Judge Judy Hears a Case with Only the Defendant!

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
  • The plaintiff doesn’t show up, but Judge Judy hears the case anyway!
    The Original! There’s only ONE Judge Judy. Visit our website for where to watch, weekdays.
    Subscribe to Judge Judy on UA-cam: / @judgejudy
    #JudgeJudy

КОМЕНТАРІ • 913

  • @WarGrowlmon18
    @WarGrowlmon18 25 днів тому +1081

    She sued him over 30 bucks which is stupid in the first place and then she doesn't even bother to show up to court???

    • @dawnsparks9207
      @dawnsparks9207 25 днів тому +37

      JJ should have knocked off half for a No Show then she might have finished it There and then because it was petty

    • @softshallow7435
      @softshallow7435 25 днів тому +24

      Not really! He only paid her because she took out a summons against him which cost her an additional $30 otherwise he would still of delayed the payment for god knows how long!

    • @StevenDoh
      @StevenDoh 25 днів тому +22

      She sued him over 60.
      He PAID HER after the lawsuit. She had to pay $30 to file over the $60
      When you win in court you actually get your court costs back
      Therefore, He only paid her because of the lawsuit so she's out $30 over the whole thing.
      She didn't sue over 30!!!!
      He should have just said yes pay her the $30
      The show pays it anyway.
      He obviously is obsessed with this woman and it's sort of weird

    • @wiccankaplanmaximoff104
      @wiccankaplanmaximoff104 25 днів тому +31

      I think he’s in the right. Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices. He owed her $60, he paid her $60. It was late, but she got her money back.
      She made the dumb decision to file a $30 lawsuit. She made that choice, it was a poor choice but she made it.
      No one should pay for other people’s bad choices.

    • @THEDubbleHelixx
      @THEDubbleHelixx 25 днів тому +4

      ​@@StevenDoh Doesn't that depend on the state? Or does it depend on the type of case? Because I know there are cases that a never get brought to court because the cost would not be worth it for the plaintiff. I always thought that was because of state law.

  • @yadayadayada
    @yadayadayada 25 днів тому +613

    What a case. He was speaking quietly until JJ said "Don't you want to pay her $30 and be done with it?" Suddenly he woke up.

    • @ishahcanah7351
      @ishahcanah7351 24 дні тому +12

      😂😂😂😂

    • @marcpower4167
      @marcpower4167 24 дні тому +27

      I mean, this is one of those cases of yeah it's petty and you really shouldn't have to pay the $30 but you're better off too because it's just not worth the headache.
      For instance a couple of years ago, I got a parking ticket mailed to me for $40 from where I was on vacation about 2 weeks before. It was debatable, pretty sure I could have fought it and won but in order to do so, I would have had to take a day or two off work, drive 7 hours spend the money on gas....wasn't worth it, I paid the $40 and cut my losses.

    • @mrhodes3140
      @mrhodes3140 22 дні тому

      @@marcpower4167 that is how they make money.

    • @timothycarey3883
      @timothycarey3883 17 днів тому +6

      The time off work and gas its cheaper to pay.

    • @PetrolJunkie
      @PetrolJunkie 16 днів тому +6

      @@marcpower4167Compromising principles is usually cheaper than doing what is right. That is intended to collect that tax money.
      I fight every ticket as a rule. I’m not going to make it easy money for the government.

  • @DianaPrinceIsFreakingAwesome
    @DianaPrinceIsFreakingAwesome 25 днів тому +771

    "Pay her?? NO." 😂

    • @anndeecosita3586
      @anndeecosita3586 25 днів тому +21

      Pay her? Whatchutalkinbout, judge? 😂😂

    • @sunnystormy4973
      @sunnystormy4973 25 днів тому +5

      xD ... !

    • @Sacred_Fire
      @Sacred_Fire 25 днів тому +4

      🤣

    • @asrar39
      @asrar39 24 дні тому +5

      Yeah why should he. She took that step. She should not have tool the 60 back and then just said he owed her 90.

    • @surpresopikachu-tb3xj
      @surpresopikachu-tb3xj 23 дні тому

      @@asrar39nobody asked you

  • @keithwood6459
    @keithwood6459 25 днів тому +620

    When plaintiff didn't show up, she should have dismissed it with prejudice, preventing her from suing him again for that.

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому +15

      He stated they worked together so she is military as well and I guess she got called up and JJs show was not considered important enough to warrant her staying. He should have just agreed to settle because the show pays. He was the one who didn't give her money back until she filed against him. Also this was 90s JJ.

    • @jeanaprewitt9658
      @jeanaprewitt9658 25 днів тому +32

      @@shendisackett You keep saying the same thing. It was her duty to show up or notify the court why she couldn't. NOBODY said she got "called up." The military takes court matters VERY seriously and won't force someone to miss a court date.

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому +14

      @@jeanaprewitt9658 except this isn't a court matter it's a tv show! Plus it's arbitration, which is not the same thing at all. So I seriously doubt the military would take a sailor appearing on a tv show very seriously! The defendant behaved like an idiot, he knows what he did was morally wrong and if he'd just accepted the show would have sent her $30 and it would all be over. JJ clearly explained to him that if he just accepted it he could move on, he CHOSE to keep it going so that's on him. Now if she fails to show up a second time then I would agree it should be dismissed so she can't refile the claim. You have to allow the benefit of doubt the first time as for all we know she got in a car accident and was taken to hospital, if you can prove the person had no intention of showing then that's different.

    • @seashellesbelles7232
      @seashellesbelles7232 23 дні тому +22

      ⁠@@shendisackett It’s actually still a court matter as binding arbitration is a real alternative to litigation and this case was pulled from the actual small claims courts’ docket. The military would take arbitration cases just the same as court cases - many contracts have an arbitration clause specifically to keep cases out of court and go directly to arbitration in the event of a dispute. They might laugh at it being Judge Judy, but they would still have to take it seriously.

