SRTouch October 5, 2017 Share October 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: I used to have a little side business which involved creating resumes. I would tell every client, "The resume represents who you are on paper, and it is lined up with a whole bunch of other resumes. You do not want 'who you are' to contain misspellings, poor grammar and inconsistent use of punctuation. If a manager starts culling out applicants, those with badly done resumes are usually eliminated in the first round." Back in the day (60's) Mom did the hiring for the front office staff of a large multi-doctor medical practice. She'd often bring home job applications. Of course, this was back before computers, and the people she was hiring HAD to have good communication skills as well as good penmanship. Anyway, as part of the application process, applicants had to sit and write about their background and why they wanted the job. The thinking was that in having them write a quick page worth of info Mom could better judge them. She went through those applications like a teacher, marking them up with different color pens. Too many red marks for spelling or grammatical errors, no chance of being hired. And like I said, good penmanship was a must... not sure how I got a part time shop there... oh yeah, I skipped the application process - lol Edited October 5, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
ElleMo October 5, 2017 Share October 5, 2017 (edited) On 10/4/2017 at 11:48 AM, Jamoche said: I've got an online friend in Chicago who swears by them because just narrowing it down to a handful of options in a big city can be a full-time effort - the market is always changing and you need someone familiar enough with all the locations to read between the lines. Which one of those "convenient to transportation" really means "sits right next to the El"? Which place looks nice, but you'll be showing up here to get any maintenance done? In some areas, a renter doesn't have much of a choice. In NYC, there are many landlords do not want to deal with showing apartments and have brokers do it for them. If you don't get a broker, you miss out on a lot of potential apartments. That's the biggest reason I ended up on the outer boroughs and in Hoboken when I was a renter. I never had enough money for 1rst month rent, last month rent., security and broker fees for a Manhattan apartment. (esp. since rent was generally higher there too.) Edited October 5, 2017 by ElleMo 1 Link to comment
patty1h October 5, 2017 Share October 5, 2017 The car detailer in the first case looked like he could be Dave Chappelle's thinner, extremely fidgety brother. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 5, 2017 Share October 5, 2017 35 minutes ago, patty1h said: The car detailer in the first case looked like he could be Dave Chappelle's thinner, extremely fidgety brother. Both litigants - the "ants in my pants" plaintiff - who was so unable to control himself that JM had to order him to sit down - and the irritating, short-armed little Barney Rubble def - got on my last nerve. People like these two make me really admire small claims judges who can tolerate all this ridiculous BS, lies and nonsense day after day without throwing their hands up and saying, "GTFO. I can't listen to this for another minute!" I was wishing Douglas could go behind the plaintff, put him a bear hug and clap a hand over his mouth. I'm trying to imagine hiring someone who's so frantic and scattered that he cannot stand still for one second, to detail my car and can't. How def had the nerve to show up here, trying to make excuses for paying not one cent to have his old, scratched-up cars and boat detailed (apparently all looked as though wild animals had been living in them) I have no idea. The boxing business case: I was surprised when Mohammed with the black, cultivated stubble was so high-pitched. Neither litigant seemed to be really big on planning. Defendant: "Oh, I'm opening a new business. Better go out of town for a few weeks." Maybe it was unavoidable, but did she really think that Mohammed, who'd just unloaded this business, was going to work dilligently in the pursuit of her interests? Then we had a bunch of old beater cars being swapped around. The def is a friend of the plaintiff and in the car peddling business, yet it sounds like he totally scammed her. Where is the paperwork for his junking her trade-in truck and for the sale of the elderly PT Cruiser? Oh, well (shifty eyes) - he has it, but not with him! Come on! JM's expectations are obviously too high, if she expects him to bring evidence of the very transactions for which he's being sued. He had to catch a train, and only found out about the court case 5 minutes before the train left, I guess. He has it - just take his word for it. Still, in spite of being flim-flammed and shafted by her old friend, plaintiff in the hall says, "We cool." I'm sure I'd feel the same if my old friend scammed me out of a truck and a bunch of money, for which I had to sue her. Yeah. 4 Link to comment
shksabelle October 5, 2017 Share October 5, 2017 Re deplorable grammar and spelling from college students/graduates: there are colleges and there are "colleges". A lot of the "students" we see on TPC and JJ go to those for-profit ripoff joints, and are there primarily to collect Pell grants and money from loans that they have no intention of repaying. And looking at college acceptance rates for accredited institutions, I have seen acceptance rates of 70% and higher. Not exactly searching for the best and the brightest. 2 Link to comment
aemom October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 (edited) Caught up with the "Friends-with-no-benefits case", the housekeeper agency, and the dash cam accident. The first case was actually kind of boring, but at least they could speak reasonably well. I was trying to figure out who the plaintiff reminded me of, and an earlier poster (sorry I don't remember who) said William Shatner - that's it! And her hair was indeed like Uhura's. The woman looking for a housekeeper did look rather picky and I got the impression that she would look down on the staff that lived in her home. The dash cam case was hilarious. He just could not see that he was totally responsible for the accident. I'm always fascinated when we get these pig-headed, obstinate litigants. Edited October 6, 2017 by AEMom Correction 3 Link to comment
teebax October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, AEMom said: Caught up with the "Friends-with-no-benefits case", the housekeeper agency, and the dash cam accident. The first case was actually kind of boring, but at least they could speak reasonably well. I was trying to figure out who the plaintiff reminded me of, and an earlier poster (sorry I don't remember who) said William Shatner - that's it! And her hair was indeed like Uhura's. The woman looking for a housekeeper did look rather picky and I got the impression that she would down on the staff that lived in her home. The dash cam case was hilarious. He just could not see that he was totally responsible for the accident. I'm always fascinated when we get these pig-headed, obstinate litigants. I love when litigants provide the very evidence that loses their cases for themselves. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 SRTouch, I waited and waited, but <sob, gulp>, no recap. I've been spoiled to the point where I don't watch until the recap is up, but I had to tough it out on my own today. I deserve a participation medal and a hug. SR, your byline should be, "I translate TPC so you don't have to." 7 Link to comment
SRTouch October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 8 hours ago, meowmommy said: SRTouch, I waited and waited, but <sob, gulp>, no recap. I've been spoiled to the point where I don't watch until the recap is up, but I had to tough it out on my own today. I deserve a participation medal and a hug. SR, your byline should be, "I translate TPC so you don't have to." Sorryyyyyy, no recap today either... Been playing chauffeur the past couple days... Actually sitting in a doctor's office waiting room now waiting for my friend to finish up... Probably be like yesterday where I don't watch til 8-9PM. Good news (and totally off topic) this is the friend I've mentioned who has been going through all kinds of hassle/delays while fighting the system to get disability. He finally started getting his monthly check and received his back pay yesterday. 10 Link to comment
Brattinella October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: He finally started getting his monthly check and received his back pay yesterday. That is great news! Congrats to him for sticking it out. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Sorryyyyyy, no recap today either.. That is a breach of the moral contract you implicitely entered in with us! I propose we all file a class action case against you before JM for failure of performance, pain and suffering, mental abuse and general moral depravity. ;-) 6 Link to comment
SRTouch October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Florinaldo said: That is a breach of the moral contract you implicitely entered in with us! I propose we all file a class action case against you before JM for failure of performance, pain and suffering, mental abuse and general moral depravity. ;-) ?oh dear... I promise to do better ? I just got home, I'll watch now and see if I can get the cats to stay off the keyboard so I can recap... may be mission impossible as Princess is demanding attention and pawing at me now. ? Edited October 7, 2017 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 SRTouch, glad things are going well for your friend, but sad for us. I try to do mini-recaps, but they don't work without your in-depth reviews to remind what I just watched. Yeah, my attention span is short. Anyway, I do remember the first case, with the 30 - 41 year old "boys" getting in fights and acting like schoolyard bullies/little giggly girls and the whole thing had me kind of understanding why almost every women we see here is terminally desperate. Somehow, the fact that these men can speak properly and probably do fairly well in their professional lives makes the whole thing worse. They all play soccer and it seems plaintiff elbowed a player on def's team. Of course, def - like any maturem thinking man would do - starts yelling to all within earshot how he's going to "blow up" the plaintiff. Ooh, the big shot is going to get even! He proceeds to do so and the result for plaintiff is surgery and a metal plate in his clavicle. He was unable to control himself here, this 41 year old professional man, and could not stop his hysterical giggling, acting out and incoherent ranting. If these boys can't play together nicely, someone needs to take their ball away. Then we had some boring tale of some guy who sent 26 shirts to the def and his Mama to have all the cuffs monogrammed with plaintiff's name and they came back monogrammed across the left chest area, like bowling shirts. Ridiculous of course but when JM asks plaintiff to show some evidence of the value of all these dozens of designer shirts (he's a truck driver) he says he looked them all up on Amazon and Sak's etc. Did he bring copies of what he found? Well, no. Of course not. He merely typed up a paper with what he says he had and the value of all these shirts. Trust me, judge. Rough justice time, because dim def and his Mama (that's how JM referred to her - "Your mama" and this is a middleaged man. Hee!) clearly screwed up. The last case, with woman suing for repairs done to her car after an accident: I think I must have drifted out during this because I have no clue how it ended. 1 7 Link to comment
