Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Welshman in Ca]

5 minutes ago, Paperclips said:

You are right - Corriero couldn't join because he was contracted a few years after the others.  I wonder what happened to it?

I watch Judge Judy repeats on my unpaid for tv station.  I think they made a mistake in thinking people would follow them to streaming.  I watch Hot Bench, JJ and Peoples Court on an antenna.  I don't pay for anything.  I work at home and some Court show is on in the background.

You know freevee is actually free so you could watch the new JJ shows & there are a lot.

[Paperclips]

39 minutes ago, Welshman in Ca said:

You know freevee is actually free so you could watch the new JJ shows & there are a lot.

Yeah, I know, but it buffers a lot.   She changed the format and it doesn't work for me.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Ex CATastrophe”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 44, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 16 November 2022.

 

"DoorCrash Delivery"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 9, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Janice Pride  vs. Steven Gottlieb (car owner and dad) and Nathan Gottlieb (car driver)

Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible, on a car she no longer has, from defendant rear ending her. $500 pain and suffering, and $500 for damages/deductible.    Since defendant was using the car for business, the private owner insurance wouldn’t cover the damages.    

Plaintiff was driving a 2015 Volkswagen Convertible Beetle, was passing defendant who was parked.   Plaintiff was backed into by defendant from his parking space where he was backing out to readjust his car in the parking space.    Defendant claims he looked both ways, before backing up to readjust.   

Defendant didn’t have right-of-way, plaintiff did.   Defendant claims accident was partly plaintiff’s fault, because he claims she had to have seen him. 

Defendant and his father’s theories of how plaintiff was at fault are ridiculous, and despicable to try to blame her.  

Plaintiff had two hit-and-runs on the same car after the parking lot hit. Plaintiff was going to get car fixed, so insurance company totaled her car. 

Plaintiff receives $500, for the deductible, but no pain and suffering paid either.   I would have given her $1,000 for being blamed by the defendants.

Edited February 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

On 2/10/2023 at 7:34 AM, Paperclips said:

You are right - Corriero couldn't join because he was contracted a few years after the others.  I wonder what happened to it?

I watch Judge Judy repeats on my unpaid for tv station.  I think they made a mistake in thinking people would follow them to streaming.  I watch Hot Bench, JJ and Peoples Court on an antenna.  I don't pay for anything.  I work at home and some Court show is on in the background.

Judy Justice and Tribunal are on FreeVee.  It's actually a FREE streaming service, if you want to tune them in.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Whoopsie Daisy”

New, Season 9, Episode 92, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Samantha Shields  vs. Elizabeth Jaime (mother) and (daughter) Kassandra Jamie)

Another plaintiff seeking damages for an attack on her Chihuahua-mix dog by defendant’s dogs.  As always, defendant says her dogs were provoked.

Plaintiff was walking her dog, when five dogs surrounded them, three smaller ones, and two bigger ones. Surgery costs were $1600, and total $2158.    Attacking dog was defendant’s daughter’s foster dog.   Defendant’s dog Daisy was not on leash. 

Defendant claims Daisy sniffed at her daughter’s dog, and that started a fight.    Defendant say she just received a total bill, and she wanted it itemized.  Daisy was a ‘foster’ but that was over 18 months.

Defendant keeps saying the plaintiff’s dog only had two tiny marks.   Animal Control sent a report to defendant, about her dogs running loose.  Defendant sent $200 to plaintiff.

Plaintiff receives $1691 for vet bills. 

 

“Go Car Go”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 24, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 17 October 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Real Estate Deal Gone Wrong”

New, Season 9, Episode 93, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Dave and Jacinda Beason vs. Chris Pollard)

The dispute is over “or” in the contract.  So, defendant removed tree branches touching the house, but overhanging branches were intact, because of the “or” in the contract.   Defendant agreed to insulate the attic, and trim branches, and there was a hole in the floor in a bedroom that was under carpet. Video shows hole in floor, and a broken joist under it.  

It sounds to me that the plaintiff’s realtor who wrote the contract screwed up.     The hole was under the defendant/seller’s king size bed. 

Pictures of attic show some insulation, but not the entire attic.  

Plaintiff’s don’t have enough evidence to prove defendant committed fraud.    $3450 to plaintiffs.  Hole in floor dismissed, no proof defendant knew about it.   

 

 

“Sassy Trucker; Bumper Thumper”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 24, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 19 October 2022.

[patty1h]

Today's case "Enough is Enough" was a head scratcher... was Alexander Abrahams a knight in shining armor just wanting to help his fellow man, looking for a FWB (they met in a bar) or is he an immature lost soul "buying" Jesus Hernandez's friendship?  Alexander says he wanted to help poor Jesus "get his family back together" at first, buying a TV so Jesus's son had some entertainment, but soon he's handing scammy Jesus money for event tickets, money for a NYE party and lawyer fees, expecting to be paid back in artwork for a game he's created.  Guess who's still waiting to be reimbursed?  We hear Jesus say the debt was paid by him selling burritos and buying food for Alexander using his EBT card.  **Jesus may not have the EBT card for much longer if the government sees this episode.

Even though Abrahams has college/masters degrees and wrote up a very detailed multi-page contract to protect himself in his deal with Hernandez, he came across as not thinking critically, even a bit naive.  I hope the next time he wants to help someone, it doesn't involve him shelling out money to a leech like Jesus.

Edited February 15, 2023 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Enough is Enough”

New, Season 9, Episode 94, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Alexander Abrahams vs. Jesus Hernandez)

Plaintiff meets a man in a bar, buys a TV for a friend he only knew a month, in return defendant was supposed to help plaintiff with design work for a board game he invented, $2236. Plaintiff bought a lot of items for defendant, New Year’s Eve event tickets, TV, legal bills, and wasn’t paid back for anything.

