none of the lawn equipment was any good, and he junked it all.(This happened in Paducah, KY). Plaintiff also tells Corriero one of her friends thinks he’s so handsome, and just loves him. She also sucks up to the other two judges When judge asks defendant if he’s going to apologize to plaintiff, he says no. Plaintiff wins $300 for the mower, and other tools, total of $500. “Medicine for the Heart” (Marie Bobbitt vs. Dominique Urssery (male) Defendant accused of charming $600 worth of shoes from a woman, and claims woman wanted more than friendship. Plaintiff bought three pair of sneakers for defendant. The shoe website lets you purchase the shoes, but you actually are taking out a loan from the company. $846 is what plaintiff is suing for $600 for the three pair of shoes, and $246 for cold medicine. Defendant is wearing one of the pair of sneakers in court. Plaintiff submits ‘proof’ of the shoes being a loan, but it doesn’t show defendant owing anything, just plaintiff owing money to the sneaker company loan in her name. DiMango says defendant isn’t that cute, or charming, and he’s quite insulted. However, I agree with DiMango. Plaintiff gets $846 back Edited December 29, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 27, 2022 Share December 27, 2022 (edited) “Poodlemonium” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 35, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 32 3 November 2022 “LYFT Driver Collision!; Slimy Shower Payday” Rerun, Season 6, Episode (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “LYFT Driver Collision!” (Maxwell Hunter vs. Kim Albers ) Plaintiff is a Lyft driver who had a passenger onboard sues an uninsured motorist/defendant for the maximum amount allowed after the driver is supposedly hit by the uninsured motorist. Plaintiff is suing for car damages, and lost wages, $2500. Defendant and witness claim defendant was parallel parking, and hit the side of plaintiff’s car. Damages are above the right front wheel well. Car is actually owned by defendant’s ex-husband, Chris Albers, but driven by Kim Albers. Judge DiMango says Kim Albers was actually pulling out of her parking space, not backing into the space. There is no way defendant Kim was parking, but had to be pulling out of the space. Defendant car was not insured. DiMango dissents because defendant had to be pulling out, Corriero and Acker say it was 50% liability for each. $1210 to plaintiff because 2 judges found him 50% liable. (My opinion is DiMango with any sense in this case, it’s obvious that defendant was responsible, and I bet defendant’s car still isn’t insured, or ever was). “Slimy Shower Payday” (Marshall Metli vs. John Nerdin ) Plaintiff has evidence of his contractor's poor work, but he is accused of inflating the repair estimates, and is suing for $4,000. Plaintiff paid $6,000 down, and paid the other $6000 at the completion of the job. Plaintiff claims he needs $4,000 to fix scratches on the wood floor, the shower floor not draining causing mold and slimy buildup, making the shower floor slippery. Plaintiff claims shower grout is coming out, and water pools stay behind for many hours in the shower pan. Defendant says the issues on the floor were fixed, and the shower repair needs to be tweeked, but his company closed in the town plaintiff lives in, and he lives three hours away now. Plaintiff has two estimates, for $2,000 for the tile (it’s a smaller town), second estimate is $7,000. This was in Vernal, Utah. The judges forget that this is a small town, so limited number of workers. $2,000 to plaintiff. Edited January 3, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 28, 2022 Share December 28, 2022 (edited) “All A-boat a Family Feud"” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 41, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 32 11 November 2022 “Chihuahua Trauma!; Friend Used as Personal Storage Unit?!" Rerun, Season 6, Episode 124, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “Chihuahua Trauma!” (Hugo Ramos vs. Norma Lozano) The judges rudely poke fun at a victim's hairy legs as they present their case about plaintiff biting him while he was jogging. What the hell! What kind of people are the judges? Apparently, rude, and nasty. Plaintiff suing defendant over the bite by defendant’s chihuahua for medical bills. Plaintiff was running at the junior high school track, he saw defendant, her boyfriend, and a little girl. When dog latched onto plaintiff’s leg, the little girl (she’s 8), pulled the dog off of the plaintiff’s ankle. There is a picture of plaintiff’s leg, and that’s when the judges start laughing about the plaintiff’s hairy leg. Plaintiff’s insurance covered the medical bills, plus $187 out-of-pocket. Plaintiff is suing for the medical bills, that will have to go to the hospital. Acker apologizes for the hairy leg remark, and then criticizes the plaintiff for wanting to repay the insurance company. I’m glad the plaintiff getting bitten by the Chihuahua is so entertaining for them. I guess the judges never heard of subrogation, where any money the plaintiff receives will have to go to the insurance company. Plaintiff gets $462, plus $187, so $649, $1667 with pain and suffering. “Friend Used as Personal Storage Unit?!” (Aundrea Wigginton vs. Aliyah Maddox) Plaintiff says she had a family emergency, and had to go to Kentucky. Defendant is a childhood friend of plaintiff’s daughter. Plaintiff moved to Kentucky, and left her 5-year-old washer / dryer with defendant, and plaintiff is suing for $2000 for the washer / dryer. Defendant says she was given the washer / dryer because plaintiff had no intention of coming back to Atlanta, but six-months later plaintiff returned, claims defendant stole the washer / dryer, and now wants $2,000. Plaintiff had been evicted from her previous home, stored everything for eight months at a storage facility, and when she moved to Kentucky, plaintiff couldn’t fit the washer/dryer on the truck she rented to move to Kentucky. So, plaintiff gave the washer/dryer to defendant Destiny Watts (daughter of plaintiff) says she suggested defendant would store the furniture and appliances in Atlanta. Plaintiff case dismissed. Edited January 3, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 29, 2022 Share December 29, 2022 On 12/26/2022 at 4:07 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: When judge asks defendant if he’s going to apologize to plaintiff, he says no. How much did I hate that pig-faced/pig-headed loser with the turd dangling on the back of his thick head? A great big hulk too bone-lazy to rake some leaves, scams his peculiar little aunty and then calls her "crazy". He didn't care how crazy she was when he was taking all her stuff, which we know he sold. Scum. Oh, well - at least Papa Mike got the thrill of a lifetime. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 29, 2022 Share December 29, 2022 (edited) "Wish Upon a Car" Season 9 / Episode 40, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Keith Brum and Dora Medina-Brum vs. Jade Jackson ) p. 32 10 Nov 2022 "Unauthorized Party" Repeat, Season 8, Episode 37, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Greg and Tamara Montana vs. Khyle Steward) Plaintiff wife’s father bought house for her grandmother years ago. (The couple are motivational speakers, or something like that. They got married at Zappos, about 10 years ago, there's a video and it's so cute). The plaintiffs rent house out on VRBO. Renter and six guests were residents, about midnight plaintiffs were called by neighbors. Plaintiff claims there were reports of fireworks, which apparently was shooting, and claim the house was destroyed. Defendant claims the 30 to 40 guests did the damage, and defendant claims he wasn’t responsible, and claims he didn't arrive until about 10:30 pm. Before pictures are lovely. There is a bullet hole in the floor, back door was off the hinges, A neighbor actually moved away because of this party. Carpets and other soft materials are polluted with beer and liquor smells. Plaintiffs will have to repair the damages. Police report is submitted. Defendant is who plaintiffs had the reservation from, and on another girl’s credit card to guarantee the reservation, but the contract had someone else’s address on it. The owners had to track defendant down with a private investigator in the hopes of making sure he is held accountable. On the party flyer, defendant’s photo is on the party flyer. Defendant claims he didn’t lie about having a small family party. He claims he didn’t rent the house. The contract says defendant’s name, and some woman’s credit card, with another phony address on the reservation. Plaintiffs say they had conversations with defendant and the woman. There are bullet holes in the floor. When the police arrived, 30 teens scattered. Before pictures of the house are lovely. The after pictures have holes in walls, bullet holes in the floor,. The house has a ring doorbell, showing people arriving about 6:30 in the evening, but still daylight, and you can see a ton of people going in the front door, and through the back door. The pictures from the camera show defendant going in the house, hours before he claimed to arrive at the house (He claimed he wasn't there until 10:30 pm, he arrived at least 5 hours before that). DiMango isn’t buying the defendant’s lies, or faked remorse. Acker is livid seeing the before and after pictures, and the police report. I hope defendant and his friends are banned from ever renting again. Insurance company denied coverage for the plaintiff’s damages, because this was deliberate vandalism. I wonder if they had the insurance for the property as a business? I looked online, and the plaintiffs have two other local short term rentals, but I don't see the one shown in the pictures. I'm wondering if they took it off the market? Or if they decided not to rent it out again. DiMango says the plaintiffs should have take defendant to civil court, and sued for damages, and repair. Plaintiffs receive court maximum $5,000. A unanimous verdict, and all three judges say defendant is despicable. (Monday, Hot Bench will be pre-empted by a football game, but new episodes after that, for the first half hour as usual). Edited January 2, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
Carolina Girl December 29, 2022 Share December 29, 2022 On 12/28/2022 at 12:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: I guess the judges never heard of subrogation, where any money the plaintiff receives will have to go to the insurance company. Honestly, there are times when these three are trying a case that I am GRATEFUL they are no longer inflicting their bullshit reasoning on REAL cases. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 30, 2022 Share December 30, 2022 (edited) “Blinded by the Light” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 39 , (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Richard B. Smith and Anne Smith vs. Jessica Lynn Harris ) p. 32 9 November 2022 "Designated Dog Zone Attack" Repeat, Season 8, Episode 45, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Sarah Scott vs. James Knudson) Plaintiff was walking her corgi/boxer mix , when she saw defendant’s dog being walked by a 10-year-old child, when plaintiff says defendant’s dog attacked her dog without warning. Defendant at first said he would pay the vet bills, but he never paid. Defendant claims the attack never happened. 10-year-old and mother and sister, were staying at the defendant’s apartment, house and dog sitting. The defendant was out of town, and is whining because he had to get rid of his dog. Plaintiff says she’s seen the 10-year-old walking the dog before, and dog was too strong for the child to walk. Photos of plaintiff dog (Alan) show bleeding wounds. Plaintiff tore a MCL, broke a bone in her hand punching the Pit Bull to let go of her dog. Defendant/ owner of a pit bull claims that their pet has never committed an unprovoked attack, but the owner/plaintiff of an injured corgi-boxer mix says otherwise as its owner seeks compensation for medical and veterinarian bills, and claims she was also injured. Another defendant who says their dog was provoked by another dog. Defendant’s wife Leni Knutson, calls the plaintiff a liar, and says dog didn’t have any bandages, and claims plaintiff had a knee injury two months before this. However, plaintiff submits her MRIs for her knee injury from this attack, and her MRI for her previous knee injury on the other leg, but it was two years ago. DiMango says leaving a 10-year-old to walk and care for a full grown Pit Bull is negligent, setting defendants off again. Apartment/HOA rules are “No Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes on the complex”, but defendant broke the rules and ignored everything until the attack happened, and the rules were enforced. Then, defendant claims he lived in the wood with his kids for years, so what? Plaintiff actually parks further away from where defendants’ live to avoid them. Even Corriero thinks the defendant is a jerk. Dog was sent to a no-kill shelter, but defendant didn’t tell shelter about the unprovoked attack, so plaintiff did, so the shelter wouldn’t adopt this dog out to another owner without warning. My question is why the apartment complex didn’t evict for having the Pit Bull there? Plaintiff receives $1,698 for medical bills, and pain and suffering. Acker has to put in one more pitch for how neither side is vindictive. Edited January 3, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 30, 2022 Share December 30, 2022 On 12/29/2022 at 3:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff wife’s father bought house for her grandmother years ago. The plaintiffs rent house out on VRBO. Just watched this. I couldn't help but wonder what retirement-Anthony Perkins and Farrah Faucet were thinking or what planet they inhabit that they thought it was a great idea to rent their home to some overfed, brain-dead, punk-ass "teen" and expecting him and his entourage to have respect, tippy-toe around their beloved house and use coasters for their drinks? They specify "No Parties" but what do they think a teen is going to do in an empty house? Duh. Get with it, you two. BTW, I though the place was hideous and tacky, but each to his own and they love it so that's all that matters. That flyer of the goof holding a gun to his head all gangsta-like - "It's just a pose" (because all teens are packing guns?) and inviting all and sundry to come and join in the destruction? Epic. "BYOE" (Bring Your Own Everything) The judges didn't ask for clarification, but I assume it meant to bring your own booze, drugs and guns. No party these days, even a kiddy b-day party can be a success without a little gunfire. Yeah, some girl he was conversating with and the other partygoers did it all and "it's not my fault" and blah blah - he didn't do nothing! Really, what WERE Ps thinking? Papa Mike gives the POS def his "be a man" speech, although he had to interrupt to explain to the genius what "subterfuge" means, but not one word of it penetrated that thick, bony noggin. In the hall, he's still all, "I didn't do it". He was merely an innocent bystander. The judges think Plaintiffs should have gone to a real court and sought 50K in damages. Sure, they could have but would never have received a penny even if awarded that amount. I hope they learned a lesson on how to keep their precious property free of vandalism. And call me cynical, but the P's folksy anecdotes about the neighbourhood - "Howdy, neighbour! How's your dad?" stuff did nothing for me. On 12/29/2022 at 3:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: I looked online, and the plaintiffs have two other local short term rentals, but I don't see the one shown in the pictures. I'm wondering if they took it off the market? They probably had to stop renting it due to the neighbours being so pissed at them for doing something so amazingly stupid, just to make a few bucks. Also it would be hard to rent with bullet holes in the floors. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 31, 2022 Share December 31, 2022 (edited) On 12/30/2022 at 4:32 PM, AngelaHunter said: They probably had to stop renting it due to the neighbours being so pissed at them for doing something so amazingly stupid, just to make a few bucks. Also it would be hard to rent with bullet holes in the floors. In some states, you can't stop anyone running a short term rental. California lets you restrict to 31 days or more rental terms, and HOAs can still prohibit Airbnb, VRBO, etc. However, if you put the rental property in a business name you can rent it out even with the HOA rules, or other limits. My HOA prohibits business uses, but that's regularly ignored, just like every other rule. Some states prohibit local governments from limiting short-term rentals (Indiana for one) so people can have them in any neighborhood or building complexes. I feel so sorry for the plaintiffs' neighbors, having this party of at least 30 people, shooting, and everything else going on. I can see why the one neighbor sold and moved. Edited January 1, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 31, 2022 Share December 31, 2022 22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Some states prohibit local governments from limiting short-term rentals (Indiana for one) so people can have them in any neighborhood or building complexes. IMveryHO, this is unfair. People who don't mind having a steady stream of anonymous short-term residents, transients or party animals entering and exiting at all hours next door could have bought a much cheaper home next to a motel. I know I'd be unhappy if my neighbours moved out and started renting to a slew of short-term residents who think gunfire and mass destruction is an appropriate part of their celebrations. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 1, 2023 Share January 1, 2023 On 12/28/2022 at 3:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: The judges rudely poke fun at a victim's hairy legs as they present their case about plaintiff biting him while he was jogging. What the hell! I guess in today's climate, where everything is fake and all mature adults are supposed to be as hairless as newborns, the sight of any body hair is now a freakish anomaly to be mocked and derided. I didn't like P, but last year I got bitten on finger by a MOUSE. Blood dripped and it really hurt. The mouse was probably 1/2 oz and the Chi is 6lbs, so yeah - it could do some damage. 2 Link to comment
Taeolas January 2, 2023 Share January 2, 2023 On 12/30/2022 at 6:32 PM, AngelaHunter said: Just watched this. I couldn't help but wonder what retirement-Anthony Perkins and Farrah Faucet were thinking or what planet they inhabit that they thought it was a great idea to rent their home to some overfed, brain-dead, punk-ass "teen" and expecting him and his entourage to have respect, tippy-toe around their beloved house and use coasters for their drinks? They specify "No Parties" but what do they think a teen is going to do in an empty house? Duh. Get with it, you two. BTW, I though the place was hideous and tacky, but each to his own and they love it so that's all that matters. That flyer of the goof holding a gun to his head all gangsta-like - "It's just a pose" (because all teens are packing guns?) and inviting all and sundry to come and join in the destruction? Epic. "BYOE" (Bring Your Own Everything) The judges didn't ask for clarification, but I assume it meant to bring your own booze, drugs and guns. No party these days, even a kiddy b-day party can be a success without a little gunfire. Yeah, some girl he was conversating with and the other partygoers did it all and "it's not my fault" and blah blah - he didn't do nothing! Really, what WERE Ps thinking? Papa Mike gives the POS def his "be a man" speech, although he had to interrupt to explain to the genius what "subterfuge" means, but not one word of it penetrated that thick, bony noggin. In the hall, he's still all, "I didn't do it". He was merely an innocent bystander. The judges think Plaintiffs should have gone to a real court and sought 50K in damages. Sure, they could have but would never have received a penny even if awarded that amount. I hope they learned a lesson on how to keep their precious property free of vandalism. And call me cynical, but the P's folksy anecdotes about the neighbourhood - "Howdy, neighbour! How's your dad?" stuff did nothing for me. They probably had to stop renting it due to the neighbours being so pissed at them for doing something so amazingly stupid, just to make a few bucks. Also it would be hard to rent with bullet holes in the floors. To be clear, the flyer didn't show any actual guns. They were making a big deal of the flyer having a pic of the defendant making a gunlike motion to his head. Honestly, it felt like the Judges were overreacting to it, considering everything ELSE they had to react to, but to each their own. Papa C really tried to get a lesson across, but it was falling on deaf ears. That idiot wasn't listening to a thing they were saying and was just there for the appearance fees basically... and probably planning on where the next party house would be. As for the plaintiffs, they obviously need to do more checking into their renters before turning over the keys. They must have gotten lucky to date if this is the first time the renters turned into a Frat House party, but if they don't do more vouching, it won't be the last. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 3, 2023 Share January 3, 2023 1 hour ago, Taeolas said: To be clear, the flyer didn't show any actual guns. True enough. I should sit closer to my TeeVee, I guess, but the imagery was enough to set the tone for this soiree in that it was not going to be exactly upscale. Still I blame the P's more for being gullible and naive enough at their ages to give a teenager free reign in their cherished home. It's true than anyone of any age might trash your place (if they watched this show they would know that) but expecting an 18-year-old and his buddies to care deeply about your expensive Venetian plaster and your faux Spanish alfresco cafe is just dumb beyond belief. As much as I hate my insurance company, I understand perfectly why the P's company wouldn't cover this damage. They can't pay for every dumb decision their clients make. 1 hour ago, Taeolas said: They must have gotten lucky to date if this is the first time the renters turned into a Frat House party Extraordinarily lucky, IMO. I would never ever let a gang of strangers occupy my home for even a day. What do strangers care about your possessions, your murals, or your Venetian plaster that was so expensive? BTW, although I'm sadly behind with trends, it seems that this wall treatment may now actually be a deterrent to prospective buyers who will only think how much it will cost them to get rid of the stuff. 1 Link to comment