    • @AdmiralStoicRum
      @AdmiralStoicRum 22 дні тому +6

      Yeah I like the idea of using prejudice, because honestly if she's not going to show up then no point in wasting each other's time

  • @jeffreyclinard2002
    @jeffreyclinard2002 25 днів тому +159

    Well, the defendant was sworn to tell the truth. His answers may not be what Judge Judy wanted, but he did tell the truth in the matter.

    • @joshuawidener8407
      @joshuawidener8407 19 днів тому +8

      He didn't have to say anything at all and he wins lol

    • @braceyourselvesfortruth2492
      @braceyourselvesfortruth2492 13 днів тому +1

      Bro, you've been watching too much Law and Order. He wasn't a witness in a criminal case, lol go read a book or something.

    • @jeffreyclinard2002
      @jeffreyclinard2002 13 днів тому +1

      @@braceyourselvesfortruth2492 Dude, have you never seen Byrd swear people to tell the truth in these matters? LOL, go learn the facts before making stupid comments and humiliating yourself in public.

    • @braceyourselvesfortruth2492
      @braceyourselvesfortruth2492 10 днів тому

      @@jeffreyclinard2002 didn't say he wasn't sworn to tell the truth. How stupid did you think I was? That was definitely you.
      This isn't about truth, it's about him just being stupid. That's why his little reference to swearing doesn't actually mean anything.
      Did that make sense, or should I write it in crayon for you?

  • @anndeecosita3586
    @anndeecosita3586 25 днів тому +398

    This is when stubbornness about the importance of proving a point overtakes common sense, and I apply that to both parties. 😂

    • @sunnystormy4973
      @sunnystormy4973 25 днів тому +3

      for sure ... !

    • @MichaelJones-yx4zv
      @MichaelJones-yx4zv 25 днів тому +6

      Think they love each other and this their twisted version of foreplay

    • @wiccankaplanmaximoff104
      @wiccankaplanmaximoff104 25 днів тому +7

      I think he’s in the right. Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices. He owed her $60, he paid her $60. It was late, but she got her money back.
      She made the dumb decision to file a $30 lawsuit. She made that choice, it was a poor choice but she made it.
      No one should pay for other people’s bad choices.

    • @xxo8888
      @xxo8888 25 днів тому +7

      ​@@wiccankaplanmaximoff104 He prob would've never paid her had she not filed. He openly admitted to not paying her when he could've/should've. The only poor choice she made was loaning him $$ to begin w

    • @wiccankaplanmaximoff104
      @wiccankaplanmaximoff104 25 днів тому +5

      @@xxo8888 I understand suing if someone hasn’t paid you back in months. Plaintiff waited 9 days, that impatience cost $30, they should learn to be patient next time and not jump to extremes.

  • @jdsiv3
    @jdsiv3 25 днів тому +191

    the plaintiff is petty as hell and didn't even show up

    • @Ramtamtama
      @Ramtamtama 24 дні тому +5

      She probably would've tried suing him for her travel expenses

    • @EricaEarth
      @EricaEarth 21 день тому

      @@Ramtamtama lol

    • @TK-593
      @TK-593 18 днів тому +2

      There are no travel expenses. The producers of the show pay for the participants to come and they pay the judgements. This is entertainment and not as real as most people would believe.

    • @kendrakirai
      @kendrakirai 16 днів тому +1

      ​​@@TK-593fake garbage, expenses paid, and she STILL couldnt be bothered to show up. She was probably out spending the shows cash as that was going down.

  • @anndeecosita3586
    @anndeecosita3586 25 днів тому +278

    The sister in blue was like please, bro, take the deal. 😂

    • @sunnystormy4973
      @sunnystormy4973 25 днів тому +9

      ikr ... !

    • @laydeeslim
      @laydeeslim 25 днів тому +11

      I was too and mf still said no with a straight face 😂😂😂😂 I fell out!

    • @mightymorphingmemory6178
      @mightymorphingmemory6178 3 дні тому

      She reminds me of this one black lady, old but not elderly, growing up and she kept us kids in line if she was out on the porch or she found out if one of acting stupid lol
      This woman in the video is like "go on child and lose your thirty and walk away with a lesson. You a good child!"
      Lol

  • @mikejewell8518
    @mikejewell8518 25 днів тому +152

    I believe this guy coined the term "over my dead body"!! 😂

  • @jeanaprewitt9658
    @jeanaprewitt9658 25 днів тому +53

    If the plaintiff can't be bothered to show up in court, their case is tossed. If the defendant doesn't show, they're ruled against.

    • @banaman7746
      @banaman7746 19 днів тому +2

      just in case: it's because the person not showing up is essentially saying "there is nothing to be said"
      if the plaintiff no shows: The defendant is saying "nothing happened" and no one to argue... so nothing happened.
      if the defendant no shows: The plaintiff is saying "I got wronged" and no one to argue... so they got wronged.
      That's why it's worse when the defendant no shows then the plaintiff. that being said, unless they have a good reason, the plaintiff is likely not getting another try.

    • @OmniscientWarrior
      @OmniscientWarrior 16 днів тому +1

      The judge can rule either on the side that is present or dismiss. By his own words, he is wrong, so cannot rule in his favor, so that force a dismissal. Dismissal's allow for the case to be brought back up; generally speaking.

  • @KCspaintingss
    @KCspaintingss 25 днів тому +432

    i don’t know who’s more petty him or the plaintiff 🤣🤣

    • @Denise.T
      @Denise.T 25 днів тому +10

      I think him and I love it 😂

    • @MichaelJones-yx4zv
      @MichaelJones-yx4zv 25 днів тому +5

      Both

    • @TheREALOC1972
      @TheREALOC1972 25 днів тому +18

      Her, it cost her $30 to get 60 bucks he was 9 days late, OMG send out the Swat Team to take down this Monster!