Defendant says he is a cook, and knows nothing about design.  Plaintiff says he received one $330 payment for another debt for a cell phone.  (This was in Las Vegas, NV).

I don’t understand this entire relationship, it wasn’t romantic, it was one-sided, and I don’t see what plaintiff thought he was going to get back from this.   Trying to buy friendship? Or buying something more?   So, plaintiff waived interest because defendant bought him burritos on his EBT card?   The contract by plaintiff is very specific, but bizarre too.

Plaintiff receives $2136. I wouldn’t have given plaintiff dime, no expectation of repayment, except the illegal EBT payments, and burritos.

“Security Breach”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 25, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 18 October 2022

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

he came across as not thinking critically, even a bit naive

I picked up on that also, a little surprising from someone with extensive international travel. Throughout I was distracted by his tie. What the heck was that all about? He was actually wearing a fairly nice suit that actually fit him well (a big change from most litigants) but that tie! Was that a fashion statement? It looked like crap, and unless he sends it out to be dry cleaned regularly, it is going to be an icky skin oil soaked mess. At least this case was a change of pace (except for a naive plaintiff, scrambled and confused relationship, and EBT card abuse).

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don’t understand this entire relationship, it wasn’t romantic, it was one-sided, and I don’t see what plaintiff thought he was going to get back from this.

I had to quit watching this. I saw why oily, grifting Def enjoyed the so-called friendship. TV, event tickets, money to get his porky ass out of trouble, etc - why not? Take whatever you can get. The plaintiff... I dunno. I think there's something wrong with him, or maybe he sees himself as a benefactor to make sure the deprived and downtrodden have new TVs and can go to parties with their girfriends. That at least two women wanted the Def - one even bred with him - is another topic.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Are You Flooding Kidding”

New, Season 9, Episode 95, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Stella Brin vs. Andrew Friend and Krystal Zuelch)

Homeless couple with five kids says landlady went above and beyond to get their rental assistance application approved, now landlady says they caused massive flooding in her home.  Landlady wants damages, fees, and unpaid rent.   Rental assistance was denied because lease says they pay weekly, not biweekly or monthly.   Plaintiff says she was told because Krystal was ineligible for assistance.   

The tub flood is blamed on plaintiff/landlady because defendant claims they didn’t do it, but they admit they told the landlady to fix it.    Plaintiff/landlady shows the wipes that were pulled out of the drain line from the toilet, and tub.   Roto-rooter pulled hair and baby wipes out of the sewer line.  Defendants admit they use a lot of baby wipes for their three toddlers, but claim the previous tenants flushed the baby wipes.  

Defendants say the flooding, and drain issues started one month after move in.    Plaintiff had to pay attorney fees, late fees, eviction fees, service fees, etc.     Plaintiff’s damages include food and dishes left behind on counters, rotting.    Writing on floor, appliances, and walls by kids. 

Defendants want their security deposit back.   Security deposit went for unpaid rent.

Judges deliberate, and Juarez is sensible.      Corriero backs down, and Tewolde agrees.

$1585 for damages to home to plaintiff only.   No late fees, eviction costs or legal costs. 

 

“No Good Deed”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 153, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 21 October 2022.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Can’t Spell Trust Without Rust”

New, Season 9, Episode 96,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Esther Hayes vs.  Akida Adisa)

Suing seller over rust found on a truck purchased ‘as is’.  Plaintiff is suing for $4,000, half of their purchase price.    Defendant did refund $4,000, but refuses to refund the remaining $4,000 that he admits he owes.  Chevy Equinox had severe rust, that couldn’t be repaired, and was unsafe.    After plaintiff reached out to defendant, he was willing to try to find her a comparable, safe vehicle, but he didn’t. 

Defendant claims he sent the second check, but claims plaintiff didn’t cash it.  Plaintiff denies receiving the check.  

Plaintiff never had the car checked by a mechanic, but claims ‘as is’ doesn’t apply, because she didn’t inspect the car before buying.   Defendant resold the truck for $9,000, and claims he could have sold it for $10,000, but gave the buyer an allowance for the door rust.

The rust was visible, but no pictures of the rust damage, or the paint over it.   So, plaintiff and son didn’t even look at car until after delivery, and sale was completed.

So, plaintiff wanted the equivalent value of the SUV, so she wanted a $10,000 vehicle for $8,000.

Daughter-in-law, and defendant both claim she was given a second $4,000 check, but refused it.

Decision is $4,000, minus the $900 in taxes defendant paid. So plaintiff receives $3100.     

 

“Tardy Tenant”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 27, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 20 October 2022.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Suing seller over rust found on a truck purchased ‘as is’.

I was confused with this case. If P was so incapacitated by a car accident that she couldn't even ride as a passenger to see the car for which she was paying $8,000, how was she going to drive this vehicle that she needed so urgently?

  This is what you get when you have others - in this case the daughter-in-law and P's "baby" who I assume is a grown man - take care of your business.

She was able to ride along to some parking lot where the rusty thing was left for her, so why couldn't she go see it from the start?  No - I don't understand any of this. Was there proof that the undercarriage was rusted out and painted over? Def says it was just the door bottom.

It was sold "as is" and if it's true the rust was only on the door, why on earth did P get one dime back? The door was perfectly visible to DIL, but as we know other people are not as invested in our well-being and our funds as we are. You can't be bothered to go look at an 8K item you're buying? That's on you, IMO.

So now, over this rusted veehickle, P no longer speaks to the DIL and can't see the "grandbabies". I guess her "baby"(I'm assuming he's the baby daddy) has no say in that.

[TVMovieBuff]

Now that I have watched enough of the new lineup on Hot Bench, my first impression was correct. Judge Juarez is great, she is so straightforward, asks the right questions is sensible and i think I have agreed with her on every case. 

