The People's Court - General Discussion

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is Season 20, Episode 89, originally aired February 23, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "You Destroyed My Wedding Dress!"

Case titles: 1) Making A Mess Of Things; 2) A Back-Up Crack-Up; 3) Failing A Friend.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the bridal dress case, I think the dry cleaner did nothing wrong.   

Amazing the only place that shrank a lot was the top portion.  Either bride got an enhancement after the wedding, or she was severely dieting before the wedding to fit into the dress.   

On Say Yes to the Dress, they warn brides that they're trying on a floor sample that's been tried on many times.   The real dresses are a lot lighter than the floor samples.  The top shredding is easy to happen from not treating the dress gently, like trying to cram herself into a dress that's too small.  

In the bridal dress case, I think the dry cleaner did nothing wrong.   

Amazing the only place that shrank a lot was the top portion.  Either bride got an enhancement after the wedding, or she was severely dieting before the wedding to fit into the dress.   

I had to giggle at the bride waltzing out in the dress wearing the jacket over it, and poor Doug talking to her in the hall.  

In the car case, could the plaintiff's heels be higher?   I'm afraid she's going to fall off of them.  

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the car case, could the plaintiff's heels be higher?

I don't think I saw this the first time, or maybe I decided to skip it when hearing, "Fight me". I definitely don't remember the giant Daddy who was there for... I don't know. Yeah, the stripper heels are just the thing for the court. I guess the Def forgot she signed a promissory note saying she would pay for the damages. Oops.

 

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is Season 20, Episode 90, originally aired February 24, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Sizzling Mad Disco Singer."

Case titles: 1) Messing With A Manager; 2) Monkey Business; 3) Having A Mean Dog.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims to be a talent manager and says the defendant is a singer from the 1970s with a lone hit song. She says he refuses to reimburse her for all the expense money she laid out for him."

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Messing With A Manager

Does someone who can't afford a metro ticket really need a manager?🤔

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is Season 20, Episode 91, originally aired February 27, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Steaming Mad Over Sewing Lessons."

Case titles: 1) Steaming Up A Seamstress; 2) Losing It; 3) A Bad Hook Up.

Google's title case summary: "Marilyn settles a dispute where a sewing lesson turned into a joint sewing business. After lending the defendant the deposit for a shop, the plaintiff is demanding services beyond free sewing lessons."

 

Happy New Year, everyone!

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Steaming Up A Seamstress

Oh, good. I liked that one. This is the kind of zaniness I'm here for. Tks!

 

 

[Paperclips]

These earlier episodes of the People's Court are so entertaining.

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, Paperclips said:

These earlier episodes of the People's Court are so entertaining.

Yes! I wonder if they'll ever go back further than 2017. I hope they do!

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode is Season 20, Episode 92, originally aired February 28, 2017.

Discussion Link: "Caught Stealing From a Storage Unit."

Case titles: 1) Stealing; 2) Poohing-Poohing Payment; 3) Lousing Up Leather.

Google's title case summary: "Marilyn deals with the case of the stolen storage, as the defendant is accused of stealing from a storage unit after the plaintiff discovers her stuff in the defendant's car."

[badhaggis]

Happy New Year my dear, dear friends!!!!!!

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"Caught Stealing From a Storage Unit."

Ugh. I remember those two zeros. Their amorality was seriously depressing, but they do know all the designer labels, so there's that.

 

 

[Paperclips]

If I was on National TV I'd like to think I could keep my hair out of my eyes.

That's the episode I got!

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, Paperclips said:

If I was on National TV I'd like to think I could keep my hair out of my eyes.

That's the episode I got!

Better than what I got - college football. 🙄

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode is Season 20, Episode 93, originally aired March 1, 2017.

Discussion Link: "Rental Rage."

