The People's Court - General Discussion

[ElleMo]

20 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Doesn't totally excuse rude defendant for blowing crap all over the neighbors - especially if he originally offered to pay but then ignored the plaintiff once she got an estimate. 

In the hall, he said that he would think about paying and was hoping that the contractor would tell her what caused the wind to break so they could end it that way.  Problem is,  she would have to pay for that out of her own pocket so it is in her best interest to not have anything stating how the window was broken. 

[SRTouch]

1. bail money loan: had to laugh after hearing the preview and then watching the litigants come in. Seems the parents, mommy and step dad, were on vacation when they get a frantic call from sonny's gf. Sonny has been locked up, and gf only has enough for half the bail, can mommy PLEASE send the rest. Parents were never repaid, so they're suing gf (now ex-gf) for money to bail out their son.... and I found it odd when they walk in is that sonny isn't here. Oh, not only that, but I also got a laugh when I heard WHY sonny has been locked up - nonpayment of child support. Guess it makes sense if deadbeat sonny isn't paying to support his kids he'd be the type to stiff his parents for a loan to get out of the hoosegow. And it follows that the enabler parents are here going after his ex instead of sonny, since they're the ones who taught him to accept responsibilities. Sonny must be quite the catch, gf should have dumped him and let him rot when she learned how well he was caring for his kids - instead she put up half the bail. Sonny and the non ex gf had been together for six years and had three kids of their own when he was locked up for non support to some other baby momma(s). Ah, but she was in LOOOVE, so she is begging mommy for the money, saying she can pay half with her rent money if only mommy can pay the rest, and of course promising to repay the loan. Oh dear, we have to get him out or he'll lose his new job. Uh, yeah sure, and BTW, he never got that new job. When he finally does get a job, gf tells him to be sure to pay back mommy... yeah sure, and pay something on your back support, and, oh, don't forget me and our three kiddies. Really, mommy, why are you suing this girl, the mother of three of your grandkids, over bail money for your deadbeat bum of a son? Yeah, MM asks the question as we go to commercial and we get a little smirk from mommy. Makes me wonder if this isn't some clever scheme to get repaid without the money coming from either sonny or the grandkids mommy - but no, I don't think she's that clever. Oh, and surprise, we learn now is paying nothing to support the 3 kids with this defendant. Yep, and now mommy/granny is still defending sonny, he never asked to borrow the money, his gf/significant other called and begged for the money, so it's all on her - nah, she's not clever, that just how she thinks. MM launches into how her attitude is exactly what turned sonny into a deadbeat. Instead of being shamed and looking mortified and humiliated, mommy stands there smiling and nodding, because she just heard MM say that, from the texts, mommy has the right to sue both sonny and defendant, or whichever she chose to go after. Ah, maybe legally, but morally sonny deserves to pay big time... not only this loan, but child support to at least two baby mommas. Nope, all mommy is concerned with after hearing the decision - MM still has her phone.
2. tenant suing for deposit: ok, story appears to be that tenant gives three days notice, moves out, still thinks she should get back the deposit. Landlord says he gets to keep the deposit because of the lack of notice, in fact it took months to re-rent so he wants her to pay rent for those months, too. Ah, section 8... if section 8 disappeared tomorrow half of these rent cases would be gone... than we'd get more SQUATTAHS! So, she was a tenant there for 3 years. Tenant has been getting section 8 for 10 years, living here for three - she knows the rules, so how did it come about that she left after 3 days notice. You don't just swap apartments when you're on section 8 (no matter how much JJ insists you JUST uh MOVE), there's a process and hoops to jump through. Her reason for leaving was a "witch" neighbor, but not sure that's valid justification for section 8 to move you with three day notice. Ok, lots of yakety yak, we find out her lease had run out and she was a month to month tenant - so forget any claim for two months rent even if she gave no notice. MM asks, doesn't section 8 require a lease. Defendant - yeah usually at least a year. Sooo, are either of these two following the rules? Well, sort of. Tenant didn't give landlord an exact date when she'd be gone, since she needed to wait til the new place was inspected, but she had been telling landlord she was leaving for months, and would be gone as soon as she got the green light to move. Landlord dude is losing ground fast here, even though I always cringe when I hear people say they've been getting housing assistance for over a decade. This lady is typical of many of section 8 folks, society owes them, and it doesn't matter if her decision to move puts anyone else in a tight spot. In this case, she was notified the new place had been approved on the 28th, so three days later she was gone. MM tries to explain how that quick move costs the landlord money, and tenant just looks puzzled, like why should that matter to her. Nah, unless these folks are in NY the landlord is going to get to keep a month's rent, but he'll have to do some fast talking to keep more as he admits she left the place in good, even beautiful, condition. He's trying to use the expired lease which says she's supposed to give 60 days notice - but even that expired lease apparently had a Block which should have been checked to enforce the 60 day option - and it wasn't checked. Oh, and he's suing for two additional months but isn't counting the month he already has with the security (actually, the deposit is a little more than a month's rent)... so if he got what he's asking for he'd end up with 3 months worth of rent - yep, he'll REALLY need to talk fast to win his countersuit. No surprise, he can keep one month, so he owes the difference between the deposit and the rent for one month - she collects $120 - and of course, no matter how much the judge tried to explain, she is still convinced her she should not pay for her failure to give notice. Oh, and landlord also usn'the happy, he still thinks he should get two month's rent.
3. bumper cars at the light: ok, are those snowcones are ice cream cones on that dude's shirt? Story here is that defendant rammed plaintiff at a stoplight. Defendant says he already paid for the damage he caused, but now plaintiff wants to be paid for preexisting damage. Kind of refreshing that defendant isn't disputing the accident is his fault - not that a dispute would go very far, it's kind of hard to win that argument when you hit someone in the rear when they'really stopped at a light. Ok, tiny dispute, he says light was green and he thought the plaintiff was going to turn - but he accepts responsibility. The big dispute comes later on. These guys don't call the police, but now disagree on what the damages were. Ah, a police report and/or pictures would be nice. So, defendant admits rear ending plaintiff, and signs a paper signing he'll pay to repair plaintiff's car. They meet up at a body shop, where the rear bumper is fixed - defendant pays. Ah, but plaintiff argues that was just a temporary fix to make it safe to drive - now he wants husband 12yo bumper like new, and oh yeah, he has a messed up door he wants fixed. Ah ha, maybe he has a point, he claims after the accident he couldn't open a rear door or the trunk... yeah a hard enough rear end smack could mess that up, I guess. He's not suing for the trunk, since it started working again, but he wants the rear door fixed.  Like I said, maybe the door was messed up in the accident, but dude is in court with nothing from a body shop saying the door is defendant's fault. Looks kind of bad, he has two estimates, yet neither say the door was damaged in this accident. Oops, and the first guy, the one who fixed the bumper (the fix plaintiff now claims was just a temporary fix) commented when he looked at the door that it looked like it was damaged before and been worked on. And, that first mechanic was a dude plaintiff chose, not some ringer from the defendant, and plaintiff admits the mechanic "might" have said that. Oh dear, doesn't look good, in fact I'd say forget any additional money for the bumper. Why make defendant make the car like new after plaintiff admits his own choice of body shops thinks the car, which he bought used a year before, had been wrecked before. Case dismissed

Edited June 16, 2017 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bail money loan:

Another "tough love" parent with blinders regarding her most specialest snowflake of a son, but ruthless towards the latter's ex-girfriend. Her idea of being tough with her son is making the girl pay for everything, something that guy must have been able to rely upon all his life, i.e. a woman picking up his financial slack, starting with mom. Not that defendant seemed much more deserving of sympathy, with her ability to naively fall for such a moocher, but she still came across slightly better than the overharsh mom. Plaintiff kept saying "we live in Florida" as if it absolved her of anything like human decency. It's too bad MM could not find a way to split liability between defendant and her ex, telling the mother to sue her son for the other half. Stepfather seemed like he was wishing to be miles away from this mess (like back in Florida...).

