I’m glad he called her out on her assumptions that because somebody has money they are materialistic like her and wear $1000 shoes. Just because his wife and daughters can afford it doesn’t mean they buy it. Doesn’t mean they’re frivolous with money because they can do what they want to do. I’m so glad he called her out on that
Y’all too pressed to talk down on a black woman. Nothing she said was materialistic. What she said was she know his wife not walking around in fake shoes and neither would she… it’s not about this price she wears Steve Madden those shoes you can get an authentic pair $100 plus tax. Furthermore he didn’t call her out he made it known his money doesn’t go those things but he see his kids friend wearing them.
I love that Judge Mathis as a highly successful person says he doesn’t want his family to wear thousand-dollar shoes. Reminds me that it’s ok to be humble and expensive is not always better
@@dw4658 whatever! There are people with more money than him who could care less about shoes. You must be materialistic. Only a materialistic person probably in the projects like he said, would assume his wife wears shoes because they cost that much.
@@Proverbspsalms Actually I’m a Bsn/Rn living in a 2 bedroom. All glory to God tho. It was literally just a comment. No need to oddly assume the worst about me. And there’s literally a episode were Judge shows his Louboutins to someone. Ik bc on break or down time i’m watching Judge. So????
@@dw4658 Well ma’am, just like fake shoe girl, you made assumptions. I’ve never heard him say anything about wearing those shoes or showing them off. If he did, i apologize. Either way, if he wears $8000 shoes, that still does not mean his wife or his daughters do. Again, they may not be materialistic. Of course I’m sure they wear nice things. They definitely aren’t raggedy. However that doesn’t mean that they’re frivolous with money
She knew those shoes were replicas & when they didn’t look as real as she thought they would she wanted to return them. She had a nasty attitude but the defendant was very classy
@@SpiffyPenguin exactly what they talking about. She wouldn’t have cared if it was regular shoe with a red bottom. But them shoes counterfeit and could clocked why would she wanna walk around in those.
Girl. There were texts of her asking AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER if they were supposed to be red bottoms …. Now if she asked specifically for red bottoms/replicas why weren’t those texts exposed? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 the case would’ve been thrown out. Come on now.
@@vambria5305 3:33 (edited the time it starts there) They were NOT advertised as LOU'S they were suppose to be just tan colored good quality shoes not a knockoff version of someone elses. She basically saying if they were LOU'S she wanted should would have brought REAL ones!
She knew she was getting knockoffs or stolen merchandise. I got 2 pairs of clean bathing apes shoes for $60. I'm smart enough to know they fake has hell. Still look good in the club though
That’s not what happened. What she said was they were not ADVERTISED as replicas. She didn’t want knock offs, she thought they were regular shoes, and when she got them they were fake, she didn’t want them
I feel many are misinterpreting this case. She said she didn't know the shoes were supposedly red bottoms until she received them. So she may have been fine paying that price for an authentic shoe but a different brand. She don't want a knock off brand though. That's completely different than she was trying to buy red bottoms for $200
I don’t think that matters at all. She wanted a refund because according to her they were poorly constructed. Whether there was a no refund notification Idk.
@@biggchill8176 That matters alot as far as the original purchase. If she had known they were red bottoms and agreed to that price then it could be argued she knew the shoes weren't authentic and also should expect less quality as well.
🙄 she knew those shoes were “inspired” when she paid a few $100 bucks vs a grand or more. She was mad about the shipping issue and rightfully so. The defendant was probably using dropshipping.
When she purchased the shoes, she didn't know that they were going to say Louboutin on them period. She thought she was just buying some random red bottom shoes for a couple hundred bucks. The fact that the defendant did not disclose that they would be imprinted with "Louboutin" on them, therefore making them knock-offs, is where the problem lies.
she said she wasn’t expecting red bottoms period. She thought she bought some plain shoes. I think the issue here is she doesn’t want any type of replicas at all. Some people don’t care for designer enough to buy replicas because they find it humiliating. That’s why she She’d rather have regular shoes like the ones she expected to receive.. That’s why she asked for a refund instead.
@@tevans3862 exactly she didn’t wanna be clocked wearing those fake shoes. She knew what she paid and would have accepted those plain ass shoes with a red bottom.
