The plaintiffs are suing for the refund of a deposit on a puppy. The defendant claims the plaintiffs even tried to dispute the charges on their credit cards and lost. Case 29-187
I knew I recognized the defendant! Im not losing it haha. Thanks for the episode name! I wonder which case was first. I wonder if Judges ever recognize or remember situations like this, where theyve been there before.
So lets talk about how the defendant tried to say there was a “language” barrier when dealing with a black woman who’s first language is English... her prejudice almost slipped out.
@Richard Layton - look up the people's court episode "husky fuss" - same defendant being sued by another lady of color - she's the worse kind of prejudice.
The couple are too cute! The breeder is ridiculous thinking she can keep their money or not providing a dog. Her argument was illogical as they come...
@Trini Dazzling Henry it was not so much providing a puppy, not a dog, it was the the Plaintiff was undecided that night, she paid the deposit, did not read the contract. She also followed the defendant's unprofessional and illegal advice to the plaintiff to fight the credit card company, knowing they would lose, and got angry cause then the Plaintiff came back to her to work out the problem. The defendant spent the money and did not want to admit it to the plaintiff. Now she has to go to work to pay the $500.00 back the the plaintiff. Stupidity reigns with puppy mills breeders.
@Jasmine Tyra, the Plaintiff paid the down payment and changed her mind due to a home situation. It was in the episode. I think you were not paying attention to the situation at all. The Defendant was being a con, cause I bet she ran a puppy mill. So sad for the puppies and glad the Plaintiff got her money back from the unprofessional puppy mill breeder. Very unprofessional and no contract. Defendant will be on notice with the authorities for her illegal puppy mill.
Startrek1965 How did I not pay attention?? The whole point of my comment was they did not have a signed contract for her to refuse the Plaintiff a refund.
Kelly was on another episode when a plaintiff had brought her dog to Kelly’s doggy daycare & the dog had got a hole in his paw & she talked about how much she loved the dog
How she gonna tell her she can’t resell her dog she decided to buy, how’s she gonna keep the money and not give her a puppy. That lady is mean you could see it in her eyes.
UK MedicFRCS We heard her say that over and over u donut....but then she should have given the money back wo having to be sued. Hope this ruins her business cause she’s nasty
@@rod22lt And you need to learn to read. Maybe this conversation is too difficult for your limited comprehension. I didn't say a word about a contract. I was simply stating why ( whether she was right or wrong ) she didn't feel she needed to return the deposit. Maybe you should get a carer to help you when you venture outdoors. Those ' walk, don't walk ' signs can be pretty tricky.
After this episode, the other episode (husky fuss) she was on, the death of the puppy in her care, and being cited for inhumane treatment of animals it’s no wonder Kelly Jo Strabley lost her license to operate.
So this woman willingly came on tv for both of these cases?! Did she think she would win? I guess if she thought she was right, then she saw no problem.
The defendant is delusional, and it was confirmed by Doug's interview. (P.S. The husband of the plaintiff is a kick with his maxims, bromides and words of wisdom!)
Bromides? That doesn’t fit the sentence. Stop using a thesaurus in feeble attempts to sound intelligent. It doesn’t work if you cannot use the word effectively in a sentence. Maybe you should look up examples first. Bromides are the opposite of maxims.
Just imagine coming to pick up your dog just to be given an urn filled with what’s left of your pup. Lord knows getting physical isn’t right but I think I would’ve been ready to brawl!
@Lauren Reid what urn? They put down a deposit for a puppy and changed their minds. They were conned by illegal puppy dog breeder. They got their money back. Wrong case.
@@kiajames7737 What urn? There was a puppy and the couple put down a deposit and had to change their mind and no contract. The illegal puppy mill breeder had to pay the deposit back.
I never said anything about an urn but the case said they cremated the dog after .. ashes would be placed in an urn I think Kia James used that as an example. Yes it was specifically about the puppy deposit but the story of the dogs death in her care was beyond unsettling
I watched this around the time it was uploaded and I’m back just to say that this same defendant was served again for a dog getting a big hole in their arm. She just doesn’t care about the dogs.