Carolina Girl January 3, 2023 Share January 3, 2023 In Monday's new case, only one judge had it completely correct - the others were so off the mark that you could have grabbed two people off Sepulveda Blvd. and they would have done a better job. Plaintiff - a whiney scam artist, has defendant remove her extensions and prep them. Then decides she doesn't want them to be put back in her head right away and asks defendant if she'll hold on to them for her; defendant says sure, believing (as anyone with an ounce of common sense would) that the plaintiff will return in a month or so for reapplication. Plaintiff even says the same thing when questioned. TWO YEARS later, defendant is cleaning out her shop, comes across the hair extensions, and tosses them as they are probably no longer fit for use. She later texts the plaintiff that she's sorry and she should have contacted her before she tossed them. Offers to pay plaintiff what she paid for them originally - $410 - in salon credit. Plaintiff is so upset about the precious abandoned extensions - that she had probably forgotten about until the defendant reminded her - that she now demands upgraded NEW extensions to the tune of something like $900. The only fact Papa Mike gets correct in this is that he tells plaintiff that she gave the defendant a used car and is asking for a new car to replace it. Plaintiff tries to make defendant out to be her regular stylist who thoughtlessly threw away her hair. Complains that she needs the new and improved extensions because she needs to match her hair. In truth, the extensions were worthless, as they had not been cared for over the years. During the deliberations, watching Papa Mike and Judge Bored get it all so completely wrong is irritating. Judge Blabby has it right - defendant was never paid for the prep work she did on the extensions (countersuit) and that cancels out any value of the extensions. Meanwhile, Judge Bored says "hey she offered $410 to settle, let's hold her to that." WRONG. Not only that. Judge Bored says "well, she did offer to hold the hair." WRONG AGAIN. She was asked to hold the hair - it was not her idea - and no one seems to care that neither party anticipated a two-year bailment. Plaintiff walks away with $360 - $410 minus the $50 for prep services she never paid for. She should have walked away with ZERO and told next time she leaves something with someone maybe she shouldn't wait a couple years before she looks in on it. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 3, 2023 Share January 3, 2023 (edited) “Sudden Impact” New, Season 9, Episode 66, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Leslie Janet Cuevas vs. Sandro Velentin Ranilla Urgiles) Unlicensed driver who stopped in a lane of traffic to drop a friend off sues defendant for rear-ending her car. Apparently defendant was uninsured. Plaintiff claims she turned her hazard lights on before the collision, but defendant says no hazard lights were being used. Plaintiff has a California I.D., no license. Plaintiff claims she only used her car to go to and from work, but that’s no excuse. Torri Ashlyi James is plaintiff witness, and the person plaintiff was dropping off. Car repairs for plaintiff will be $4500. What do plaintiff’s personal issues have to do with this? Plaintiff has liability only, but how does an uninsured driver get insurance? Corriero again shows he’s a fool. For once Juarez is the voice of reason. Verdict is plaintiff case dismissed. Driving without a license, and stopping in the traffic lane. After the case, plaintiff says this isn’t the end, yes it is, they signed an agreement that no other suits will be filed on this case. “Loaned the Wrong Friend; You’re on Thin Ice!” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 122, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “Loaned the Wrong Friend” (Mark Strumwasser vs. Jeremy Hughes) Defendant borrows money from his employer for a medical procedure, $2068, with interest. Plaintiff needed $1700 for a procedure for Wilson’s disease, but defendant never paid the money back. Defendant says he has to get back on his feet, and working before he pays the loan back. However, defendant claims he didn’t know he had to pay the loan back, except he signed a repayment agreement. Plaintiff awarded $2,068 "You’re on Thin Ice!” (Predency Moore vs. Michele Watson) Plaintiff sues an appliance repair company. She claims defendant reset the refrigerator thermostat to -39 below, and defendant says refrigerator stops at -4. It’s a 10-year old refrigerator, and defendant’s husband is the repair technician. Defendant says husband did a diagnostic, and it needed a new icemaker. Plaintiff denies the ice maker was never fixed. Defendant husband says temperature was off, day 2 some water leakage. Defendants added a note after the fact, saying plaintiff needed a new ice maker. First visit was August, and second visit was October. Then, plaintiff says the temperature issue. Plaintiff gets $150 for the service call, plus $60 more for the groceries, so $210. Edited January 3, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 3, 2023 Share January 3, 2023 46 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Unlicensed driver who stopped in a land of traffic to drop a friend off sues defendant for rear-ending her car. This was quite educational. I learned that you needn't have a driver's license if you don't use the car to go to parties! I guess if you drive it only for serious trips then no license is required. Is that the law? Seems to be, according to the P. This girl, who works at night, had no time during any day ever to go and get a license. Oh, and that question about why no license unleashes a flood of tears, a need of Kleenex, and tales of woe. Her mother is a single mother! (as though nearly every mother on these shows is not one of those) She has no dad! She earns minimum wage! All those things should entitle her drive without a license, stop in a "No stopping" zone and get compensated for the wrecked car - how, exactly? She's shocked because her single momma told her to always put the hazard lights on - not for an accident or breakdown, but I guess if she decides to stop where that is not permitted. Besides, everyone else who was blocked by her illegally stopped car just went around her, so why didn't the D? Not her fault, for sure. Her witness helpfully informs the judges that no one thinks to put hazard lights on after an accident (I guess she doesn't have a license either) so they must have been on before, but the judges do not agree with that. Def who hit her didn't bring his proof of insurance here "today". He just assumed he had insurance and the company took care of this since he never heard anything about it. 53 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Verdict is plaintiff case dismissed. Thank you. Both litigants annoyed me so badly I couldn't finish this. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Defendant borrows money from his employer for a medical procedure, $2068, with interest. I feel bad for Def, but that he admits he didn't bother reading the paper he signed, and says "I'm not here to bash the plaintiff" was kind of annoying. Why would he "bash" the P, a stranger who was the only person who would hire him since it seems D has had a "checkered" past and the only person who gave him the money he desperately needed? And then when P asks when he'll be repaid - his business took a dive during COVID and he needed his money - Def can't even be bothered to answer him and explain. He just ignores him figuring he'll piss off. "No good deed" and all that. I bet P won't help anyone else, thanks to Def. I'm wondering why Def can't get disability payments. From watching these shows I've learned that anything from a sore back to a heart murmur to having broken an arm 15 years ago, tripped on some stairs resulting in PTSD, or drinks too much can get disability. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: She claims defendant reset the refrigerator thermostat to -39 below That was funny! I don't think my fridge has an "January in Alaska" setting. 2 Link to comment