    • @sarahlynn7894
      @sarahlynn7894 25 днів тому +17

      It's about principle, not the money. What's ridiculous and petty is a man that wears the uniform whom is supposed to hold themselves to higher moral standards than the average American citizen, is not doing the HONORABLE thing by not paying back the $30 dollars he BORROWED. It is the little sins without consequence that end up growing into extremely bad character and it will eat you alive. The fact that he was so stubborn about it and still didn't want the Judge to order him to pay, even though the show pays for it, speaks volumes. There definitely is more to the story and is probably why the plaintiff sued. This guy seems like a creep. He dishonored his uniform. Shame on him. Sad to see so many individuals on here that can't see the bigger picture and the lack of moral principles.

    • @wiccankaplanmaximoff104
      @wiccankaplanmaximoff104 25 днів тому +9

      I think he’s in the right. Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices. He owed her $60, he paid her $60. It was late, but she got her money back.
      She made the dumb decision to file a $30 lawsuit. She made that choice, it was a poor choice but she made it.
      No one should pay for other people’s bad choices.

  • @mattolsen353
    @mattolsen353 25 днів тому +158

    She loaned him $60. He wouldn't pay her back so she paid $30 in court costs after which he paid her the $60. Now she wants the $30 she paid in court costs and is suing again. Hopefully the amount received for being on Judge Judy covered everything, otherwise she's going to keep filing lawsuits asking to be reimbursed for the costs of the previous lawsuit. It could go on indefinitely.

    • @ImOnAJourney
      @ImOnAJourney 25 днів тому +6

      Ohhhhhhh, I would so like to make a comment … but the UA-cam cops are watching.
      Suffice it to say, my guess is that the P had two options - jail or the military, one way or another she was going to grow up. So now she has a chip on her shoulder the size of Sears Tower (which is t called the Sears Tower anymore, but that’s what it still is in my book 😂).

    • @WarGrowlmon18
      @WarGrowlmon18 25 днів тому +27

      Except SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP!!!🤣🤣🤣 She should get 0 for appearing on the show because she never did!!!

    • @bravo2966
      @bravo2966 25 днів тому +1

      @@WarGrowlmon18 I gather from what he said that she is also in the navy. There's a good chance she was called away somewhere and was unable to attend, such can be the way in the military.

    • @jeanaprewitt9658
      @jeanaprewitt9658 25 днів тому +16

      @@bravo2966 Then she notifies the court. She didn't, though.

    • @user-tm9qb2jk4o
      @user-tm9qb2jk4o 25 днів тому +4

      @@bravo2966 The Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act might be applicable if that is the case.

  • @danielguizar360
    @danielguizar360 25 днів тому +210

    That is so rare and bizarre that the plaintiff never showed up

    • @WarGrowlmon18
      @WarGrowlmon18 25 днів тому +20

      Maybe she decided that the humiliation wasn't worth it

    • @GeorgeMaster-xg7lg
      @GeorgeMaster-xg7lg 25 днів тому +4

      ​@@WarGrowlmon18was this the only time without the plaintiff present?

    • @sunnystormy4973
      @sunnystormy4973 25 днів тому

      ikr ... !

    • @WarGrowlmon18
      @WarGrowlmon18 25 днів тому +4

      @@GeorgeMaster-xg7lg I think so

    • @brackenrobertson799
      @brackenrobertson799 25 днів тому +1

      They’re in the military, she 100% did it to cause stress with his schedule lol

  • @davidhill6941
    @davidhill6941 25 днів тому +104

    How can basically rule in favor of the plaintiff when they are a no-show? The right to face his accuser was denied, if she didn’t want to show up for her money, then she forfeit’s the right to the money.

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому +9

      If she is also in the military and was called away that is a valid reason. So she didn't rule in favour of the plaintiff she dismissed without prejudice so it could be heard again. I mean if he's too stubborn to see that morally he's wrong because he only paid her back after she filed against him then that's the defendants problem. He had it explained to him that this would keep going if he didn't settle and he chose to keep it going. Nothing else JJ can do. * he did say they worked together

    • @jeanaprewitt9658
      @jeanaprewitt9658 25 днів тому +10

      She ruled in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff wasn't there. She finished off saying that paying the money was morally correct, she didn't say that it was a legal case the plaintiff would've won had she shown up.

    • @traciemartin3785
      @traciemartin3785 25 днів тому

      ​​@@shendisackett Exactly. You explained that VERY well. It's so silly, foolish & immature of both the plaintiff & defendant to even bring such an unnecessary, petty mess to court. Smh.

    • @meilease4851
      @meilease4851 24 дні тому +3

      He was given a choice because the plaintiff didn't show up. If they did, the judgement would be in her favour. But JJ also wasn't willing to enter anything in the plaintiffs favour because they were disrespectful enough to not even show up and force them to stay longer than normal. So the next judge that heard the case if they refiled may dismiss it with prejudice knowing that they didn't show up this time, depending on the circumstance.

    • @ruthgiles8926
      @ruthgiles8926 23 дні тому +2

      ​@@shendisackettif she was on duty, she would have called the court to explain. She clearly didn't do that because they waited around all day for her. She just didn't turn up because she knew her case was petty.

  • @jamesdietz29
    @jamesdietz29 25 днів тому +52

    He should have counter-sued her for "Malicious Litigation" for $35, then he would have been awarded a summery judgement due to her failure to appear.

    • @sauvignonblanc0
      @sauvignonblanc0 17 днів тому +1

      God love him. He doesn't look the most intelligent to even agree with Judge Judy let alone pursue your suggestion.

