03x115 - Incarcerated Injustice and Kitchen Nightmares

[bunniefuu]

- He said that you assaulted him.
- But I didn't hit him.

- [Michael] Get out of here. Ugh, ow, ow!
- So fake.

[Judy]
The judge granted him a restraining order.

I did not hit him.

Did the judge grant him
a restraining order?

- I'll plead the Fifth.
- It doesn't matter.

- [announcer] This is Judy Justice.
- [theme music]

[announcer] Nadine Unger is suing
her former friend, Michael Ponsford,

for damaged property
and filing a false police report.

[Kevin]
Court come to order. All rise.

- Have a seat, please.
- Judge, case 3166, Unger versus Ponsford.

- Thank you.
- You're welcome.

[Judy] Ms. Unger, your cause
of action against the defendant

has a couple of parts. First, you're suing
him for having you falsely arrested.

- Correct.
- [Judy] And then you say

that he damaged some property,
which he was storing for you in a unit?

- Correct. At his house.
- [Judy] Okay.

Those are the two things
that you're suing him for.

He has a counterclaim for property damage,
which he's gonna tell me about.

So first, I'm gonna deal
with your complaint

'cause I've read your papers
and it appears to me

that you two have known
each other for a long time.

And at some point, after knowing
each other for a long time as friends,

you began a relationship.
In what year was that?

We didn't begin a relationship.
I rented a room in his house.

[Judy] Rented a room in his house.
That is some sort of a relationship.

That's more than shaking somebody's hand.

[Nadine] It's a relationship.
It's a business relationship.

[Judy] Well, I understand that, but you
were in fact in a relationship with him

while you were living in his house.

Could you give me an answer, yes or no?
That's a very easy answer.

- The answer is yes.
- I'll plead the Fifth. [laughs]

What? Ms. Unger,
please don't play with me.

You have a claim and your first claim
is that he had you arrested.

And what I am trying to establish
is the ground rules

for that part of your complaint,
having you falsely arrested.

- You knew each other for a long time?
- Yes.

[Judy]
Let's not play with each other.

You moved into his house
and when you moved into his house,

you began a relationship with him
after a period of time.

- After a period of time.
- [Judy] Okay.

- Very good.
- May I present some evidence?

- No.
- Sorry.

[Judy] While you were living in his house,
in the year 2022, two years ago,

according to you,
he had you arrested for domestic violence.

And the incident surrounding that
I'm going to encapsulate,

and tell me if there
is anything inconsistent

with what you wrote in your papers
and what I'm saying.

- Okay.
- On this date in 2022,

you took his phone.
You took his phone to make a call

and you went into another room
in the house?

No. He gave me his phone.
I asked if I could use it.

He gave me the phone
and I went into his shop and...

- That's exactly what I said.
- [Nadine] In the shop.

It's not in the house.

And I locked the door of the... his office,
so I could use the phone.

[Judy] The... madam, it's all pretty
irrelevant to me because what I read,

what he says happened,
what you say happened,

two different things,
but putting it all together,

you took his phone,
you went into a room, you locked the door.

And according to him,
he tried to get into the door

and he wanted his phone because
you were looking through his phone.

And when he finally got into the door
with a key, is that right, sir?

- Yes, ma'am.
- [Judy] Because it was his house,

he said that you assaulted him.

You left the house subsequent to that,
according to you, on that day,

you went out to a movie
and you went for something to eat

and then you went home.
That's what it says here.

- That's what he says.
- [Judy] And you went home.

And when you got home, the police were
there and they arrested you for as*ault.

I was arrested for as*ault.

- I did not hit him.
- [Judy] Just a second.

- You were arrested for as*ault?
- [Nadine] Yes.

That's what we're talking about.
And you were taken to jail.

- And you were in jail for how many days?
- Seven days.

- But I didn't hit him.
- Just a second.

We are getting
to why it doesn't matter, Ms. Unger.

- Getting to why?
- We're getting to why it doesn't matter.

[Nadine]
If I hit him or not...

- Yes.
- ...it doesn't matter?

[Judy]
We're getting to why it doesn't matter.

So you went to jail for seven days
and when you got out of jail,

you contacted the defendant
and went back...

- [Nadine] No, I couldn't.
- And you went...

- There was a restraining order.
- [Judy] ...went back to the house.

- No.
- [Judy] Are you telling me

that after this alleged as*ault, you
and the defendant... I've read your papers.

You and the defendant did not go back
to having a relationship

- for a period of time?
- No, never.