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing for deposit: 

Plaintiff semed to think she could keep a running tab of 30-day notices to move,  giving one every month or so, which allowed her to leave at any time with no other communication with the landlord.

Question about Section 8 : can a landlord refuse to rent under that U.S. program, or would that be deemed discrimination? If I were dumb enough to rent to people (scammers and vexatious people exist in every subset of society, even the well-off), I would be reluctant to go the Section 8 route (or any similar scheme we may have in Canada) simply because of what we see on these shows; of course, I am sure that a good proportion of the people who fall under this assistance program are good tenants, so that their type is never represented on court TV.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bumper cars at the light: 

Even plaintiff's colourful shirt and defendant's torn jeans as fashion statement could make me care for this shifting and boring story.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Florinaldo

[teebax]

Unpopular opinion here, but I'm okay with mom suing the girlfriend instead of her son. She loaned the money on the promise that the girlfriend would make sure she was reimbursed. Since girlfriend was the only one working, it's reasonable from mom to assume she'd get paid back. I am also fine with her doing tough love. That her son is a deadbeat is not indicative of her parenting skills, no matter how much MM wishes it were. My parents  raised five kids. Four of us are responsible, and one is not. They raised us all the same.

I'm also okay with mom moving off to Florida and leaving all that drama and BS behind. I did the same, if you substitute AZ for FL.

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, teebax said:

That her son is a deadbeat is not indicative of her parenting skills

I totally agree with that. I've always hated seeing parents being blamed for the misdeeds of their kids, even when "kids" are adults who have choosen their own path in life, yet continue to blame mommy and daddy for their failures. It's utter bullshit. My parents raised 3 kids. Two turned out just fine and one didn't. My husband raised 3 kids - same thing - two are successful, one is a fine candidate for TPC - welfare, single mother, no job - the whole shebang. Unless the parents were monsters, it's not their fault. My niece was raised in a crazy, disfunctional environment and she's successful.

I wouldn't blame Jamal's parents for the dismal failure he turned out to be, but nailing the girlfriend (granted she was stupid enough to pop three kids with this loser) for the total amount of Jamal's bail does NOT have anything to do with "tough love." That would have been applicable only if Momma said, "Jamal got his useless ass thrown in jail? Let him get himself out" and not forked over the money. What has Jamal - who is not a kid -  learned? He can run around knocking up stupid women and not pay for the offspring he helped make and get tossed in jail for just that, but no worries - Momma will bail him out and stick dumb, fertile, girlfriend with the bill.

Stepdad must be so completely fed up with this shit, because you know Jamal's saga with the girlfriends and the babies and no money and bail never ends.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

That her son is a deadbeat is not indicative of her parenting skills, no matter how much MM wishes it were.

You are correct, it's not an automatic judgment on her parenting skills. However, her statements and behaviour during the hearing, as well as her general argument to justify her actions clearly point to an overindulgent parent who does not walk her self-serving talk of "tough love". As such, she probably encouraged and nurtured her son's deadbeat life choices, despite her airs of superiority.

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

You are correct, it's not an automatic judgment on her parenting skills. However, her statements and behaviour during the hearing, as well as her general argument to justify her actions clearly point to an overindulgent parent who does not walk her self-serving talk of "tough love". As such, she probably encouraged and nurtured her son's deadbeat life choices, despite her airs of superiority.

Yeah, and apparently her idea of tough love extends to sticking it to sonny's kids and baby mommas if they are foolish enough to help him. She KNEW that bail money was for sonny, but gave it anyway when gf promised she'd get it back.

Edited June 17, 2017 by SRTouch

[teebax]

We can agree to disagree. I didn't have a problem with her at all. If the son's ex didn't want to be responsible for repaying the loan, she shouldn't have guaranteed it.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Yeah, and apparently her idea of tough love extends to sticking to sonny's kids

This is true also.  If it were only the girlfriend, that's one thing (she chose him), but she's taking food away from her grandkids, since she knows her deadbeat son isn't feeding them.

The whole thing is one ugly mess and I don't know why she was so smiley.

[ElleMo]

On 6/16/2017 at 10:53 PM, AngelaHunter said:

This is true also.  If it were only the girlfriend, that's one thing (she chose him), but she's taking food away from her grandkids, since she knows her deadbeat son isn't feeding them.

The whole thing is one ugly mess and I don't know why she was so smiley.

Yeah, that entire case bothered me.  I can only hope that they agreed to go on TPC so mom can get her money back and ex-girlfriend won;t have to pay.  If this was a true court case, then it sickens me.  Legally the GF may have responsibility for the debt, but morally mom should have gone after her son, not the mother of his kids.

Edited June 19, 2017 by ElleMo

[DoctorK]

Ah, Mr. Mercedes versus the Car Wash. He could have made this a slam dunk if he had taken a picture of the one wheel that he claimed was not damaged, to compare with the three he claims were damaged (I think I know why). I was afraid the defendant was going to lose after he provided the picture of the brush with visible debris in the bristles. However, JM took a close look at the pictures of the damaged wheels and called BS. I think she was correct, but not for the most obvious reason: the majority of the visible damage was clearly surface corrosion of the aluminum rims. I have had those and they come from the factory with a protective coating that wears off. At about year three of four, I had exactly the same surface corrosion where the coating was breaking down. Mr. Mercedes had rims that were corroding and he tried to get the car wash to pay to get them refurbished.