    • @OmniscientWarrior
      @OmniscientWarrior 17 днів тому

      She has a valid claim, so his counter suit would have been dismissed on the spot and based on his testimony, the plaintiff's case would have been dismissed without prejudice and if he wrongfully filed that claim, it could have resulted in that being dismissed with prejudice and kept him from being allowed to use that in the future.
      The original case was for 60 + court costs. After being served, he paid the 60, but she still was out the court costs, so she amended the suit to be just court costs. He did not make her whole. So, no matter how much it costs her, she can still sue him for that 30; if she is lucky and has good reason to not be in court, she might be able to recover more, but I can't imagine it being more than 90 if this repeats, but might be able to still get the 60.

    • @jamesdietz29
      @jamesdietz29 16 днів тому

      @@OmniscientWarrior She did not appear... he would have won a SUMMERY judgment if he had the foresight to counter-sue.

    • @gtrman128
      @gtrman128 16 днів тому

      ​@jamesdietz29 but in this case it's at Judge Judy's discretion. He may not have won especially if she decided to hear his case even without her. He would have lost the suit bc she said he was morally wrong.

    • @jamesdietz29
      @jamesdietz29 16 днів тому

      I deg to biffer.

  • @jokodihaynes419
    @jokodihaynes419 25 днів тому +155

    I won't sue someone over 60 bucks to me it's petty

    • @DianaPrinceIsFreakingAwesome
      @DianaPrinceIsFreakingAwesome 25 днів тому +8

      @@jokodihaynes419 Same. Ridiculous.

    • @nora4981
      @nora4981 25 днів тому +15

      It’s about the principle not the money lol

    • @Fickets
      @Fickets 25 днів тому +1

      It’s supposed to be petty. Thats the whole point.

    • @Fickets
      @Fickets 25 днів тому +2

      @@nora4981 not for $60. A person bringing this to court doesn’t have principles.

    • @edwardranno7119
      @edwardranno7119 25 днів тому +2

      It’s not worth getting in the car

  • @tracydee1857
    @tracydee1857 25 днів тому +12

    When the warmth and wisdom flows through the Judge. *HEART*

  • @miguellugo1200
    @miguellugo1200 25 днів тому +114

    Why should he have to pay her $30 in court fees when she didn't even show up to court? Is she gonna pay him for the time he wasted?

    • @PrincessZaire100
      @PrincessZaire100 25 днів тому +13

      Thank you. She got her money back

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому +15

      You all seem to have missed the we work together, so she is also military and if she is called up for something she can't refuse. He also stated he only paid her back after she filed the claim, so he wasn't going to give her the money easily. Morally he is in the wrong and I think he's just too stubborn to see it.

    • @markfilipas1763
      @markfilipas1763 25 днів тому +9

      The reason is because she was forced to spend that $30 to file a lawsuit after he twice refused to pay.. He promised to pay her by the initial due date but he didn't have the money, so he asked for an extension to pay when he got his next paycheck, and still did not pay. It wasn't until she decided the only way she was going to get her money was by filing a lawsuit and only then did he finally pay her. Dick move to force her to spend court fees to get the money he owed her.

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому +6

      @@markfilipas1763 even more of a dick move was to not just agree to the $30 after JJ's advice especially as the show would have paid the $30. I did not understand that or why he seems to want to keep this going, that is just weird. If it had been me I would have just agreed to it so I could move on with a clear conscience.

    • @markfilipas1763
      @markfilipas1763 25 днів тому +2

      @@shendisackett 100% agree. Having both that minor debt *and* a potential subsequent lawsuit hanging over my head would keep me up at night.

  • @daywalkingvampire1521
    @daywalkingvampire1521 16 днів тому +10

    30 bucks? If I was the judge I would have dismissed with prejudice

  • @kwazzik5453
    @kwazzik5453 25 днів тому +30

    His eyes saying a lot!

  • @WarGrowlmon18
    @WarGrowlmon18 25 днів тому +37

    Where's the plaintiff??? At the beach instead???🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому +2

      If they work together then she is military too so I would imagine she was called away.

    • @dbeekman9738
      @dbeekman9738 24 дні тому

      Probably in the brig for loaning out $40 to be repaid in a week as $60.

  • @breeze8756
    @breeze8756 25 днів тому +61

    He's not getting it.

    • @LindaLaurenPsychicMedium
      @LindaLaurenPsychicMedium 25 днів тому +11

      He’s a good man and this is a dumb case and the girl could’ve waited. She’s just being spiteful.

    • @Gloomistic
      @Gloomistic 25 днів тому +1

      I think he gets it, he just doesn't care due to being stuck over her pettiness, even if that is foolish. Not everyone wants to be reasoned with, unfortunately.

    • @wiccankaplanmaximoff104
      @wiccankaplanmaximoff104 25 днів тому +8

      I think he’s in the right. Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices. He owed her $60, he paid her $60. It was late, but she got her money back.
      She made the dumb decision to file a $30 lawsuit. She made that choice, it was a poor choice but she made it.
      No one should pay for other people’s bad choices.

    • @andrewcarey5359
      @andrewcarey5359 18 днів тому

      @@LindaLaurenPsychicMedium I think she's a coward.

    • @OmniscientWarrior
      @OmniscientWarrior 16 днів тому

      @@wiccankaplanmaximoff104 But he made her spend an extra 30 to get that 60 in the first place. So why should she be out the extra 30 that he costed her to get her initial 60 back?

  • @chef1088
    @chef1088 25 днів тому +30

    Has this EVER happened before?

    • @darlenefraser3022
      @darlenefraser3022 25 днів тому +6

      Not that I’ve ever seen!

    • @Gloomistic
      @Gloomistic 25 днів тому +3

      @@darlenefraser3022 she probably wanted to switch it up for fun, like I saw another episode where she had this big dude write things down on a note after he'd came with no paperwork, while his ex had a giant stack. she laughed at that.