Case titles: 1) Get Out & Give Me My Money; 2) Running Out On A Debt; 3) Being Careless.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff says the defendant tried to take advantage of him when she was his landlord. She says the man is a sneak, who was constantly scheming. She filed a countersuit against him."

[AngelaHunter]

As to the over-aged and habitual hypersexuality: I "talk" to and "deal" with a number of people. Not once has this talkin' and dealin' ever resulted in naked and/or pornographic pics of me, yet on this show that always seems to happen somehow.

She didn't want her CHILDREN to see her frolicking naked with the P, yet has the son here to listen to her describing the action. I'm sure the pictures are lovely, but very grateful we didn't have to see them. Even pixellated they might have caused mass trauma.

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode is Season 20, Episode 94, originally aired March 2, 2017.

Discussion Link: "Caught Texting Another Woman!"

Case titles: 1) Throwing It All Away; 2) Creating A Tangled Web; 3) Running A Scam.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing his former girlfriend for $2300 in items she refuses to return. The defendant claims she caught him texting another woman."

Edited January 3 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"Caught Texting Another Woman!"

While rewatching this, I couldn't help thinking (besides that P is a chick magnet, despite seeming not overly bright and looking like those toy monkeys that bang the cymbals) that JM may have reacted differently had the litigants switched places, and some guy destroyed all those belongings five minutes after kicking the poor little lady out.  That is if she did destroy them and not sell them.

I know JM rules strictly according to law, but she made it quite clear with all the laughter that she was on the side of the rough, foul-mouthed Def, who has no self-control and sets a great example for her kid.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I thought the plaintiff in the tow case was so wrong, and I loved the tow operator having everything he needed to show the judge how wrong the plaintiff was.    The fact that plaintiff towed the wrong tow company first was hysterical.   

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode is Season 20, Episode 95, originally aired March 3, 2017.

Discussion Link: "Sabotage on the High Seas"

Case titles: 1) Causing A Mutiny; 2) Juicing Up A Lawsuit; 3) A Gross Overcharge.

Google's title case summary: "Two friends plan a boat trip together, but before the day of the trip the defendant became abusive towards the plaintiff. Now, she is suing her former friend the cost of the trip ticket."

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"Sabotage on the High Seas"

😆 I enjoyed this light fare, having forgotten all of the details of the Fletcher Christian VS Captain Bligh case (I was waiting for Def to refer to P as an "insolent hound") but I noticed something I didn't last time.

JM jumped to correct P's "unrespect" when English is P's second language which she speaks very well. Yet JM listens, year after year, to brutal mangling of the language by people born and raised in English with non-stop "I seen", "we wasn't", "me and him were", "had came/went", "don't know nothing", and on into infinity and never corrects it. Yes, she used to correct "pacific" and "it was mineS" but gave up on that.

I can only think JM might have felt this P had the intelligence to benefit from the correction, which would be utterly wasted on the "I seen" crowd.

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 96, that was originally aired March 13, 2017.

Discussion Link: "Friends Feud Over Money."

Case titles: 1) Double Crossing A Friend; 2) Causing A Diggy Dilemma; 3) A Hunk Of Junk.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims her friend owes her money on a credit card she got for her, and won't pay. The defendant supposedly went on a spending spree and now refuses to pay off the debt."

 

Good weekend, everyone!

[CrazyInAlabama]

I enjoyed the credit card case.   Judge M really yelled at plaintiff when she found out that all but one charge had been reversed by the credit card company, plaintiff told them they were fraudulent charges.   Defendant was a jerk, but plaintiff was a liar, and fraud too. 

[DoctorK]

On 1/4/2024 at 4:03 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Fletcher Christian VS Captain Bligh case

Yeah, it was sort of light weight but the underlying issue, that there is only one captain who is responsible for the ship and its crew and is in charge. The defendant mentioned the safety issue once but JM just ignored it. Having a crew member not following orders and arguing with the captain while maneuvering is a recipe for disaster. The plaintiff is a snippy prima donna who can't follow orders from the captain and endangered the ship, crew and any other vessels in near proximity. The plaintiff treated the situation as if it was just a little spat between school girls. I hope a lot of sailing captains in the area saw this case and won't let her ever crew on their boats; with her attitude she is a disaster waiting to happen.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Having a crew member not following orders and arguing with the captain while maneuvering is a recipe for disaster.

