The People's Court - General Discussion

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 12, that was originally aired September 19, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Wedding Dress Disaster"

Case titles: 1) A Dress Disaster; 2) Rotten Room Renting; 3) Not Paying It Up.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 13, that was originally aired September 20, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Livid at a Landlord"

Case titles: 1) A Rent Refusal; 2) Taking The Money; 3) Getting It Wrong.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the bail case, please tell me that the plaintiff is wearing a wig?  If not, her hair may break off any second.   How does anyone walk in those shoes?   

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

: "Livid at a Landlord"

I had zero memory of seeing this, up until the "I was very prevalent on The Sopranos" but the rest was unfamiliar to me so I enjoyed it tremendously. It ws delightfully nutty.

27 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the bail case, please tell me that the plaintiff is wearing a wig? 

Of course it was and she seemed to find it amusing that she'd been to jail before. I skipped this as soon as I heard that.

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 14, that was originally aired September 21, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Furious Over Getting Fleeced!"

Case titles: 1) Clipping A Groomer; 2) Losing It But Good; 3) Fungus In The Fridge.

[CrazyInAlabama]

It was hard to watch the first case about the matted dogs.   Mats like that are so painful, and can even tear the skin.   Dematting is not always painless either.   The only mistake the groomers made was letting the dogs leave the shop without the owner paying.   

Edited April 3 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mats like that are so painful, and can even tear the skin. 

This is why, after adopting a dog with a huge double coat that I spent so much time brushing, I determined never to have another dog or cat with long hair. The shorter the better. My subsequent dogs had extremely short hair and required only a bath now and then, during which they acted like I was torturing them. If you're too lazy to pick up a brush now and then, get short-haired pets. I guess def. didn't want anyone to see the neglected condition in which she usually keeps the dogs.

In the birthday party fiasco, I couldn't help thinking that if I were to spend a fortune on a once-in-a-lifetime, monumental extravaganza that's "like a (royal) wedding" that required choreographers, I might try to find someone else - I dunno, like maybe a professional? -  to do it and not some obnoxious slacker who makes videos as a weekend hobby and has done only one other event before. I don't get it.  I'm sure no expense was spared on anything else. Videography might be the wrong place for Mom to cheap out and it cost her a bundle more to recreate her memories.

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 15, that was originally aired September 22, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "If You Cook for Me, I'll Get You a Cell Phone"

Case titles: 1) Being A Phoner Phony; 2) Flubbing A Film; 3) Running Out On A Sick House.

Edited April 4 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

Week: 8 to 12 April according to Titan TV.

Monday-"Bail Bond Blow-Up"  9/26/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 17

Tuesday-"Hospitalized After Dog Bite"    9/27/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 18

Wednesday-"Romance Rent Rage"    9/28/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 19

Thursday-"Couch Catastrophe"   9/29/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 20 

Friday-“Greedy Girlfriend" 10/02/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 21

(Some channels are running eclipse coverage on 8 April, so some may not see our TV judge shows). 

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 16, that was originally aired September 25, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Tile Tussel" 

Case titles: 1) A Tile Tantrum; 2) Cooking Up A Lawsuit; 3) Bugging A Tenant.

[Bazinga]

If you are not eclipse preempted, Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 17, that was originally aired September 26, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "Bail Bond Blow-Up"

Case titles: 1) Bailing On A Loan; 2) Stepping Up Against Her Step-Father; 3) Unloading A Lumina.

Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 18, that was originally aired September 27, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Hospitalized After Dog Bite"

Case titles: 1) Ouch; 2) A Back-Up Crack-Up; 3) Being Too Nosey.

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 19, that was originally aired September 28, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Romance Rent Rage"

Case titles: 1) Skipping Out; 2) Cleaning Up; 3) Cracking A Guy Up.

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 20, that was originally aired September 29, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Couch Catastrophe"

Case titles: 1) Couching The Issue; 2) Cracking Up; 3) Cooling Off A Tenant.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The plaintiff in the couch case is wearing a tie with Warner Bros. cartoon characters on it, Daffy Duck, Tweety Bird, Pepe Le Pew, and Taz, plus others  are on it.  

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 21, that was originally aired October 2, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Greedy Girlfriend"

Case titles: 1) You're Outta Here; 2) Taking Shoddy Shots; 3) Misleading A Mitsubishi Buyer.

[Bazinga]

On 9/29/2017 at 8:46 PM, meowmommy said:

And why did MM consider attorney's fees in the couch case reasonable until it turned out the wife was the lawyer, but not in this case where the plaintiff needed legal advice to respond to another attorney?