Jamoche October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 Sheesh. Right there on the order form is a diagram where you're supposed to indicate where you want the embroidery. All he needed was to put one little mark down and he'd have gotten what he wanted - or had an open-and-shut case. Meanwhile I'm about to give up on a kitchen contractor - not only do they not have forms with diagrams like that, I've given them a diagram with measurements and can't get so much as a rough estimate out of them. If they had half as organized a process as that embroidery guy, they'd be done by now. 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 6, 2017 Share October 6, 2017 not-so-friendly game: two supposedly mature adults get into major kerfuffle over an over-30 soccer league game. Plaintiff claims the defendant forgot they were playing soccer and switched to full contact rugby or American style football- without the pads. Resulting in cops being called and surgery for plaintiff's busted clavicle. Guess max in their jurisdiction is 6 grand, as they both filed 6 grand suits against each other. Pretty high burden here for plaintiff... he'll have to prove his claim that defendant meant to injure him... way more than normal contact in a competitive sport. I mean, not just contact that would result in a personal foul or red card foul. Ok, plaintiff claims defendant was red carded - ejected from the game, and received a two game suspension... ummm, okay, bad play, but bad plays happen in sports all the time without calling cops and filing lawsuits. About the only way to win that I see would be a pattern where defendant intentionally hurts opponents, and/or made clear threats over and above the normal trash talk you hear all the time. Ah, plaintiff claims defendant HAD been making threats on the sidelines because of a previous play... hmmmm I don't follow soccer, but I know it happens in sports where a member on a team acts as the enforcer to punish an opponent who hurts a teammate... still, it's quite a leap to start legal action. Now defendant show's he is something of an a**hole as he snickers and laughs at plaintiff's witness' description of an earlier play. Hey, sounds to me like plaintiff MIGHT have deserved a flag (guess it would be a yellow card in soccer), but no foul called. After commercial defendant gets a chance to talk... yeah, acts like a smug a**hole as he stands there smirking with hand in pocket.... but cops and a lawsuit? Oh, and what happened to the assault charge he filed? Dropped, like MM said, very hard case to win, so not something DA will prosecute even with 4 witnesses willing to swear dude was making threats on the sideline. And, remember, league's response wasn't to ban defendant from play, they suspended him for 2 games. Poor Douglas, he has to act as a tackle dummy as both litigants act out their versions of the play. Anyway, to me plaintiff hasn't proved defendant intentionally hurt him - MM thinks there's enough to say he did with the witness statements, his attitude in court, and some of what he put in the filings... plaintiffs SCORES! Heck, if defendant had acted in the courtroom as he did during the hallterview he would have done better. Shirts monogrammed wrong: plaintiff took 26 of his best dress shirts to be monogramed, and says defendant put the monogram in the wrong spot (says he wanted it on the cuffs and dude put it on the breast pocket like a uniform shirt... whoa, these must be some shirts, as he wants over $1700 for the mix up. Thing is plaintiff told defendant what he wanted over the phone, and of course the two sides disagree on what was said. MM's right, though, to give defendant somewhat of a hard time for not asking where he wanted the monogram on his dress shirts when plaintiff brought in the shirts. I, too, have a hard time believing plaintiff didn't say where he wanted it done, so not sure I believe defendant... nah, I think he screwed up and doesn't want to admit, I mean not only location of the monogram, but as MM points out, nobody asked font color, size, nothing? Nope, defendant is screwed up this tine... Not that I think plaintiff's damages equal $1700. Rough justice time... and a laugh when we hear this dude with these VERY expensive shirts is a.... truckdriver. He has nothing to show the value of his used shirts, but MM likes him and let's him dig out the most expensive three shirts upon which she is going to base her judgement of damages. Wow, MM decides plaintiff gets a grand! Bad auto repair shop: plaintiff claims defendant's shop did a shoddy repair... she wants back what her insurance company paid for the repairs, plus more because he says they messed up other areas... defendant says she brought the car in for damage to the rear end, and now claims front end not repaired.... oh, and she has complained to everybody, including the BBB, Attorney General, and Department of Justice - and everyone sided with him. Sooo, she says the first try at repairs was pretty good, but there were still a few little things needed. Says auto guy agreed to fix her complaints if she provided pictures of what she was complaining about. Hmmm, she provides pictures for court, but not in the text message which she just claimed included the pix. Quite the disconnect between these two... he talks about a "tiny gap" while she describes a "major separation." Then a bunch of complaints about the paint job not being buffed, etc has me wondering how old this Toyota is that she wants back better than new (in hallterview she says it's new, but is it new or new to her?). Next round, she takes a video, "look at this paint on the seat" "look at how dirty" "disgusting!"... she could be right, but her video isn't showing me anything. Hmmm, now he's saying she just has poor quality pix, and his employees would NEVER... but can't help but notice he didn't bring the people who worked on the car, and supposedly she never talked to him about the problems she was having, only his employees. Uh oh, dude already admitted his guys didn't do a good job the first time, and not too happy with his bad quality picture story... sounds like his shop is putting out poor quality work and unless her pictures are outright fakes sure looks like crappy workmanship.... ah, but she has nothing showing what it would cost to make things right. No, she wants back the 3 grand he was paid for a crappy job, plus an additional wild ass guess of 2 grand to repair his repairs. Oh, and anybody believe her when she claims she went to 5 shops and none would give an estimate because case was going to litigation. Nope, don't think he earned the 3 grand he charged, but he did do something. Not sure which one deserves a spanking the most, but agree with MM ordering a $1000 refund. 1 5 Link to comment
teebax October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 I liked the truck driver plaintiff and was a little annoyed when everyone laughed at his profession. I, for one, wish people would dress as natty as he does instead of all dressing like stereotypical truck drivers. I did a lot of travelling last summer and saw more people in their pajamas than I've ever wanted to. I get wanting to be comfortable on a cramped plane, but I'd never leave for a flight looking like I just rolled out of bed. (I grew up poor and never flew until I joined the Army, so maybe that's why I still see flying as something special. But I digress.) He was well-spoken, polite to the judge, and had a sense of humor about himself. I think he's my favorite litigant in a long time. I can give him a pass on his research since what MM found wasn't far off. They were nice shirts, and the slackjaw defendant ruined them. 1 8 Link to comment
meowmommy October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 (edited) Let me tell you how senile I am....I knew SRTouch had posted, so I start to read, and I'm thinking, boy, this recap sounds a lot like AngelaHunter's, interesting that they're making the same points. And of course, as you can guess, I was inadvertently re-reading Angela. Y'all can have me committed now. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Pretty high burden here for plaintiff... he'll have to prove his claim that defendant meant to injure him... way more than normal contact in a competitive sport. I mean, not just contact that would result in a personal foul or red card foul. I just had a vision of NFL or NHL teams suing each other every time one of their players is injured in a dirty play. And I also could picture defendant if he had kids...he would soooo be the quintessential obnoxious Little League dad, screaming at the refs, threatening the other parents, and demanding his kid get all the playing time. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Next round, she takes a video, "look at this paint on the seat" "look at how dirty" "disgusting!"... she could be right, but her video isn't showing me anything. I'm listening to low-rent Susan Sarandon screech about "disgusting" and I just wondered if she had ever truly been in a situation that could be considered disgusting. Paint flecks on your car upholstery are an annoyance, but disgusting? Seriously? Has she ever watched Hoarders? Edited October 7, 2017 by meowmommy 8 Link to comment
Jamoche October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, teebax said: I liked the truck driver plaintiff and was a little annoyed when everyone laughed at his profession. I, for one, wish people would dress as natty as he does instead of all dressing like stereotypical truck drivers. I did a lot of travelling last summer and saw more people in their pajamas than I've ever wanted to. I get wanting to be comfortable on a cramped plane, but I'd never leave for a flight looking like I just rolled out of bed. Yeah, he was nicely dressed for court - a rarity on these shows - and I'd guess that nice clothes are his hobby. And I could see accumulating a lot of nice things over the years - when my upstairs neighbor had a leak, I was so glad I was home at the time because 15 years of accumulated Easter/Christmas/wedding choir dresses would've been ruined. But I'd also be very particular about the details if I handed all of them over for modifications! OTOH, the embroiderer should've insisted on having that form filled out, because even though I've never seen anyone's name on their cuffs, I'd be suspicious about embroidering dress shirts the same as a mechanic's uniform. Also I was a bit confused when JJ went "no font, color, nothing?" because earlier she'd said the form specified the color and script style. Edited October 7, 2017 by Jamoche 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 I think people laughed in surprise at the trucker's profession because everyone immediately wondered how many opportunities he may have to wear so many (allegedly expensive) dress shirts; certainly not on his longer hauls. So this was a day on which JM felt abundantly generous. First with the trucker. Full disclosure: I think monogrammed clothes are silly and pretentious, whether on the cuffs, front or collar. That being said, both parties should have insisted on all the details being recorded on the order form; the plaintiff came across as a bad communicator, a bit disorganised in his thought processes. So I think he should have been assigned part of the responsibility and that the award was excessive. Same for the car owner, whose story kept shifting and evidence was unpersuasive as others pointed out. For some strange reason, JM awarded her an substantial sum of money, perhaps to get her out of her hair. Half that amount might have been enough. The exception was the soccer guys. Defendant has a lousy attitude which he probably also displays on the field and he tried to minimise the plaintiff's injury by saying in his filing papers that his young niece similarily broke her clavicle and did not complain as much. I do not follow soccer, but the little I know is that it should not as violent a contact sport as football or hockey (which I also dislike). This and witness statements, plus the fact that the threshold of proof is lower in a civil case than in a criminal one, which would indeed explain why the DA did not follow up on it, means that the plaintiff got the money he deserved. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Defendant has a lousy attitude which he probably also displays on the field and he tried to minimise the plaintiff's injury by saying in his filing papers that his young niece similarily broke her clavicle and did not complain as much. Yeah, because big, tough macho men like def. would never utter a complaint at having his clavicle shattered by some idiot. If anyone acted like a "little girl" it was foolish, round-headed asshole def. I would just bet that any injury to him would have him screeching and crying. His type is usually that way. 15 hours ago, teebax said: I liked the truck driver plaintiff and was a little annoyed when everyone laughed at his profession. It IS nice to see people on this show not appearing to be coming from a picnic, looking as though they slept in their clothes or are heading to perform at a strip club (or a street corner) after the show. I think the laughter was due to the mental disconnect between the truck driver image and 26 designer shirts. People were probably expecting him to say he's a lawyer or a stockbroker, e.g. 5 Link to comment