Oh, I totally agree. That's why discipline on ships used to be so harsh. Lots of lives at stake.

I did find P to be a Fletcher Christian, getting all sulky like a big baby because the captain "yelled at me". I'm surprised she didn't try to incite a mutiny.

[Bazinga]

My listings for the week are all over the place/not in order as they had been.  CrazyinAlabama, if you would be kind enough to let me know what episode your listings show for today/the coming days, I would very much appreciate it.

 

I am guessing Monday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 97, that was originally aired March 14, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Denture Disaster."

Case titles: 1) Hitting A Nerve; 2) Being All Wet; 3) Taking Advantage Of A Lady.

Edited January 9 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

Monday is Season 20 episode 97, Denture Disaster.   

Tuesday is out of order though: 

Father/Son family feud."

Repeat, 3/17/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 100 , A father and son have a disagreement.

Wednesday, no title, but Season 20 / Episode 99 , 

One party is blamed for supposedly ruining another's vacation.

Thursday  no title, Season 20 / Episode 110 , 

A court case involves some supposedly ferocious dogs that allegedly killed a poodle

Friday, no title, Season 20 / Episode 101 , 

A mobile source of mayhem causes a conflict between parties.

Some days have titles listed, but not very often.  

 

[Bazinga]

Thank you, CrazyinAlabama.  Yes, the episodes were not in order, that is why I wanted to check with you.  You match what I have, save for my Monday incorrect listing being the same as Tuesday's correct listing.  Since the show's cancellation, they have been showing reruns basically in order, which makes it easier on me to post the link.  Prior to the cancellation, reruns would jump around.  I hope the new year does not mean they are going back to that. 

The information you gave me was perfect; I will take it from here.  Thanks, again.

[CrazyInAlabama]

You're welcome. 

(I finally clicked on a heading (Candid Reality) on the main page, and it gives an alphabetical listing of all of the shows!  Why didn't I do that hours ago?)   

I can't wait for the Denture case, I really like people arguing about how they don't have to pay for their dental work.  I know I'm strange that way.   This was an unusual case, the plaintiff makes dentures, crowns,  and dental appliances, and defendant dentist didn't pay him.  Defendant claims plaintiff's work was substandard.    If plaintiff's work is all awful, then why did defendant keep sending molds to plaintiff to do more work? 

Pool case, so much for being friendly neighbors over a pool service.  Pool service guy sounds credible, and defendant sounds unreasonable.  I'm glad plaintiff received the unpaid bills from defendant, and she got nothing.   And her claim that she only moved into the house, and someone ratted her out to the city for having 8' hedges on a corner lot?   Tough for her, hedges that tall block the line of sight for drivers on corners can kill someone, so they should be 3' tall or shorter.   

Edited January 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

First case was all about $40 and not worth the time.

Second case, I hated the defendant witch (I am being nice here). She knows absolutely nothing about owning and maintaining a swimming pool but she sneers, furrows her brows, frowns and puckers her bee stung lips together to show her contempt for the plaintiff. She is an ignorant snob who brags about how much money she has spent is redoing the house she has just bought and claims that the plaintiff did nothing but take off the pool cover because two days later her stained and algae laden pool wasn’t crystal clear. Adding to her nastiness, she counter sues for slander for “people being told” that she doesn’t pay her bills (talk about a lack of self-awareness!) and proves this by bringing her friend who just has heard that some unidentified people said something like what the defendant claimed.