Edited June 19, 2017 by DoctorK

[SRTouch]

1. wedding was called off, and she wants her money back: get ready for some mangled English. Plaintiff starts her story, "me and my fiance had got into a verbal argument and the cops got called..." Apparently, this isn't the first time "cops got called," and hubby to be already had a warrant out, and he gets hauled away this time, and wedding is called off. Ah, it doesn't matter much, since they already have a kid together. Anyway, case is about the DJ she paid a $500 deposit, but wants the money back. He says, nope, he turned away bookings for that date, middle of June - prime wedding season - spent time meeting with her, scouted the location, hired a sound guy, etc. Lots of nonsense back and forth, some questions about whether plaintiff ever received the second page of the contract which said "NO REFUNDS." Doesn't matter, MM tells plaintiff the laws governing the contract are that the deposit is nonrefundable. Plaintiff loses her case. DJ had a countersuit for the rest of his fee, but he withdraws his countersuit.
2. fancy rims damaged at the car wash: plaintiff says he told the car wash dudes not to use brushes on his rims, they did anyway, and now his fancy rims are all scratched up. Car wash dude says plaintiff's rims were already scratched and he just wants someone else to foot the bill to buff them out. Hmmm, anyone else wonder what happens when they use those bushes on a car with a clear coat finish (defendant says those brushes are strictly tire brushes). Plaintiff tells us he caught them mid-brush, so only three out of four rims were brushed - and those three have obvious brush marks. Ok, how's he going to prove his case. He says he complained immediately - just can't prove it and doesn't know the employee's name. Pictures - well, yeah, just not any taken the day of the incident, and no picture of the undamaged rim. He tells us he went back the next day and asked to talk to the owner but was brushed off. Called several times, never got through. Finally gave up and filed the complaint. Ok, defendant acts like customer service is way down his list of priorities. Manager told him about the complaint, but said no way our brushes caused the damage - so owner couldn't pry himself away from the office to actually talk to the customer... oh, and customer was a long time regular customer who had been coming in longer than this owner owned the place - at least according to plaintiff. His preparation for the case is more if the same. Just in case anyone doesn't know what a car wash brush looks like, he brought a photo - problem is the freaking photo is of a dirty brush with visible debris embedded in it. Plaintiff has a pretty tall job convincing anyone the rims were damaged by the car wash brush, but defendant is doing his best to help plaintiff's case. A bad sign when the judge says she would be highly upset if someone used that brush on her car. And it does not help to say, "your honor, I've never seen his tires." Plaintiff may not have proved car wash damaged his rims, but everybody can see the defendant couldn't care less about his customers, so I kind of wish he could squeak out a win. But, alas, no, case dismissed. 
3. family car deal: ok, WTH is that woman wearing? Leopard print, too short, and frizzy hair - I paused the video to write this and see several folks sitting in the audience having a hard time not laughing. Case is about plaintiffs selling the daughter a junker, and daughter not paying. Daughter, the defendant, says the car was a gift from mom (car was in mom's name), then step dad stuck his nose into the deal. Not sure why, since deal was between mom and daughter, but we start out with step dad telling us what mom, his wife said and did instead of mom telling us... Heck, they lost me and I'm not interested enough to backtrack and try to figure it out. I zip out to hallterview. Step dad tells Doug he got screwed,  but I'm not interested enough to listen to his reasoning. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

As soon as I saw the couple suing the daughter for the car, I thought "it's old Peggy and Al Bundy!" and the daughter could be middle-aged Kelly if you squint your eyes.  Bud couldn't make it.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wedding was called off, and she wants her money back:

Y'know, my husband and I have had a few "verbal arguments" but for some reason they never resulted in the police being called. Of course, my husband doesn't "get all up in my face" (what does that mean anyway?)and has no outstanding warrants. If he did, I'm pretty sure I'd know what they were for.  I might not want to marry him either, but I'm not a  sainted single mother, so there's that. Plaintiff thinks she can get her money back when she bailed on the contract a "munf" after she agreed to it. Def isn't just any old DJ - he's a "celebrity" DJ for Fifty Cent and a child of God who gives no refunds! Doug in the Hall, to plaintiff: "Do you understand what the judge said to you?"  Plaintiff: "No." This is after JM explained how contracts work to her at least three times. Maybe she used too many syllables.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

fancy rims damaged at the car wash:

Hard to believe the def  was in the position to buy and own a business. He's not bright, to put it mildly. Maybe daddy gave him the car wash as a toy  to keep him out of trouble. He has the attiude of someone who's had things handed to him. He brings as evidence a picture of  the brush, but is so stupid it shows it full of stones and other crap and when asked by Doug in the hall what "oxidation' means, is all like, "Duhh... I dunno. Something I heard.. somewhere. I think." Well, okay then.  Plaintiff is highly indignant and critical of JM, pointing out that she's not a mechanic so can't say what caused the scratches on his rims. Exactly - she's not a mechanic, but a judge who deals in evidence and plaintiff had none. Those scratches could have happened anywhere. Go get your stupid rims buffed out, you little troll.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

family car deal: ok, WTH is that woman wearing?

As soon as I saw the leopard-skin covered harridan and heard her speak I immediately thought, "Here's someone who spends her days smoking and drinking. Heavily." That phone call tape was hilarious, because she was so obviously pissed to the eyeballs. "Yeah, I was drinking," she says, as though it's normal to be that drunk and making phone calls. Gee, I really hate that type of drunk. *she says as she takes another gulp of wine.* But hey, at least I'm a cheerful drunk, not the type to call people and drawl on about how I"ll KILL someone!

 

57 minutes ago, patty1h said:

it's old Peggy and Al Bundy!"

Pretty much, if Peg were a nasty drunk and Al even more of an idiot. Dumbass didn't understand that when he got the registration for the old heap put in his wife's name, that made it her car, to give to her hideous daughters (the one being sued is of course a SINGLE MOTHER. Wish we could have seen the sperm donor) or drive off a cliff if she so chose to do so.

[Jamoche]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Of course, my husband doesn't "get all up in my face" (what does that mean anyway?)

Standing at an intimidatingly close distance, often including shouting. Popular with people who also like to pull the "I wasn't threatening them, I didn't even touch them!" card. The last person who tried that got shoved back hard - I taught self defense, I know what a threat looks like and what I'm allowed to do. (Stepdad. Very long story. I had a broken ankle, Mom dragged him along when I asked for help. Never again.)

[shksabelle]

Let me say that I never have been, and never will be, asked to be on the cover of Vogue. But if I looked like a 70-year-old, toothless, (very) hard living, drunk hooker, I would be hard pressed to leave my house, much less appear on TV in front of millions. 

[Florinaldo]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wedding was called off, and she wants her money back:

Plaintiff sounded as if she does not even have one brain cell to spare and can't understand the most basic explanation, like the fact that non-refundable is by law the default option for a deposit. If she ever saw the second page of the contract, which I think she most probably did, there's a very good chance she would forget about it 5 minutes later.

Nice gesture on the part of the defendant to waive his countersuit, as MM implied she would have ruled in his favour on that too.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

fancy rims damaged at the car wash:

Plaintiff diminished the credibility of his evidence by not bringing a photo of the allegedly intact rim, as if he was trying to hide some crucial fact. That the damage did not look like brush marks had already damaged his case enough, but this was certainly a clincher. Defendant could have been wiser in what brush to photograph, but I agree with him that this particulate debris would not cause any big damage on rims anyway. Plaintiff came across as a guy who got that car either as a chick magnet for older guys or as a status symbol, but could not afford the maintenance costs.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

family car deal:

Whoa! Sheena Queen of the Jungle sure has done some hard living over the last few decades since her heyday.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Florinaldo

[teebax]

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Standing at an intimidatingly close distance, often including shouting. Popular with people who also like to pull the "I wasn't threatening them, I didn't even touch them!" card. The last person who tried that got shoved back hard - I taught self defense, I know what a threat looks like and what I'm allowed to do. (Stepdad. Very long story. I had a broken ankle, Mom dragged him along when I asked for help. Never again.)