    • @darlenefraser3022
      @darlenefraser3022 25 днів тому

      @@Gloomistic OMG! I wish I’d seen that! 😂

    • @sunnystormy4973
      @sunnystormy4973 25 днів тому

      happened before ...

    • @margaretwade
      @margaretwade 25 днів тому

      @@sunnystormy4973 When? I've been watching JJ for years.

  • @jhutch1681
    @jhutch1681 25 днів тому +34

    Don't reward the woman for wasting court time and not even bothering to show up!

    • @charles0322mrsdani
      @charles0322mrsdani 23 дні тому +3

      It’s for his benefit legally. Judge was trying to help him. Now she has no reason to harass him.

  • @kennylc2193
    @kennylc2193 25 днів тому +10

    I thought not showing up was an automatic loss whether you're the plaintiff or the defendant

    • @joshuawidener8407
      @joshuawidener8407 19 днів тому

      It is. The judge enters a default judgement

    • @OmniscientWarrior
      @OmniscientWarrior 16 днів тому

      It either becomes a ruling in the party's favor that showed or a dismissal. Either way, the plaintiff would be able to have the case brought back, just one way it would go to appeals first.

  • @TripSoul10
    @TripSoul10 25 днів тому +17

    This case a late 90s vibe and $60 did seem a lot then vs now.

    • @robertkarp2070
      @robertkarp2070 21 день тому +3

      $60 wasn't that much back then either. Especially since all his room and boarding expenses were already covered by the Navy. He borrowed money most likely because he liked going clubbing. He drank away his paycheck before payday. He should have just stayed on the ship or at the barracks until payday, then he wouldn't have been in that mess. I was in the Navy, I saw it happen that way all the time, only in most cases, it was called slushing, which means people would borrow some money and offer to pay back double come payday.

    • @themindeclectic9821
      @themindeclectic9821 17 днів тому

      ​@robertkarp2070 That's a nice little story that you just made up

    • @garymorris216
      @garymorris216 15 днів тому

      ​@themindeclectic9821 I was in the Navy back in the 90s and what he said is 100% accurate. Let me guess...you wanted to join but (insert whatever your lame excuse is here....) Go find mommy's basement where you belong.

  • @glennriviere7807
    @glennriviere7807 19 днів тому +6

    I borrowed money once it was $30.00. We were both waiting to discharge from the Navy. He gave me his home address but lost in all the movie was doing. To this day I still feel bad about not paying him.

  • @NGMonocrom
    @NGMonocrom 12 днів тому +6

    He ended up looking like a fool, even though the Plaintiff never showed up.

  • @JustJerseyJo95
    @JustJerseyJo95 23 дні тому +8

    So she filed a claim which cost her $30, to try to collect $60 is nonsense!

    • @divVerent
      @divVerent 17 днів тому +1

      Ignoring the specifics about the case - if someone owes you $60 and never pays, and suing costs $30, does that mean you say you would never sue them but just eat the loss?
      That too seems wrong.
      In the concrete case it was apparently about just being like 2 weeks late, though, which is definitely in frivolous territory - more usual procedure is to send one or two reminders and ask a few dollars more starting at the second reminder before actually suing.

    • @OmniscientWarrior
      @OmniscientWarrior 16 днів тому

      Not really, because she can, and seems like she was, also suing for court costs. So she would break even, if she showed up. But not being there, she is out 30.

  • @davidlane256
    @davidlane256 17 днів тому +5

    A little patience goes a long way. She could have saved the $30, and he would’ve paid her

    • @OmniscientWarrior
      @OmniscientWarrior 16 днів тому +2

      He already failed to pay at least 2 times when he said he was going to. He has no credibility to his claim of when he was going to pay her.

    • @beatlejn
      @beatlejn 13 днів тому +2

      Although i agree usually, but 9 days after payday is a long time- especially when money is owed to her and was not paid back on at least one other time. He should know, right?! Pretty sure he was annoyed when he wasn’t paid the money that was owed to him… It definitely wasn’t his top priority to repay but it absolutely should’ve been!!

  • @trueamerican2023
    @trueamerican2023 8 днів тому +2

    1. This case should not have occured. He had a right to face his accuser.
    2. She's not really a judge, she's an arbitrar
    3. It wasn't the $60, the defendant was after. This is a made for TV "court". It used to be, they Each got paid anywhere between $500 up to $10,000 for appearing on the show, depending on the case.
    Plus flight, room, board and meals.
    4. It is also said, the production pays the damages to the prevailing party.

  • @bored1ca
    @bored1ca 24 дні тому +3

    The fact the plaintiff couldn't bother to appear for such a frivolous case speaks volumes. In this situation, the case should been dismissed w/o prejudice in favour of the defendant who did bother to show up.

    • @AdmiralStoicRum
      @AdmiralStoicRum 22 дні тому +2

      Dismissed with prejudice, if it's without prejudice then she can sue him again over the same matter if it's with prejudice then she can't sue him again over the same matter. Basically so they can't get into this stupid loop that the judge just described. As a matter of fact when you don't show up usually you're also charged with contempt as well as having your case dismissed and your defendant doesn't have to pay a thing.

    • @bored1ca
      @bored1ca 22 дні тому +2

      @@AdmiralStoicRum thanks for clearing that up.

  • @shattered115
    @shattered115 20 днів тому +3

    If she had filed a compliant with his Command he would have been told to pay and had a mark on his record.

  • @reggietjevans
    @reggietjevans 7 днів тому +1

    I love that Judge Judy respected his wishes but still told him he was wrong in a respectful manner. I love that he still stood his ground to prove a point 😂

  • @kenneth69
    @kenneth69 25 днів тому +3

    Suing someone for $60. Stop wasting other people's time. That woman made her own stupid choice by suing for money. Don't enable that sort of nonsensical behavior, and he's morally correct to deny her. If this woman is also in the Navy, she only had to talk to their supervisor; done and done.