Third case is another as-is car sale dispute. Plaintiff apparently did not take advantage of the law in her state (Massachusetts) where if a used car cannot pass inspection within seven days, the car goes back and the sales price refunded. Instead, she used that time to try some do-it-yourself repairs on the coolant system. The plaintiff is painfully ignorant and unable to act as an adult; sorry, no sympathy from me, just grow up for Pete’s sake.

P.S. I'll be happy when the site finishes cleaning up so that every thread won't take me to the first post of the first page of each thread. I am also going to save a copy of this post so that if it disappears I won't have to make up new words of questionable wisdom.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 100, that was originally aired March 17, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Father/Son Family Feud."

Case titles: 1) A Family Drama; 2) Not Getting Things Right; 3) A Premature Departure.

Google's title case summary: "A son sues his father over lost work and unnecessary hotel fees after the defendant threw him out of the house and had him arrested."

 

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

She knows absolutely nothing about owning and maintaining a swimming pool but she sneers, furrows her brows, frowns and puckers her bee stung lips together to show her contempt for the plaintiff.

I very much enjoyed this as it was not familiar to me at all and is my favorite kind of case.

It was fun hating that snooty, dumbass bitch with her Botox lips and mass of horribly dyed, fried hair. I loved the way she threw around numbers - $100K, $79K (I see why the husband has to work so hard that he couldn't take a day off to come here)- as though to prove she was superior to some mere pool guy and therefore she must be right.

18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Adding to her nastiness, she counter sues for slander for “people being told” that she doesn’t pay her bills (talk about a lack of self-awareness!) and proves this by bringing her friend who just has heard that some unidentified people said something like what the defendant claimed.

That was awesome. The witness: "A bunch of people came rushing to me since they know I'm a friend of this vile bitch. They all said they heard from some other people that my friend gets work done and doesn't pay for it. " Yeah, that will fly in court.

I guess she didn't realize that if it's true - she did stiff the P - it's not slander. Duh. Such awful, clueless jerks who apparently have more money than brains.

I do believe the pool guy reported the too-high bushes. Good for him!😆

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff is painfully ignorant and unable to act as an adult; sorry, no sympathy from me, just grow up for Pete’s sake.

But - she's a SSMO3! She seemed almost proud of the fact that she didn't take the heap for inspection or notify the seller in the time frame allowed, but she wanted her money back. She has THREE kids!

Doug says he's sure people feel sorry for her. Not all of us, Doug.

[AngelaHunter]

While watching the Hallmark clan of Kettering the Patriarch and Kettering the son and heir to that illustrious name, followed by the ignorant Nissan lover who expected the Def mechanics to not only return every cent she paid them for fixing her wrecked car but wanted them to buy her a new one, I was filled with admiration for JM.

 

She's been listening to this shocking, depressing, disgusting, illiterate babbling for over a quarter of a century yet still has not once slipped and said something like, "You had went there at what time?" Maybe she explodes off-camera or at home. It has to come out somewhere. I recall even meek and mild Judge John sniping about the atrocious grammar. There is no excuse for it.

Am I the only one who sees this now on the forum, for every post?

 

 

 

[rcc]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

While watching the Hallmark clan of Kettering the Patriarch and Kettering the son and heir to that illustrious name, followed by the ignorant Nissan lover who expected the Def mechanics to not only return every cent she paid them for fixing her wrecked car but wanted them to buy her a new one, I was filled with admiration for JM.

 

She's been listening to this shocking, depressing, disgusting, illiterate babbling for over a quarter of a century yet still has not once slipped and said something like, "You had went there at what time?" Maybe she explodes off-camera or at home. It has to come out somewhere. I recall even meek and mild Judge John sniping about the atrocious grammar. There is no excuse for it.

Am I the only one who sees this now on the forum, for every post?

 

 

 

You mean Judge Judy with her head in her hands? 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, rcc said:

You mean Judge Judy with her head in her hands? 

Yeah, there were two of them, but I see it's back to normal now.