I hate MM's inconsistencies, especially with similar cases, particularly those shown close in time.  We have three recent cases with different results as to attorney fees. 

Case 1, the sort of stepdaughter a few days ago, who was willing to pay back the loan to the sort of stepfather until the plaintiff charged her with late fees, also had to pay plaintiff's attorney fees when plaintiff hired a lawyer to write her a threatening letter.  He knew her and could have just spoke to her about the situation instead of going to the mattresses.  Why did he deserve attorney's fees?  In my experience, unless the original loan agreement allows for attorney fees, like in mortgage documents allowing the bank to charge attorney fees for foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff does not recover attorney fees.  Obviously, this was a person to person loan and no way she would have agreed to pay attorney fees when she borrowed the money.  Same reason she was objecting to the late fees; he knew her and was not an institution like a bank for him to be charging late fees in the stepdaughter's opinion.  The ruling as to attorney fees bothered me then and bothers me in comparison to the two cases shown yesterday. 

Case 2, the couch case, JM was willing to award the plaintiff's attorney fee until the attorney in question turned out to be the wife. 

Case 3, the car accident case, JM blew off the plaintiff's request for attorney fees because she decided he didn't need an attorney to respond to the court documents he received.  The judge barely bothered to understand what papers led plaintiff to think he needed a lawyer, somehow concluding that since he initiated the lawsuit, he didn't need a lawyer; easy for a lawyer to say.  Why would the criteria for awarding attorney fees be whether the plaintiff needed to hire the attorney rather than the fact that the plaintiff hired and paid for an attorney?

Did the stepfather really need to hire an attorney to write a $500 letter to his own stepdaughter?  I don't think so, especially as she was willing to pay the original loan and was only objecting to his tacking on late fees.   Did the original loan agreement provide for attorney fees?  I doubt it.  Was whatever the wife did in the couch case not something that could be done by a non-attorney?  Yet JM was willing to grant them attorney fees.  Were the car accident victims, faced with daunting legal papers about depositions, discovery and, though JM didn't care to listen, the wife said language about plaintiff having to pay defendant's attorney fees, really not justified in hiring an attorney, just as stepfather and couch couple were justified according to JM?

I just don't like inconsistencies in the judge's rulings (and treatment of certain litigants*, too).

*Compare the way JM treated the innocent car owners, the actual victims, to the teen who most likely was reckless in causing an accident that damaged three cars, could have killed himself and his passenger.  JM was annoyed the plaintiff, in anger at his parked cars being damaged, called the defendant an a$$hole.  She was so defensive of the defendant that she even tried and failed to show the plaintiff's daughter had a car accident because accidents happen and it is not really the poor defendant's fault.     

Edited April 12 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

Titan TV's list for next week.   At least they are showing this season in order.

15 to 19 April

Monday-“Model Mayhem",  10/03/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 22

Tuesday-“Exes Bicker Over Belongings" 10/04/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 23

Wednesday-“Playing Dirty"  10/05/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 24

Thursday-“Taking Out an Opponent"   10/06/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 25

Friday-“Phone Fight Ends Friendship"  10/09/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 26

 

[AngelaHunter]

Thank you, @Bazinga That's very interesting!

In the ruined couch case I assumed (probably wrongly) that the plaintiff lawyer being denied legal fees because she is a lawyer who did the work herself was like landlords being denied cleaning fees when they admit they cleaned the place themselves. 

The worst inconsistency, to me, was a plaintiff suing for large vet bills after their dog was attacked. The dog survived. They won the judgment.

The other case was exactly the same - a plaintiff suing for large vet bills after their dog was attacked. The dog died. JM awarded them nothing even though they had to pay the vet bills.

 

[Bazinga]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

In the ruined couch case I assumed (probably wrongly) that the plaintiff lawyer being denied legal fees because she is a lawyer who did the work herself was like landlords being denied cleaning fees when they admit they cleaned the place themselves. 

Yes, the request for attorney fees was denied because she was her own lawyer.  My point was that JM's original intent was to award the plaintiffs attorney fees.  But car owners didn't get the requested fees and JM was acting like they were overreaching even though two cars were totaled.  Alternatively, the stepfather was awarded attorney fees.  Why two plaintiffs got/or were going to be awarded attorney fees and the third request was denied?  The outlier reason was that JM did not think the car owners needed to hire an attorney but I don't see why stepfather and furniture owner needed to hire attorneys.  I see this as inconsistency; just my opinion. 