I see now why Judge Corriero is called Papa by those here. He is easily swayed by a sob story, and not always a good one. DiMango & Acker were more likely to be won over by his soft verdicts, but Juarez & Tewolde, not so much. 

Tewolde hasn't said anything yet that gets on my nerves. She is beautiful. 

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/14/2023 at 3:49 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Real Estate Deal Gone Wrong”

I just watched this and couldn't tolerate the shifty, shady, so-called real estate agent who seemed to think he was auditioning for a comedy club with his mugging, rehearsed crap, and grandstanding. He thought he was cute with his "I'm not going in no attic". Attics are beneath his lofty notice, except when putting some insulation just around the trap door in order to deceive the buyers and was disrespectful to everyone with his (to the judges) "guys" and "my bad" and the constant, "You know what I'm saying?"

Glad the judges saw through his evasiveness and fraud and awarded the Ps most of their money.

What a hustling clown. Judge Judy would have shut that shit down pronto.

5 hours ago, TVMovieBuff said:

DiMango & Acker were more likely to be won over by his soft verdicts,

Not always! Quite often their exasperation and annoyance with him were clearly visible.

[DoctorK]

53 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Not always! Quite often their exasperation and annoyance with him were clearly visible.

I agree, Corriero caused a fair amount of eye rolling by the other judges. Both of them are alpha personalities, Corriero is definitely not. Almost every time he tried to bow up and browbeat them, he came across as a runty little rooster trying to fight out of his league.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Almost every time he tried to bow up and browbeat them, he came across as a runty little rooster trying to fight out of his league.

And when they point out tactfully that he's delusional, ever notice how he actually pouts, like a kid told he can't have another cookie?

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Babysitting for Beers”

New, Season 9, Episode 97, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Toni Gray vs. Jacob Hyatt)

There are two dueling babysitting agreements between litigants.  Plaintiff’s witness is her boyfriend Daniel.   Plaintiff and boyfriend were living together, defendant moved in with his kid, and claims plaintiff agree to pay $20 a day for babysitting the kid. Plaintiff is claiming for over $4,000 for unpaid babysitting fees.   However, defendant lost his job, and claims plaintiff agreed that to no longer charge for babysitting, but plaintiff would be paid in beer.

Plaintiff Toni did agree to babysit for defendant.    (This happened in Oregon).   Toni claims non-CPR trained babysitters in Oregon get $19 an hour, but she agreed to $20 a day for defendant’s kid.  Defendant claims his mother watched his son 95% of the time. 

Plaintiff claims defendant only paid her a fraction of the babysitting fees.   Judge Juarez says the whole situation fell apart when defendant had another girlfriend.   Defendant claims he paid plaintiff $310, plus beer and vape pods, and judges say this added up to $1500.

Plaintiff receives $0, lack of proof of money owed.

 

“Basement Blues”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 20, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 10 Oct 2022

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff Toni did agree to babysit for defendant.    (This happened in Oregon).   Toni claims non-CPR trained babysitters in Oregon get $19 an hour, but she agreed to $20 a day for defendant’s kid. 

As soon as I heard the plaintiff say that she looked up the rates for babysitters and determined the rate on what she found online instead of what the defendant agreed to pay her, it was a loss.   Another case where there was no "meeting of the minds" and the plaintiff can't set her how price w/o the agreement of the parent.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Mad House”

New, Season 9, Episode 97, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Marie Dweh [landlord] vs. Kayla Sargent [former tenant] )

Defendant claims her ex-boyfriend stalked her, came into her home when she wasn’t home, followed her kids from the bus stop, and vandalized her car.   Defendant said she had to forfeit her security deposit.   Plaintiff says defendant’s half of the duplex was trashed, with abandoned furniture, and junk left behind.   Defendant says the domestic violence shelter would pay the other month’s rent to landlord, but claims plaintiff refused to accept the rent from anyone but defendant.   

Why does defendant have a Flintstones top ponytail?  

Plaintiff says rent was almost always late, but the last month it was very late, and plaintiff never received a payment.    Plaintiff entered the unit and there were flies everywhere, trash everywhere, and there is a video of the trashed unit.   There are holes in doors, food left out to rot, more than normal wear and tear.

Defendant says she tried to go clean when no one was around, but there is no evidence of any cleaning.    In my opinion, defendant could have at least cleaned out the fridge and freezer, and tossed the rotting food. 

This happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where the statute allows domestic violence victims to terminate a list without penalty.   However, the form was submitted, and the property was allowed to be discarded by landlady with defendant’s consent.  

Plaintiff wants $700 for painting and cleaning, above the security deposit.    September rent wasn’t paid by defendant, but her tenancy went through the 30th of September.   Notice was only given to plaintiff the on 25 September, right before the end of the month, so security deposit was used.    

$1390 to plaintiff for damages. 

 

“Dead Man’s Dwelling”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 150, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 14 Oct 2022

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In my opinion, defendant could have at least cleaned out the fridge and freezer, and tossed the rotting food. 

I agree, but the Minnesota ordinance was clear that the tenant claiming coverage under it has no obligation to do this or any cleaning. Apparently they are also immune to claims for substantial damage done during the course of the tenancy whether it was related to the domestic violence or not. I understand the verdict and I think it was legally correct. I feel bad for the situation the defendant was in, but I can't help noticing the condition of the apartment (ignoring the garbage and stuff resulting from the rapid departure), it looks like she was living like a complete slob.

[CrazyInAlabama]

HB

“The Real Roommates of Long Beach”

New, Season 9, Episode 99, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Momoe Anderson vs. Terrell  Rayfield )

Plaintiff is suing for return of her $300 security deposit. Monthly rent was $600.   Plaintiff left, claims items went missing, and defendant kept saying he didn’t steal anything.   Plaintiff is deaf, and says she woke up one day to police officers in her apartment, doing a welfare check on her, which terrified her.  