  • @nathancleveland5924
    @nathancleveland5924 24 дні тому +2

    That's the nicest I've ever seen judge judy

  • @lukerinderknecht2982
    @lukerinderknecht2982 25 днів тому +18

    Someone who serves his country can't afford to repay a $60 loan. There's so much spent on the military but not on those who actually put their lives on the line.

    • @Julie-sl8ul
      @Julie-sl8ul 25 днів тому

      Don't accept a LOAN.

    • @shendisackett
      @shendisackett 25 днів тому

      This was 90s, the woman was also military (he said we work together) which is why she couldn't afford to be out money. He only paid up when she filed so I absolutely think he should have settled, especially as the show pays the $30! It was stupid of him to keep it going because any court would award it to her based on his testimony of not paying until she filed a claim.

    • @robertkarp2070
      @robertkarp2070 21 день тому +1

      No, he was busy clubbing all the time and drank away his paycheck. He was broke and wanted to go out clubbing again so he asked for a loan. Military personnel get paid pretty good. I was in the Navy until 1992, I saw that scenario happen all the time. She went through Civil Court to file because had she pursued it in the Military, she'd have gotten into trouble as well because loaning money is not allowed in the Military.

    • @bryangman1975
      @bryangman1975 9 днів тому

      ​@@shendisacketthow do you know they can use the testimony of a arbitration especially one where she doesn't show 😮😮😮😮😮.a judge could rule against her it is California.

  • @lisaperea5151
    @lisaperea5151 5 днів тому +1

    The hearing was held in absentia and I think it should have been dismissed; I agree with Keith.

  • @jdsiv3
    @jdsiv3 25 днів тому +12

    petty as hell

  • @robertwilson1589
    @robertwilson1589 19 днів тому +1

    Way to stand his ground. It was her choice to pay the $30 to take him to court, not his. The $30 fee she paid was an attempt to get the $60 through court and was a commited expense she chose to make knowing she would end up with $30 gross in the end.

  • @supreme_jeff08z66
    @supreme_jeff08z66 25 днів тому +9

    Huh ,,who tf sued for $30 good lord

    • @jlc9590
      @jlc9590 25 днів тому +3

      Well that's what she was worried about. Skip the Guinness book and stay home

    • @HungVu-vs3dv
      @HungVu-vs3dv 25 днів тому +1

      $60 is a hell lot much in the early 90s. I remembered $3.25 per hour as cashier at Kmart

    • @marcpower4167
      @marcpower4167 24 дні тому +1

      Saw one on Judge Mills Lane once where the guy sued over a $3 slice of pizza.

    • @supreme_jeff08z66
      @supreme_jeff08z66 24 дні тому

      @marcpower4167 😂🤣😂🤣 holly molly lol the judge could've just given him the $3 😂🤣😂🤣..

  • @crazysquirrel9425
    @crazysquirrel9425 18 днів тому +1

    Most judges would dismiss immediately if the plaintiff didn't show.
    On the flip side, if YOU didn't show, they would grant a default judgment against you for not showing.
    Dismissal does not mean they cannot file again for the same reason.
    It takes dismissed with prejudice to put a halt on that.
    Judge Judy just needed to fill the time slot lol...

  • @lisaabroad1192
    @lisaabroad1192 24 дні тому +3

    Doesn't the court actually pay the costs on this show? They would have paid the 30 bucks and he would have been able to put this behind him.

    • @mfoco1
      @mfoco1 15 днів тому

      Yes. Which makes the no-show rather an intelligent move, as she didn't even have to deal with JJ's verbal abuse.

  • @johnjordan6736
    @johnjordan6736 16 днів тому +1

    In any other country this would never make it to a courtroom. It’s ridiculous.

    • @mfoco1
      @mfoco1 15 днів тому

      It didn't make it to a Courtroom in the US.

    • @johnjordan6736
      @johnjordan6736 15 днів тому

      @@mfoco1 what the fuck kind of room are they in then?

    • @mfoco1
      @mfoco1 15 днів тому

      @@johnjordan6736 a TV studio.

    • @johnjordan6736
      @johnjordan6736 15 днів тому

      @@mfoco1 are you being intentionally thick?

  • @chrisdavid3510
    @chrisdavid3510 25 днів тому +18

    He shouldn’t pay her because she didn’t show up. JJ should have dismissed with prejudice. Once again Judy doesn’t follow the law.

    • @sanelaalic6715
      @sanelaalic6715 25 днів тому +5

      you keep bashing her in every comment you make, maybe don't watch??

    • @Snapper4337
      @Snapper4337 25 днів тому +4

      she did dismiss the case. The plantiff will need to refile a new case

    • @chrisdavid3510
      @chrisdavid3510 25 днів тому +2

      @@Snapper4337should have been with prejudice. Meaning it can’t be refiled. The plaintiff chose not to show.

    • @Snapper4337
      @Snapper4337 25 днів тому +7

      @@chrisdavid3510 the judge gave him the opportunity to end the case by awarding her the $30 he refused to do it. the judge felt that she was owed the 30 so she allowed the case to be refiled thats why she didnt dismiss with prejudice. All he had to say was yes. the show would of paid the 30 so I am sure he didnt understand that .

    • @chrisdavid3510
      @chrisdavid3510 25 днів тому

      @@Snapper4337 you don’t get it. Apparently you’re as uneducated as Judy.

  • @amandamandamands
    @amandamandamands 9 днів тому +1

    The part that gets me is that Judge Judy didn't ask him if she asked to be paid back before she decided to sue him. Even if she had of 9 days isn't very long to be overdue before suing.

  • @johnnyallred3753
    @johnnyallred3753 19 днів тому +3

    Judge judy is Wrong The woman did not show up, The Judge should rule in the young mans faver and not just dismiss it, so the woman can file again.