As an aside regarding your accurate comparison to landlords doing repairs themselves, I think landlords forced to repair and clean up after tenants do deserve to be compensated for their time and effort but Judge Milian and Judge Judy disagree.

Yes, I remember the dog cases.  They made no sense, either.

Edited April 12 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

As an aside regarding your accurate comparison to landlords doing repairs themselves, I think landlords forced to repair and clean up after tenants do deserve to be compensated for their time and effort but Judge Milian and Judge Judy disagree.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not referring to repairs of broken doors, windows, etc., or mountains of garbage, entire kitchens covered in grease, huge holes smashed in walls, bathtubs with near-permanent black filth, or other stuff way outside the parameters of tasks for which you could hire a regular housekeeper

When a landlord - like one we saw here -  claimed it took 8 hours a day for 6 days to clean a 1 bdrm that looked okay in pics (and in which his wife/girlfriend did the work), they get denied.

Thank you for the detailed explanations! Much appreciated.☺

[rcc]

I enjoyed what JM had to say to plaintiff and her loser son in first case today. Defendant's 29 year old  boyfriend wasn't responsible for rent but she was sued for it. Doug in the hall gave mother a piece of his mind too.

[meowmommy]

19 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 21, that was originally aired October 2, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Greedy Girlfriend"

I’ve been wondering why I keep getting likes and quotes on a show I stopped watching several years ago.  Now I get it.

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I’ve been wondering why I keep getting likes and quotes on a show I stopped watching several years ago.  Now I get it.

Same! Then my lamebrain finally put it together!😄

[Bazinga]

Thank you for the week's listings, CrazyInAlabama.

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 22, that was originally aired October 3, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Model Mayhem"

Case titles: 1) Not Snapping Enough Pictures; 2) A Canine Caper; 3)Misrepresenting.

Warning - Case 2 is a dog attack case.

[rcc]

Today's first case has JM saying "Good Lord, I'm afraid to look at the pictures"  of defendant Miss Honey Goddess. Lol

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, rcc said:

Today's first case has JM saying "Good Lord, I'm afraid to look at the pictures"  of defendant Miss Honey Goddess. Lol

Since I had forgotten this case, I enjoyed it for the sheer WTF-ery. That grimy little mope with the bad/missing teeth actually has 13K people (perves and weirdos) who seem to be willing to pay to watch her twerk, shove her buttocks in the camera, and stick products between her legs. This is the world in which we live.

Grinning professional businessman, P, sent her a whole $100 and a $14 tee shirt to promote his product, whatever the hell it is. JM tries to make him understand that contract that is not signed is not a contract. He simply can't absorb that, and keeps grinning. Then, of course, the sex stuff rears its ugly head with him telling the little mope about his woodies, or whatever. Ewww. Absolutely disgusting, but quite comical.

Her FB page is quite something.

"Stay tune" she says.

Her fans are quite articulate:

Quote

Damn she fine... Let me fine out you got a onlyfans?!

https://www.facebook.com/therealdreaofficial/

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 23, that was originally aired October 4, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Exes Bicker Over Belongings"

Case titles: 1) Give Me My Stuff Back; 2) Wrecking The Joint; 3) Taking Advantage Of A Brit.

Google's case summaries: "A couple has a disagreement about their belongings, after a friend interferes in their relationship.  Then, a woman sues her tenant for unpaid fees."

Edited April 16 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

Ex-maybe husband suing ex-maybe wife and her girlfriend for what they stole from his was sad.  As usual, the kids suffer.  

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 24, that was originally aired October 5, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Playing Dirty"

Case titles: 1) Playing Dirty; 2) Taking A Fall; 3) Unloading On A Friend.

Google's case summaries: "Jason sues a customer of his mobile detailing company, for unpaid services. Then, a woman is sued four outstanding payments after purchasing a boxing club."

[AngelaHunter]

"He ain't never get me no car."

😵 R.I.P., English language. OMG...

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 25, that was originally aired October 6, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Taking Out an Opponent" 

Case titles: 1) Taking Him Out; 2) An Embroidery Error; 3) Not Fixing Things Right.

Google's case summaries: "Mike decides to sue his opponent in a soccer match, for a malicious physical assault.  Then, James takes Joseph to court for ruining his shirts when adding monograms to them."

[CrazyInAlabama]

First case-Who cares?  Not me. 