babs j. October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 A truck driver can certainly have a nice or even expensive wardrobe. He or she might make a good income and be very careful with money or have some investments. There used to be or maybe still is the motto of the American Trucking Association - If you have it, a truck brought it. Now you might get all of your reading material online so the motto would not apply - but if you're getting a physical object a truck, driven by a truck driver, brought it. 5 Link to comment
teebax October 7, 2017 Share October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, babs j. said: A truck driver can certainly have a nice or even expensive wardrobe. He or she might make a good income and be very careful with money or have some investments. There used to be or maybe still is the motto of the American Trucking Association - If you have it, a truck brought it. Now you might get all of your reading material online so the motto would not apply - but if you're getting a physical object a truck, driven by a truck driver, brought it. My brother in law is an over the road truck driver and makes a good living doing it. He spends his money on cars instead of clothes, but my sister always looks good. Lol. You guys are right, and I was probably being sensitive about the laughter. He laughed too, God bless him. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 9, 2017 Share October 9, 2017 smashed phone silliness: long time friends go down to Florida for a good time... get into kerfuffle... defendant supposedly threw plaintiff's phone and smashed it... plaintiff sees a chance for a boNANza, and is suing for over $3300. Oh dear, bunch of kids who think they're all grown up getting drunk acting stupid... been there-done that-but was too drunk to get a t-shirt (but hey, back then we get could get drunk at 18). Defendant was the only one legal, so he gets drunk - and according to plaintiff, he's a belligerent drunk. She produces a video which is supposed to show him being belligerent and combative... drunk, yeah, not combative. Ah, but he's also the only one old enough to rent a car, so the rental is in his name. Video also shows the friends trying to get him to let someone else drive, and veing young and dumb he's saying he's good to go, he's been getting drunk (and probably driving) since he was 19. After watching the video, MM says she doesn't see any belligerence, but that he was obviously in no condition to drive... and stupid defendant tries to argue he was good to drive. Ok, his witness, his gf, starts talking from the peanut gallery, so MM brings up their respective witnesses... her bf on her side and his gf speaking for the defence (guess there was also a 5th teen on the trip, some poor boy who doesn't have a gf and isn't here today). His gf may not be standing for long, as she figures she should start right in talking and MM is still asking questions. MM has plaintiff telling her side, and we get a shot of gf standing, with arms crossed, next to her man... no love lost between the girls, as plaintiff doesn't even mention gf's name - just "the girlfriend." They end up in the car with him as the driver and he's using the map on her phone to get back to their lodgings. He misses the exit, plaintiff doesn't like how he's all over the road and blasting music, so another argument breaks out about whether he should drive or let someone else. He pulls over, hops out, goes to the front of the car, throws her phone and stomps on it... ah, guess I was wrong, he didn't smash it because she was playing paparazzi, he slammed it for back seat driving. Then she gets out and runs to him yelling "WHY?!?" he bops her nose and gives her a couple black eyes... course this is still her story, but if even a tiny bit accurate why is his gf still with dude? Everybody piles out, screaming and yelling, plaintiff, her bf, and the singleton boy get back in and ditch drunk and HIS gf on the side of the highway in the pouring rain. Hmmmm MM seems to be ready to talk damages, but checking the time case is only half over so we still have plenty of time to hear defendant tells his story. Ah, the damages! Plaintiff not only wants to be paid for the damage to her old phone, nooooo, she also wants dude to buy her the newest, latest and greatest iPhone... oh, and as long as he's paying, how bout paying for everything, airfare to and from Miami, the lodging, etc... heck he yanked off her wig and threw it down, so shouldn't he buy her a new one. Ok, over to defendant... hey I believe his story more than hers. He admits everybody was drunk, but denies the whole temper tantrum throwing/stomping phone thing. No, according to him, he pulls over when they miss the exit, and everybody is out screaming and yelling on the side of the road. He and plaintiff's witness get into a scuffle while he, the defendant, is holding plaintiff's phone, and phone drops and breaks.... he doesn't know when or where plaintiff got bopped. Like I said, I buy this version over hers, cuz I had a problem believing two teen boys just hopped back in the car after watching another boy bop a girl in the nose - especially when one of those teens is the girl's bf. Anyway, back to his story. He and his gf had been ditched on the side of the highway, so he hops the fence into somebody's yard to get to a phone.... which has MM pulling her hair, "Are you CRAZY! This is Florida, the homeowner can legally shoot your ass!" Oh, and MM points out to little miss plaintiff that she had no legal right to drive off in a car defendant had rented. So, defendant and gf finally get back to the lodging, and the plaintiff and her posse have packed up and split, canceling their holiday and going home. Oh well, defendant and his gf end up staying and having a great old time. Defendant's gf finally gets to talk. She tells about the two boys fighting, with the girls in the middle... oh and horror of horrors, her wig fell off too, so both the girls were wigless and their hair was on the wet ground in the middle of the rain (isn't said, but maybe the blackeyes were the result of a fight between the "ladies." Anyway, he says he has always accepted that he was responsible for the broken phone, he was holding it and he stopped and got out of the car on the side of the highway to escalate the drunken brawl, so yeah he knows he owes for the phone. But plaintiff has refused to set a reasonable price for the phone... and besides when she drive off in HIS rental she made off with his very expensive, $300, scarf that was purchased just for this trip. Rough justice time, defendant ordered to pay for the busted phone, which MM values at $750... however, he doesn't have to pay for her cancelled trip. Plaintiff, OTOH, has to return his $300 scarf... oh, and since she in effect stole his retail car, she pays for his costs for getting back to the lodging. So she gets $700 - but only if she gives back the scarf in good condition. rental kerfuffle: plaintiff says his landlord illegally entered and then ousted him from the double wide trailer he was renting... oh and he supposedly made some improvements which he wants to be paid for (improvements defendant did not offer to pay for when he did them). Oh dear, plaintiff comes in looking hung over whole calling landlord's a crazy woman and a drunk man... and according to the clip as we head to commercial our genius litigator put in the court papers that he thought defendant was crazy because she's a 50yo woman going through menopause, and we hear MM asking if he knew his judge would be a woman. After commercial we learn this was a bad rental agreement from the beginning, and only lasted about two months. Dude moved in on the 13th, even though lease says it was to start on the 15th (yes, a written lease). Dude says they came on the 27th, pounding and the door and about to have a heart attack, because the cable guy damaged a piece of skirting when installing the cable. When he shows a picture, heck, this IS NOT new skirting, lots of weedeater holes (just like I have in mine... if you're not careful and let the weedeater touch the skirting - viola, you got a hole... come fall I pull out a panel from the box i keep under my trailer and replace panels that look bad). Uh oh, if that's true and lady was having a fit over that skirting that was obviously already in need of repair/replacement I'm not too hopeful of her getting damages. Anyway, come to find out, this was always a month to month deal. When they show up on the 27th, he says to complain about the siding, they also got into it over a water heater problem, he claims she was running around acting crazy (this is where we hear the "menopausal" comment) and says this was when he gave notice he would be moving. Ah, the date he gave notice is pretty important, since part of why defendant kept his security and deposit is that she claims he didn't give proper notice - she says he gave notice March 10th, not January 27th. Oh dear, our hung over plaintiff really is sounding dumb as he tells the judge that he figures he didn't need to give any notice at all, he says as a month to month tenant he figured he could just move out at the end of the month. .. while MM is telling him that, no, month to month tenants need to give 30 day notice, defendant is going through her phone and finds out that it wasn't the 10th, no he actually texted her on March 11th to say he'd be gone on the 15th. Ah, now plaintiff remembers he has texts in his phone, so MM is going through both litigants phones. Hmmm, turns out defendant was right the first time, as he first gave notice on the 10th... so doesn't help his case any. In fact, MM finds texts where he is talking about changing things or doing maintenance after he supposedly said he was leaving way back in January... oh, like changing location of gas meter, draining the water tank, changing stove pipes on the pellet burning heater, etc. Soooo he owes a month's rent, but defendant is keeping $1500 and rent is $1025. Hmmm, she claims he stained the carpet... yep she has an after picture, but no picture before he moved in, and of course he says it was stained when he moved in... then teeny chuckle when plaintiff interrupts to say he has a picture showing stain isn't even there... dude, you already won on the stain, and your picture doesn't even so the area of carpet pictured by defendant's before picture... so forget damages, but he owes the rent. classic car ripoff: plaintiff claims defendant double charged for parts and charged for repairs he never did to plaintiff's classic '67 camarro. Defendant says he did the work, but the reason price went up after the original estimate is because plaintiff kept adding things he wanted done. Hmmm, seems both sides want around $1700 from across the aisle. Hmmmm this guys are talking some other car lingo, and I'm not ashamed to say I'm only getting a part of what they're saying. Thing is, though, unless plaintiff has some expert witness he's probably out of luck. Especially, if as defendant says, he software automatically adjusts the price after a change order.... so if I understood correctly, the price of a part could change when plaintiff decided he wanted shipping expedited...part x could cost $5 on the printed estimate, but the final work order might say it cost $7. Hmmm, sort of makes sense. Oh, and there's a difference of opinion about exactly how plaintiff paid - but here we have defendant claiming plaintiff paid more than plaintiff tiff says he paid. MM goes through the papers and agrees with defendant - no double charges for parts. Actually, plaintiff is looking kind of silly, since defendant credited him with more than he says he paid. So plaintiff doesn't know what he paid for what, but is the countersuit just tit for tat because defendant was being sued. Sure sounds like it. He says labor was originally suppised to be $65 an hour, but when plaintiff had a fit over the final bill he dropped it to $40. Now, since he got sued, he wants the original $65 rate. Ah, 0-0 tie. Nobody gets anything. 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 9, 2017 Share October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: smashed phone silliness: "Silliness" is the word - they get drunk, act like wild animals (according to plaintiff, def acted like an "orangutan") get into fights, blah blah. Quel bore. The only entertaining part was the visual of 3-foot long wigs slithering around on the side of the road like escaped octopi. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: rental kerfuffle: plaintiff says his landlord illegally entered and then ousted him from the double wide trailer he was renting... I have no idea what plaintiff was complaining about. He had that really dull-witted, low-class speech thing going on and can only gripe that defs were "goin' all crazy" and "havin' heart attacks" or whatever. Another huge bore. Well, the brief interlude where JM gives the plaintiff grief for assuming that any woman over 50 who has a complaint must be menopausal was okay. Oh, and also def does what so many here do, and that is saying that yes, she has photographic evidence to prove her defense beyond a doubt, but well, not with her! The judge should accept imaginary evidence, shouldn't she? We know that litigants swearing to tell the truth would never lie. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: classic car ripoff: I don't know what plaintiff wanted done to soup up his car and have no idea if def. overcharged him. Good thing I'm not a judge. All I know is that plaintiff was plenty pissed off in the hall. 1 2 Link to comment