Defendant says the property manager said a fire alarm went off, and that’s why fire and police came to check on the residents of the apartment.  

Defendant shows a video of damages he’s blaming on plaintiff.   The place has trash everywhere.   Plaintiff left the place filthy when she moved out.   Plaintiff claims she cleaned out the day after the video was filmed. 

Plaintiff blames defendant for her bike parts being stolen,

$87.00 back to plaintiff.

 

 

“Phoning It In”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 28, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32, 28 Oct 2022.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims she cleaned out the day after the video was filmed. 

Maybe yes, maybe no, but a lot of her testimony seemed iffy, especially when compared to the text messages that the defendant showed to the court. As a side issue, I was bothered by the ASL interpreter acting out and emoting like a bad actor while translating the plaintiff's statements. Whenever I have seen interpreters (ASL, other languages for litigants not comfortable in English, etc.) in courtrooms they have always used controlled neutral tones while interpreting, not emoting strongly, presumably trying to provide the emotional content that she thinks she sees. As always, YMMV.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Crypto Electro”

New, Season 9, Episode 100, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Richard Helou vs. John Dugan and Aurora Dugan)

Plaintiff / former tenant suing defendant / former landlords for $3,000 for the fees for electricity used by tenant, cleaning fee, and $2,000 for being a jerk.     Crypto tenant makes electric bills shoot up in rental unit.   Cleaning fees were supposed to be $150, but apartment was such a mess that cleaning costs $300.     Plaintiff claims his overage in electricity was $181 a month from the crypto mining.

Electricity and gas in the lease charges $85 a month.   Landlords didn’t put a clause in the lease saying no business operated from the home.     Plaintiff claims defendants never talked to him about the surging electric bills.   Bills shot up during plaintiff’s tenancy, and went back down to normal after he moved out.  Bills are split between the two units of the duplex.   Plaintiff shows a crypto cage (I think that’s what it’s called, but I know nothing about crypto).

Plaintiff shows the crypto methods he uses, and I still don’t have a clue.

Electric bills went from $60 to $80 a month, to $400 and $500 a month.

Decision is that electric bill can be blamed on plaintiff, and cleaning bill is upheld also.

Plaintiff case dismissed, except for $150 for the cleaning fee. (I would have given the landlords the cleaning fee too.   That's what they paid out to fix the plaintiff's mess)   

 

“Family Furniture Fight”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 31, 24 Oct 2022

Edited February 23, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

I hated the entitled plaintiff, Richard Helou, in the crypto machine case.  People use that janky looking thing to make money?   Whatever.   He was so arrogant to think he can run some fugazy machine in his place, knowing that it's a big energy drain, and protest when the landlord gets upset.  Even if the lease had a clause that the utilities would be approx. $85 a month, old Richie  wants to thumb his nose and go nananananana at the owner instead of paying for the added cost.   That's what creeps and lowlifes do. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I hated the entitled plaintiff, Richard Helou, in the crypto machine case. 

Me too, and I don't even know what he was talking about. "Mining" cryptocurrency which costs a fortune in electricity? Nope, I'm totally clueless but I do have a suggestion for the smug, arrogant, pony-tailed douche: Here's what, Richard: Go buy a house and set up your crap there, pay your own bills, and do your own cleaning. I'm sure you can afford it, what with you being a Big Wheel in the cryptocurrency world.

[DoctorK]

This case intrigued me. I know very little bout crypto-currency as a business, but understand it is data and analysis intensive and requires a lot of computer skill and capability (and also apparently a lot of luck). When I saw his machine i caught my breath. If anyone recognized that equipment please let us know what it was. It didn't look like any computer equipment I have seen in real life (I have been involved in building out a few data centers and server farms. To me, it looked more like an early 20th century time machine or perpetual motion machine. I wonder how much of his crypto income is from his mining and how much from people he advises and teaches about it. I am more than ready to learn more if someone can identify that gear and its functionality. Come to think of it, I remember seeing some magnetic core memory units on computers from back in the ENIAC (1940s) era that looked vaguely like his, and they were energy pigs.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

To me, it looked more like an early 20th century time machine or perpetual motion machine.

That's what I thought! I took a very quick look at "mining cryptocurrency":
 

Quote

 

What Is Crypto Mining?

Cryptocurrency mining is a process of creating new digital "coins." However, that is as far as simplicity goes. The process of recovering these coins requires solving complex puzzles, validating cryptocurrency transactions on a blockchain network and adding them to a distributed ledger to locate them.

 

Nope. I still have no idea what it's about.

[Carolina Girl]

Smug-o-Plaintiff even admitted the big cost in mining cryptocurrency is the power bill.  He knew damn well those bills would skyrocket and figured his $85 rate would make defendants eat the cost. Jerk. 

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I am more than ready to learn more if someone can identify that gear and its functionality

If YOU don't know what it is, I certainly have no hope of ever having a clue.

I got curious and looked up equipment for sale. No prices are given, so it must be pricey.

And Richard, in addition to pompous smartass with a superiority complex also seems to be quite a dirty pig. I believed the Def when he said the tub was utterly filthy.

https://www.jsbit.com/products/?keyword=crypto+mining+rig+for+sale&82E75F5AF5D2D01C=&matchtype=p

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“The Ties That Bind”

New, Season 9, Episode 101, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Terri Bailey vs. Estebon Roberts )

Plaintiff sues her former live-in boyfriend for her therapy bills; he countersues for storage fees on the items she left behind.  The litigants were on and off again partners for years.    Plaintiff wants $531 in property she left behind after moving out, and over $9,000 in therapy bills caused by their relationship.