I had someone get in my face at a bar. Due to my reaction, I'm not permitted to enter there again. At least it was back in the days when they didn't call the cops for every little skirmish.

The DJ in that first case should have used some of that tattoo money to fix his teeth. I know it's shallow, but I have a thing about people with awful teeth. If you can afford to get all that damn ink, why not fix your damn teeth? And enough with the God talk. It's so annoying. Why oh why can't I live in a place where people keep their religious nonsense to themselves? I don't care if you pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It has NOTHING to do with your TV court case.

The plaintiff was shady AF. You know she received both pages of the contract. She thought she was being smart by only bringing page 1. She's not smart enough to know the default position on a contract though. Freaking idiot.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

...She's not smart enough to know the default position on a contract though. Freaking idiot.

Or to understand what "default position" means, apparently. Really, though, that was MM's fault, using them highfalutin lawyer legalese words.

Edited June 20, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Whoa! Sheena Queen of the Jungle sure has done some hard living over the last few decades since her heyday

Hey! Knock it off! Now I have "Nature Valley Sweet 'n Salty" cereal bar crumbs all over my desk.

 

1 hour ago, teebax said:

She's not smart enough to know the default position on a contract though. Freaking idiot.

There's the answer I was searching for - she doesn't know what "default" means.

 

1 hour ago, shksabelle said:

But if I looked like a 70-year-old, toothless, (very) hard living, drunk hooker, I would be hard pressed to leave my house, much less appear on TV in front of millions. 

And here I thought I was being harsh. Heh.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

Why oh why can't I live in a place where people keep their religious nonsense to themselves?

I have been looking for this place my entire life!

5 hours ago, patty1h said:

"it's old Peggy and Al Bundy!"

Peggy Bundy would have kept herself in much better shape and shown a more refined fashion sense.

[arejay]

Wedding-Off Lady should have been happy.  I mean, DJ sent her Texas, after all.  That's huge!  Oh, wait...........

 

Carwash Dude might have been a little dim, but he sure is pretty.

Edited June 20, 2017 by arejay
because I can.....

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, arejay said:

Carwash Dude might have been a little dim, but he sure is pretty.

I thought so too, until he opened his mouth. "Dumb" negates the prettiness, for me anyway.

[patty1h]

Did anyone else gasp "oh my God" when Shaunna Mann walked thru the PC's double doors?  Just me?  Maybe I've just been exposed to the parade of obese folks so long that Shaunna was to the extreme opposite and it's kind of a shock.

[SRTouch]

1. entitled roomies says defendant was fine with her moving in without paying rent: this is one of those cases which prove you really don't know someone til you try to live in close quarters. Plaintiff says they were both living in less than ideal situations, so they decided to move in together. Well, actually, sounds like plaintiff and her two dogs moved in with defendant, her kids, and a bf and his kids. Just to make things a little more stressful, plaintiff was unemployed, but says defendant was fine with her not paying rent until she got a job and was back on her feet. Oops, right off the bat, MM spots a hole in plaintiff's testimony. Right after plaintiff says defendant was fine with no rent, she backs up and says she was paying rent as soon as she moved in - of course she paid cash and has no receipts. Oh boy, just the kind of entitled friend you would just love to welcome into your home. Unemployed, lives there from Aug to Dec, no rent but she says she contributed money for expenses, then decides to take a vacation. But, hey that's all good, someone else was footing the bill for her vacation and they didn't have a rental agreement until Nov, she was supposed to start paying $500 a month Dec 1st. When she comes back from her week of vacation, she says her stuff had been gone through and some of her groceries are gone. So many problems with her story it's hard to know where to start. She told us she was unemployed, but says worked of of the garage - where she apparently had a workshop, her motorcycle, and her two pit bulls living. So, not only was she renting a room, but had pretty much taken over the garage. Oh, and before the vacation there was a kerfuffle where she accused one of defendant's kids of stealing from her. Apparently, defendant wanted her gone, but she had established squatter residence after months of rent free living and instead of moving installed security cameras to guard her crap... Wonder if she paid Dec rent before leaving on vacation. Oh boy, we cross the aisle and hear from defendant for the first time. She's claiming plaintiff l squatted in her house a total of 18 months and only paid rent 1 month. Pitiful defendant gets all teary eyed talking about the accident 5 years ago when her husband died. I guess that's to explain why she let plaintiff walk all over her, but really to me that means there's a lot more to the story that we're never going to hear in 20 minutes. Defendant is talking about plaintiff moving in with her and her 2 kids, while earlier plaintiff talked about moving in with her, a bf, and 5 kids... this story is all over the place and none of the details jibe. Anyway, everybody agrees there was no rental agreement  at first, but starting in Dec plaintiff was to start paying $500 a month. Plaintiff is suing for $2500, claiming her crap was stolen and/or damaged in an effort to force her to move out. Then we have a countersuit asking for $2500 in back rent. Ah, remember the security cameras I mentioned... well plaintiff shows video of the alleged vandalism. Ok, yeah it does look like defendant dumped a dustpan on plaintiff's stuff - not so sure about the teenage son urinating on her stuff, maybe, but all we see is his back as he's standing there and when he turns around his zipper is up. As plaintiff stands by MM at the monitor and describes the vandalism, we cut over and see defendant who is trying to argue she's not doing anything even though we see it - we don't see everything plaintiff claims because of the angle, but we see enough to know she was up to no good messing with plaintiff's crap... not sure on you put a dollar amount on the damage, though. Sooooo, on one hand we have free loading squatter, and on the other defendant messing with plaintiff's stuff to get her to leave (and apparently recruiting her teenage son to help). End result - plaintiff gets no money, but can pick up a couple things she left behind. Defendant to gets $1500 for back rent and damages done when plaintiff moved out (she had pictures).
2. broken phone: plaintiff wants defendant to pay for her phone - says he pulled the cord when it was charging, it fell and cracked the screen. Kind of surprised when defendant walks in, I expected a kid since plaintiff came in with a couple kids, but in walks a big dude with a beard, who it turns out is the son of her friend. Anyway, his story is they were at a party, drinking going on, plaintiff asked him to pass her her phone, and when he went to pick it up it fell - hey, accidents happen, not his problem. I gotta agree with defendant dude, accidents DO happen, and I think plaintiff is going to have to prove he did something malicious, not just was fumble fingered and dropped it. Though, would have been nice had he offered to help pay some of cost, don't see him being legally liable. Oh, and she doesn't just want her phone repaired, nooooo, she wants it replaced. Apparently when it happened he agreed to pay part of the bill, but then he found out how much it costs (360) and backed out. His testimony is that when she told him the estimate was for $360 he agreed to pay half - ah, but the texts show that at that point he didn't offer to split the bill, he just stopped responding to her. So, I guess the question is did his offer to kick in something to fix it obligate him to pay, or can his change his mind. Hmmm, this is one of those where I disagree with da judge. Way I look at it, at most he would pay half the bill (her staff did some research and found it can be repaired for $250). But, according to MM, the accident equates to a traffic accident, and defendant should pay the full repair cost.
3. bike hit parked car: from the intro, not sure why this came to court. Plaintiffs say defendant was caught on security video hitting their parked car, was arrested at the scene, but refuses to pay for the damages. Have to laugh at defendant's defense. Seems he was trying get away from the cops, pedaling like mad as the cops chased him in their car, when his chain came off, causing him to wreck his bike and end up on the plaintiff's hood - it was the cop's fault. Oh, yeah, regular episode of COPS - turns out he was running from the cops because of he had some pot. Apparently, our biker pothead got spooked because an unmarked car came rolling up, thought maybe it was gang bangers, so he hops on his bike and takes off. Once he figured out it was cops he was going to stop, but you see his bike had no brakes. Ah, but he knows how to stop with no brakes, but those dastardly cops hit him, the chain came off, and he ended up hitting the parked car.... see, totally not his fault (amazing thing is he really believes it wasn't his fault). MM is toying with dude, and asks him, if you were a gambling man, who would you put your money on having to pay the damages. Totally over his head, so she repeats, if you were a gambling man, where would you put your money? Ans. Ummm in my room. best laugh in a while - and he's serious. 