AKA...CJ86 October 9, 2017 Share October 9, 2017 You get a taste for the week with Monday's episode, so seems like this week might be a snoozer, especially compared to some of last week's cases. Twerker is still etched into my nightmares. Love the recaps SRTouch, and it has been a long while since I've posted, but I've been here in spirit, lurking. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK October 9, 2017 Share October 9, 2017 Quote He says labor was originally suppised to be $65 an hour, but when plaintiff had a fit over the final bill he dropped it to $40. Now, since he got sued, he wants the original $65 rate. This really bothered me. It sounds like the plaintiff settled his dispute with the defendant when the labor charges were reduced by 38%. If so, then suing the defendant later nullified the settlement so the charges should have gone back to what they were before the aborted settlement. I think that is the way MM and JJ usually handle it. 1 4 Link to comment
aemom October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 I just watched the couch, teenage driver, and the security deposit. The couch guy was unreal. We've had a few doozies lately of litigants who were so sure that they were 100% right when they are actually 100% wrong. As for teenage boys driving, well I would like to give credit to the province of Quebec where I live. Some laws here are unbelievably stupid, but I think they've done a good job with how to get your license. When you are 16, you have to signup for a driving course. After the first 6 classes, 1 of which you have to attend with a parent, you take a written test. If you pass that, then you can get your learner's permit. You then have a series of theoretical and practical classes which must span a total of at least 14 months. There are other written exams along the way from the driving school. When you finish your lessons, you go for a written exam and a practical exam. So you are at least 17 and a half by the time you get your full blown license. This license is a conditional one for 2 years where you can only get 3 points as opposed to 10 and you must have 0 blood alcohol level as opposed to 0.08. And God help you if they catch you on your phone. My son who got his license 4 months ago told me that they really scare the kids about speeding and drinking and drugs. It seems to work, because when the kids of my friends go out, they have a designated driver or take cabs. Maybe if more places adopted stricter rules, the kids would be better taught and drive safer. 1 7 Link to comment
meowmommy October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 7 hours ago, AEMom said: When you are 16, you have to signup for a driving course. After the first 6 classes, 1 of which you have to attend with a parent, you take a written test. If you pass that, then you can get your learner's permit. You then have a series of theoretical and practical classes which must span a total of at least 14 months. There are other written exams along the way from the driving school. When you finish your lessons, you go for a written exam and a practical exam. So you are at least 17 and a half by the time you get your full blown license. This license is a conditional one for 2 years where you can only get 3 points as opposed to 10 and you must have 0 blood alcohol level as opposed to 0.08. And God help you if they catch you on your phone. My son who got his license 4 months ago told me that they really scare the kids about speeding and drinking and drugs. When I went to school in the early 70s, high school driver's ed was still a thing. I don't know that many schools still offer it. They did a year of classroom, which was mandatory in the junior year, and behind-the-wheel, which was optional (good thing since I was only 14 when I took driver's ed). What I mostly remember about the classroom were all the dead teenager films...Ohio State Patrol movies of hideously gory accident scenes, I guess designed to scare the shit out of students. 1 5 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 5 hours ago, meowmommy said: When I went to school in the early 70s, high school driver's ed was still a thing. I don't know that many schools still offer it. They did a year of classroom, which was mandatory in the junior year, and behind-the-wheel, which was optional (good thing since I was only 14 when I took driver's ed). What I mostly remember about the classroom were all the dead teenager films...Ohio State Patrol movies of hideously gory accident scenes, I guess designed to scare the shit out of students. At my high school they showed Red Asphalt and Blood on the Pavement. They had nurses stationed at the classroom door for the inevitable fainting episodes. Good times. Good times. 1 2 Link to comment
teebax October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 (edited) On 10/10/2017 at 6:27 AM, Schnickelfritz said: At my high school they showed Red Asphalt and Blood on the Pavement. They had nurses stationed at the classroom door for the inevitable fainting episodes. Good times. Good times. Same here. The high school where I teach offers Phys Ed and Drivers Ed as electives, but they're both online classes. Yes, you read that correctly. Edited October 14, 2017 by teebax 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 (edited) tenant vs landlord: kind of strange case just because plaintiff, though the guy who was leasing the place, was not the one actually living there. Plaintiff supports his brother (who shall remain nameless). The brother lived in defendant's place for three years. Sounds like brother may be an alcohol hoarder type, as when he moves out he leaves behind something like 31 garbage bags full of beer cans... hmmm... maybe he's a civic minded individual who walks around picking up trash and saves the cans to be recycled. Anyway, plaintiff says when the bro-with-no-name moved out, he left behind his beer can collection, but it was okay because he got permission from Billy, the defendant landlord. Ah, but while Billy may have been fine with bags of trash and "debris" being left in the yard, along came a windstorm and the bags of trash ended up in a nearby canal/water way. The EPA, or whatever government agency is in charge of the waterway, issues a warning, pick up the trash or be fined (thought it was 5 grand, but Billy tells Doug it was 50). So Billy rounds up some guys and kayaks/canoes/boats/garbage barges and collects the crapola out of the water. Billy gets a little PO'ed, and decides to keep the deposit - oh, and plaintiff claims Billy also kept an extra month's rent. Ah, easy going Billy... sure enough, when plaintiff sent a text saying they were leaving "some debris" (which turned out to be the garbage bags of cans and piles of broken furniture) Billy didn't ask how much or insist they clean up the place - no Billy sends a text saying "no worries, good luck in the new place." Ah, a windstorm comes up the same night they leave, and 21 of the 31 bags of trash end up in the canal. Ah, Billy, easy going dude that he is, comes to court spinning this story about a windstorm, and hiring an 8 man crew to pick up the trash, no evidence of a stiff breeze or a single picture.... but trust him, Billy wouldn't lie... besides, the neighbors probably took pictures, they're just not here to testify. Now Billy is getting mouthy when MM asks for any evidence, is he trying to convince her to give plaintiff everything he asked for. Hmmm once MM seemed to doubt his story he stopped being so easy going. Plaintiff asking for return of rent, but was there for a couple weeks so no, he owes rent for that month. Just because Billy said no worries when told about the trash in the yard, did he give up having to return part of the security? Oh, and plaintiff sent many texts asking about the refund of security, and Billy either ignored or dodged the questions... so is there a requirement for a landlord to give a notice of why he's keeping the deposit in their jurisdiction? Heck, we've seen cases where landlord's end in paying double or triple the deposit just because they failed to give an itemized listing of damages within a required time period. When MM asks why he never answered plaintiff's many questions, Billy again launches into how busy and chaotic everything was as he was in temporary housing, etc etc Ah, but Billy, just cuz your life is a mess doesn't mean you get to ignore your responsibilities to your tenant. In the end, after some rough justice, Billy has to return half the deposit. bad video edit: plaintiff hired defendant to edit a video she was making about the homeless, then didn't like the final product, so fired him and hired someone else. Now she wants back not only the money she paid him, but what she paid someone else to complete the job. Defendant says she provided the rough cuts, didn't come to 3 appointments he set up to go over the edits, so he did the nest he could with no real guidance... not his fault she doesn't like it, he deserves to be paid. Case is over for me as we go to commercial and plaintiff says she gave him creative control, but didn't like his final edit... sounds like she's presenting his defense. Plaintiff was a graduate of some film school "quite some time ago"... geez I can barely listen to her run on with all these buzz words about her extremely low budget Ytube video, my coffee cups empty, so I leave her to yak away and head to the kitchen. When I get back into hear she was homeless and out of touch for awhile, then when she gets back she sends a series of texts every hour for awhile demanding he answer her for a status update, followed by a demand for partial refund the next day or she's going to sue. Ah, defendant says he did answer, but by phone not text... he just didn't think to bring phone records or anything to prove he wasn't just blowing her off and taking his big $150 payday and leaving town. Guess MM was bored with the case, too, and we get a quick dismissal. bad tire shop: plaintiff says three days after defendant's shop put tires on her car one of the wheels falls off as she's going down the road. Ah, I have some experience with this one. Few years ago I was at a pizza place next to a bar. I come out, hop in my pickup and start to drive away, and my freeking front wheel takes a solo trip down the road while my front end drops. Later I go back to where I had been parked, and find my lug nuts laying on the ground. What I figure happened was one of the drunk bar patrons saw my four way lug wrench laying in the bed of the trunk, and thought it'd be a hoot to watch me try to drive away on three wheels. Course, I never found out who the prankster was, and I was out a lot of money replacing a rotor and front end work. All that just goes to show that plaintiff here could have experienced the same type of prank... or it really could have been an inept mechanic not properly installing her new tires. And, she has to convince the judge it