In 2019 they moved into a rental house, sharing the rent.   She put her belongings into a back yard storage shed, then they argued, and she moved out.    She wanted her property out of the shed months after she moved out, and then he trashed the stuff she left behind.   Defendant says he told plaintiff the property was really still at his home, and he lied when she asked about it.   However, two years later, she showed up at 5:30 am to get her stuff, blocked his car in so he couldn’t leave for work.  

Defendant says plaintiff only had nine boxes of stuff in the shed.  Plaintiff says after the last argument she moved most of her stuff out of the house, but left the storage shed property behind.   I see no reason why defendant should have kept her property around for two years.

Defendant wants storage fees, but there was no agreement or contract about that, so he’s not getting that.     Plaintiff claims she sent her brother to get her property, but he never actually picked anything up. 

Plaintiff gets her property back, and defendant gets the paperwork plaintiff took with her.  No money for either side.

(I've noticed that Juarez is dominant now.   Tewolde often joins with Juarez, and overrides Corriero, and I'm happy about that). 

“What to Do When Rent is Due”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 148, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Jack Sorkin-landlord vs. Mya Baker - tenant)

Landlord refuses to lie about tenancy dates for a tenant so they can qualify for rent relief.   Plaintiff shows a picture of a neighboring apartment with a mushroom growing out of the ceiling.   Rent was $1985 a month, security of $1985.     During the pandemic the tenant fell behind in rent, and then wanted plaintiff to fake her tenancy dates to qualify for Covid relief .   Plaintiff says defendant owes $4900+ for unpaid rent, and damages above the security deposit.

Plaintiff refused to change the tenancy dates to “Housing is Key” (a nonprofit that gave grants, not a government Covid relief program.) Defendant says building is riddled with mold and water damage.   The issue is the defendant applied for rent grants that only covered tenants that still lived in the apartment, and she had moved out, so it’s fraud.

  Corriero claims the tub is moldy, but it’s a lot of dirt, with some caulk that needs to be replaced, which plaintiff did.  

Decision is to dismiss without prejudice, the unpaid rent until landlord either gets the rent money or doesn’t from a Covid relief program.

Damages to plaintiff $0 for the doors, blinds, wall damages, screens, because that can come out of the security deposit he kept. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

There are two dueling babysitting agreements between litigants.  Plaintiff’s witness is her boyfriend Daniel.

Freaks who breed. P, looking like she stepped directly from a Star Trek convention (She spent quite some time applying that ghastly makeup for her big gig here)is a "stay-at-home" mom who guzzles numerous six-packs every week, poses naked outdoors, and trades services for vape accessories.

Def is a goof who had a baby at 17 and has a 7-year-old kid. P has no idea what kind of pay she requested for babysitting, so decides that $19/hr, as per state guidelines, from def sounds about right. Dream on! As if he could pay that while slinging burgers somewhere.

P's boyfriend is a submissive blob who contributes nothing to this case, and P starts blubbering while the judges are making a decision. The people breeding are the ones who should NOT be doing so.

It was funny during the deliberations. Papa set himself in the middle of the three, figuring he'd be the Alpha dog now with the two newbies. Wrong! Judge Bleeding Heart wants to give the poor little lady more money, even with nothing to back up her claim. The other two nearly literally pounce on him, saying the cash plus goods (beer and vape) add up to enough money since no one even knows how many hours she took care of the kid and kept him from hurting her 4-year-old.(?) Poor kids.

Papa is visibly moved by the teary P, but he's forced to tell her she gets zero.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“No Dime or Time for Cosign Mom”

New, Season 9, Episode 102, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Lonna   Radford vs. Brayden Pettus)

Plaintiff mother cosigned the daughter and daughter’s boyfriend’s lease, then they broke up, boyfriend moved in another woman.     Plaintiff’s daughter Shea Radford, was living with Pettus, and then moved out.    Defendant didn’t sign the release to the property management office, so plaintiff could get off the lease.  The lease was set up so both defendants, and plaintiff were equally responsible for the lease.    Plaintiff though she was free of the lease after her daughter moved out, and defendant stayed in the apartment.     Plaintiff is suing for $3,137 for unpaid rent by Pettus.   Pettus claims Shea moved out without having herself taken off the lease, and claims he was on the hook for six months of rent and utilities. 

Plaintiff claims since her daughter moved out, that was the same as being taken off the lease, but it wasn’t.   So, plaintiff paid the $3,137 for the unpaid rent to protect her credit.   Plaintiffs claim the apartment went to month-to-month, but Pettus didn’t sign the lease name removal form.     Shea admits she stayed at the apartment for quite a few days, and the new roommate moved out because she wasn’t comfortable with this situation.  So, Shea didn’t have her name removed from the lease, so her mother was stuck with the rent.  

I wouldn’t give plaintiff a penny, they didn’t do what they needed to do to get off the lease.   Pettus claims plaintiff daughter moved out when they went to month-to-month on the apartment. 

Corriero says since defendant agreed to pay the complex over six months makes it a valid bill for Pettus.  However, plaintiff did nothing to get off the lease, or the daughter either.     The apartment complex made the new the month-to-month lease in plaintiff daughter and defendant’s names.  So, complex thought daughter still lived there, when another roommate was there for a few months.

Plaintiff gets 50% $1,568.   I wouldn't have given plaintiff or daughter a penny.   They could have been off the lease, but didn't do that.    

“Rent No More”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 18, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 5 Oct 2022 (Ernesto Martinez Jr vs. John Sendrey)

Edited February 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff mother cosigned the daughter and daughter’s boyfriend’s lease, then they broke up, boyfriend moved in another woman. 

Did Mommy really expect those two silly children to act like big grownups and be responsible?

It's funny thinking of another woman-child waiting in the wings for her chance at THAT boyfriend.