I have two thoughts on this: 1.) Sis it's a Boutique. Boutiques are known to buy dresses at whole sale get them to the store and have to separate them. That's why she was able to name it after her. These types of Boutiques sell “inspired” items point blank period 2.) I believe the young lady bought the shoe for the look not cause she thought they were Red Bottoms. A quality shoe for $190 that so happen to have a red bottom would have been fine “if” it didn't say LV on bottom implying loudly to others yep I wear knockoffs I think that's where the issue lays
This brings up a good point I would strongly encourage folks to learn more about the trauma and exploitation the fashion industry did to people of color and the strength and factors surrounding words such as knock offs and the word boujie were derived from. There was and is discrimination in high-end stores around the negative stereotype of ppl of color and money. Folks of color were banned from stores and turned to seamstress in their neighborhood to create the fashion they saw on TV (systemic racism there's a lot to unpack).
Kind of funny how she didn’t notice the dress was dirty until the next day! For as important as this was (for her 30th b-day), you’d think she would have inspected everything as soon as she had them in her possession!!
why is everyone acting dumb, or maybe they are. THE LADY STATED SHE ORDERED REGULAR SHOES. WHEN SHE GOT THEM, THEY WERE KNOCK OFF SHOES. stop acting like she wanted expensive shoes, when she stated she ordered them and received a bootleg red bottom.
Inspired style isn't the same as a knock offs/fake. Most people don't mind an inspired style but it's corny and wack to wear knock offs . Like some people don't mind KNOWINGLY wearing cubic zirconia, but no one wants to buy a fake diamond, not knowing it's fake.
First off you sound stupid and clearly didn’t listen to the plaintiff clearly said online the were not advertised as LV so how is she being materialistic
@@iatdtv4996 wadilotus means trying to live above your means. if you can't afford louie V, don't put yourself into debt trying to purchase them. it's just that simple
Was it dark when she tried on the dress? Because you know after she tried on the dress, she looked in the mirror twirled around to see if she likes it, she could have noticed the stains around the neck then.... Maybe it was from her makeup.. who knows
Plaintiff is lying. She said “are you sure they are red bottoms?” That’s because that’s what she was buying. Earlier in her statement she said she didn’t think they were but she’s in text asking if they were.
This is for those with little understanding of what the plaintiff was saying. She was saying that she ordered random red bottom shoes but they came to her imprinted with "Louboutin" therefore making them knockoffs. She was happy ordering what she thought were $200 no-name red bottom shoes that were just some random shoes.
So then when she texted the girl "are those red bottoms" and the girl said "yes" why would she not have cared then? Knowing she was only paying $190 for them. That makes ZERO sense, she knew exactly what they were.....
I’m with the plaintiff, I’m sure she would of rather spent 200 on a pair of real Steve Madden vs 200 for some knockoff high priced shoe. Nine times out of ten if you purchase knock off name brand it’s cheap made🤷🏾♀️
@@naepride5347 That goes to show folks do not pay attention. She didn’t pay $200 for knock offs. She paid $200 for regular shoes. Again SHE DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE RED BOTTOMS because they WERE NOT advertised as such. So it’s not her fault, the defendant could have told her beforehand that she was paying $200 for fake shoes
@@naepride5347 what went over her head tho?! Lol... the shoes WERE NOT advertised as Louboutin's!!! She thought she was getting just regular $200 shoes.. Had she known they were KNOCK OFFS, she would not have purchased them!! Ketchup, MUSTARD!
It might just be me , but the lip color the defendant is wearing makes her face look sickly in the makeup world we say "concealer lips" not that it's important lol just my humble opinion would look so much nicer with any other color than almost white
Given the price of the shoes, I'm sure the defendant knew they were counterfeit Christian Louboutin's🙄 They both came to court trying to out-scam each other, the defendant is obviously just a counterfeit reseller 😆
Lol she knew. Most first hand boutiques sell replicas, you have to go to high end boutiques for authentic merch. For example, a personal designer seller, people like that.
I agree with the plantiff. When those shoes became popular in the black neighborhoods we called them "red bottom" it do sucks because of the price she shouldve been more specific. Not everybpdy have the same thought process so you have to get technical
@@sereneamani1713 nothing to do with good or bad it's just a fact. A person saying they wouldn't want something they can't afford is odd. That's like me saying I'd never want to own a mega yacht. It's just not true, I would want to I just can't afford it.
She knew those were fake... Stop.. If u know from around the way that we call them red bottoms then u know u can't get red bottoms for 190 bucks.. Girl bye... The defendant really tried to accommodate her. The end.