[SRTouch]

1 minute ago, patty1h said:

Did anyone else gasp "oh my God" when Shaunna Mann walked thru the PC's double doors?  Just me?  Maybe I've just been exposed to the parade of obese folks so long that Shaunna was to the extreme opposite and it's kind of a shock.

Yep, and just like the obese folks choose the wrong wardrobe, her clothing choices accentuated her thinness. When you're so thin that your arms and legs look like sticks, a short dress is not the best choice - especially when you're pale as paste and your bird legs are bare. 

Ah, but what do I know, maybe her fashion sense comes from the heroin chic look of the mid 90s    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin_chic 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Did anyone else gasp "oh my God" when Shaunna Mann walked thru the PC's double doors?  Just me?  Maybe I've just been exposed to the parade of obese folks so long that Shaunna was to the extreme opposite and it's kind of a shock.

I am glad to see I was not the only one to have that reaction; her bony knees were especially unpleasant to look at and her wardrobe choice was not very flattering to say the least.

"Morbid obesity" is a medical condition; does the equivalent "morbid gauntness" exist?

Both litigants were equally unpleasant and I am sorry MM did not declare it a wash. Plaintiff said at one point that she had submitted in her filing pictures of her urine soaked belongings, but MM did not bother checking her papers. Is it possible her staff misplaces stuff when pulling files together? That is why you should always keep a copy of evidence you submit before a trial.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

broken phone:

Plaintiff was so agitated and breathless about a cracked phone, she sounds like someone who's very exhausting to have around. Shared liability would also have been my preference.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bike hit parked car:

Defendant is either a real idiot or is very good at playing one because it helps him getting out of tight situations. At least he was worth a few laughs.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

entitled roomies says defendant was fine with her moving in without paying rent:

Both litigants were so distasteful I had to stop watching this. The parasitic, overly-entitled plaintiff was bad enough, having the gall to sue over some  dump in which she squatted for many months, but def, who seemed to think that if she plasters on enough makeup and dyes her hair blond enough no one would notice that nasty trainwreck in her mouth, was the limit. Next!

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

broken phone: 

Okay, maybe an unpopular opinion, but I really feel that anyone who feeds her kids into obesity is guilty of abuse - setting them up for major health problems and ridicule/bullying from other kids. Never mind your damned phone, lady - look at what you've done to your children.  I should have skipped this case as well.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bike hit parked car:

So the "we wuz" idiot def, who was approached by some secret police car that was all spattered with paint and was very messy, was rammed by those mean cruel cops for no reason, but they found drugs in his pocket but he's not responsible for damaging the plaintiffs' car. Blame the cops for chasing him! Sue them!  He didn't do nothing wrong! He had presently lost his job at that time! Another waste of oxygen and future burden on society.

All three cases were no fun at all.

[teebax]

That defendant in the first case had a tooth that was a color I've never seen in anyone's mouth.

You're right, Angela. This was a crappy episode. 

[SRTouch]