Agree that Mommy and her little angel deserved nothing.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Ruff Rough Refund”

New, Season 9, Episode 103, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Christine Reynolds  vs. Michael Gravitt)

Plaintiff bought two puppies, Huskies, from defendant for $800 each.   One puppy died after a home test says it was Parvo.  Buyer says defendant never vaccinated the litter, but plaintiff didn’t take the dog to a vet either.   Seller took the deceased puppy to his vet, and the parvo test was negative.     Defendant says it was an accidental breeding, and they don’t usually breed dogs.   Defendant swears the puppies did have their first shots from a vet.

Plaintiff never took the dog to a vet, but to a friend who owns a pet business.   Plaintiff also sells puppies of other breeds.  Plaintiff says taking the puppy to a vet never crossed her mind, even though the puppy was very ill.   

Defendant told plaintiff to take the vet, and a week later she took the puppy to defendant, and defendant was going to take puppy to a vet, but puppy died in defendant’s hands right after arrival.

I really can’t stand the plaintiff after her testimony.   

Plaintiff claims the puppies shouldn’t have been sold until the second set of shots were complete, months later.   Also, no other animals were sick in plaintiff’s mass of puppies.  

Plaintiff never takes any puppies to a vet for shots, but she goes to the woman at the pet store who sells her puppies for her for dog shots. 

None of plaintiff's other dogs had parvo.    (This happened in Klamath Falls, OR) 

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage. 

 

 

“Loan Him & Leave Him; Where is My Money?”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 17, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 4 Oct 2022

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

 (This is the last new episode for a while, I suspect in May rating sweeps month they will have more new ones).

“Women in Uniform”

New, Season 9, Episode 104, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Marie Schwarzer vs. Maria Reveles)

Plaintiff is a self-made business woman who says she was helping a competitor by placing a large inventory order for her, but the competitor accuses her of price gouging and doesn’t want to repay plaintiff.  Plaintiff is suing for the cost of the order, and other fees. Plaintiff says defendant has bad credit, and only agreed to place the order for $8500, with a 30-day repayment deadline.  Defendant says plaintiff marked the prices up to profit from the deal, but defendant didn’t bring the evidence to court.

Defendant paid the $5000, so still owes $3500, and plaintiff wants $15,000 in lost business.   Plaintiff has an exclusive with some suppliers, so that’s why she gets better prices.   Defendant says plaintiff has been gouging and profiting off of her for years, and she owes nothing to plaintiff.   Plaintiff supplies TV and movies with uniforms.  

Defendant wanted to open a second store location, and needed to expand her inventory.   However, this was cutting plaintiff out of a good, long-term customer.   Defendant claims plaintiff marked up every order she ever placed for defendant, but no proof.

Plaintiff said $500 a day in interest was needed for the late payment from defendant.   Usury at it’s finest.

Plaintiff claims she lost $15,000 in profits from selling items to defendant.   Saying the $8500 to plaintiff would have resulted in $16,000 in profits if she kept them herself.  

How could the judges give anything to defendant without proof of price gouging?   And why would they give anything to plaintiff for the lost business?

$3580 to plaintiff for the loan

“Daughter Dearest”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 31(Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32, 27 Oct 2022

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says plaintiff has been gouging and profiting off of her for years, and she owes nothing to plaintiff.  

Deadbeats can always find a reason why "I don't feel I owe the money." Her accusation that the plaintiff was gouging her - swindling her, which is different than marking up or profiting - was interesting and the judges wanted to see her evidence. "Oh, well. Honestly, I didn't bring that." She didn't think she needed the evidence upon which her whole defense is based. Yeah, no one ever heard that excuse before.

Even if there was a markup, P is allowed to make a profit and it's hardly her fault Def has no credit and P was the only one who would help D out. Businesses wouldn't stay afloat very long if their only aim is to break even.

P denied the 500$ per day interest, but I didn't quite get her explanation on that. Her theory of the lost profits lost me after the first sentence.

Papa always seems bedazzled by women in business.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Watch Your Step; Bail Me Out”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 56, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 6 dec 2022.

“Kitchen Chaos”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 16 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31 30 Oct 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Phone Charge-Her”

Rerun,  Season 9, Episode 49,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 23 Nov 2022

“No Security From a Flooded Mess”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 19, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 6 Oct 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Hot Property”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 55,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 5 Dec 2022.

 

“Train Robbin’ Restitution”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 30, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 26 Oct 2022.

This case infuriates me.   Why are the judges treating convicted robbers like they're anything but criminals?  

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Dog Fight”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 50, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 28 Nov 2022

 

“Ride Out of My Life; Grinding My Ears”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 29, (DiMango, Acker, Corriero)

p. 31 25 Oct 2022.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“The Friendship Union”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 54, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 2 Dec 2022

 

“Duplex Neighbors…Complex Eviction”                                                                                  

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 21, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 11 October 2022

Edited March 9, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Mustang Goes Bang; Lose-Lose Situationship”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 51 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p.33, 29 Nov 2022.

“Keeper of the Property”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 132, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Michelle Cody vs. Barbie Bowden )

Plaintiff, girlfriend of defendant's late father suing defendant daughter or stepdaughter for $5,000 for property.   Plaintiff and defendant had no relationship.  Plaintiff claims there was in home property, and a storage unit plaintiff claims she owned 50/50 with late partner.      Plaintiff claims the defendant didn't tell her about late partner/father's death, but she knew the day after he died.  SHe also claims defendant stole everything late father, and plaintiff had.

Defendant claims that was her biological father, plaintiff disputes that.    Plaintiff claims defendant and husband took everything she owned, including a mutually shared storage unit. 