@@TheDanniExperience Louboutin does have the trademark for the red sole. Other Brands can only make the sole red if the rest of the shoes is red, if not law suit!!!!!!
Now Stacy $190 😂😂😂 you could just wore those 😂😂 when judge Mathis told her he buy a couple pairs for his wife and daughter 😂😂😂 OMG 😂.... She was bout to at least clean the dresses 😂
She knew because if someone asks u are u sure they are red bottoms,obviously she can see the the bottom is red.she would only ask that if she thought the shoes were fake.🤷🏽♀️💯
She clearly don’t shop for aunthentic foreign clothing. Ain’t way no you getting real red bottoms for 190$. The most I’ve seen them on sale for was like a couple hundred off. The original price was about 8 or 900
That description fits me (I clearly don't shop for authentic foreign clothing). I will never be spending that much money for shoes. I can envision myself being a multi-millionaire, but I'll still be cheap (frugal lol).
There is no way she didn’t know those were not fake shoes. And if she thought they were real then she thought she was buying stolen merchandise. Either way the judge should not have given her the money back.
Y’all don’t listen. She saw the shoe on the website, she thought they were just regular, good quality shoes (like a Steve Madden, or a Nine West). She didn’t WANT a knockoff pair, and once she saw they were knockoffs, she asked for a refund
Plaintiff being petty she knows those shoes wasn’t red bottom Louis Vuitton but she defendant told her the truth they are red bottoms, the bottoms are red yea lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I would’ve brought the online add to show I wasn’t trying to purchase louboutins or the customer knew what they were purchasing. She defendant was trying to be accommodating it sucks this happened.
I was thinking the same thing about maybe the dress got dirty after she tried it on cause she said the next morning it had stains. She tried on the dress prior to that.
Wealthy people invest in things that increase in value not depreciate like fashion… that being said ppl are free to spend their money on whatever they want.
Looool wealthy ppl buy whatever the hell they wanna buy because they are wealthy 🤣🤣 if you’re not wealthy you can’t say what wealthy ppl spend their money on
The authenticity of the shoes should not have been in play! She didn't advertise them as " red bottoms," she purchased them because she liked the shoe.
It’s crazy because they both made a pretty good case but the plaintiff should have already knew what it was once she saw that the shoes were knock offs I mean she only paid 190 for them and anybody that knows anything about designer clothes know u can’t even get a designer t shirt for that price more less a pair of red bottoms 😂 maybe can find a givenchy shirt for that price or even a bape tshirt or a vlone tshirt for that price if u consider those brands foreign but that’s about it but in my opinion judge Mathis was fair with the verdict on this case
Its no way in hell she thought this young lady was selling her some official Christian Louboutin $190 clearly anybody with common sense would know That the young lady is selling replicas
She knows she can't afford real "Red bottoms" and for that price, she has to know they were knock offs. She mentioned she tried on the dress, mabye she stained it at that time and didn't realize. She shouldn't have gotten the refund.
She said "where we're from, we call them red bottoms." Lol girl there are ppl all over the country that call them red bottoms and know what that means lol. She tried it lol. The defendant was tryna be funny lol
Plaintiff paid $190 for a pair of shoes because she thought she was paying for quality (not brand). The fact that they were poorly made cheap knock off's and she got charged $190 for 💩 quality is her complaint. If the knock off's were of a decent quality she probably wouldn't have cared. Not everyone is brand hungry, they just expect if they pay $190 for a pair of shoes to get a good quality made shoe
Girl, bye! I think some people want to be cast on these court shows. The plaintiff tried on a white dress with makeup and didn't notice the "stains" until the next day🤨🤔 I'm surprised that JM allowed a refund for knockoffs. Isn't selling knockoffs a crime? If so, I thought it would fall under that clean hands thing he and Judge Milian talk about. I hope the defendant doesn't get caught by Louboutin. She'll be faced with a cease and desist and possibly have to pay them.
If people would do right they can go so far with there business and gain such respect as well as keeping a high school friend or any friend who could help there business prosper so much
I think the “stain” came from her trying the dress on with makeup.
That’s exactly what I’m thinking because that’s something you’d notice before trying it on.
@@brownhippiex496 yessss u would notice it before hand n definitely since it’s white
💯
right this has happened to me before
I thought the same thing.
I think she got the White dress dirty when she tried it on‼️🤷🏽♀️
Yeap with make up or something
All that make-up.
That’s what I was thinking
LMFAO!