Second case, monogram on right sleeve, but defendants put it on the shirt pocket.  If plaintiff had checked the order form that had a box on where to put the monogram, then it would have been done correctly.    Sorry, I see no reason to embroider your initial and last name on your shirt cuff.  Unless they're work shirts, and you need your name on it, why do this?   J. Barber doesn't even have a receipt for the price of the shirts, but still wants $1700 for his shirts.   The most he should get is used shirt price, not new.  So, plaintiff gets $1,000. Defendant gets the shirts. 

Third Case-Plaintiff suing mechanic shop, for $5221, this was after an accident.  Weeks after repair on the car rear end, plaintiff needed the front end repaired.    Then, plaintiff gives a list of damages, that she has zero proof for.   She wants $2,000 for the 'damages'.

Plaintiff gets $1,000 for nothing she can prove. 

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 26, that was originally aired October 9, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Phone Fight Ends Friendship" 

Case titles: 1) A Phoner Fight; 2) Not Giving Anything Back; 3) Being A Drag.

Google's case summaries: "Tyler is taken to court by Kayla, for an unpaid loan, and a replacement phone. Then, Paul sues his former landlords for not returning his property or security deposit."

Have a good weekend, everyone.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Titan TV says for 22 to 26 April  

Monday-“Beer Can Battle"  10/10/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 27

Tuesday-“Victim of a Vicious Dog"   10/11/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 28

Wednesday-“Truck Driver Tussel"  10/12/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 29

Thursday-“Dog Fight Fiasco"  10/13/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 30

Friday-“Shared Driveway Dilemma"  10/16/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 31 

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/18/2024 at 11:47 PM, Bazinga said:

"Tyler is taken to court by Kayla, for an unpaid loan, and a replacement phone.

After seeing, year after year, what is out on the highways - drunken, drugged, brain-dead knuckle-draggers and morons who are unqualified, unlicensed, and uninsured - I just want to lock my car in the garage permanently or turn it into a yard ornament. A real orangutan at the wheel would be better than Tyler! At least it wouldn't be drunk or high.

I just watched a repeat on JJ. The plaintiff isn't even allowed to own a car, much less drive one. What terrible thing(s) would a person have to do to be banned from having anything to do with a veehickle? She refused to say, but there she is, out tooling around on the roads anyway.

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 27, that was originally aired October 10, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "Beer Can Battle"

Case titles: 1) Charging For A Beer Brigade; 2) Not Getting The Picture; 3) What A Couple Of Lug Nuts.

Google's case summaries: "David takes Bill to court when his rental security deposit is not returned to him.  Then, Dawn takes video editor Michael to court, for outstanding costs after she was forced to redo his work."

Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama.

[CrazyInAlabama]

(Bazinga, I'm surprised they're running the shows in order for this season). 

I remember the beer can case.    Plaintiff moves out, leaves 31 bags of trash in the back yard.  Defendant had his workers and neighbors picked it up, and he  paid them.   Palintiff didn't pay for the last month, wants his security deposit back.    The night after the clean up, there was a big storm, and 28 bags of trash went in the canal behind the house, and the environmental people in NJ got after defendant.    

Judge M gives last month's rent to defendant, and some for trash removal, so plaintiff gets $400 back. 

[Bazinga]

It is easier to know which episode will air when the episodes are shown in order.

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 28, that was originally aired October 11, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Victim of a Vicious Dog"

Case titles: 1) My Dog Did Nothing; 2) Fleas, Fleas, Everywhere Fleas; 3) Weaseling Out Of A Deal.

Google's title case summary: "A woman sues for money she believes she's owed for vet bills following a dog attack.  The defendant says there were no witnesses of any attack and he's never seen a vet bill."

Warning - If the title and summary didn't clue you in, case 1 is a dog attack case.

Edited April 25 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/22/2024 at 4:22 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I remember the beer can case.    Plaintiff moves out, leaves 31 bags of trash in the back yard. 

Was it 31 bags of beer cans? I thought maybe it was if they were so light the wind blew them into the canal.  I see why the brother cannot handle his own affairs. I couldn't either if I guzzled beer day in and day out.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Was it 31 bags of beer cans? I thought maybe it was if they were so light the wind blew them into the canal.  I see why the brother cannot handle his own affairs. I couldn't either if I guzzled beer day in and day out.

There were 31 bags collected from the back yard, many were beer cans.   The following night 28 bags of trash, a lot beer cans were washed or blown into a creek, and the Department of Environmental Services fined the defendant for that.       I think the defendant should have been able to keep every penny because he had to clean up mountains of trash, and was fined too. 