Carolina Girl January 4, 2023 Share January 4, 2023 5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff claims she only used her car to go to and from work, but that’s no excuse. You know, I have looked and looked and looked in the California Drivers Manual, and have yet to find the "only going to and from work" exception to either licensing or insurance requirements, Yet to hear some of these yo-yo's talk, you'd think that somehow this is perfectly acceptable and why are you picking on them? 5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: For once Juarez is the voice of reason. She also was in the hair extensions case yesterday, asking why they were penalizing the defendant by holding her to a settlement offer that was refused by the plaintiff, and she was 100% right. In California civil disputes, either side can make, prior to trial, a Section 998 offer to settle. If the other side refuses the offer, you cannot then reference it in subsequent proceedings or use it to create an admission of culpability. I was in court one day when the plaintiff's slime slip and fall lawyer referenced the 998 offer during opening statements to the jury and even before our side could rise to object to it, the judge shouted out in the iciest tone "You can stop RIGHT there, counselor. Your opening is DONE! He then had the jury go out and asked the idiot to explain why he shouldn't just declare a mistrial right then and there and sanction him a couple thousand for his conduct. Actually his client had such a sham case that the jury sided with the insurance company's refusal to pay. 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 4, 2023 Share January 4, 2023 16 hours ago, Carolina Girl said: You know, I have looked and looked and looked in the California Drivers Manual, and have yet to find the "only going to and from work" exception to either licensing or insurance requirements, Maybe you were looking in the wrong place. Try "License and insurance required only for driving to parties or other recreational venues." 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 4, 2023 Share January 4, 2023 “Neigh-Sayer” New, Season 9, Episode 67. (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Leila Lewis (mother) and (daughter) Yvonne Rodriguez vs Mr. Rodriguez and Cecilia Ruhf) Plaintiffs mother and daughter say the horse was abused, buyer is offended and backs out of the sale. Defendants deny throwing things at the horse, or using a stud chain until horse’s mouth bled. Defendant backed out of deal for $5,000 to buy horse, so plaintiff took horse back. Rodriguez says colt now rears, kicks, and has other bad behaviors. Then plaintiff Rodriguez claims defendants threatened them. Sale agreement was between Leila Lewis and Cecilia Ruhf, for $5,000. Text messages from defendant do confirm the grain pan was thrown at his feet, after he bit her (he’s a stud colt). Lewis says defendant used a stud chain to rip on the horse’s mouth. Walking a stud with a stud chain is normal. (Every race horse, and stud is walked with a stud chain, for control). Defendant was unable to make the payments, so plaintiffs took the horse back. When defendant Cecilia asked about the payments, then plaintiff Rodriguez was taking the horse to auction, but claims Ruhf damaged the horse, so the value is diminished. There is no expert testimony about proper horse training techniques. $1500 for retraining to plaintiffs. (My decision is that plaintiffs came to court too soon, it will have to wait until the horse is sold, and if it’s below $5,000 then only the loss can be sued for in court.) Yvonne Rodriguez is objecting to the decision. “One Promise Two Late” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 120, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Michael Doxey vs. Paul Scott) Man invested in real estate with a friend, but when the foundation’s asset manager dies, so does the guarantee of a profit. (It’s an investment, not a loan). Plaintiff is suing defendant for breach of contract. He gave $12,000 to defendant for Fresh Beginnings, an investment group, and claims he was promised a profit. Plaintiff received $2,000 total over the years. Plaintiff had defendant resign the promissory note, reactivating the deal, and statute of limitations, but defendant claims he resigned the note when he was very drunk. Defendant claims the executive in charge of Fresh Beginnings died, Deborah Holland, so the deals fell through. Defendant also claims the sister of fund manager stole all of the money. Defendant only invested $8,000 and doesn’t know if foundation was a non-profit, or for profit. Foundation was supposed to be buying defaulted on real estate loans, so the bank was dumping deadbeat mortgages, and buy the property under market. Defendant never filed a police report on the theft. Decision is plaintiff receives $5,000 because defendant guaranteed a profit to plaintiff. 2 Link to comment
Carolina Girl January 4, 2023 Share January 4, 2023 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Maybe you were looking in the wrong place. Try "License and insurance required only for driving to parties or other recreational venues." Yeah - that handbook definitely needs a more comprehensive index. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 5, 2023 Share January 5, 2023 (edited) “You Bought It! You Fix It!” New, Season 9, Episode 68, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Tom Mavritsakis vs. Matthew Nicholas) Used car salesman buys a deceased man’ vehicle “as is”. He claims the seller violated the smog laws, but that’s not why he’s suing, for $3500. The Chevy was bought after being ‘inherited’ from a family friend. Title was in another name, no death certificate supplied for months. Smog test failed. Plaintiff spent almost $2700 for exhaust repairs, and almost $700 for late registration penalties. Truck was purchased for $12,000. The repair and registration are only an estimate. Smog tests show up in DMV records in California, but this vehicle hasn’t been smogged in over three years. Defendant swears he sold truck as is, and told plaintiff it hadn’t been driven or smogged. Blue Book value was $9,300 at the sale time, defendant says it was worth $19k, sold for $12k to plaintiff. Plaintiff claims truck was smogged, according to defendant. Decision is car was ‘as is’, plaintiff case dismissed. If plaintiff had taken it to a mechanic before purchase, then it might be different. (Even I didn't believe anything the plaintiff said. There is no way a truck that sat in a yard for three years was driven anywhere.) “Ticket, Ticket…Boom!” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 123,(Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Joanna Espinoza vs. Bobbie Dimas) Defendant sued for not repaying money she borrowed to buy tickets to a wrestling event. $890 for loans for living expenses, and wrestling tickets. Defendant bought the tickets, went to the wrestling event, didn’t have Covid vaccination proof and was turned away, so she’s refusing to repay the ticket loan. She thinks plaintiff should have told her about the admission requirements. Defendant has five kids. Why would someone borrow wrestling ticket money when she’s in ‘dire financial straits’? She lives in a converted garage with her kids, so she’s borrowing money for wrestling tickets. So, defendant is blaming plaintiff because she didn’t tell her the entry rules for the wrestling? And who takes a tiny kid to wrestling matches, indoor, during Covid? Children weren’t vaccinated, and neither was defendant. Acker says loan for living expenses is something plaintiff should have expected repayment, and give ticket money to plaintiff. Decision is $710 to repay plaintiff for the tickets for defendant and five children. I wouldn’t have given plaintiff a penny, she has no idea of exact loan amounts, she made multiple loans to defendant, and has never received a penny back. (Those poor children, and their despicable, grifter mother. She gets along by conning others out of money, and wasting money on wrestling tickets over food and clothing for her kids.) Edited January 5, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 5, 2023 Share January 5, 2023 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Used car salesman buys a deceased man’ vehicle “as is”. He claims the seller violated the smog laws, but that’s not why he’s suing, for $3500. Really, you'd think a former used car salesman would be a little more savvy. Buy a 40-year-old truck for way over book value from some sleezy little hedgehog-headed twerp, get snowed and then squawk about it? Oh, but he trusted Def. Of course he did. He recongized a fellow heap-peddler so thought they had some solidarity. He was also a liar who said the truck was driveable and he drove it home. I think he meant maybe he sat in it before he had the dino hauled onto a flatbed to get it home. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Defendant has five kids. Why would someone borrow wrestling ticket money when she’s in ‘dire financial straits’? I just couldn't with those two. Both of them dumb as bricks, so dumb they were hard-pressed to answer simple questions - "I loaned her the money...last year...I dunno when...? but they sure know how to hump and breed. Def had such an abusive partner she decided to have only FIVE unfortunate kids with him. For all their terrible, dire straits neither of them has ever missed a meal and wrestling matches are a priority. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: She lives in a converted garage with her kids, so she’s borrowing money for wrestling tickets. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: And who takes a tiny kid to wrestling matches, indoor, during Covid? Yeah. I had to skip the rest of this as soon as the Def turned on the waterworks. Is no one looking out for these kids, trapped with a shit-for-brains parent? 2 Link to comment
Welshman in Ca January 6, 2023 Share January 6, 2023 16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Really, you'd think a former used car salesman would be a little more savvy. Buy a 40-year-old truck for way over book value from some sleezy little hedgehog-headed twerp, get snowed and then squawk about it? Oh, but he trusted Def. Of course he did. He recongized a fellow heap-peddler so thought they had some solidarity. He was also a liar who said the truck was driveable and he drove it home. I think he meant maybe he sat in it before he had the dino hauled onto a flatbed to get it home. Once you get over a certain age book value is meaningless & car prices for all ages have gone through the roof in the last year or so regardless of age, trucks always hold their value well for some strange reason. I think the P thought he could make a quick buck from an idiot D and that the D turned out to not be such an idiot, used car salesmen know what vehicles are worth and he had to pay more to get it roadworthy than he thought he would and got upset because his profit margin was going to be less than he thought. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 6, 2023 Share January 6, 2023 “It’s a Mice House” Rerun, Season 9, 46 Episode 46 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 33, 16 November 2022 (This case is so typical of the judgments on this show. Plaintiff didn’t pay rent for months, so she should have had plenty of money to move to another residence. I suspect the mice came with her, and went with her house full of junk. Giving this woman a penny back is ridiculous. What about the damaged walls, water heater, garage door, and everything else? It’s telling that plaintiff says “Terminix should have sprayed for mice”). Rerun, Season 7, Episode 73, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “Rottweiler Mauls Pizza Delivery Driver!” (Amber Mundwiller vs. Veridiana “Diana”Alvarado) Plaintiff suing defendant over her Rottweiler attacking her during a pizza delivery. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000. Defendant’s defense is plaintiff shouldn’t have given the pizza to the 5-year-old, and Rottweiler is protective, and it’s past the statute of limitations, and Worker’s Comp already paid the plaintiff. Plaintiff is permanently disabled now. Plaintiff received $50k from Worker’s Comp. Plaintiff called, no answer, sent a text, no answer. Child answered the door, and plaintiff handed the receipt to take the pen and receipt to get adult to sign it, and dog attacked. No adult in the home ever came out. Neighbors came to her aid, and older boy (10-12 years-old) came and called dog back. It took almost 10 minutes for an adult to come out of the defendant’s house. Plaintiff says she didn’t hand the pizza to the kid, just the receipt. Hand surgery picture is hideous, and had to have an ankle transplant for the nerve to her hand. Defendant is heartless. She doesn’t even supervise her own kid, has her irresponsible mother ‘supervising’ kids. Her dog is dangerous. Plaintiff has swollen ankles now, has limited range of motion, she also has nerve damage and loss of sensation. Judges claim it’s beyond the statute of limitations, so what? This isn’t a real court, the rules don’t apply. Corriero asks a good question, “Who lets a 5-year-old answer the door at 10 p.m.” Guess grandma is a bad babysitter. But then he asks plaintiff if the bites hurt. Plaintiff receives $5,000. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 6, 2023 Share January 6, 2023 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero asks a good question, “Who lets a 5-year-old answer the door at 10 p.m.” I didn't watch this, but hasn't Papa been paying attention to court shows? Having a 5-year-old up at 10 p.m. and letting the child answer to the door to god-knows-who/what is the very LEAST of the actions of neglectful, disgusting breeders we see. 1 Link to comment
DoctorK January 6, 2023 Share January 6, 2023 On 1/5/2023 at 5:02 PM, AngelaHunter said: He was also a liar who said the truck was driveable and he drove it home I didn't hear him claim that he drove it home, but he clearly stated that he started the car and drove it onto the towing trailer, then the defendant backpedaled from "undriveable" to "not safe on the road". To me the plaintiff seemed likeable, but I wouldn't buy a used match from him, let alone a car. The defendant struck me as slimy, and if not quite lying, distorting his facts to bolster his case. Maybe these two just deserve each other? 