I’m glad he called her out on her assumptions that because somebody has money they are materialistic like her and wear $1000 shoes. Just because his wife and daughters can afford it doesn’t mean they buy it. Doesn’t mean they’re frivolous with money because they can do what they want to do. I’m so glad he called her out on that
Y’all too pressed to talk down on a black woman. Nothing she said was materialistic. What she said was she know his wife not walking around in fake shoes and neither would she… it’s not about this price she wears Steve Madden those shoes you can get an authentic pair $100 plus tax. Furthermore he didn’t call her out he made it known his money doesn’t go those things but he see his kids friend wearing them.
@@MommyKi refer to previous comment 👋🏾🥾👉🏾
@@Proverbspsalms the baseless one that showed lack of comprehension. ✌🏾 be blessed.
@@MommyKi refer to previous comment 👋🏾🥾👉🏾
I love that Judge Mathis as a highly successful person says he doesn’t want his family to wear thousand-dollar shoes. Reminds me that it’s ok to be humble and expensive is not always better
I was just about to say that
He’s lying, but did want to be humble about it. 😂♥️
@@dw4658 whatever! There are people with more money than him who could care less about shoes. You must be materialistic. Only a materialistic person probably in the projects like he said, would assume his wife wears shoes because they cost that much.
@@Proverbspsalms Actually I’m a Bsn/Rn living in a 2 bedroom. All glory to God tho. It was literally just a comment. No need to oddly assume the worst about me. And there’s literally a episode were Judge shows his Louboutins to someone. Ik bc on break or down time i’m watching Judge. So????
@@dw4658 Well ma’am, just like fake shoe girl, you made assumptions. I’ve never heard him say anything about wearing those shoes or showing them off. If he did, i apologize. Either way, if he wears $8000 shoes, that still does not mean his wife or his daughters do. Again, they may not be materialistic. Of course I’m sure they wear nice things.
They definitely aren’t raggedy. However that doesn’t mean that they’re frivolous with money
She knew those shoes were replicas & when they didn’t look as real as she thought they would she wanted to return them. She had a nasty attitude but the defendant was very classy
Go re watch it. She said she ordered regular shoes. And then she received COUNTERFEIT shoes.
@@SpiffyPenguin exactly what they talking about. She wouldn’t have cared if it was regular shoe with a red bottom. But them shoes counterfeit and could clocked why would she wanna walk around in those.
Girl. There were texts of her asking AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER if they were supposed to be red bottoms …. Now if she asked specifically for red bottoms/replicas why weren’t those texts exposed? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 the case would’ve been thrown out. Come on now.
What is the point of ordering a regular shoe w/ a red bottom? Make it make sense.
@@tevans3862 That's exactly what I said! I was lost that he had forgot bout that so fast.
She knew she wasn't getting no real Christian Louboutin for no $150 or whatever it was she should not have won smh.
She didn’t want louboutins she just like the design of the shoe and wasn’t expecting it to say loubitin on it
Like they said above she wanted good quality "inspired" shoes not a cheap knock off. She didn't have the intention of fooling anyone with fake Lou's
@@skylarjaxx2399 she said she didn’t know they were fake tho 🤔
@@vambria5305
3:33 (edited the time it starts there) They were NOT advertised as LOU'S they were suppose to be just tan colored good quality shoes not a knockoff version of someone elses. She basically saying if they were LOU'S she wanted should would have brought REAL ones!
So happy they didn't trash-talk each other outside the courtroom. They're both so beautiful and very professional as well.
No way that girl is professional selling illegal merchandise
@@thelw
Are you kidding me? Professional people are the most illegal people in the world.
Neither are beautiful
@@theredwhoop9372 neither are you so maybe you got that in common with them
Or the other one claiming she tried the dress on night before and didnt see stains that suspicious @@thelw
She knew she was getting knockoffs or stolen merchandise. I got 2 pairs of clean bathing apes shoes for $60. I'm smart enough to know they fake has hell. Still look good in the club though
🤣🤣🤣 the best
That’s not what happened. What she said was they were not ADVERTISED as replicas. She didn’t want knock offs, she thought they were regular shoes, and when she got them they were fake, she didn’t want them
"Still look good in the club tho" I kno that's right 😂😂
I feel many are misinterpreting this case. She said she didn't know the shoes were supposedly red bottoms until she received them. So she may have been fine paying that price for an authentic shoe but a different brand. She don't want a knock off brand though.
That's completely different than she was trying to buy red bottoms for $200
Your'e exactly right. I just said in the comments that Judge Mathis misunderstood this case.