"After she was released from jail,

we made arrangements
for Nadine to get her belongings."

- Is that what happened?
- Correct.

"Shortly after that,
she came to me and apologized

- and wanted to rekindle things."
- No.

[Judy]
"She told me how overwhelmed she was

and her outburst was a one-time thing.

She never officially moved back in,
but she stayed at my house most nights."

- Are you telling me that...
- [Nadine] No.

- ...that is not true?
- That is not true.

[Judy] Did you ever stay at his house
after you got... careful what you tell me.

Did you ever stay at his house
after you were released from jail?

- No.
- Have any proof that she did?

- Uh...
- [Judy] That would be anything

after September 18th, 2022.

- I have the...
- [Judy] No. Just a second.

Don't speak. Just look.

- Well, these...
- [Judy] Don't speak.

I'm resting. Just find.

Any communication with her
after September of 2022?

I didn't say I never communicated to him,
but I never spent the night there.

He won't find anything.

There's no evidence
I spent the night at his house after that.

- I don't know whether you did or not.
- I did not.

[Michael] I had screenshots taken of
conversations, but nothing's dated here.

- [Judy] Okay. So...
- [Nadine] There's no proof

- because it never happened.
- I'm not so sure, Ms. Unger,

'cause I don't think that you were
actually totally honest with me,

in any event, he filed a
restraining order against you,

- a temporary restraining order...
- At the same time.

[Judy] ...according to what you said.
And the restraining order was granted?

- [Nadine] Yes.
- Was it granted after a trial?

- Did...
- A hearing.

[Judy]
Well, a hearing, a trial.

- And you appeared before a judge?
- Yes.

- [Judy] And you were sworn to testify?
- Yes.

- And you testified?
- Yes.

[Judy]
Well, you had to testify and he testified.

Other than the two of you,
did anybody else testify?

- [Nadine] No.
- [Judy] And after the hearing,

which has the same quantum level
of proof that I have here,

the judge granted him a restraining order.

- The judge said he didn't...
- [Judy] Just a second.

Did the judge
grant him a restraining order?

- He did.
- For how long?

- Six months.
- [theme music]

You had a similar
civil proceeding before a judge

who heard you testify and he testified
as to the nature of the as*ault.

- I didn't testify though.
- [Judy] You just told me that you did.

- Could you read that back?
- It says,

"'And you were sworn to testify?' 'Yes.'
'And you testified?' 'Yes.'"

I did not testify.

So, when you told me you testified,
you were lying to me?

[announcer]
And later today.

[Judy] You acknowledged that
the fried chicken had red inside

and you took it off?
That's either a yes or a no.

- That's what you say in your answer.
- Yes. Yes.

I'm getting hungry and testy.

- [laughs]
- [Leonard] I'm sorry.

[theme music]

[announcer] Nadine Unger claims
her former friend, Michael Ponsford,

damaged her belongings
and filed false charges against her.

Michael is countersuing
for property damage.

[Judy] Okay. I can't, here, nor will I,
overrule that judge's opinion

about whether or not
he was entitled to a restraining order.

And his restraining order
was based upon the events

- that took place in 2022, correct?
- Yes.

[Judy] Just that event. That was the
only kerfuffle that the two of you had,

- I assume?
- [Nadine] No.

[Judy]
It's the only time you were arrested?

- Correct.
- [Judy] Okay.

Well, the judge has already ruled on that,

so I'm not considering that,
it's not part of your case anymore.

It's already been adjudicated that you...

- [Michael] I have the arrest report.
- [Judy] Have what?

The arrest report where she was arrested.

[Judy] Does it take her statement
as to what happened?

- [Nadine] No.
- [Michael] It states that...

Shh. Don't tell me what it states,
then I can read it.

[Nadine] Your Honor, I counted


- the arrest report.
- [Judy] Mhm.

Police report indicates that you had a
relationship with him for two years.

- [Nadine] No.
- Not true.

- Okay.
- I moved in in July of 2021.

- And moved out when?
- [Nadine] When I was arrested.

- [Judy] And never came back?
- Never came back.

[Judy] Okay. In any event,
that case has already been adjudicated.

Another judge heard evidence on it.

And whether or not there
was sufficient showing

that he was entitled
to a protective order,

that court found that he did
and I'm bound by that court.

Those charges were dismissed.

[Judy]
I don't care whether they were dismissed.

The dismissal
is beyond a reasonable doubt.

The quantum of proof, on the other hand,
in a civil proceeding, is much less.

And a judge who heard his request
for a protective order granted it to him

on the same facts
that you're asking me to hear.