    • @jonathancampbell5231
      @jonathancampbell5231 9 днів тому

      If the woman shows she had a good reason for not being there (emergency etc) then she can just sue again, regardless of what Judge Judy says.

  • @justapile4376
    @justapile4376 15 днів тому +1

    She obviously doesn't care about the money. Since she never bothered showing up.

  • @scottmcwave9479
    @scottmcwave9479 25 днів тому +8

    Hilarious 🤣

  • @misterskippy2u
    @misterskippy2u 19 днів тому +2

    Is that Frozone at 3:44? LOL

  • @jrewing1512
    @jrewing1512 25 днів тому +4

    This is very new.

  • @brendawilkins9649
    @brendawilkins9649 18 днів тому +1

    He’s not wrong Judge Judy. First of all he didn’t mention that the military only gets paid on the 1st and the 15th of each month. If Sailor Lambert in fact works with the woman she knows that as well. So he gets paid on the 1st and paid on the 9th.. sounds to me like the plaintiff was being petty. This leads me to believe that there was something else in play like a relationship that went sour so she wanted revenge. Honestly she got paid…. She herself should have dropped the suit that SHE CHOSE TO FILE just to be petty. She got her money… she doesn’t deserve to be reimbursed for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

  • @bennylane9701
    @bennylane9701 25 днів тому +3

    Aye, aye, your honor.

  • @jaygreentree
    @jaygreentree 18 днів тому +1

    So wait she doesnt show up and the judge still thinks he should pay? Usually it doesnt go that way. If they dont show up its game over and the defendant wins.

  • @jlc9590
    @jlc9590 25 днів тому +7

    I wouldn't show up for 30 dollars either.

    • @LindaLaurenPsychicMedium
      @LindaLaurenPsychicMedium 25 днів тому +4

      Then don’t sue if you can’t back up your own little measly claim of $30. It doesn’t mean much to you then why Sue in the first place?

  • @thomasharris5151
    @thomasharris5151 19 годин тому

    Typically if there’s a court case and the plaintiff misses court, it’s over! Unless there’s extreme circumstances

  • @27Killermike
    @27Killermike 25 днів тому +17

    Bet that guy never made E7 lol

    • @JeffreyAu1
      @JeffreyAu1 25 днів тому +1

      I doubt he made it to E5. 🤣

    • @sunnystormy4973
      @sunnystormy4973 25 днів тому

      xD ... !

    • @lovejones92
      @lovejones92 25 днів тому +2

      Dude was probably stuck at E4 for the longest 😂🤣😂

    • @RandyLaheySunnyvale
      @RandyLaheySunnyvale 23 дні тому

      Ok loser who can't get a job so joins the service.

    • @pitsnipe5559
      @pitsnipe5559 17 днів тому

      E3 with a good conduct ribbon???

  • @MegaLokopo
    @MegaLokopo 9 днів тому +1

    I want to see this keep going until the case sees multiple judges more than once. I would rather embarrass a coworker by having them show up to court sueing someone repeatedly over 30 dollars than just pay the 30 dollars.

  • @justcogitating
    @justcogitating 25 днів тому +7

    He died in 2016 at age 44. He had three children.

  • @TDMTDMTDM
    @TDMTDMTDM 25 днів тому +5

    $30......

  • @cynthiaoconnor7185
    @cynthiaoconnor7185 24 дні тому +2

    Did the woman file in the 8 days between when she was due payment or after she received payment? Did she try to contact the defendant or did she immediately run to court? It feels that the plaintiff just wants to make the defendant run in circles, especially since she didn't show up FOR THE LAWSUIT SHE FILED!! Why was she not punished for wasting the court's time, the defendant's time and Judge Judy's time?

    • @mfoco1
      @mfoco1 15 днів тому

      Partly because it's not a real court.

  • @adamblutter
    @adamblutter 24 дні тому +4

    Though saying when the judge says “she will bring you to court on another day” you cannot be sued for the same thing twice, she missed her chance to sue😂

  • @dannigro8794
    @dannigro8794 23 дні тому +2

    She can sue him, but she won’t show up to court. That’s kind of stupid.

  • @markbrandon7359
    @markbrandon7359 25 днів тому +5

    Humiliated over $30 I wonder if his rank is petty officer 1st Ass

  • @ihazdashcam
    @ihazdashcam 19 днів тому +1

    He didn't want to be called "Seaman"? LOL

    • @VelmaB1
      @VelmaB1 10 днів тому

      It all depends on the pronunciation

  • @Fickets
    @Fickets 25 днів тому +12

    “Morally you’re wrong”
    Where has morals ever mattered in a court of law?

  • @chelsearenee8125
    @chelsearenee8125 25 днів тому +7

    Lunch crew

  • @Thunderhawk51
    @Thunderhawk51 3 дні тому

    Never ever loan money to anyone and never ever EVER loan money from someone. Saves you from a lot of trouble.

  • @WarGrowlmon18
    @WarGrowlmon18 25 днів тому +3

    This is gonna cost her a lot more than 30 bucks🤣🤣🤣. Public humiliation for one thing.

  • @robertbarth1362
    @robertbarth1362 20 днів тому +1

    Don't mess with Judge Judy🧑‍⚖,she has secret trap doors in her courtroom and a dungeon full of hungry gators🐊. "Chomp, Chomp." The litigants check in,but they don't check out.😆That would be a great skit on Mad TV📺.

  • @user-cv3wm8uu3y
    @user-cv3wm8uu3y 25 днів тому +3

    just for info sake YNSN is Yoeman Seaman, Seaman is E3 in the navy.

    • @official2KJay
      @official2KJay 25 днів тому +1

      EXACTLY, I just commented this too, should've just said Seaman Lambert not YNSN 😂

    • @robertkarp2070
      @robertkarp2070 21 день тому

      @@official2KJay He's in a civil court. That YNSN doesn't mean anything. I was Petty Officer 1st Class, when I had court, they called me Mr. Karp. Civil Courts are not all that up on protocols for enlisted. However, with Commissioned Officers, they'd make an effort to call the person by their rank because Commissioned Officers are Official Officers of the United States Government.