Righhhhhhttttt these folks not listening
I don’t think that matters at all. She wanted a refund because according to her they were poorly constructed. Whether there was a no refund notification Idk.
@@biggchill8176 mmm hmm
@@biggchill8176 That matters alot as far as the original purchase. If she had known they were red bottoms and agreed to that price then it could be argued she knew the shoes weren't authentic and also should expect less quality as well.
🙄 she knew those shoes were “inspired” when she paid a few $100 bucks vs a grand or more. She was mad about the shipping issue and rightfully so. The defendant was probably using dropshipping.
Unless you get it from a crackhead
When she purchased the shoes, she didn't know that they were going to say Louboutin on them period. She thought she was just buying some random red bottom shoes for a couple hundred bucks. The fact that the defendant did not disclose that they would be imprinted with "Louboutin" on them, therefore making them knock-offs, is where the problem lies.
“Inspired “I’m screaming
she said she wasn’t expecting red bottoms period. She thought she bought some plain shoes. I think the issue here is she doesn’t want any type of replicas at all. Some people don’t care for designer enough to buy replicas because they find it humiliating. That’s why she She’d rather have regular shoes like the ones she expected to receive.. That’s why she asked for a refund instead.
@@tevans3862 exactly she didn’t wanna be clocked wearing those fake shoes. She knew what she paid and would have accepted those plain ass shoes with a red bottom.
I have two thoughts on this:
1.) Sis it's a Boutique. Boutiques are known to buy dresses at whole sale get them to the store and have to separate them. That's why she was able to name it after her. These types of Boutiques sell “inspired” items point blank period
2.) I believe the young lady bought the shoe for the look not cause she thought they were Red Bottoms. A quality shoe for $190 that so happen to have a red bottom would have been fine “if” it didn't say LV on bottom implying loudly to others yep I wear knockoffs
I think that's where the issue lays
This brings up a good point I would strongly encourage folks to learn more about the trauma and exploitation the fashion industry did to people of color and the strength and factors surrounding words such as knock offs and the word boujie were derived from. There was and is discrimination in high-end stores around the negative stereotype of ppl of color and money. Folks of color were banned from stores and turned to seamstress in their neighborhood to create the fashion they saw on TV (systemic racism there's a lot to unpack).
“The secret of selling the negro”
"I'll never buy from an online boutique"... Let's see how she's doing in 2022. Bet she has prime, has done an airb&b and even has online banking.
She paid $190 and expected shoes that cost thousands AND a dress? Ok.
The audacity lol
If you listen she stated that they was not stated LV on the website. They came in as knock offs.
no that is NOT what she said. she ordered regular shoes, the shoes were mailed and she saw that they ARE knockoffs.
@@Cedesm unfortunately, people DO NOT LISTEN. smh
@@Cedesm She had a text message where the girl stated they were. That is part of the reason why she got the judgment, smh.
Kind of funny how she didn’t notice the dress was dirty until the next day! For as important as this was (for her 30th b-day), you’d think she would have inspected everything as soon as she had them in her possession!!
This is why I took a break from my small business. You have customers that takes advantage of you
Plaintiff wanted Christian Louboutins but ended up with red bottom Croutons.
You really thought that was funny
@@thatlsk lol
@@thatlsk 😂🤣🤣😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
why is everyone acting dumb, or maybe they are. THE LADY STATED SHE ORDERED REGULAR SHOES. WHEN SHE GOT THEM, THEY WERE KNOCK OFF SHOES. stop acting like she wanted expensive shoes, when she stated she ordered them and received a bootleg red bottom.
So I believe what’s confusing everyone is that they’re focusing on the “red bottom shoe” part not that she ordered regular shoes and got fake shoes.
She should have NOT got back the money for the shoes
Inspired style isn't the same as a knock offs/fake.
Most people don't mind an inspired style but it's corny and wack to wear knock offs .
Like some people don't mind KNOWINGLY wearing cubic zirconia, but no one wants to buy a fake diamond, not knowing it's fake.
Good on the judge for smacking down the materialistic plaintiff. Only people with a poverty mindset spend all their money on material things.
If you live in poverty what are you going to buy except material things?
@@iatdtv4996 a person can be poor and not have a poverty mindset. Likewise, a rich person, like some celebrities, can have a poverty mindset.
If you can hardly afford to live or eat, what are you going to buy that isn't material, when you do have some money?
