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 RU-vid: / @judgejudy #JudgeJudy
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!
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
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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?
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.
@@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
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Ohhhhhhh, I would so like to make a comment … but the RU-vid 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 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.
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.
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.
@@OmniscientWarrior : How is he wrong, other than he didn't pay within the time he first said he would> Things do happen when promises are made that prevent them from being fulfilled. It happens.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
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 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
$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 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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
@@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 .
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Wow! I watched Judge Judy from 2000 to the end of the series and never saw a case with only the defendant. I did see one where only the plaintiff showed up, but she ended up dismissing that case for reasons I don't recall.
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.
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.
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.
The lady is not in the right here. If she really wanted that extra $30 she should have shown up to court. It is not the judges job to be the prosecution, that's a conflict of interest.
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.
@@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.
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😂
She didn't even show up so she is obviously doing this just to harrass him and give him a hard time. Shame this isn't a real court so it opens up the chance to sue him again for the same thing.
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.
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????
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?
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.
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.
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