@Andrea Skinner she was mad that the couple changed their mind, despite a no contract, and wanted their money back when she would not let them buy a future puppy. Shady illegal puppy mill breeder. All for the money, sad for the mother dog.
I might be crazy... but this defendant was on another case where she was being sued by a dog owner for injuries that occurred while at her dog daycare... that is concerning
I love Judge Milian... she's my fave . She's smart and fair. Loved how this case turned out. That pet shop owner is going to reap every bad act she sows. Thank God!!!
Wait.... 🗣 someones dog was mauled in her care, she lied to the dog owners about how their dog died, then had the dog cremated -- WHO DOES THAT 😳😳😳 THE DEFENDANT IS APESH!+ CRAZY 🤦🏾♀️🙄
The defendant is a total Karen. "No refunds" even though there was no contract, AND she can't even give them a puppy? Right after their family tragedy?? Not to mention the only reason that she has to worry about them trying to "flip" (resell) a puppy is because SHE put them in the position where they *have* to get a puppy because they're not getting their money back from her. You can't have your cake and eat it too. She practically stole that money from them.
That woman from paws and claws is shifty! Breaks my heart that she’s the caretaker for helpless creatures that can’t speak up. That owner is a real life modern day Dr.Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Wild!
I hope people refrain from doing business with the defendant. This is the second time I’ve seen her on the people’s court, as a defendant. She’s just bad business.
Dog breeders make me mad, breeders are ruthless and it’s just their “business “, it’s not about the love of their dogs. This is just another reason not to get your dog from a breeder....quit being dog snobs people. Go to the shelter. They need homes and love too.
I live in Hungary and people here adopt animals from shelters most of the time. I went last year to the shelter in my town and they only had 5 dogs for adoption and it was on a weekend when they had visiting days from children who can't have them home but their parents pay for the dogs maintenance. I was very happy to see that, here there are very few breeders since people definitely prefer to adopt.
There are alot of great breeders and nothing wrong with wanting a purebred puppy not often found in shelters. I have standard dachshund from a breeder, worth every penny. Also keep in mind some rescues make it difficult to adopt and often have a waitlist.and make you jump through hoops to get a dog.
Happens many times over the years. I guess some people just don't know left from right. Lol. Luckily, having a hand in the air, either one, doesn't matter. It's about the "I do", which already happens on paper before they walk into court.
I’ve watched her court back to back and just realised this defendant is the same woman being sued on peoples court from another lady who had her dog paw cut deeply in her care.
The look on the plaintiffs face when the defendant claimed there was a language barrier…I felt so terrible for her. She was uncomfortable listening to that comment, you could see it in her face. The defendant is despicable. The pet resort that the defendant owns is the same facility where a dog was mauled to death. Her reaction to this incident was to lie to the owners and say the dog died of a brain aneurysm, and have the dogs body cremated without their consent to get rid of the evidence of her negligence. So not only is her racism showing, but she’s also a liar and a crook.
The defendant got caught lying so many times her pants almost caught on fire. Notice how she said she implied that she didn't use her phone when the plaintiff came to the store. The first thing you saw when the plaintiff's video was shown in court was the defendant recording with her phone😂😂😂
This is Kelly's second appearance on the People's Court. The first time was in the episode Not Caring Enough when the plantiffs husky left her facility with a hole in its arm. Kelly said she knew nothing of it and won the case because of a clause in her contract. Seeing her again tells me all I need to know about this lady. Smh.
Something is very wrong with dog woman. I would be very wary of her! She seems to be unhinged and problematic. I would never work with her or allow her anywhere near a pet of mine.
This defendant is no good. I saw her on another episode of this show where another person had sued her for an injury to their dog at her pet resort. Why does she keep getting sued?
How can she say the couple doesn't deserve a dog, but she lied about how a dog died in her care. What a HORRIBLE person and business owner. I hope her business tanks after this and she can no longer breed.
Good God, I feel bad for those dogs. The defendant is a scam artist. The plaintiff was entitled to her money since the defendant refused to give the dog to her
The comment she said about there being a language barrier was so incredibly prejudice. That was so infuriating, I wish the judge would have been aware of how nasty that comment was.