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 99, that was originally aired March 16, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "You Ruined My Vacation!"

Case titles: 1) De-Friending A Friend; 2) Letting A Friend Down Big; 3) Taking Too Darn Long.

Google's title case summary: "After going in on a vacation club investment with the defendant and other friends, the plaintiff accuses them of rendering her with no rights."

Edited January 11 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

: 1) De-Friending A Friend; 2) Letting A Friend Down Big; 3) Taking Too Darn Long.

Wow. I must have watched the first time in some altered state since I recall not one minute of any of the cases, not even the time-share nitwits, the structural engineer who doesn't bother with contracts, or the smirking, moon-faced mechanic thief.

Just once, I wish JM would have asked a litigant who claimed a "discrepancy" in a bank account, CC, etc, what exactly this discrepancy was and to prove it. I guess it's a good all-around lie to weasel out of paying what you owe. I need to try that with my internet provider. "Oops! Discrepancy!"

Since I obviously did see them, I'll just give a shout-out to 2016 Levin; (Who miraculously was even more repulsive with the face fungus than he is now)

"Who's the dirty rat?" and "Chopper? He HARDLY KNEW 'ER!"

When will this tiny dirtbag, this nasty, grubby little cockroach fade into obscurity and become merely a bad-smelling memory?

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 110, that was originally aired April 21, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Your Vicious Dogs Killed My Poodle."

Case titles: 1) Having No Heart; 2) Unloading A Bad Tran-ny; 3) Taking Advantage.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing the defendant for the death of her poodle where the defendant's dogs attacked her poodle, and the injuries led to the death of the poodle."

Note of Caution: First case is a dog attack case.

[DoctorK]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Discussion Link: "Your Vicious Dogs Killed My Poodle."

That's what Cox said was coming but instead I got  rerun from earlier this week:

1. Dysfunctional father-son exchange of protective orders and evictions. Dad was no great shakes but I can understand it because Pillsbury Doughboy son is a useless irresponsible parasite.

2. All about rack and pinions and front end alignments. Plaintiff is crazy and wants much more than her car is worth based on her unsupported suspicions that the defendant ruined her car.

3. Just Mr.Neck tats deadbeat who can't talk to the judge without using profanities, even after being warned. He is also challenged by trying for complete sentences.

Deja Vu all over again (Yogi Berra wisdom); a good day to clean the inside of the car windows of accumulated crud.

I am not trying to recap here, just want to make sure that what I think I saw was not a senior moment flashback to long ago.

Edited January 11 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

That's what Cox said was coming but instead I got  rerun from earlier this week:

1. Dysfunctional father-son exchange of protective orders and evictions. Dad was no great shakes but I can understand it because Pillsbury Doughboy son is a useless irresponsible parasite.

2. All about rack and pinions and front end alignments. Plaintiff is crazy and wants much more than her car is worth based on her unsupported suspicions that the defendant ruined her car.

3. Just Mr.Neck tats deadbeat who can't talk to the judge without using profanities, even after being warned. He is also challenged by trying for complete sentences.

Deja Vu all over again (Yogi Berra wisdom); a good day to clean the inside of the car windows of accumulated crud.

I am not trying to recap here, just want to make sure that what I think I saw was not a senior moment flashback to long ago.

I got vicious dogs killing a poodle which I had to FF with all haste. Then I had the lover of ancient Ford Focuses, the big Stoop who wanted 5K from Def for the heap even though it cost him $900. This case made me feel rather depressed yet dazzled that someone as incredibly dull-witted as the P could somehow fumble through life intact. I just hope this daughter - which both P and Def seemed to feel entitled Big Stoop to special privilege - didn't inherit her Daddy's brain.

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Unloading A Bad Tran-ny

I guess no one informed the Hall Clown at the time that he wasn't permitted to use the short form of "transmission". Or maybe that law has just recently been enacted. I need to pay more attention to the rules and regulations of the New Agenda. I use an excuse there are so many I can't keep up.