1. back yard dog breeder deal gone bad: uh, not sure if plaintiff qualifies as a back yard breeder, since he apparently lives in an apartment blg. Anyway these two angry looking yayhoos live in the same building, and from the description I doubt there is a back yard. Plaintiff is the angry looking breeder, and says he sold dumb looking defendant two puppies. She didn't pay, so little sawed off runt goes to collect, big kerfuffle ends up with him getting arrested. According to him, her son came out and strangled him, but when the cops came defendant and her family made up a bunch of lies which led to the arrest. Must have been a slow night for the cops, either that or just his luck to get cops who enjoy doing paperwork, cause I sure he cooperated fully and would have just gone downstairs to his apartment if they gave him a chance. Defendant's story is slightly different. First she admits to only 1 puppy, and says she only owed $25 not the hundreds plaintiff is claiming. Says when the runt came upstairs, he came with a baseball bat, and banged on her door with it. She has a $1900 countersuit for the damage he caused. Uh, if you didn't already know, I HATE BACK YARD BREEDERS! Anyway, breeder dude ends up selling three puppies to the family. First a puppy to the daughter - no problem, she pays. Then a couple more to the son and mother - and this is where the dispute comes from, these pups were sold on installment, and they don't pay on time. Oh, and this is also part of the problem with his case - these are not a mother and her minor children we're talking about, the son is 28yo, so mother is not responsible if he owes money - but she does admit to owing $25 for the puppy she bought. Nah, he says the first dog was paid for, but no money was ever paid towards the other two. Again, still his story, the son lost his job, mom agreed to cover cost of both puppies, but kept coming up with various excuses. Come New Years Eve, he's had enough, wants all these debts paid, so he heads up and the big kerfuffle, lies, and handcuffs. Crossing the aisle, surprise defendant has totally different story - about the only thing that matches is the family did buy three puppies. One was paid for before the other two were sold, but they gave $100 each when they picked up the puppies, and then made additional payments later. On night of big kerfuffle, plaintiff was drunk as a skunk when he came upstairs. Little guy looks like he goes through life angry, easy to see him arguing with the cops and talking himself into cuffs even if he were sober. Not sure what the plaintiff is doing in court, cause his whole case seems to be flapping gums - no bill of sale or contract, just he said/they said. He claims another neighbor was a witness, but of course his witness isn't here. OTOH, defendant has a witness who says she saw mom and son pay a hundred each when they picked up the puppies - yeah, the witness is a daughter, but also is/was his long time friend. So, by everybody's version he WAS owed money and defendant was not paying as agreed - problem is there's like $775 difference of opinion in what was owed. Oh, and we don't have an agreement on who it was that owes money, and the big property damage claim. Just to add to the confusion, part of the $1900 countersuit is for a vet visit after defendant's took possession of the puppies - haven't heard yet why that should be plaintiff's bill. As if I need another reason to dislike the runt, earlier he implied this litter was a one time thing, but now he's showing MM a picture of a puppy and talking about the price of puppies he posted on Facebook - and unless I misheard he said that was a different litter. Yep, sounding more like a back yard breeder, and I'm willing to sock him with that vet bill if he was selling puppies for hundreds of dollars without a wellness check and first round of shots. He didn'the have a lot of credibility with me from yhen beginning, but just lost a lot with that exchange, and now defendant says he has a history of going off on neighbors and getting arrested - hearsay and no proof, but believable with his demeanor in court. Defendant really has no case for all her property damages. A letter from a neighbor that isn't notarized, no pictures, and the police report which doesn't mention the damage she wants to be paid for. Ok, we get the crayon and toilet paper speech, everybody gets lectured about coming to court without evidence, rough justice and plaintiff is awarded $275. There us a chuckle out in the hallway. Doug asks about whether he was drunk, he says no, wasn't drinking, but had been smoking his medical weed all day.
2. rear ender:  hey, this may be one of those exceptions where the person who gets smacked in the rear is actually at fault. Plaintiffs' story is both cars are stopped at a railway crossing, defendant gets tired of waiting and backs into plaintiff. They claim he offered them $500, but when they said they were calling the cops he claimed he was sitting still and they ran into him. Ah, plaintiffs could be telling the truth, but can they prove it? Plaintiff tells a good story while defendant doesn't, actually tend to disbelieve defendant just because of the way he testifies. Ah, but then plaintiff's bf/fiance makes a joke about beating up the old guy leaning on his cane, which reminds me of how plaintiff slipped in that the accident happened while she was on the way to a meeting about her upcoming wedding - at the time I thought totally beside the point and a bid for sympathy, but I forgot about it til now. Ah, and never good when, as plaintiff does here, a litigant gives the judge a police report with missing pages. Plaintiff redeems herself though, when she produces an overhead photo of the site which casts doubt on defendant's version. He just said there was one car in front of him, and according to the picture it looks like there was room for several. So, the question is, why was plaintiff's car hit on the passenger front fender if he wasn't backing up as she claims. Yep, the pictures did it for me, and her version of the conversation at the scene seals it. MM agrees, so on to damage claim, which doesn't look so good for the plaintiff - nope, can't get more than your car is worth. She does get what the lower estimate says it would take to fix - $1900.
3. Nother guy wanting back a deposit: plaintiff wants back the $500 deposit he put down on a motorcycle. Says he put down the deposit, then had buyers remorse and decided he really couldn't afford it. Defendant said it was a special order and that plaintiff waited until the order came in before canceling. Slam dunk case that we've seen many times before. Only reason to watch would be if there were some really unusual litigants to snark at... nope boring entitled 20yo kid buying on impulse who thinks it's up to others to cater to him. Oh yeah, didn't we just see this the other day. Dealer has a signed purchase agreement, buyer wants to back out and expects dealer to have done the work for nothing and return the deposit - even worse, in this deal dealer wasn't selling off the lot, but ordering the bike. So, now he has to hope someone else is willing to buy the special order or maybe end up having to sell it at a loss. Ah, maybe this makes the case worth a look see. After playing the innocent 20yo kid who doesn't know the procedures and what a deposit means in a vehicle deal, just about the first thing defendant says when his turn comes is, hold on the kid is a car salesman, he knows exactly how things work. Mini eruption from MM makes the case just blah instead of a complete waste. Things get a little more interesting when we get into the contract. See, the innocent kid was arranging his own financing, you guessed it, his choice of financing was to pay with plastic. So, when dealer refused to refund the deposit he tries to dispute the $500 through his credit card company - surprise, when they see a copy of the contract, which says special order item, no refunds, cc honors the contract and won't cancel the charge. Now he's in court trying to argue that no refund clause is handwritten and wasn't there when he signed the contract. Don't believe it, but even if true and the contract was silent about refunding the deposit, I figure he'd lose. Ah, things aren't going his way, as MM points to another clause where the buyer could have been held liable for $1500 for canceling the contract. So, does that mean defendant had a chance of winning had he filed a countersuit? Doesn't matter, there is no countersuit, just a quick end to the case. As with so many of the entitled losers, he didn't get enough time to say everything he wanted, he should have won, wah wah, it's all so UNFAIR! 

Edited June 21, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

rear ender:  

Heh. Had to love the bull-headed, dumb, nasty Archie Bunker ("not none a dem dere") who couldn't even think of a single lie - and everything he said was a lie -  that made sense. It's scary to think of someone like this actually driving on public roads. He ain't waitin' for no train, so just puts his truck in R and hits the gas. Plaintiff was so in the right it's too bad she had to sully that with her smart-assed attitude and trying to get a boe-nanza on her old beater Caddy.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Nother guy wanting back a deposit: 

Yes, another overly-entitled special little snowflake with a douchebag hairdo who thinks that signing a contract shouldn't obligate him to abide by its terms. The bike seller should have been more understanding that plaintiff is  just a young and tender boy who hasn't learned about all these big, grown-up things like deposits and contracts. Except he's a salesman at Honda. (Honda, are you freaking kidding us?) but, oh, he'd just started there when he bought the bike and didn't know what a contract means.  The only thing in this case that surprised me was he was there all by his little self, with no mommy or daddy to attest to his specialness. I'm just sorry def didn't countersue for the 1K that Baby Boy owes him. He's way too nice.

[wallysmommy]

Monday and Tuesday -- the days to celebrate the plural of "text" as "Texas" instead of texts.  

[AngelaHunter]

27 minutes ago, wallysmommy said:

Monday and Tuesday -- the days to celebrate the plural of "text" as "Texas" instead of texts.

Bonus points if it's used in the same sentence as "Kidses": "I got some texes from my kidses' phones." Better not turn this into a drinking game. Alcohol poisoning, here I come.

[wallysmommy]

I'll give you a "Texas" (I like referring to their term as if they were talking about the state) and raise you an "I seen."  A drinking game is right up my alley being from New Orleans -- one drink of my bloody mary from the drive thru daiquiri shop every time one of these phrases is used.   Double down if "texas", "kidses", and "single mother" are used in the same breath.

[teebax]

I've noticed that whenever a litigant has an old car, they never mention the year. When it's newer, they usually do. "Oh, I have a Cadillac" sounds better than "I have a fifteen-year-old caddy."

I would add the usage of "whenever" when it should be "when" to the drinking game. It absolutely drives me nuts.

[AZChristian]

How come nobody "axed" me to play?????

[patty1h]

Heads up for an upcoming case:  Y'all may be familiar with a recent viral story about a girl who paid for a custom-made prom dress and it was a disaster. Apparently, there was a lawsuit filed and guess what court show the litigants will be appearing on?  Yaaas, TPC!  

I saw on Yahoo that the case will air on June 28.  Here's the story, for those who haven't seen the dress and/or don't know the story.

http://www.seventeen.com/prom/prom-style/news/a47978/prom-dress-fail-girl-in-tears/

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

Heads up for an upcoming case:  Y'all may be familiar with a recent viral story about a girl who paid for a custom-made prom dress and it was a disaster. Apparently, there was a lawsuit filed and guess what court show the litigants will be appearing on?  Yaaas, TPC!  