  • @jamesthompson3099
    @jamesthompson3099 11 днів тому

    Things may have changed but when I ran a business in California some years ago, Small Claims was a "One and done" operation. If you opted to file under Small Claims you were bound by the decision. No refiling in a municipal court allowed. I would think that binding arbitration (which this is) is handled the same by the courts.

  • @cmritchie04
    @cmritchie04 18 днів тому +1

    It is called a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT, there is no argument to hear....when you file for court you also get the court cost back if you lose your case you lose the court filings.

  • @ADobbin1
    @ADobbin1 5 днів тому +1

    Why didn't he pay her? He doesn't have the money.

  • @billmoran3219
    @billmoran3219 25 днів тому +2

    Why should she be rewarded, she didn’t show up to court so she forfeited her case ! That’s on her!
    I don’t think he understood JJ, she told him a second time that they were going to pay plaintiffs court costs all he had to do was except her ruling, which was wrong because plaintiff didn’t show , lost by default.

  • @bludragon77
    @bludragon77 12 годин тому

    Dude if it takes 30 bucks for you to be done and not ever see her again that’s getting off cheap

  • @CeltycSparrow
    @CeltycSparrow 25 днів тому +1

    This isn't about $30 in court costs to her. Its the principle of the matter, that he was late paying her back, even after she did him a favor and gave him an extra week and then she had to be out half her money, to take him to small claims court, because he was late paying her back.

  • @RoGueNavy
    @RoGueNavy 2 дні тому

    I can't believe he went on TV, with that raggedy-ass t-shirt with his uniform.

  • @morbo3000
    @morbo3000 2 дні тому

    If plaintiff wanted to be awarded costs for the first lawsuit, the proper way to do it was by filing a motion for costs post-judgement. By not doing so, she effectively waived any claim for costs. As a matter of law, this case must be dismissed with prejudice. That having been said, I understand the show is binding arbitration so JJ can do whatever she wants using any reasoning she wants.

  • @DGRIFF
    @DGRIFF 15 днів тому

    This is the most unexpectedly funny segment the moment she asked him if he'd like to pay her 😂

  • @kimberlyp2778
    @kimberlyp2778 23 дні тому +1

    Already filed charges and had him served within 8 days? Wow.

  • @beanomac3126
    @beanomac3126 16 днів тому

    Called her sir. 😂

  • @taigenraine
    @taigenraine 17 днів тому +2

    It's not this guy's fault that she started a lawsuit 9 days after payday to get 60 bucks back. She got her money back the first time she saw him after payday, it was her foolishness to start a lawsuit about it barely more than a week past due.

  • @jaschu09
    @jaschu09 17 днів тому

    Love her closing comment.

  • @rdl8878
    @rdl8878 3 дні тому

    For a paltry sum like that? She chose to file. And then she sues for $30. Incredible.

  • @user-xo9up2ly3q
    @user-xo9up2ly3q 19 днів тому +1

    He should be addressed as Seaman. Guess we know why he didn’t make PN. And where was this junior sailor’s chief???? Shipmate what were you doing in JJ????

  • @user-jy9dp7fb7f
    @user-jy9dp7fb7f 25 днів тому +2

    Never have seen one person show up for court

  • @melissablackburn4910
    @melissablackburn4910 19 днів тому +1

    Anyone who sues anyone for $60! You know it's not about the money but them proving a point or hurt ego 🙄🙄.....
    and the fact it's a woman ...he probably cheated on her or doesn't want her romantically and so she's taking revenge! 👌

  • @ssjtruncks90
    @ssjtruncks90 14 днів тому

    First thing my folks taught me is never loan money or items you’re not prepared to lose. Not sure if the woman that supposed to be there was his family or not but one rule I have is never owe family. I normally give “loans” out to family as their birthday or Christmas gift for the year or more depending on the amount of the “loan”

  • @amandaeileen5793
    @amandaeileen5793 25 днів тому

    The "NO!" is comical!

  • @_majohn92
    @_majohn92 7 днів тому

    Brings a new meaning to “Petty Officer”

  • @MrBeautiful2908
    @MrBeautiful2908 14 днів тому

    When I was going through a divorce in 2008, my now ex-wife didn’t even show up for court and the judge and our lawyers for for about two hours. The judge become very annoyed, and she went and had me and her divorced by default. After that, she wished me good luck, and I went on about my business.

  • @housekrell8811
    @housekrell8811 23 дні тому +1

    Very shocked she didn't dismiss the class, if the plaintiff can't be bothered to show up, they have no right to any money... but alas it was a different time and a softer JJ

  • @durtydeedsREI
    @durtydeedsREI 17 днів тому

    Dude is scared, "Yes Sir" lololol

  • @nancymcclain2533
    @nancymcclain2533 17 днів тому +1

    No the plaintent didn't show she looses. She's petty and I agree with sailor.

  • @davidhall7811
    @davidhall7811 24 дні тому +1

    Wow she was very quick to sue him.

  • @marks2997
    @marks2997 19 днів тому

    HH is such a delight to watch.

  • @overyonderjustapiece
    @overyonderjustapiece 18 днів тому

    Actually, since he was denied the opportunity to face his accuser, she should have thrown it out with a judgement for the defendant due to plaintiff not appearing.

  • @philipposkasotis8658
    @philipposkasotis8658 25 днів тому +2

    I would not pay her either. She wants to play around for $30 dollars, let her. Because she can close the chapter too and says who cares about $30 dollars

  • @mariehampton740
    @mariehampton740 16 днів тому

    Well, I've got to hand it to him. He's an honest honest man.❤😊