I was watching an actual news report on YT, concerning a murder case. Whoever uploaded the video chose to blank out letters in the word "bloody" even though it was used by the reporter as in, "Bl--dy clothes were found at the scene."

The person who killed her, who is a KILLER, was presented as "K--ler".

Just a while ago I was reading some silly story about a neighbourhood feud. One person said that his neighbour "cursed" at him. It was turned into "c---ed."

Can someone tell me WTF is going on? Now we can't read the news without even non-c--se words being blanked out? I'm getting seriously triggered!

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 101, that was originally aired April 10, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Moving Mayhem."

Case titles: 1) Moving Mayhem; 2) Harboring Terrible Tenants; 3) Having No Heart.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims that he hired the defendant to help him move, but instead he is faced with a large bill, shoddy service, and broken belongings."

 

My The People's Court affiliate has college basketball Monday.  CrazyinAlabama or anyone, if you have an episode Monday, let me know the details and I will post the discussion link. 

Good weekend, everyone.

[CrazyInAlabama]

For Monday, my local Fox station has college basketball, followed by bowling.   I don't get Judge M or Judge Judy either.   

Edited January 12 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/12/2024 at 5:52 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

followed by bowling. 

Bowling? Oh, boy! 🎳🍿

[CrazyInAlabama]

That's better than when they bounce TPC and JJ for drag racing national finals.  

I'm wondering how many people will get their TV replaced by football playoffs since they moved some games to Monday?  

Tuesday is S20, E 103 Two exes bring each other to court to settle a dispute over credit card debt.

Wednesday is S20, E104 "Scorned lovers square off" 

Thursday is S20 E105 Two parties argue with one another over supposedly stolen film.

Friday is S20 E106 "Suing a friend."  One friend takes another to court after suing them over a dispute they feel is important.

I think is bizarre that some days list the actual title, some only a description, and some do both.  

[Bazinga]

Getting a head start, tomorrow Tuesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 103, that originally aired April 12, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Exes Battle Over Credit Card Debt."

Case titles: 1) Making A Lover Mad; 2) Running Away On Rent; 3) Being A Pane In The Glass.

Google's title case summary: "Two former lovers battle it out in court over credit card debt."

Edited January 17 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

Colour me disappointed. I got my popcorn and beer, all ready to cheer on my favorite bowler, but got TPC instead. It said it was from April 11, 2012, but it wasn't from then.

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 104, that was originally aired April 13, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Scorned Lovers Square Off."

Case titles: 1) Letting Her Girlfriend Down; 2) Fouling Up A Friendship; 3) Hanging On Tight.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims that her former lover owes her unpaid bills for when they shared a house together.  However, the defendant accuses her of stealing and destroying property."

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"The plaintiff claims that her former lover owes her unpaid bills for when they shared a house together.  However, the defendant accuses her of stealing and destroying property."

I wish I knew what JM found so utterly charming about these two: she never stopped smiling even while listening to tales of passive-aggressive behavior, belongings thrown out, a window smashed, and two adults playing tug-of-war with a TV that may or may not have been pawned.  I saw nothing cute at all.

She never said a word about the big no-no - people playing house and buying a home together, without looking past the ends of their noses to what might happen if the big love affair ended.

I bet had this couple been m/f, she would have had fewer smiles and plenty to say. Even when briefly scolding them, she still had a big smile as though they may be naughty, but still adorable, like little kids.

I actually wrote "pawnded" at first. Maybe I've watched too much court TeeVee.

 

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 105, that was originally aired April 14, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "You Stole My Film!" 

Case titles: 1) Filching A Film; 2) Letting A Lady Tenant Down; 3) Messing Up A Laptop.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of stealing his script.  The defendant states that since no release date has been announced, he doesn't owe anything to the plaintiff."

Edited January 18 by Bazinga