First off you sound stupid and clearly didn’t listen to the plaintiff clearly said online the were not advertised as LV so how is she being materialistic
@@iatdtv4996 wadilotus means trying to live above your means. if you can't afford louie V, don't put yourself into debt trying to purchase them. it's just that simple
The defendant was so mellow and respectful & greatness will be at her door soon. That lady was rude and messed that dress up trying it own, she wrong.
Was it dark when she tried on the dress? Because you know after she tried on the dress, she looked in the mirror twirled around to see if she likes it, she could have noticed the stains around the neck then.... Maybe it was from her makeup.. who knows
Exactly! I can't believe she won that case.
And a white dress at that.
Plaintiff is lying. She said “are you sure they are red bottoms?” That’s because that’s what she was buying. Earlier in her statement she said she didn’t think they were but she’s in text asking if they were.
I caught that too
Thank you for paying attention. The judge missed that
Yep, she lied.
Louboutins ?
Exactly this.
This is for those with little understanding of what the plaintiff was saying. She was saying that she ordered random red bottom shoes but they came to her imprinted with "Louboutin" therefore making them knockoffs. She was happy ordering what she thought were $200 no-name red bottom shoes that were just some random shoes.
Thank you
Exactly.
So then when she texted the girl "are those red bottoms" and the girl said "yes" why would she not have cared then? Knowing she was only paying $190 for them. That makes ZERO sense, she knew exactly what they were.....
Thank you! Many people can't seem to comprehend this simple case...
Right.. she had no problem wearing a regular pair of shoes with red bottom soles but not walk around with no knock off Christian Louboutin…
You get what you pay for. Common sense you can purchase REAL Red Bottoms for $190.
That’s why she paid for plain shoes. She wasn’t expected to be given knock offs that can clocked on her 30th bday.
The plaintiff originally said she bought them not expecting designer shoes. Then turn around and said they are not real.
What she’s saying is that she wanted a regular shoe, not some cheap knockoffs that she would’ve gotten clowned in
7:54 How did she not see the " stains" on the dress the night before when she tried it on ?! 🤔🙄
She thought she was getting the hook up on red bottoms lol stop trying to live above your means boo ‼️ go to Payless or Wal-Mart!
Living beyond ur means is a terrible thing!
It's the American way
I’m with the plaintiff, I’m sure she would of rather spent 200 on a pair of real Steve Madden vs 200 for some knockoff high priced shoe. Nine times out of ten if you purchase knock off name brand it’s cheap made🤷🏾♀️
Anybody knows if you’re paying $190 for red bottoms then they’re fake af. The real shoes will cost you $1,000, that’s the plaintiffs fault
@@naepride5347 That goes to show folks do not pay attention. She didn’t pay $200 for knock offs. She paid $200 for regular shoes. Again SHE DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE RED BOTTOMS because they WERE NOT advertised as such. So it’s not her fault, the defendant could have told her beforehand that she was paying $200 for fake shoes
@@azasiae.9306 clearly some things went over your head
@@naepride5347 what went over her head tho?! Lol... the shoes WERE NOT advertised as Louboutin's!!! She thought she was getting just regular $200 shoes.. Had she known they were KNOCK OFFS, she would not have purchased them!! Ketchup, MUSTARD!
The price doesn’t mean much with fashion it’s about how you wear the gear and the person in it
Wow. This case was hard to follow for about 95% of the commenters. The plaintiff thought she was purchasing a REGULAR....nvm😣
It might just be me , but the lip color the defendant is wearing makes her face look sickly in the makeup world we say "concealer lips" not that it's important lol just my humble opinion would look so much nicer with any other color than almost white
This is a complete hot mess 😳
🤣😂😂
Given the price of the shoes, I'm sure the defendant knew they were counterfeit Christian Louboutin's🙄 They both came to court trying to out-scam each other, the defendant is obviously just a counterfeit reseller 😆
Many of you all missed the plaintiff’s expectations of the shoes.
Yeah folks definitely missed what she was asking for... A plain shoe.
I think she knew they were replicas I think she saw how poorly they were made and decided she didn’t want them anymore
$1000 shoes for $100!??? Miss🙄
😂 right
Um didn't he post this already anyway I hope yall having a good day love yall Jm fam even tho I don't know any one of yall
Love you too!! 💓💜💓
I love you 2 my beautiful black Queen👸🏾 may God continue bless you and your family 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾✊🏾✊🏾💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
Thank you. Love you too
Hope you have/had a great day! ❤❤
A few post have been repeat post I knew I wasn’t trippin!