I saw on Yahoo that the case will air on June 28.  Here's the story, for those who haven't seen the dress and/or don't know the story.

http://www.seventeen.com/prom/prom-style/news/a47978/prom-dress-fail-girl-in-tears/

So the design instructions must have been "I want to look like a hoochy mama with lots of see-through areas and just my naughty bits covered." ?????  How did she plan on getting into the prom with a dress that was this revealing . . . even if it HAD been done well?

[Brattinella]

26 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

So the design instructions must have been "I want to look like a hoochy mama with lots of see-through areas and just my naughty bits covered." ?????  How did she plan on getting into the prom with a dress that was this revealing . . . even if it HAD been done well?

My browser is stubbornly blocking that site.  Is the girl's name Malexa?

[SRTouch]

1. car wash fire: both sides want the max, but after the intro all I can think is, huh? You gotta be kidding! Story is plaintiff took his 2010 truck to a self service carwash, and it caught fire. He blames his truck being totaled on the carwash, feels that if they had a better fire extinguisher the fire could have been quickly extinguished. Instead, total loss. Dude is in court wanting 5 grand because, according to him, State law requires the carwash to maintain a fire extinguisher. Says their extinguisher was malfunctioning, hence they were in violation of State law. His auto insurance has paid for the truck and home owners insurance paid for the contents. Heaven forbid, plaintiff being out of pocket for any losses, so he's here suing for the deductibles and money he spent on the truck not covered by insurance (recently put in new engine and had an extended warranty he wants paid by defendant). Which is why I said, you gotta be kidding!  Carwash owner, the defendant, is suing because plaintiff was washing his engine, despite signs forbidding it, and the carwash was damaged in the fire. Plaintiff really believes he should not be out a penny - of course he was probably raised that way by Mommy, who came to court with him. They're the only two people in the court who think they have a case. Defendant can't believe it, so he's smiling thinking he's in the clear. MM is incredulous as she goes through the various reasons why these two think they should be paid by the guy whose business Sonny boy set on fire while ignoring posted warnings. Plaintiff had already gone to a lawyer about suing Ford, since they installed his new engine, and the lawyers laughed at him. Defendant's countersuit is sort of a knee jerk reaction to being sued, because it sounds like the siding was burnt/melted and no real damage to the structure. Weeks (maybe months) went by and he was still in business and hadn't repaired the damage, so not sure where he gets off claiming 5 grand in damages even assuming replacing all the siding on one side of the business. Oh, and BTW, in the wake of the fire, the Fire Inspector came and investigated - business was not fined, and despite the expert testimony of the plaintiff, who is apparently a ford mechanic, fire fighter, and knows all the State Law about fire extinguishers in NY, the actual town Fire Inspector told the business owner there was no requirement for a self serve car wash to maintain an extinguisher for the public to use in case of fire. Ah, time has run out, so a quick ruling. Plaintiff gets nothing, defendant gets 3 and a half grand for melted siding. True to form, in hallterview plaintiff's claim the ruling is ridiculous doesn'the make any sense - oh and mommy argues she went over the head of the Fire Inspector and his boss told her the carwash WAS supposed to have extinguishers.
2. used mattresses? Plaintiff claims the three mattresses she bought from the defendant's store turned out to be refurbished instead of new, and she wants back the $656 she paid. Defendant says he only sells new mattresses, and when plaintiff first complained be offered to replace the mattresses, but noooo she wanted the money back. Hmmm, once again TPC is teaching me something new. Everybody knows mattresses can be expected sive, but I never knew that sometimes mattresses are refurbished. According to google, the plaintiff is correct, new mattresses have white tags, and in some states refurbished  mattresses, which contain some used materials, have red or yellow tags. So the recommendation is to check the tag and not buy if the tag isn't there https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0099-shopping-used-mattresses who knew? Anyway, plaintiff bought the mattresses, supposedly even asking to make sure the tags would be white, but when delivered there are no tags. She says she checked for the tags, but signed for the delivery even though there were no tags - to keep the delivery guys from getting in trouble. Nah, MM is buying that lady is savy enough to know what the different colors mean, but signs for delivery when the wrong stuff is delivered. Defendant tells us he would need a special license to sell used mattresses, and his are new. Says when plaintiff came to complain, 4 or 5 days after the delivery, he took her to his warehouse and showed her all the mattresses he had in Stock had white tags. Plaintiff agrees he showed her his warehouse full of tagged mattresses, but insists that was the next day, and her mattresses had no tags. So, MM asks the obvious question, do you have any kids who might have ripped off the tags? Yeah, she has kids, but swears there were no rags, and even has pictures of the mattresses in plastic - course the end has be opened to check for tags, so someone could have ripped them off. Ah, this lady has no way to prove her no tag claim - and what about defendant offering to exchange them for ones in the warehouse with tags? Her whole case makes no sense, and she tells Doug she's going to throw away the mattresses and buy from someone else.
3. Uber bumper cars: two Uber drivers collide, and are fighting over the repair bill. Ok, Uber is new to my town, but I thought Uber drivers were insured through Uber - so wouldn't Uber investigate and determine liability? Well, guess I'm about to find out - more educational tv. Great preview clip going to commercial after the intro. Defendant says he wanted to talk to plaintiff after the collision, and plaintiff told him no, he wasn't going to talk to him because defendant wasn't on his level. Defendant supposedly answered, let's fight, the cops will come faster. Both these guys speak with an accent, but like we've seen many times before,  their accents doesn't mean they aren'the speaking much better English than a lot of our countrymen. Defendant even opens by throwing around big words, saying as we can see, plaintiff is a pathological liar - hmmm, just what does a liar look like. Ah, defendant is entertaining - maybe full of BS, but at least a chuckle to start with (but gets old fast). Seems both drivers already had their passengers, and defendant had picked his up from the Fat Black Pussycat - hmmmm wonder what kind of club that is? yep real club, I even googled it and it has 3.8 out of 5 stars, a late night comedy club and I was thinking strippers. Cops eventually came (defendant says they waited 3 hours). That's why the little preview clip. Defendant says after waiting two hours he made the comment to plaintiff that if they fought the cops would hurry up and get there. Anyway, defendant is acting like getting should have an act at that comedy club, playing up to the courtroom audience. When the cops get there, they don't even write a report since there's minimal damage. So, no police report, but plaintiff does have an affidavit from his passenger. Oh boy, defendant's story falls apart once we start looking at the pictures. All this time he's talking like very minor damage, just scratched paint, but the pictures show both cars dented... then he tells us when he went to get an estimate he was quoted $1200. I'm over funny guy defendant - actually, I started getting tired of his antics about 30 seconds after he started yapping - so I'm rooting for quiet plaintiff. They bring out the white board and toy cars, defendant goes to draw up his version, and right off the bat it looks like plaintiff was double parked picking up his fare, and impatient defendant tried to squeeze by and they bumped. Could just be because I have decided I don't like defendant, but I like plaintiff's version... just don't know if it's enough to win a decision. MM decides they share liability - plaintiff double parked and blocking traffic and defendant trying to squeeze through instead of waiting. Ah, but she doesn't just say both sides pay for their own repair - nope, both sides pay half of other guy's repair. Since plaintiff has the higher estimate, defendant owes him a hundred fifty bucks.