Defendant witness is defendant's husband,  Jeff Perkins testifies.     Defendant claims after father was hospitalized, plaintiff pilfered his possessions.   It took five hours for defendant and husband to take late father's possessions.   Plaintiff claims defendant illegally put her name on the storage unit, and stole items that belonged to plaintiff.  Defendant says the storage unit wasn't paid for after father died in May.   Plaintiff claims defendant stole all of her payment receipts in May.   So how could plaintiff have a receipt stolen after May, when the so-called theft happened in May.   

Daughter paid $444 for the storage unit.  

Plaintiff claims the late partner and husband wasn't biological father of defendant.  So what? 

So, defendant is out everything she paid to get the storage out of potential foreclosure, and if plaintiff doesn’t pay the current lien off, then she’ll lose everything too.

Stupid decision by the judges.  The daughter claims she's the biological daughter of plaintiff's late boyfriend, so she's the next of kin, not plaintiff.   Plaintiff didn't have any proof about what she owned either.  

Plaintiff gets her property back.   Everything else dismissed.

Edited March 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

Today's first rerun case, little Miss No License, No insurance with nothing but a scarily big smile and equally scary eyelashes, still entertaining after the years go by. I think we hashed it over pretty thoroughly first time around but the defendant was so outstanding (not in a good way) that I want to add some comments. Firstly, did she learn to do her eye makeup before or after her lobotomy? Secondly, has she really gone through her life using her smile and cuteness to avoid having to ever use her brain? She is going to hit a hard wall when she eventually learns that having a big smile, cute looks (and monstrous eye lashes) doesn't last very long.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Con Voyage”

New, Season 9, Episode 33 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 1 Nov 2022

 

“Broken Soul”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 23 (Acker, DiMango. Corriero)

p. 31, 13 Oct 2022.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I was wrong, there are new episodes every day this week. 

 

“You’ve Got Nail”

New, Season 9, Episode 105, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Zacarria Burks  vs. Leon Johnson Jr.)

Neighbors complain about a luxury nail salon’s overwhelming acetone fumes, and the landlord tells nail technician she has to do something about it.  (The nail salons I’m familiar with have exhaust fans made for nail salons, and beauty shops, so you can’t smell anything from interior spaces).  Landlord Johnson owns the two-story commercial building.    When plaintiff installed a fan, defendant said that didn’t stop the acetone fumes from spreading throughout the building, so Mr. Johnson evicted her.   Mr. Johnson said he knew it was a cosmetology business, but didn’t realize it was a nail salon, and would need a special system to keep the smell out of the building.  (This happened in Ellenwood, GA).

Plaintiff claims the system to vent the fumes outside the building would cost too much.   The proposed system wouldn’t have vented outside, but in the dropped ceiling, and that was $800; a system to vent outside would cost $2100.  

Georgia board of cosmetology said the landlord had to do the venting system, not the plaintiff / renter.    I disagree.   Plaintiff claims she was moving forward with the $800 vent only system, exhausting to the drop ceiling, and the contractor said he wasn’t going to vent outside.  The proper system would cost $2100 to fully vent outside.

Defendant says there are other salons in the building, and they don’t have the issues with smells in the building.  My guess is the neighboring hair salons complained about the smells.

As usual, judges don’t seem to have a clue about the ventilation system, or leasing buildings.   Plaintiff said the contractor would vent the salon for $800, but I can’t believe that was the outside venting was included.  Plaintiff also said she wasn’t paying for the $2100 outside venting system.   Juarez seems to think defendant should have paid for the $2100 system.

Decision is the judges say it is the defendant’s job to remedy the noxious fume issue.   However, I doubt OSHA would say the fumes were the problem of the landlord, instead of the nail salon owner.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000 from the judges.    

(There is no way an adequate fan, vented to the outside would cost $800, and I think the $2100 fan is the adequate, safer installation, vented to the outside.   The nail salon that used to be at the local Walmart supercenter reeked for the first week it was open, you could smell the acetone, and other fumes all over the store.   Then, they were closed for a few days, and when it reopened there was no smell.  I suspect the store manager told them to put in an adequate vent, with the help of the local building and health inspectors.   Judges really dropped the ball on this one.)

“The Dogfather”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 131 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Taylor Hensley vs. Marlon Brando Ortiz )

Plaintiff and boyfriend, and roommate James, live together.   Then, defendant gets a Pit Bull, and dog ends up with plaintiff’s roommate, and then one morning Bella (Pit), and Dudley (plaintiff’s dog), are in the yard with plaintiff.    Bella lunges at plaintiff, resulting in two surgeries to plaintiff’s finger, and arm damages.   Defendant claims plaintiff’s insurance covered all but $200, then he found out about $3000 more. 

 After two weeks, plaintiff and roommates were sick of untrained Bella peeing and pooping everywhere, then the bite happened.    When plaintiff went to the ER after the bite, she said it was a random stray dog that did it, or Bella would have been put down that day.    

Defendant’s smirks are very irritating, and he seems to find this all amusing.    Defendant claims plaintiff shouldn’t have been feeding her dog, and not feeding Bella.  Bella also went after plaintiff’s dog too.   Defendant moved from a place that allowed dogs, to a place that didn’t allow pets, so that’s why he dumped Bella on plaintiff’s roommate, James.

The Pit Bull bite ended the plaintiff’s dreams of joining the police academy.   She can’t grip and fire a weapon, so she can’t go to the police academy.    She doesn’t know if the injury will ever heal completely.  Plaintiff was feeding her dog in the fenced front yard, when Bella forced the door open, it was ajar, and Bella went for Dudley’s breakfast, and the bite and fight started.

Video of plaintiff’s injuries are bad, and seem to be permanent.  Defendant never even apologized, or seems to care about the bite and injuries.  Defendant also didn’t say Bella wasn’t house trained by used indoor puppy pads.