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 29, that was originally aired October 12, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Truck Driver Tussel"

Case titles: 1) Trucking Around With A Driver; 2) Taking His Sweet Time; 3) Not Getting It Right.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims he was hired to drive a truck for the defendant and hasn't been paid, but the defendant says that on the first delivery the goods were damaged and on the second the driver disappeared for three days."

Edited April 25 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 30, that was originally aired October 13, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Dog Fight Fiasco" 

Case titles: 1) A Doggie Dust Up; 2) Refusing To Give A Refund; 3) Tripping Out On A Tran-ny.

Google's title case summary: "A man claims a woman's unleashed dog began fighting with his dog, which led to ligament damage.  She says the two dogs never had any contact."

Warning #1 - Case 1 is another dog attack case.

Warning #2 - NYGirl wrote the following: "Today's cases were so boring."

 

Edited April 25 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

According to Titan TV, here's next weeks lineup.   I'm shocked that they're actually showing them in order. 

Week: 29 April to 3 May

Monday-"Jewelry tussle"    10/17/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 32

Tuesday-“You Broke My Window"  10/18/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 33

Wednesday-"Mom sues her daughter's ex!"    10/19/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 34 

Thursday-"Roommate Ruckus"  10/20/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 35

Friday-"Sticky Finger Stepson"  10/23/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 36 

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Tripping Out On A Tran-ny.

I must admit, I always find it amusing how offended and indignant scammers, like this clown, get when denied their scams. "How dare you question my integrity? I am shocked and appalled at this grave insult to my sterling character!" Pretty funny shit.

But that got me thinking about so many of our dear litigants. Are they happy with themselves? Are the ones who spend their lives cheating, stealing, lying, working the system, freeloading, always sniffing around to get something for nothing, and ripping off everyone including their own family and friends, pleased with their accomplishments? Even when they have to do occasional tours of duty in the slammer, many see that as merely the cost of doing business and nothing to be ashamed of.

Are they proud of what they've done? 🤔

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 31, that was originally aired October 16, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "Shared Driveway Dilemma"

Case titles: 1) Not Sharing; 2) Unloading A Poor Puppy; 3) Handing Off A Hoopty.

Google's case summaries: "A crumbling shared driveway becomes the focus of a neighbour dispute. Then, a couple sue a dog breeder after they buy a puppy with what they believe to be existing health problems."

Thank you for next week's listings, CrazyInAlabama.

Have a nice weekend, everyone.

Edited April 26 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 32, that was originally aired October 17, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Jewelry Tussle"

Case titles: 1) Creating A Tag Snag; 2) Not Fixing Up The Fixer Upper; 3) A Hasty Vacate.

Google's title case summary: "A man claims he was hired to make custom tags for a woman's jewelry company, but she was angry when they arrived because instead of saying `made in America' they said `made in China'."

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Bazinga said:

instead of saying `made in America' they said `made in China'."

Oh, good. I recall liking that one. Thanks!

[AngelaHunter]

I looked up Andrea Rosenberg's site. Seems she's still in business. I wonder if anyone came storming back when they bought a piece, tore off the sticky tag, and saw "Made in China" under it.

Frankly, to me the necklaces look like something a DIYer might demonstrate on YT, using materials from a craft store - rhinestones, agate, wooden beads, etc., but she's successful so what do I know? Anyway, she's having a sale at the moment

"Beaded skull with orange tassel"

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 33, that was originally aired October 18, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "You Broke My Window"

Case titles: 1) A Power Struggle; 2) Chicken Nuggets In The Bed; 3) What A Double Crosser.

Google's title case summary: "A woman claims she brought her Mercedes to the defendant's shop to have the windshield repaired and her power window was ruined. He says he fixed the windshield and did nothing to the power window."

 

An off-topic aside: I thought I would mention that "Justice for the People With Judge Milian" is airing new episodes since last week.  No real improvement in quality (yet I still watch).  Yesterday's episode was a father who, while watching defendant's son, fed his son and the defendant's son dog treats.  Defendant's son got sick afterward from the treats or from eating too much pizza.  Defendant is a standup comedian and during his show, put a spotlight on the plaintiff and made jokes about him subjecting him and his son to ridicule.  He was suing for that and the cost of tickets to the charity show.  Defendant was countersuing for money he needed to spend on childcare, as he won't allow plaintiff to watch his son.  Plaintiff lost as JM did not think defendant's actions amounted to anything.  Ridiculous case trying to be cute that just felt fake.  Judge Milian ate a dog treat and seemed to go out of her way to show that she didn't like it, though she did not need to eat the treat and whether the treat is edible has nothing to do with the case, though plaintiff seemed to think it was important.