was the mechanic. Oh boy, right off the bat the plaintiff is off on the wrong step by making ridiculous damage claim... she wants 2 grand in damages to car, wants back the money she paid the shop for the work, and the old but goody - pain and suffering. (Any idea what is with her getup... first, she has on what I assume is a massive, heavy wig, white choker type necklace, and I keep wondering if she has on a little black dress concealed under that brown long sleeve top. Is she heading out to party after talking to Doug?) Oops, defendant, guy who is supposed to be the shop owner, starts answering questions before his friend can translate for him. Hmmm didn't plaintiff just testify his response when she tells him her wheel came off is that she should have known something was wrong? Either she's lieing about his response, or he faking not understanding in court. Ah, time for MM to wear her second hat and act as a translater. Instead of answering her question, he starts off by claiming he has proof his shop properly installed the wheels. Anybody else think that might be the wrong approach? I figure he should start off by raising the possibility of some a-hole loosening her lugnuts, because I don't see how he can prove his shop tightened them properly. Ah, his "proof" is surveillance video of mechanic... but all it shows is a shot from above not focused on the actual work being done - heck, we don't even see the lugnuts. Now, if we saw them put on the lug nuts and then cone back with a torque wrench, well that would help even without closeup of the wheel, but we aren't seeing that. Despite MM repeatedly asking gf how the wheel came off, he never raises the possibility that she parked at a pizza joint next to a bar.... no, he just keeps with the same "we would never do that" line. By the time he finally raise the possibilty, MM has decided against him. Plaintiff wins, but of course not the lottery amount she wanted. (At least she knew that coming in, and actually laughs as MM tells her she isn't getting pain and suffering.) Hmmm, too bad I hadn't just had somebody change my tire way back when, it sounds like having an a-hole purposely loosen your lug nuts is rare enough that it's a slam dunk case. Edited October 10, 2017 by SRTouch 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant vs landlord: kind of strange case just because plaintiff, though the guy who was leasing the place, was not the one actually living there Mr.Peepers was living there when it suited him ("WE leased the house. WE gave notice" etc) and not living there when he wanted to avoid responsibility. He tries to claim that he had no idea - in three whole years - his brother was drinking like a fish and living in what must have been squalor. He certainly knew how much trash was left behind and it was irritating that he thought he - or his brother - should get the month of Feb for free. Just the fact that he couldn't count the bags is enough to prove the mess was pretty outrageous. Anyway, def - Billy - was totally unsympathetic. Belligerent, mouthy and ignorant (with his "doin'" and "goin'" and "too nice of a person." Ugh.) Oh, Billy is just way too busy - he's living in a mobile home! He's having a house constructed! He can't be expected to provide a shred of evidence for anything he claims, can he? He has no time to spend one second to snap a pic with his phone or write a text that takes 17 seconds, according to JM. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: . Plaintiff was a graduate of some film school "quite some time ago"... Yeah, and it seems her career has really taken off. Her homelessness is the only part I really wanted to hear about. I'm sorry, but the final video that made her happy? I swear I could do better with my phone! The background/traffic noise in it drowned out the speaking. She wants "passion" for 150$? Well, actually for only 75$ because that's all she paid the def. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: bad tire shop: First of all, I love listening to JM speaking Spanish. Def was outrageous, suggesting that plaintiff probably took her car so someone else who sneakily loosened the lug nuts on her tire just for kicks and she did this two days after def. worked on it. As Doug in the hall mentioned, it's just very, very lucky for her she wasn't driving on the highway when the sloppily installed tire flew off her car. Non-English speaking def was so angry in the hall, as though he were being persecuted for no reason. How nervy. Okay, so I take my Toyota to the dealer to have winter tires put on and taken off. Yes, I might pay more, but at least I know my tires won't fly off and imperil my life as they might if I took my car to someone like the def. here. I'm sure this did wonders for the business at his shop. 3 Link to comment
babs j. October 10, 2017 Share October 10, 2017 I always take my car back to the dealer for service so if anything does go wrong I know who to yell at. 3 Link to comment
aemom October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 I just watched the episode with the mom suing the red-headed girlfriend, the wedding photographer, and the hobby car. Wow, the girlfriend and boyfriend were total doormats and the mom was a piece of work only charging the girlfriend rent and even charging for babysitting. I mean if grandma was replacement for every-day all-day daycare then maybe, but if it was just babysitting here and there, then wow. MM was right - enjoy that money because you have probably effed up your relationship now! The wedding photographer - I thought MM's solution was perfect, but I agree with the others that the plaintiff just wanted a bonanza. The kid that bought the hobby car. What a naive, sad kid. I know something about all this stuff through osmosis with my husband and his car thing and I am willing to bet that the car wasn't in anywhere near the bad shape that the mechanic claimed that it was. I bet after he took over the title that he never junked it and was able to fix up the car to resell. And anything would be profit, since the dumb kid just blindly signed it over to him. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 (edited) Quote she wasn't driving on the highway when the sloppily installed tire flew off her car. I had some heartburn on some of the issues in this case. From the amount of damage to the plaintiff's car, I think she had to be driving pretty fast for a tire coming off to do that amount on fender damage. Also, if the shop failed to tighten the lug nuts (it can happen), the driver would have had ample warning that something was wrong as she drove in the fairly long amount o f time it would take for all of the lug nuts to come off to free the tire. I think the shop probably screwed up, but the plaintiff ignored unmistakeable indications of something seriously wrong, both noise and a vigorously shaking steering wheel. Edited October 11, 2017 by DoctorK spelling 2 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 That video editing case seemed familiar. Didn't we have another similar case involving those same people? Link to comment
Florinaldo October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 11 hours ago, WhitneyWhit said: That video editing case seemed familiar. Didn't we have another similar case involving those same people? It was a different case, but the circumstances were very similar: a back-alley producer whose artistic ambitions are well beyond her low-rent budget, gives artistic control over to her editor and provides him with no instructions or guidance, and is then dissatisfied with the results (what a surprise). It's difficult to say if the guy was a talented editor but he did do the work so he deserved to get paid, if only for having to deal with her and the crappy looking footage she seems to have provided him with judging from the short sample we saw. In the tenant vs landlord case we had two laisser-faire people who could not bother with the obligations integral to their respective status in the relationship. The landlord was particulary egregious (no pictures, really?), but the tenant was no better, especially describing the mess he left behind as simply "debris" which the lazy landlord did not bother to question. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 (edited) dog attack - pit vs shihtzu: I only watched the intro, but that was enough to figure out that, once again, we have a case of clueless dog owners. What I gather is that plaintiff was out walking her little fur toy, when a pit bull started following them. Uh, sounds like pit was stalking/hunting. Hmmmm not sure where pitty owner was, as it certainly doesn't sound like he was around to control his dog. Anyway, his defense is that there were no witnesses, animal control investigated and did nothing, so his precious dog must be innocent. Oh, and he seems to think plaintiff invented the attack to get money... and she says she rushed her little yapper to the vet where she racked up vet bills. Sooo... I hit the button and zip the rough justice time. And learn that he admits his dog was running loose, but thinks that he isn't liable because she was the only witness and she doesn't count... dude, strict liability - if your dog is running loose and bites someone or attacks another animal YOU ARE LIABLE. Oh, and that bit in the intro about animal control clearing his dog? Uh, no... part of her damage claim is she took off work twice to go to animal control hearings and both times hearing was canceled because he was a no show. Wonder if that means they just dropped the case? Or maybe there was a third hearing and she couldn't miss any more work? Doesn't matter, he has no defense, and the only question is how much plaintiff is going to get... $1200 of the 2 grand she asked for. tenant vs landlord: couple things going on with this one. Plaintiff says he was moving from Massachusetts to Florida. He found defendant's apartment, but place wasn't ready on the move in date and he ended up paying for another place for three weeks. When he finally gets in, not happy and ends up leaving in middle of the lease. Now, everything is landlord's fault, so he wants landlord to forget the early termination fee, return his deposit, and, oh, foot his bills while he was twiddling his thumps waiting to move in. Landlord.... well he doesn't make a very good first impression. He comes in, turns to stare at plaintiff and stands there presenting his profile to the camera all through his intro. Course he is countersuing for the early termination fee, and says plaintiff left the place infested with fleas so doesn't deserve his deposit. Ok, from the clip as we head to commercial we know these guys are going to get the "not just for dirty pictures" speech. Ok, back from commercial. Plaintiff and family moving because of job transfer, rent defendant's place and send him first, last and security, move in date 1 September, everything packed up, daughter enrolled in school... then August 31 defendant let's them know place isn't ready. They end up scrambling, find temporary quarters with family, but have to leave the family pet back in Mass until they get into their own place (don't worry, part of claim is for the extra trip to bring the puppy to rejoin the family). Ok, not really defendant's fault... his previous tenant were hold overs and he ended up having to go through the eviction process to get them out. At the time he offered to refund their money, but they ended up waiting the three weeks and then moved in. Really think plaintiff missed out not taking the refund offer and suing at the time for the extra costs of waiting around. Instead, he waited, accepted the place when it became open, and ended up moving out early and then suing... really, couldn't find somewhere to rent for a year in the three weeks they were waiting? Oh, and landlord offered to store his stuff in his storage facility and didn't charge rent the first month. MM has to pull those facts out of the guy, then points out at least part of his claim is out the window because he accepted the deal offered by defendant, so he can't turn around and sue after defendant lived up to the deal. So, everything is gone except the part about the deposit - not looking too good for landlord here. Now we get to he says/he says portion where they argue the condition of the place when plaintiff moves in/out, and nobody has any evidence cuz the phone was full of dirty pix/videos and