Plaintiff wants $5,000 for physical therapy co-pays, and other damages.   She still doesn’t have full use of her hand.  There is a possibility of another surgery to get full use of her middle finger.

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

Edited March 13, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The proposed system wouldn’t have vented outside, but in the dropped ceiling, and that was $800; a system to vent outside would cost $2100.  

This case was more interesting than I expected. Crazy's quote above really went to the core issue. Defendant said that the $800 vent system would not vent to the outside, just to above the drop ceiling. Plaintiff explicitly claimed that the $800 system would vent to the outside. This might have been a "he said - she said" situation except for the $800 quote. There is no way that anybody would go up into the drop ceiling and install an exhaust fan and duct work then penetrate the exterior wall and install a weather proof exterior vent for that price. (Just a stray thought, if the vent system is required to handle acetone fumes, wouldn't it need to used a sealed fan safe for volatile fumes, not a Home Depot bargain fan?).  I also don't think I would go to some nail polish association for expert advice on acetone safety. Once again, I think the judges totally screwed the pooch on this one. JM (who constantly reminds us that she knows everything about construction work) would probably have handled this one better.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives $5,000 from the judges.    

I didn't finish this one, so thanks for the verdict. Just listening to a case about nail polish remover fumes was making me ill, as those fumes probably would make everyone else in the building ill. I did enjoy the pics of the "Luxury" fingertip daggers.

4 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

This might have been a "he said - she said" situation except for the $800 quote.

Yeah, I couldn't see that job of venting to the outdoors costing 800$. It cost me nearly that to get an exhaust fan installed in my bathroom.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“All Fired Up”

New, Season 9, Episode 106,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Cheryl Muzinich vs. Lorna Gray )

Defendant/ Landlady lets scammers into her home without a background check, or lease, and tries to hold the property manager/plaintiff responsible for unpaid rent.  Property manager/plaintiff says she still owed for the work she did trying to rent the property. 

Defendant’s son calls property manager, and tells her that there are problem tenants.  Tenants paid first month’s rent $2900 cash, and turned out to be bad apples.   Then the plaintiff wanted $2,000 from defendant, after three months of trying to help defendant with the problem tenants.

Plaintiff says she was to be paid 8% of the rent, on a one year contract to manage the rental property.    There was no identification from the tenants, and plaintiff showed up at the property the day after being hired, to serve paperwork on them.  This paperwork had to be served in person, because defendant didn’t even have identification or a lease with the tenants.  The only I.D. tenants showed defendant had a different name on it.   No background checks or credit checks by defendant, and she’s blaming the plaintiff for her problems.

Tenants only let plaintiff in two rooms for her inspection, and never let her in the property again.   Plaintiff wanted to evict the tenants, but defendant still thought tenants would pay her, and didn’t want an eviction.   This was in California, so I doubt that the tenants would have been evicted in a reasonable time anyway.   

I’m totally on the plaintiff’s side in this.   Defendant didn’t do anything that a landlord should do, and this situation was all on her.    I don’t know why the defendant hired the property manager, since she didn’t allow her to do her job.     Plaintiff consulted two law firms, and relayed the information about the eviction process, and cost to defendant.   Squatter tenants stayed for months.   Defendant expected plaintiff to still do the eviction, but didn’t tell her to do it, or want to go forward with any action.

Defendant hired another property manager, who did serve eviction on the tenants.  How could the second property manager evict people that didn’t have identification, or a lease?  

(My guess is the tenants were serial squatters, they pay the minimum up front, and never pay another penny until the eviction process starts, and they move to the next place.  I know this from the rental home across the street, where the last two renters have been either told to leave, or the landlord will evict, or the latest one who was actually evicted. )

Plaintiff receives $2,595, for the third month of work, plus the $50 legal bill, and her work on the rental property.  Defendant’s ridiculous counter claim is dismissed.

 

“Ghosted Writer”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 133, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Kari Zander vs. Stephen  Bosio )

Plaintiff is suing for emotional distress, triggering, sexual assault, and mental health crisis, caused by defendant’s soon-to-be ex-wife, and wants the $800 writing fee, plus $4200.  Plaintiff is a black woman, and was hired to pen a white woman’s memoir, but after the writer accused her of racism, compensation ceases and she moves away, leaving the writer without payment.

Defendant’s manuscript stated that defendant ex-wife was a POC, and Indigenous, but when the  writer found out defendant was a liar about her ancestry, and 98.9% European, it triggered her.   Plaintiff is suing husband, because he has more money than his soon-to-be ex.   Defendant says the agreement was through the plaintiff and his soon to be ex-wife.   There was no signed contract on the deal

Plaintiff says ex was attacking people online, and defending her ancestry that she was lying about.  Plaintiff claims all money was joint between defendant and ex, and was the only one who controlled payments to plaintiff.    Plaintiff claims defendant’s friend sexually assaulted her, and she claims the defendant refused to tell authorities what he saw.   

Plaintiff also says she wanted to sue defendant's ex, but she fled the area, and couldn't serve her. 

Case is dismissed without prejudice, so plaintiff can refile locally, against the defendant’s ex-wife.

Edited March 15, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I’m totally on the plaintiff’s side in this.   Defendant didn’t do anything that a landlord should do, and this situation was all on her.  

I guess Def was dazzled by the $2,900 wad of cash and decided no background checks, financial records, ID verification, etc were needed.

What I didn't understand and what the judges kept asking to no avail was if Def emailed P and told her that trying to evict these freeloaders was a "waste of time" why she is now complaining that P didn't move forward with the eviction?

Maybe because you told her not to? Confusing for sure.

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This was in California, so I doubt that the tenants would have been evicted in a reasonable time anyway.   

No kidding! Def would probably have been charged with abusive practices, bullying, or "triggering" for trying to oust the scammers. The scammers would then sue her for 10K hurting their feelings.