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

My browser is stubbornly blocking that site.  Is the girl's name Malexa?

Yep.  That's her.

[Brattinella]

Thank you.  I had seen those horrid pictures before, and I just couldn't believe my eyes!  Who would let their teenage daughter wear something like that, even if it DID arrive perfectly constructed??  That's a hoo-hoo dress!

[patty1h]

When I first heard about this dress debacle, it was on Wendy Williams' and they showed a picture of the dress that the girl wanted hers to look like.  I just found a dress that is very close to the style that Malexa supposedly requested -- so you can compare it to what she got.   Here's the pic:  

Both Malexa and the dress maker need their eyes checked if neither could see that they were light years from the dress in the pic. Though it's strange that the news story doesn't say anything about her bringing a photo, but maybe it made a better story w/o photo evidence.

Edited June 22, 2017 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car wash fire: 

Gee. Baby Huey plaintiff  shows up with his mommy in tow (at first I thought he was around 40 but not so) was wearing clothes made for someone 6'5". The sneaky camera operators sneakily showed a long, side view of him. Mommy should have hemmed those pants of his, well, after cutting about 8" off the bottoms. Why was his mommy there? Whatever, his story is utterly ridiculous and I guess he and Mom think JM is a fool, so they sat and discussed getting a whole bunch of money from the def.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Which is why I said, you gotta be kidding!

That about sums up Mommy and Huey's whole case. Today, for the first time in probably a year, my finger was not quick enough and what do I hear but that slimy scuzzball, Levin, saying, "Extinguisher? He hardly knew 'er!" How he gets away with these derogatory, nasty, sexist, disrespectful yet really dumb non-jokes aimed at women I'll never know. God, I hate that little ugly troll.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

used mattresses? 

So... I ordered some furniture and the delivery guys bring the wrong thing. Not only wrong but potentially hazardous to my heath (as used mattresses would be) but I say nothing about it and sign the form that says I"m happy with the merchandise because I'm so altruistic I'd rather have bedbugs than get the delivery guys "in trouble." Whatever. Waste of time and energy. No wonder def. was laughing.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Uber bumper cars:

Who knew you could get a dent in a car fixed for 20$? Someone backed into my car awhile ago, and for some reason it was 1300$ to fix. Guess I should have demanded the 20$ special.  Def is not only a liar but incredibly arrogant. His little opening speech - "Plaintiff is a pathological liar and scammer" did him no good. He must have really pissed off someone else, judging by the very neat scar he has running from mouth to ear. I guess I'm humourless since I didn't find him amusing in the least. Both of them were kind of shady, so all this for a judgement of 150$.

[Jamoche]

Sending stuff back does not "get the delivery guys in trouble". The one time I sent back a furniture order, it was the delivery guys who pointed out the hole in the cardboard and made sure to unpack it right there on my front step to see if there was damage underneath. There was, and back it went, and the replacement arrived with no issues - and once again the delivery guys made sure we checked it over.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1.  
2. Uber bumper cars: two Uber drivers collide, and are fighting over the repair bill. Ok, Uber is new to my town, but I thought Uber drivers were insured through Uber - so wouldn't Uber investigate and determine liability? 

hahahahaha no. It's one of the many many things that makes them evil, and that they're increasingly getting in trouble for - they don't employ drivers, heavens no! They just provide an app that connects drivers and passengers. They aren't liable for anything!

I've got a friend whose team was talent-acquired by Uber - jokes on them, all the good people left after only a few months - and every bad thing you have heard about them is true.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

It's one of the many many things that makes them evil, and that they're increasingly getting in trouble for - they don't employ drivers, heavens no! They just provide an app that connects drivers and passengers. They aren't liable for anything!

Interesting. I have no idea what "Uber drivers" are, other than what we've seen on this show. I seem to remember one of them was also a prostitute, but really - if my car is unusable, I'll call an actual taxi from a taxi company. At least I can tell myself they might know how to drive. BTW, what happened with def's passenger as he sat there for three hours waiting for the police?

[AZChristian]

Okay, Huey and Mama were a piece of work.  Good for MM; plaintiff should have taken his licks for disobeying the sign in the first place and just accept what he got from his car and homeowners insurance.  JJ would have accused them of chutzpah.  Surprised MM didn't tell them they were loco en la cabeza.

[Jamoche]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Interesting. I have no idea what "Uber drivers" are, other than what we've seen on this show. I seem to remember one of them was also a prostitute, but really - if my car is unusable, I'll call an actual taxi from a taxi company. At least I can tell myself they might know how to drive. BTW, what happened with def's passenger as he sat there for three hours waiting for the police?

It's the idea that a person with a GPS can do the same thing as a taxi driver who actually knows the city. Spun off the idea of ride-sharing apps, which hooked up people who were going the same direction already, turned into a way for the non-employee drivers to almost be able to make money while making Uber itself rich. All the worst attributes of unlicensed taxi drivers, run by a company that thinks the one in "Sixteen Tons" was too generous.

ETA: and yes, as the case shows, they have no clue how to safely pick up passengers. I've seen cars stopped to pick someone up when they're still sticking out into the traffic lane on major roads.

 

That was the truck fire dude's mother? They looked about the same age. I could not figure out what she was trying to say when she talked about a place with open bays and an empty office - was that the car wash or the fire department?

Edited June 22, 2017 by Jamoche

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

That was the truck fire dude's mother? They looked about the same age. I could not figure out what she was trying to say when she talked about a place with open bays and an empty office - was that the car wash or the fire department?

It was the car wash.  She was checking up to see if they ever got that upgraded fire extinguisher she decided that they were required to have (in spite of what the fire inspector said).

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

Sending stuff back does not "get the delivery guys in trouble". The one time I sent back a furniture order, it was the delivery guys who pointed out the hole in the cardboard and made sure to unpack it right there on my front step to see if there was damage underneath. There was, and back it went, and the replacement arrived with no issues - and once again the delivery guys made sure we checked it over.

hahahahaha no. It's one of the many many things that makes them evil, and that they're increasingly getting in trouble for - they don't employ drivers, heavens no! They just provide an app that connects drivers and passengers. They aren't liable for anything!

I've got a friend whose team was talent-acquired by Uber - jokes on them, all the good people left after only a few months - and every bad thing you have heard about them is true.

Hmmmm like I said, Uber is new here, so all I know is what I see in the media. I'd never make a taxi or Uber driver. I don't even like to drive friends home when they're drunk. First time a passenger got obnoxious or threw up in my car would be the time I'd put them out and quit.

Oh, and on Hot Bench recently some woman was renting out her car through some app. Nope, I barely let the mechanic test drive my car, let alone some stranger I never met. The case, IIRC, came about when plaintiff rented her car to some strange woman, and when it was time to return the car (already a day late) reported it stolen.