Why want shoe's you know you can't really afford? This is crazy.
Lol she knew. Most first hand boutiques sell replicas, you have to go to high end boutiques for authentic merch. For example, a personal designer seller, people like that.
I agree with the plantiff. When those shoes became popular in the black neighborhoods we called them "red bottom" it do sucks because of the price she shouldve been more specific. Not everybpdy have the same thought process so you have to get technical
Yes but it is unreasonable for her to think think she is paying $190 for a $2,000 shoes.
They would have been counterfeit or stolen.
I wouldn't want bloody shoes!
You can't afford them
@@thatlsk Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Many who wear them can't actually afford them.
@@sereneamani1713 Facts.
@@sereneamani1713 nothing to do with good or bad it's just a fact. A person saying they wouldn't want something they can't afford is odd. That's like me saying I'd never want to own a mega yacht. It's just not true, I would want to I just can't afford it.
She knew those were fake... Stop.. If u know from around the way that we call them red bottoms then u know u can't get red bottoms for 190 bucks.. Girl bye... The defendant really tried to accommodate her.
The end.
So she's really going to pretend like she didn't know those shoes were fake before she bought them👀👀
I believe the defendant knew all along that those shoes weren't authentic.
There you are Antoinette
What no "women suck" this ime?
@@Proverbspsalms lmfao
Ofcourse she did lol. She prolly paid $100 for it n sold for a profit.
And so did the plaintiff.
She’s speaking facts ,
we def call loubs , red bottoms in NY , that’s what red bottoms mean , loubs 😭
How can anyone wear heels that high
at the end, outside the courtroom, it looked like Doyle looked the plaintiff up n down n then licked his lips.. wth lmaooo
I’ve never seen this one before
She should’ve told judge that red bottom shoes are patented by Louboutin and other shoe brands can NOT put red bottoms on their shoes since the 80s.
They’re not patent. He got denied when he tried to patent it.
@@TheDanniExperience I see sources that say different (Google, of course. lol). So what is the real deal?
@@TheDanniExperience Louboutin does have the trademark for the red sole. Other Brands can only make the sole red if the rest of the shoes is red, if not law suit!!!!!!
Now Stacy $190 😂😂😂 you could just wore those 😂😂 when judge Mathis told her he buy a couple pairs for his wife and daughter 😂😂😂 OMG 😂.... She was bout to at least clean the dresses 😂
Jesus Saves, John 3:16 amen 🙏🏾
Austin 3:16, says I just whipped your a...
She knew because if someone asks u are u sure they are red bottoms,obviously she can see the the bottom is red.she would only ask that if she thought the shoes were fake.🤷🏽♀️💯
She clearly don’t shop for aunthentic foreign clothing. Ain’t way no you getting real red bottoms for 190$. The most I’ve seen them on sale for was like a couple hundred off. The original price was about 8 or 900
That description fits me (I clearly don't shop for authentic foreign clothing). I will never be spending that much money for shoes. I can envision myself being a multi-millionaire, but I'll still be cheap (frugal lol).
There is no way she didn’t know those were not fake shoes. And if she thought they were real then she thought she was buying stolen merchandise. Either way the judge should not have given her the money back.
Y’all don’t listen. She saw the shoe on the website, she thought they were just regular, good quality shoes (like a Steve Madden, or a Nine West). She didn’t WANT a knockoff pair, and once she saw they were knockoffs, she asked for a refund
Judge Mathis,
This case was hilarious ‼️😹😹😹😹
Watching from Houston , Texas 💞
That’s nice to support her as a real friend does
She knew good and damn well that they were not authentic red bottoms for what she was paying.
Saw all them C's on the defendant's jacket and just knew it was gone be something interesting 🤣😭
Uuuuh, has anyone seen some Steve Madden shoes with red bottoms??? I haven’t seen them yet.
Exactly!!
Girl you knew them shoes wasn't real
JM was super messy in this case
Yes I love it. I'm here for it 🤣🤣🤣
Baby dont try to take me to court over no damn shoes cause you gon be in court by yourself 😂😂😂
Plaintiff def knew it was no LB shoes. Lies.
Plaintiff being petty she knows those shoes wasn’t red bottom Louis Vuitton but she defendant told her the truth they are red bottoms, the bottoms are red yea lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I’m trying to understand.. if you bought “regular” shoes for $99, got them, saw they were fake designer… how are you at a loss?