there wasn't room to save any new pictures. Both these guys are looking bad. On the face of it both seem to have legitimate claims, but the claims fall apart as soon as MM asks questions. Both sides do about faces and decide to make claims after they agree not to, but sounds like maybe plaintiff has less wrong on his claim for the deposit than defendant. After a year, in October, plaintiff tells landlord he wants to move out. They remained until Feb, and when they left plaintiff says landlord was okay with their moving, and was planning on doing some renovations. At first landlord claims he kept deposit because carpet was infested by fleas - but of course has no evidence of any fleas.... next he wasn't going to charge for early termination of lease if he was given plenty of notice and could find new tenants right away - ah, but then we learn he had lots of notice, and besides he was renovating so didn't even look for tenants because it was off season - not the time of year where people shop for houses... ah, flapping gums, dude! I sent a text about this - show me - he looks down, acts like he's looking for something, but doesn't pull out anything. .. then why did you charge this - the house needed cleaning, so landlord and wife cleaned - ah, but no pictures or evidence that place was dirty or that he spent any time cleaning - ah, time for dirty pictures speech, he says wife took pictures - great, let's see them - well, he doesn't have them because wife deleted them (yeah, deleted them when he decided they wouldn't help his case - at least he didn't bring them and have them prove the other side's position.) Geez, this case is about to put me to sleep! BORING! And zippo for evidence. The little bit of evidence defendant had, his written lease with the clause saying he can charge for early termination... well here his testimony is wishy washy - when asked he says he told plaintiff he wouldn'the invoke the clause if he received plenty of notice - then he qualifies this, he won't charge if he gets replacement tenants right away - oh, but also it's the "wrong time" so he decided to renovate. Ah, I was about to give up and then we have a switcheroo. When he looked down for that text he actually found it... yep, despite his testimony going all over the place, he actually DID say in a text that he wouldn't charge the termination fee if he found new tenants. Ok, but that text was in July - so maybe rental market is good at that time. Did he need to tell plaintiff that the rental market was down when he moved out in Feb, so he was going to charge the fee, renovate, and hope for a new tenant? (oh, and he started advertising the place on Zillow before plaintiff moved out and the renovations were done - even lowering the price to try to get it rented) Nah, MM says the text is good enough, so landlord can charge the termination fee. So... plaintiff gets his $1300 deposit because defendant can't prove any damages. OTOH, the text saved defendant, he wins his $1800 termination fee - despite his testimony. Net judgement - defendant gets $500. fight over a used car extended warranty: plaintiff paid for an extended warranty when he bought his car... ok, not a bad idea. Dude says when he bought the car he was talked into paying for an extended warranty. Say he was told that if he didn't use the warranty he'd get back the $2200 premium when the warranty ran out if he didn't use it... huh, does that make sense to anyone? I mean, the warranty is like insurance, and I never heard of getting back your insurance premium if you never have a claim (well, you can get discounts, but a refund of the premium?) Nah, we learn it's actually a thing - sort of a shell game where some company actually DOES guarantee the return of your premium... then another company guarantees that company... and they gamble everybody who still has their used car in five years will have had some warranty work done. If too many people come looking for their refund, well, the company that signed the contract with the consumer goes belly up, but the parent company is still in business. Plaintiff assures us he was buying the warranty and its guarantee from the dealer, not some third or fourth party. So, problem comes when the warranty period expires and he goes to claim his guarantee. He goes back to the seller and seller says... oh no, we sold you a third party warranty... and, oh, by the way, that company is kaput - you wasted your money, dude! Ah, the defendant, who quickly demonstrates the worst part of used car salesmanship... defendant may be totally right here, but he strikes me as very glib, smug, condescending, a know it all - and isn't a bit shy about interrupting and talking over MM as she is trying to ask him questions (I HATE people who jump in and start talking before they hear the question.) He tells us he only sold this warranty to a few people, implying that he dropped it but never really saying that. Ah, what a scam. I thought it was bad with two companies playing a shell game, but not defendant introduces a third (4, really, because he's in it up to the neck of his unbuttoned shirt). Very confusing case which could go either way. Should defendant be held accountable even though plaintiff knew all along that the contracts he was signing were from these other shell game companies? Then it is up to this defendant to go after these other companies for whom he was in effect working as an their agent? Ah, confusing legal contract and the bankruptcy papers for belly up company point consumer to defendant? I didn't think plaintiff had a chance in hell of winning, but the contract that our defendant had him sign does say to take up any disputes with the issuing agent - who is our defendant... oh, defendant admits he never bothered to actually read the contract he was having his customers sign. Heck, he still hadn't read the contract until MM had Douglas carry it to him. No matter how hard and fast he dances, looks like this is on defendant (serves him right, like I said, I don't like him.) Plaintiff wins! Edited October 11, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant vs landlord: couple things going on with this one. Plaintiff says he was moving from Massachusetts to Florida. Yogi Bear had his little autobiographical speech all rehearsed (seriously, do we care about why he and his wife decided to move, or the jobs or the age of his daughter or blah blah? No, we do not and neither does JM) and really he should have let this whole thing go. But yeah, it was all kind of boring however we did hear a new defense - "My wife took pictures of the mess plaintiff left - such a mess we had to keep the whole deposit - , but she deleted them. " Of course they exist. Let's enter your wife's deleted pics into evidence. Luckily, defendant did have evidence, so plaintiff ends up paying. Buh bye, Yogi. And yeah: I love your dearly JM, but please stop with the nasty picture thing. Believe it or not, many of us have never taken a nasty pic in our lives. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: fight over a used car extended warranty: I loved this case. It's exactly the kind of contract case I enjoy. First of all, extended warranty? I have never, nor would I ever, buy into this cash grab and resisted totally whenever store employees nearly use strong-arm tactics to make me buy it for every single thing I purchase, right down to a frickin' toaster. I've never taken it even for the new cars I've bought and it's especially bad for things like computers where, if you try to get the ex. warranty honoured, you may be told the computer is unfixable so they keep the money and you have to buy a new computer, cuz, well - WE don't know if the computer really is kaput, do we? We don't know if they refurbish it and re-sell it in a win-win situation for store and warranty company, do we? Anyway, the plaintiff was looking pretty bad until he pointed out that the contract paperwork states that the dealer is liable for the return of the entire unused amount, which was 2200$. The dealer had no idea this was in the contract with the warranty company, since - durrrr... no, of course he never ever bothered reading the terms of the agreement he was offering. In fact, he never even glanced at it, so the contract was big news to him. Ignorance of your own products is not a defense, so he has to reimburse the plaintiff for the entire amount. In the hall, he admits that maybe, from now on, he just might take a peek at what he's giving to clients. I did believe the dealer sold this policy to just a few people like the plaintiff. The others were too smart to fall for this scam. 1 2 Link to comment
Broderbits October 11, 2017 Share October 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: And yeah: I love your dearly JM, but please stop with the nasty picture thing. Believe it or not, many of us have never taken a nasty pic in our lives. Thank you! My phone doesn't even take pictures; I wonder what her retort would be to me. 1 3 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit October 12, 2017 Share October 12, 2017 The defendant in the landlord case looked like a Bob's Burgers character come to life. When will people learn that coming into court saying "there are no witnesses" is basically saying you're guilty? 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 12, 2017 Share October 12, 2017 (edited) Trucker wants to be paid: plaintiff finds a CDL job on craigslist. Says he was to be paid a thousand a week, worked for two weeks, but defendant, guy who hired him, refuses to pay. Defendant says guy only made a couple deliveries, kept getting lost, and deliveries were delivered damaged... says dude cost him more than he made the company so he doesn't deserve to be paid - oh, and trucker won't return the phones he was given to keep in touch on the road. Hmmmm maybe just bogus info from the intro, but when driver starts talking sure sounds like he was on the road alot... heck he even brought in a map - on paper - of his travels. Ah, maybe he just isn't up to date on this modern technology (though he knows how to be paid electronically). Seems his load was overweight when stopped at a weigh station, but instead of contacting his employer and arranging to make the load legal he decides to take his overweight load on back/country roads. He tries to just skip over the damaged load complaints. Anyway, he's 18 hours late with his load, and boss man is a tad bit upset with his performance and the complaints he's been getting... so he fires the trucker. But wait, trucker says he was supposed to be paid weekly and here it is week two and still no pay. He says boss danced around his demand for pay, and promised to get the pay to him later... no money ever comes, so he files this case. Cross the aisle to hear what boss man defendant has been smirking about while listening to Roy, the trucker dude. Hmmm quite a bit different (and as usual intro was off). According to bossman, trucker guy wasn't honest when describing his driving experience. Boss hires him anyway, but has to make accommodations to bring Roy up to speed before sending him out. First, he sends his out a couple days riding shotgun so he can learn the ropes and how the company wants things done. These two ride along days are to be unpaid... not nice, but not uncommon, either. Then, drivers are expected to have a phone and a GPS... Roy doesn't, so boss fronts him the money to get them... Ah, then Roy loses the phone, and boss fronts him a second phone. Oh, and boss disagrees with trucker's claim that he was to be paid $1000 a week - he says pay was $100 daily.... and he admits he didn't pay anything and Roy made 6 deliveries (sounds like they're based in New Jersey, but Roy talked about deliveries to Ohio, Kentucky, West Virgina, Niagara Falls, etc). As he tries to explain why Roy doesn't deserve pay, he talks about Roy hitting the road and not using the phone and/or GPS that he provided and requires drivers to have. Says Roy was out of touch for days at a time, and he had no answers when customers were called trying to track their shipments. (Isn't tracking wonderful? I track my UPS/FedEx shipments all the time... unfortunately, my Chewy.Com shipments usually get here before they make the first stop.) Ok, I get firing ole Roy, but he still gets paid - minus the phones and GPS if he doesn't return them. Oh, and boss can't dock Roy for the damage/late stuff without some type of