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 9, 2023 Share January 9, 2023 (edited) “Storage for a Car” New, Season 9, Episode 69, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Tonia Fernandez vs. Joshua Beeks and Jenny Fountain -defendants are a couple ) Plaintiff is suing for storage property she traded with Beeks/defendant for a Toyota. Beeks claims the barter property that plaintiff traded with him was her sister’s, not hers. When plaintiff came out of jail, somehow sister (defendant’s witness) is claimed by plaintiff that sister had the car impounded, and she’s out $9,000 for an attorney (no this doesn’t make sense). Plaintiff claims defendant took everything, after convincing her to trade him everything in the unit for the car. Defendant witness is plaintiff’s sister, Catina Waller, and owned some of the property in the storage unit. Defendant repo’d the car, and later gave it to their daughter. Plaintiff claims she could sell or trade what was in the storage unit, even though it was owned by both sisters. Plaintiff claims she was going to put some stuff at auction, but claims defendant conned her into giving him everything in the storage unit. Defendant (what state is tattooed on the back of his head?) says he gave property back to the sister, his witness, and that he was duped by plaintiff. Plaintiff says she left car in impound, because there was contraband in the engine compartment, and she was afraid to get it out, or redeem the car. Defendant witness redeemed a previous car for plaintiff from impound, but not this time. Plaintiff claims the storage unit contents were worth $100k, and included $4k worth of beads. Corriero picks up on the statement that defendant knew not everything in storage was plaintiff’s. However, defendant wife says everything, except what plaintiff sold, was given to defendant witness/sister. Corriero wants to give plaintiff the maximum, then back pedals to $3500. However, plaintiff sold some property, and the rest was the sister’s who was given the property back. $5000 to plaintiff. To compensate her for trading property her sister actually owned. I think plaintiff did what sister and defendants say she did. Another ridiculous decison for a plaintiff who was actually a criminal, not a victim. However the defendant wife's statement at the end of the case was kind of tacky, saying something nasty about plaintiff's disability, and sponging on everyone she meets (no, you really don't want to know exactly what defendant wife say, it was tacky, and mean). “The Harder the Fall (Out)” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 44, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Chris Garcia vs. Tiffany Castaneda ) Plaintiff is suing defendant for $300 to repair a window defendant broke when he split up with her. Plaintiff says defendant came a long distance to his place, was jealous over him dating another, and that was when the window was broken, and a TRO was issued against defendant. Defendant later claims the plaintiff was abusive, and she had a TRO against him after she had him arrested. The mutual child is about five now. Defendant says she left because plaintiff was abusing her. DiMango slams plaintiff for letting his mother have visits with the child? And both parents admit they made their own informal visitation schedules. Corriero is out of control. At least Acker realizes that defendant isn’t some little innocent. Plaintiff case dismissed. Edited January 9, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 9, 2023 Share January 9, 2023 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Defendant (what state is tattooed on the back of his head?) I missed that because these freak litigants were making me increasingly queasy - Def wife? Meth mouth? -so I had to cut out after P's second "poor wittle me" snivel-flash-dried tears attack. But maybe it's the same state P had tatted on her face? They were such a gang of bottom feeders I only held out as long as I did to find out what poor P did to get her butt thrown in the slammer for something that required 9K in lawyer fees. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero wants to give plaintiff the maximum, Of course, he felt sorry for this big phony felon and her fake snotting/crying. Ugh. That this mess is the lifestyle favoured by so many litigants still astounds me. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero is out of control. At least Acker realizes that defendant isn’t some little innocent. Ditto for these two lowlifes. I couldn't take them either. And they breed. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 10, 2023 Share January 10, 2023 “Money for Nothing; Border in the Court” New, Season 9, Episode 70, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) “Money for Nothing” (Timothy Guess vs. Tu Nguyen) Plaintiff employed Mr. Nguyen, and over paid him $4002, plus tax was taken out. Mr Nguyen said since the company refused to repay the $4,002, and getting the W-2 reissued to compensate for the over tax for the $4,002. Mr. Nguyen refused to repay the money, and wanted a W-2 reissued reflecting the lower pay amount before he paid the money back. So, Mr. Nguyen stopped showing up for work, and abandoned his position. This was the last tax/payment period of the year, so it was especially crucial because of tax issues for the year. I agree with plaintiff, defendant kept the entire overpayment, and didn’t work that time, and that makes it theft. Corriero says plaintiff should have eaten the loss. Juarez is slamming the payroll company, that doesn’t fix them. Decision is to give plaintiff the lost wages, minus the taxes. $2750. “Border in the Court” (Ronald Scarafone vs. Norma Flores) Defendant went out clubbing and claims not to remember leaving a note confessing to hitting plaintiff’s car at a Tijuana liquor store. Plaintiff is suing defendant for $2500 car damages. Defendant claims accident happened while she was in the liquor store, it was her car but she wasn’t driving, because she was too drunk. Defendant was mistaken that her insurance covered her in Mexico (no, U.S. insurance doesn’t cover you in Mexico, you have to get a separate policy). Defendant claims she didn’t write or sign the note. Defendant was in Tijuana to go drinking. Plaintiff was there with his wife, who owns property in Mexico. Actual estimate is $2,000, but plaintiff sued for $2500. $2000 to plaintiff. “Un-Ensured; Wreck and Robbers” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 119, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “Un-Ensured” (Jason Troeng and Jefferson Troeng vs. Matthew Limpright ) Plaintiffs were driving on the freeway, and Mr. Limpright rear ended plaintiff’s car. Defendant admits he hit plaintiff’s car. Plaintiffs weren’t insured, but they weren’t at fault either. Plaintiffs have a proof that defendant was insured at the time of the accident, but coverage was put on the defendant’s car after the accident, so he wasn’t insured either. Plaintiff gets $1,000 for the $6,000 in damages. “Wreck and Robbers” (Eddie Harris vs. Kendall Meadows) Driver and girlfriend get in a car accident, and get robbed right after. Plaintiff wants $3,000. Plaintiff was making a left turn, collision happened, and defendant was getting robbed by four people, and police found the robbers. Defendant didn’t pay anything, even though plaintiff had right of way. Defendant was apparently fleeing the four robbers that caught up to him after the accident. Defendant tried to blame accident on plaintiff in his statement, but plaintiff had clear right-of-way. Plaintiff receives $3,000 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 10, 2023 Share January 10, 2023 56 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Jason Troeng and Jefferson Troeng vs. Matthew Limpright I kept seeing that as "Mr. Limpit". Anyone getting all their information from court shows would conclude that no one has insurance - house or car - and no one has any idea they have no insurance. Makes me wonder how insurance companies stay in business. Anyway, Def is a jerkoff who freely admits that yeah, he didn't bother paying attention while he was driving at 60 miles per hour, didn't notice everyone slowing down and just rear-ended P. So? He has no insurance so doesn't really care. Besides, he was under the impression he had three days to insure his "project" beater. He really thinks that's a defense? Plaintiffs are two duhhh grown men who also had no inkling they didn't have insurance either. These two adults say that their mommy took care of all that grown-up stuff and then when she passed away, brother was supposed to pay it but I guess he didn't know how anything about that so how were they to know they were uninsured? Personally, I agreed with JA who wanted to give them 500$, the amount they would be out for the deductible if they had bothered to find out about insurance, but she was overruled by the other two who generously gave them 1K for their 6K of damages. Even so, nervy P bitched afterwards that it wasn't fair and they deserved more. The gall is stunning! I wonder if they would feel that way had THEY crashed into someone who then sued them for 100K for injuries because they don't carry insurance? Probably not. It wasn't their fault that Mommy isn't here to take care of them anymore. It's not FAIR! Even when I was an irresponsible, dumb 21-year-old idiot I bought my own first car and somehow figured out how to go and get insurance on it. Now we see all the time people who are or are nearing middle age and can't function on their own without parental care. Pathetic. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff was making a left turn, collision happened, and defendant was getting robbed by four people, and police found the robbers. Just another day in Clown World. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK January 10, 2023 Share January 10, 2023 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Decision is to give plaintiff the lost wages, minus the taxes. $2750. Which $2750, when the defendant files an amended return with the corrected W2, will get back from IRS, putting him $2750 ahead of the game. These three judges are absolutely clueless about IRS, taxes and just about everything in this case (Corriero was at his despicable worst here, bloviating self righteously on something he knows nothing about). The only amount the defendant should have gotten was the cost of refiling, not $2750. Maybe I am too cynical but I suspect that the defendant figured that if he dragged this out, he could end up keeping the $4000 (less the tax bite). What the judges wanted the plaintiff to do, i.e., revise the W2s before the money was returned, would have been tax fraud; as long as the recipient has the money, it is legally income and must be reported. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 11, 2023 Share January 11, 2023 “Business Casual” New, Season 9, Episode 71, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Keara Thomas vs. Olivia Scott ) $4730 is what plaintiff wants from former business partner / defendant. This was to rent an apartment to turn into an Airbnb, furnishing the place, and renting an office, splitting the profits. In December 2021 apartment building was getting rid of Airbnb, according to defendant. So, plaintiff and defendant ended the partnership. Defendant paid defendant and, then plaintiff found out defendant was still operating the apartment as an Airbnb. Defendant say plaintiff got her profits for over six months, and she owes her nothing. Litigants made over $13000 in six months. Agreement is based on a lie, according to Corriero, and fraud to get one partner to drop out of the business, and get cheated out of the profits. Plaintiff did agree to accept $1500 as a buy out, but this was based on the defendant’s lie that the apartment building was forbidding Airbnbs. Defendant and the building manager ignored the lease clause that said no subletting for short term rentals, so Airbnb was illegal from the beginning. Plaintiff receives $1858 “Tenant Mess” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 125, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Poinsettia Mark vs. Maria Freeman) Plaintiff landlady suing defendant tenant for $2807 for damaged property, and moving fees. 2 bed furnished for $1600 a month. Plaintiff says after a while, defendant claimed to have been gifted some couches, and wanted the owner’s couches out, and swap out for another dresser. Defendant claims plaintiff said the dresser could be trashed, but plaintiff says place was rented furnished, and it wasn’t going to be swapped out. Plaintiff says a water leak started in the apartment, and was impacting the downstairs neighbor. Sink cabinet was growing mushrooms under the sink, but defendant didn’t say anything about the leak. When plaintiff discovered the leak, she had it fixed, and then found out defendant’s boyfriend was living in the apartment too, and blocking the parking. When confronted about the tenant boyfriend, defendant told plaintiff she was moving, and was reminded the 30-day notice was required. So, defendant stopped paying, claiming her $1600 security, and $1600 last month’s rent covered everything. Plaintiff has a monthly pest control service, and that’s used by all tenants. Defendant says she never had a pest control visit. Defendant also claims plumber didn’t fix sink leak, but plaintiff has the plumber receipt. Plaintiff says defendant didn’t pay two month’s rent, so the security and deposits are gone. (This is why you never rent to someone because you feel sorry for their situation, or let them skate on rent. Also, get everything in writing). Defendant claims she never received an itemized statement from plaintiff, and plaintiff says she delivered a receipt to defendant, in person, in 21 days. Corriero, as usual, tries to excuse everything the plaintiff wants, and give everything to the defendant. Acker is the only one who seems sensible in this case. Decision is $820 for the plumbing from Acker, but Corriero and DiMango vote to give plaintiff nothing. (By the way, the dresser with the bottom grip is a real dresser, unlike what DiMango says). Decision is $0 to plaintiff. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 12, 2023 Share January 12, 2023 (edited) “Credit Card Madness” New, Season 9, Episode 72, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Kimberly Fabela vs. Juan De Dios) Plaintiff suing defendant for racking up credit charges on her card, $2190. Defendant offered to remodel plaintiff’s mother’s bathroom, and wanted a Home Depot card to buy materials. Then, defendant made himself an authorized user, changed the mailing address on the card statement, and ran up bills not connected to the remodeling project. Then, it’s alleged that defendant purchased items, and returned them for cash, and kept the money. They met online. She claims she allowed one in-store purchase on the card, and after that he allegedly ran up the charge account. Defendant claims that bathroom materials would be $4000 to $5000, and $2000 more for labor, but he wasn’t charging labor. (From my rewatch, the only name on the account was plaintiff's. Can anyone but the account owner add an authorized user, and change the address? Or did she make him an authorized user, and then he changed the address, and when they broke up she went after him for the charges) Defendant says he never bought the other items charged, and plaintiff only did this case to see him again. I want to be sympathetic to plaintiff, but her story is too shaky. Plaintiff receives $ 1700. But did she get the card cancelled? “Pro-ducers & Cons” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 40, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Robert Rashad vs. Richard Baker) Plaintiff suing protégé in music business for unpaid loans, $2880. It’s plaintiff’s first time investing in musical artists. Defendant claims to be an actor, singer, director, and everything else. Plaintiff claims defendant had an upcoming deal with Amazon Prime, so needed a loan for attorney fees, etc. (I know tornado warnings are important, but don’t run them during the cases I watch especially since it’s hours away.) The money was an investment in the movie for Amazon Prime, movie came out, but defendant claims no profits received yet, so he can’t pay plaintiff anything. The movie name is “7th and Westlake Nino’s Revenge” (It’s $17.99 to watch on Prime). So, if Part 1 isn’t profitable, why is Part 2 either being made or done? $2880 to plaintiff (This is a guess, another weather update). Edited January 13, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.