I would’ve brought the online add to show I wasn’t trying to purchase louboutins or the customer knew what they were purchasing. She defendant was trying to be accommodating it sucks this happened.
she thought she paid $190 for some real red bottoms lmaoooo
LMFAOOOOO no but really what made you think you was getting the real thing for $190🤨🤨😂😂😂
$190something bucks is still an awful lot for shoes ...
I was thinking the same thing about maybe the dress got dirty after she tried it on cause she said the next morning it had stains. She tried on the dress prior to that.
I think she got what she paid for.. she has champagne taste on a soda water budget.
Thank you🙄
Wealthy people invest in things that increase in value not depreciate like fashion… that being said ppl are free to spend their money on whatever they want.
Or credit cards
Looool wealthy ppl buy whatever the hell they wanna buy because they are wealthy 🤣🤣 if you’re not wealthy you can’t say what wealthy ppl spend their money on
The authenticity of the shoes should not have been in play! She didn't advertise them as " red bottoms," she purchased them because she liked the shoe.
Judge know damn well CL’s are referred to as red bottoms by us 😂🤣.
Steve Madden do not have red bottoms. She got tricked again
I don't think half of the people who commented on this watched the whole video🤣🤣🤣
She knew damn well those shoes were knock off because of the price!! You can't get a key chain for that much at the real LV STORE🤦🤣🤣
It’s crazy because they both made a pretty good case but the plaintiff should have already knew what it was once she saw that the shoes were knock offs I mean she only paid 190 for them and anybody that knows anything about designer clothes know u can’t even get a designer t shirt for that price more less a pair of red bottoms 😂 maybe can find a givenchy shirt for that price or even a bape tshirt or a vlone tshirt for that price if u consider those brands foreign but that’s about it but in my opinion judge Mathis was fair with the verdict on this case
You can from a crackhead that stole them🤣🤣
The judge ruled really good!
The plaintiff shouldn’t received nothing she knew was buying fakes!
She knew she was not buying Red Bottoms from an online boutique. 🙄
I’ve bought authentic red bottoms for $625 on the official site
Hey girl hey 😆 #ASU
You can get a pair of red bottoms for $700
I would never. Even if i had the funds.
Its no way in hell she thought this young lady was selling her some official
Christian Louboutin $190 clearly anybody with common sense would know
That the young lady is selling replicas
That is a very nice replica of LB shoes. What is the website??? “Red bottoms” is not the brand name.
She knows she can't afford real "Red bottoms" and for that price, she has to know they were knock offs. She mentioned she tried on the dress, mabye she stained it at that time and didn't realize. She shouldn't have gotten the refund.
My thing is, there’s nothing wrong with wearing Prada or Payless. Don’t judge anyone for what they decide to spend their money on.
Are these Red Bottoms?
Yes. For $190.
LOL
I believe plaintiff wore the dress and stained it..now want to return it and get her money back lol.😂
Judge Mathis knows good and well what red bottoms are. He needs to stop playing lol
It’s called a vendor sis. Stick to your tax bracket
She said "where we're from, we call them red bottoms." Lol girl there are ppl all over the country that call them red bottoms and know what that means lol. She tried it lol. The defendant was tryna be funny lol
Here's to the sister that's keeping it 💯 real! 👍👍
We gotta do better business people
"We" meaning who?
Since she buys high price shoes she should not have got her money back for them shoes due to the fact she know those type of shoes are not that cheap
Plaintiff paid $190 for a pair of shoes because she thought she was paying for quality (not brand). The fact that they were poorly made cheap knock off's and she got charged $190 for 💩 quality is her complaint. If the knock off's were of a decent quality she probably wouldn't have cared. Not everyone is brand hungry, they just expect if they pay $190 for a pair of shoes to get a good quality made shoe
She saw the shoe once and STILL told the lady she needed a different SIZE.
Girl, bye! I think some people want to be cast on these court shows. The plaintiff tried on a white dress with makeup and didn't notice the "stains" until the next day🤨🤔 I'm surprised that JM allowed a refund for knockoffs. Isn't selling knockoffs a crime? If so, I thought it would fall under that clean hands thing he and Judge Milian talk about. I hope the defendant doesn't get caught by Louboutin. She'll be faced with a cease and desist and possibly have to pay them.
If people would do right they can go so far with there business and gain such respect as well as keeping a high school friend or any friend who could help there business prosper so much