formal work agreement... which they obviously don't have since they can't even agree on WTF his pay was. The good thing is it sounds like boss learned from the experience, as he now tracks his vehicles while they're on the road. The pay isn't the only disconnect - they disagree about the damaged/missing goods, whether Roy kept in touch as required, pretty much everything. I get bossman being upset with Roy, and I bet he's a real screamer with his bald head turning red when he gets going - he tries to get going when MM asks him for the dates of when he says Roy was off grid, but she shuts him down. Yep, I get that, but still you can't not pay an employee when you admit they worked - even a crappy job is worth something - and bossman is sadly lacking any evidence of actual damage or time spent off the radar. Ah, when bossman gets lippy one time too many MM rules for Roy, not even ordering Roy to return the GPS and phones and taking Roy's claim for $1000 a week over the $100 a day. She gets up and is half way off the bench before she remembers the counterclaim... Roy tries to return them, but boss wants the money instead since Roy may have messed them up - MM agrees, and subtracts $400 from Roy's 2 grand paycheck. When we get to the hallterview, bossman says the case went as he expected - he expected to lose, he was just PO'ed about being sued and, no doubt, wanted a day off and free lunch. tenant suing landlord over junk left in his apartment: has to be more to this case than intro says... supposedly plaintiff rented a place, has been there for quite awhile with some left behind washer/dryer and treadmill from the previous tenant, now he's decided he deserves 4 grand for putting up with it for 19 months. Landlord says he made multiple attempts to remove the junk, but plaintiff wouldn't let his guys in to haul it away. Silly waste of time case... dude can't collect for storage without a storage agreement... Ah, yep defendant's intro makes it clearer... the tenant/landlord relationship is in the dumps and defendant is threatening to start eviction proceedings. Defendant claims plaintiff is a problem tenant, makes serial complaints about any and everything. Yep, nonsense case is sort of a preemptive strike to the eviction case. When tenant starts I'm not sure how long I can stand to listen... he may be an excellent speaker when talking his native tongue... but whoa, like I said, hard to take all the hesitations and looking up, down and all around as he is testifying. What I gather from his first complaint in court is that he couldn't secure his apartment, so upstairs neighbor (previous tenant's uncle) had access to his place through the basement. Says various stuff went missing, and he caught trespassers in his place more than once... uh, and he stayed there 2 years?! Oh, and here landlord wants him to move, and he's stalling and fighting to stay! Heck, the first time I found trespassers I'd be calling cops and demanding new locks. Ah, what is it JJ says about not needing a good memory when you tell the truth. When plaintiff testifies a suit and his passport disappeared out of his apartment, MM asks what ever happened, he replies he replaced the passport but doesn't know what happened with the suit... oops, MM reminds him that in his filings he says when he complained the missing items magically reappeared... ah the suit was gone but the passport reappeared... hmmm didn't you just testify you went to the government for a replacement.... ummm ummm give it up dude, it's that old good memory/truth thing biting you in the ass... the more you try to scramble the worse you're looking... he'll be looking for a water jug any second, now. MM let's him off the hook after playing with him awhile - to soon to call him a liar and toss the nonsense case for storage fees (and to be fair, it's possible his testimony and filing confusion is due to language issues - not that I believe it, but possible). Ah, I reach my limit of him fumbling and stalling when asked questions and reach the remote (for some reason I just thought of the Gong Show). Ah, commercial break, and when we come back defendant is talking... still with an accent but at least more understandable. Admits plaintiff made numerous complaints, but says the complaints started when he, the landlord, got upset with the tenant. Landlord says he thought everything was fine, then out of the blue he receives a letter from Housing Department saying they're receiving complaints from his tenant... yep, says tenant bypassed him completely - never gave him a change to correct any problems, instead going to complain with the Housing Authority... which pissed him off, and that's why he's threatening to evict the tenant.... hmmm something missing here. Then we get landlord saying he hired three different people to correct problems... of course he has no evidence about the mystery workers making repeated attempts to correct the problems and/move out the junk from the previous tenant and being denied access. Now, after the official complaint they start a silly phone tag/text exchange... MM reads the childish texts, then finally declares she's sick of both of them (landlord has a REALLY annoying habit of saying "It's ok," when he gets caught doing/acting bad). Oh, yeah, couple of adult guys acting like little kids, bringing in the Housing Authority and going to court over nonsense - and a month to month lease, yet. MM laughs as she dismisses silly case, and sets a date and time for the offensive washer/dryer/treadmill to be removed... hey, I actually waited for Harvey, and yes, he tells us, both sides kept their date and the junk was carted out of the basement. ah, we have another Roy - this one suing over car repairs: hoboy, plaintiff took his '96 Volvo to mechanic, self diagnosed the problems and brought the parts, and now says car broke down after defendant repaired what he, the plaintiff, thought was wrong. Unless he can show, with expert testimony, that defendant screwed up a repair this will be yet another silly case... course sometimes silly cases are a hoot! Plaintiff has a tough row to hoe proving his case, and is off to a rocky start. He starts off telling us what great condition his car was in, and even how the mechanic commented on its mint condition when he had it smogged... hey, great, a mechanic saw it and noted it's condition shortly before evil, inept, defendant messed it up... ah, but he doesn't have anything to show us from the impressed smog technician. Ok, no evidence. Next he tells us the technician noted a couple problems, even though condition great overall, there was a radiator leak and steering column issue. Quick question for defendant, was that the issue was the first time plaintiff brought in the immaculate volvo? No, says burly dude in fancy suit, first time it came in on a flat bed, non running, needing a fuel pump. Little back and forth between litigants, but lo and behold burly mechanic in the suit actually brought evidence... he has dated work orders which contradicts plaintiff's memory. Could be wrong, but I wonder if plaintiff might be having memory problems as I don't think he's faking being confused. His rocky road is getting worse when he finally admits that his mint condition baby, with only a couple minor problems, wouldn't start and was towed in. So, first time fuel pump us replaced, he knew about bad radiator but put off the repair, week later he's back for the radiator fix... oh, and decides plaintiff decides he might as well get a starter.... dude, you're identifying problems with multiple, nonrelated, mechanicall system/components... sounds like it's time to give up on your baby! But, noooo, he isn't ready to put her to bed, he brings her in a couple more times and drops a few hundred each time. Ok, old dude may be having trouble letting go, but sounds like mechanic was happy to let him self diagnose and pay and never really tried to diagnose things himself (diagnosis seems clear - old machinery wears out - you can keep it running if you have the money, but there comes a point where it stops being an economical daily driver.) No, plaintiff isn't proving negilence... and worse, he's appears to be having a senior moment in court - he forgets or ignores the last ten minutes and resets to his opening statement that all he needed was a radiator and steering column... and he's already been forced to admit that's wrong as it wasn'the running the first time it came in, and evidence shows the radiator was fixed a week later and steering column waited even longer. Nope, case over, even though MM has to slow down and tries to spoonfeed it to him, and finally rules old dude leaves convinced he was right even though he lost and he's proud he stood up for his baby. Edited October 13, 2017 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 12, 2017 Share October 12, 2017 Today reinforced my position, in that nothing good ever comes from using Craigslist. Def, who owns a trucking company, decides to find an employee on CL, instead of going through other avenues that might guarantee an employee who knows this business? Plaintiff gets hired to be a truck driver, in spite of the fact that it seems he doesn't really know about truck driving. Def. says that's no problem and that he'll have someone give him lessons. Plaintiff wants a cell phone, so of course def gets him one, and then another one when the first is lost, or it isn't. We don't really know. Def. decides not to pay plaintiff for his truck driving, since a box of "lady's candles" are broken or whatever. I really don't know much more since I could only understand about one word in ten from plaintiff, even though English is his native language. He claims the white man is trying to defraud him. I have a feeling the def. is an ecumenical defrauder. Maybe. I was getting a headache with the second case, since I couldn't understand this plaintiff either. At least he has the excuse that English is a second language. I think he was suing landlord def for storage for keeping property owned by a previous tenant, in his apartment. By now, I'm so with JM when she says, "I'm sick of both of you." You're not the only one! Boring and annoying case. Finally, we have plaintiff with his "mint" 21-year old Volvo. So impressive was this ancient car that even the people doing the emissions test on it (it passed with flying colours but of course plaintiff has no proof of that) raved about how wonderful it was. Well, that's what plaintiff says, anyway. Maybe not quite mint though, since it won't start and plaintiff needs to have the old POS towed to the def's shop, where he instructs them to change the radiator and the steering column, and buys and brings both items to the def. Def does the job requested of him, but down the road the clunker gets something wrong with it. All in all, plaintiff thinks this hoopty is worth spending 2K on, if you can imagine that, even though he ends up junking it. About time, but that's all the fault of the def. Anyway, he wants def. to pay him back for all the money he foolishly threw at this heap. Not happening. 1 3 Link to comment
Katy M October 12, 2017 Share October 12, 2017 I only caught the last case. Sounds like plaintiff thought that if you take a really old car in for repairs, you get a bumper-to-bumper warranty on the stuff that wasn't even fixed. While, I admit that would be awesome for the car owner, it would clearly be ridiculous. 1 2 Link to comment
califred October 13, 2017 Share October 13, 2017 It would have to be cheaper to get a new inexpensive car and make car payments than keep dumping money into a 21 yr old Volvo, which are $$$ tk Fix. We have a rule that once we are spending more fixing a car than a small car payment would be we get a different car. And we keep most our cars for 10-15 yrs. Of course I have things like a down payment and good credit. 1 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 13, 2017 Share October 13, 2017 11 hours ago, califred said: Of course I have things like a down payment and good credit. Oh, you're just trying to be "all high and mighty", just because you don't need to get financing that carries 110% interest charges. 1 10 Link to comment
aemom October 13, 2017 Share October 13, 2017 I just watched the case with the twerker, the pitbull named Havoc, and the idiot apartment broker. The twerker. Clearly I have found the way to make more money. I have all my teeth, no roots in my hair, and after 8 years of zumba, I can shake my bon bon with the best of them. If she can get 14K followers, I should be able to do much better. All kidding aside, I am speechless that Toothless Twerker can make a living doing this. But considering the class of litigants we usually see on this show, I guess not. The plaintiff was disgusting. After MM confronted him about his inappropriate texts to her, his response is "what does that have to do with the business?" Google Harvey Weinstein you disgusting pig. Dog case: Defendant admits guilt and says that he would have paid, but plaintiff starting driving by his house and left voice mails. He gets off easy only having to pay the statutory max. The defendant broker was a squirmy lying weasel and I was glad when MM threw the book at him. 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 13, 2017 Share October 13, 2017 (edited) shihtzu attacks! plaintiff wants over 2 grand after what he claims was an attack by the defendant's furry little yapper. Sounds funny when plaintiff says size doesn't matter and audience twitters a little... but truth is dogs don't KNOW when they're tiny or humongous - so it's up to the two legged members of the family to keep them under control. On the face of it, this case reminds me of the one where the teeny dog was attacked by a pit bull... owner of the unleashed attacking dog not around and doesn't think the person who was there, the plaintiff, counts as a witness. Well, hold on, there are a couple little points that are different: first, and it's a biggy, there was no physical attack... plaintiff alleges his 40 pound collie mix sustained a leg tendon/ligament injury when he scooped it up to avoid little ones attack - resulting in vet visit, surgery, and over 2 grand in bills... oh, and this time attacking dog owner was present and saw the "attack". She was on her porch with her unleashed dog when plaintiff walked by with his leashed dog - little yapper figures he needs to protect his mistress leaves the porch and charges into battle. Plaintiff scoops up his pup, but now his pup is struggling in his arms to get down and chase away this interloper. Like I said, plaintiff's dog is a hand/armfull, he can't hold him very long... and little yapper's mistress is still doing a Chicken Little impression on the porch. He ends up having to put his dog down, little doggy scuffle, but no biting or bleeding. So, really the question is, when did the injury occur, and can plaintiff prove it was a result of Tiny Mutt's charge. MM asks if the injury could have happened when he put his dog down, did get maybe drop it or could the dog have jumped out of his arms? Uh, why would that matter? Little guy left his property to attack the leashed dog. Ah, but could this have been a pre-existing injury, or something that happened later? He admits his dog walks home fine after the incident. Then he leaves for a couple hours, and notices his dog is limping when he gets home after his errands. 5 days later, limp isn't getting better - actually worse, he finally takes his dog to the vet... Lots could have happened in five days, so do we believe limp started within a couple hours. Ok, cross the aisle to hear defendant. Glad to hear MM shut her down as defendant starts off with how this case ridiculous, she's a responsible dog owner, yada yada. MM stops her and asks about that "responsible owner" comment - are you a responsible owner? was your dog unleashed on your porch? Oh, and did your dog leave to property to go bark at plaintiff and his dog? Hey, she was lucky this time... her precious fur ball might run out and bark at the wrong dog next time - or maybe just run out into the street and be hit. Ah, she says her pup was inside - she always walks him on a leash, but he darted out when she opened the door. Ok, accidents happen, so maybe the truth - though I thought plaintiff testified she was already on the porch when he came walking along... and I know he described her taking awhile to come get her dog, so she wasn't chasing it as I would expect had it just escaped from indoors. Now, defendant has to admit that maybe it WAS kind of irresponsible for her to let her dog out, so mud slinging time... a year or so back, plaintiff's dog got loose - so he's irresponsible, too. Ok, ok, MM tries to move her along and defendant talks over her until MM is getting loud and asking, ok, you dog got out - what happened next? Huh, man, once she starts you can't shut her up! She even drew little stick figures to show the street and where the rumble went down. More mud slinging, plaintiff over reacted, her baby couldn't have hurt him or his dog (isn't said, but I'm picturing her laughing thinking his reaction is funny). I wonder how long it would have taken her to retrieve her dog if another neighbor didn't step in to help separate them. (Little cross aisle talk as plaintiff shouts out, "that's a lie!" - and defendant responds, "I didn't interrupt you.") Over to plaintiff and MM asks for his vet records. Ah, dude, not helping just bringing the bill, but nothing from the "EXPERT WITNESS" saying how your Petey was injured - you know Doctor's Notes talking about the exam, impressions, diagnosis, prognosis, all that stuff. Oh, and it definitely hurts when you file a police report a week after the incident. Heck, he could be telling the truth, but it sure would have helped if he has those freeking vet notes and/or something from an expert to tell us the probability of Peter being injured in the scuffle and not really limping badly for a few days (he says after 4 days Peter was no longer bearing weight, but it took a couple more days to get in to see the vet.) Now defendant wants to chime in while MM is asking plaintiff questions. She has a letter from her vet saying injury would have been very painful, etc etc... uh, did her vet examine Petey, and anyone who has critters know just how good they can be at hiding pain. More cross aisle yakking... plaintiff says she tried to intimate him into dropping his suit by claiming her dad is a vet and she has a lawyer in the family... and plaintiff scoffing she never said that, her dad is not a vet, he's an author and lives in California.... ok, I figure that's too good a story for him to make up, and I can believe this pushy woman may well have said that - which raises the question in my mind about the validity of this letter from her vet. Doesn't matter much, though, because now plaintiff is his own worst enemy and he scoffs at the letter and starts interrupting and talking over MM as she reads this vet's description of the normal progression of this type injury. MM is not thrilled with his interruptions, telling him he missed out on presenting expert testimony when he only brought his bills... nope, he had quite a reach to establish the cause of the injury, and he's going down fast arguing out of turn. Hoboy, as MM is ruling both sides try to talk out, and MM says, "Can I talk?" And dummy plaintiff continues to interrupt, answering "I have something very important to say." MM "That's was rhetorical!" Everybody laughs and he says "Please talk." Even without her vet's letter there was enough doubt in my mind to deny his claim... but I'd like to see defendant slapped on the wrist - she really strikes me as an irresponsible dog owner. She even interrupts the ruling to argue, again, that she's a responsible owner. Course, he's even more deserving of a public spanking as he continued to shout out and argue in the hallterview canceled trip refund: plaintiff booked a trip with defendant's company, canceled, and is asking for a refund. Couple small points... she booked the trip three years ago. Oh, and defendant says she was just a facilitator, the trip was actually booked through a wholesale travel agency - so any refund needs to come through that agency. Anyway, if you're like me you may need CC to make sense of the accents. I gather the Shanghai portion trip was canceled because a visa problem - not really pertinent to the case and lots of time wasted on this. Normally, I would question whether or not plaintiff could get a refund on the trip, but she says she canceled a couple months before the trip and was told by defendant that she could get the money back. Ah, but wait, is she saying she canceled, or that she may wait until the visa question is resolved while enroute? Some of these trips are strictly no refunds, and even if they offer a refund I doubt she can wait until she gets to Taipan before cancelling the Shanghai portion... over to defendant while plaintiff looks for evidence of a promised refund. Hmmm, understanding defendant is even more work than plaintiff... and besides I'm not that interested.... so zippity do dah, FF TO Doug... plaintiff wins, but doesn't get everything - and no hallterview... and I'm not going back to figure out why she gets anything. faulty car repair: same old deal - plaintiff took his broken down car to defendant, now suing because after 6 months when his transmission goes (defendant says looks like he hit something and cracked the transmission case.) Oh, and while he's at it, he's not just suing for the cost of the repair defendant did, he wants defendant to pay for a new transmission because ... well just because.... Yep, dude says he knew he needed a transmission when he bought the 13yo car, took it to defendant to get the work done because that was the cheapest estimate. He drives it for months, has it in a different shop, and says this new guy shows him a cracked transmission. Yep, defendant says the case is cracked - but it was good when he did the work, and he doesn't know wth plaintiff did in the intervening time. Plaintiff does have a 6 month limited warranty, but defendant says this is new damage and not covered. Plaintiff has a video - yep case is obviously broken, but just promising he didn't hit anything or bottom out in a pothole doesn't mean defendant has to pay. In the video, he tries to get this new mechanic to say 1st guy should have pointed out the damage and defendant must not have fixed it right. About all he gets is 2nd guy saying, sure if it was damaged when the first guy looked at it it should have been fixed, he never says it WAS damaged... despite his leading questions. Nope, not proving his case... not even when he claims he never drove the car in the 5 months after defendant did the work.... yeah, right, he buys this junker, pays a couple grand to get it running, yet doesn't drive it in 5 months... oh wait, he drove in the city, just not on the highway... hmmm so no potholes in New York City? Oh, that's right, he already told us he didn't hit any potholes. MM let's dufus run on to fill time, but this case is a bust. Did defendant say anything? Well, yeah, not much, plaintiff loss this case all on his own... and of course he can't believe how unfair he was treated today by MM. Turns out transmission is still good, just a cracked case and broken mounting brackets. Defendant he stands by the transmission repair, and would have fixed the case and defendant broken mount - just not for free. Edited October 13, 2017 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 13, 2017 Share October 13, 2017 My DVR must have known I was dissing it, since it decided today - for the first time ever - not to record TPC. After seeing SRTouch's review, I"m kind of glad since the words "dog" and "vet bill" automatically trigger the FF. I caught only the last portion of the plaintiff suing def. over the transmission on what I'm sure is some ancient beater car. Five months after def. fixed his car, he had more problems. It had to be def's fault since plaintiff never drove his car all that time. Well, he DID drive it, but only around the neighbourhood. Listen, judge! Another one who feels that any bad thing that happens to some old beater has to be the fault of the last person who worked on it. Wrong. In the hall, as usual, he carped that the judge didn't really listen or understand or comprehend how he was damaged. Oh shut up. 1 5 Link to comment
NYGirl October 14, 2017 Share October 14, 2017 (edited) Today's cases were so boring. I wish I was watching it on the DVR so I could FF but unfortunately I was home and just watched. I hate dog/tenant/car cases and that's mostly what we are getting lately. As far as the travel agent I had trouble understanding the accents and the case itself. Edited October 14, 2017 by NYGirl 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.