I cannot do that.
It's called res judicata.

The issue has already been decided
by a court where the quantum of proof

is exactly the same as it is before me.
I'm not relitigating that case, Ms. Unger.

- Do you understand?
- This was more like appeal.

[Judy]
I don't care whether you understand...

I don't care whether you understand
or not. I've just explained it to you.

You want to consult with an attorney,
you can do that.

The attorney will explain the same thing.

- You've had your day...
- [Michael] I brought a video.

- I'm not speaking to you.
- Okay.

- [Judy] You've had your day in court.
- [Nadine] I did not have a day in court.

That's why I'm suing him for damages
of filing a false police report.

Oh, no, no, no, madam, you did have
your day in court before a judge.

That was before the charges were dropped.

- The charges...
- [Judy] Listen to me.

- The criminal charges were dropped...
- [Judy] It doesn't...

- [Nadine] ...after the...
- It doesn't matter.

- After the...
- [Judy] It doesn't matter.

This is a civil proceeding. You had a
similar civil proceeding before a judge

who heard you testify
as to whether or not you assaulted him.

And he testified
as to the nature of the as*ault.

- And that court found...
- [Nadine] I didn't testify though.

[Judy]
You just told me that you did.

- [Nadine] I didn't testify.
- Could you read that back

when I asked her if she told her story?

Either you testified
or you were consented to the order.

- That's the only way. Yeah.
- It says,

"'And you were sworn to testify?' 'Yes.'
'And you testified?' 'Yes.'"

I did not testify.

So when you told me you testified,
you were lying to me?

It was a long time ago.

- I did not testify.
- [Judy] It was a long time ago.

Too long ago for me, too.

There was a final order of protection
granted for six months.

That case is finished.
Now, let's talk about your property.

[Michael] I brought a video of the as*ault
when she hit me in the office.

[Judy] Oh, I'd like to see that,
by the way. Just for giggles.

- [Michael laughs]
- Me too. For giggles.

[Michael] Get out of my office.
Get out of here.

- [Nadine] There he is.
- [Michael] Get out of here.

[Nadine] You get out of here.
I'm not doing anything.

[Michael] Get out of here.
Give me my phone and get out of here.

- No.
- [Michael groans]

[groans, yells] Ow, ow, ow.

[Nadine]
So fake.

[Michael] Ow! She took my phone.
I told her to get out of my shop,

- [scoffs]
- [Michael] out of my office,

and now she's slamming
the door and twisting my foot.

- [Nadine] That is so staged.
- [Michael] Ow!

You're not a good actor.

- [Judy] Okay. Turn it off.
- [Nadine] I'm not even in the picture.

Turn it off.
You were in the picture, Ms. Unger.

In any event,
it really is totally irrelevant.

- That case has already been adjudicated...
- [Nadine] It was.

...with the granting of an order
of protection to Mr. Ponsford.

Now, let's get to the property
that you say was either taken or...

- Destroyed.
- [Judy] ...destroyed.

Tell me what property
was either taken or destroyed.

[Nadine] Alright. I have pictures.
There were six vending massage chairs.

- Just a sec. Six vending...
- Commercial massage chairs.

[Judy]
And where were they?

They were in my storage unit that we
brought to his house on August 29th.

- [Judy] Of what year?
- 2022.

- We are now in 2024. Where...
- Yes. I had no resources.

I had no money when I got out of jail.
I had no money. I had no car. And...

[Judy] And what?
And you have no case. We're finished.

Your property's abandoned.
If you left property, it's abandoned.

- It's done. This is for...
- I couldn't go back.

[Judy] This is 2024. You couldn't go back.
You had an order of protection...

- [Nadine] Because that was...
- ...that was for how long?

- Six months.
- [Judy] Six months. Six months.

We are two years later.

- [Nadine] Yes.
- And I'm telling you, you have no case.

- [Nadine] He says he doesn't have...
- So you're a... so you're a goodbye.

- ...my massage chairs.
- [Judy] So you're a goodbye.

I have a counterclaim. I wanna know
if it's as ridiculous as her claim.

- No, it's not ridiculous.
- [Judy] Your counterclaim

- is from what year?
- 2022, Your Honor.

[Judy]


- Have you been incarcerated since 2022?
- [Michael] No, ma'am.

[Judy] Have you been hospitalized
for more than a week since 2022?

- No, Your Honor.
- Where have you been since 2022?

[Michael]
Living and working at my home.

Very good. Then you should
have brought your counterclaim,

which you could have acted
as a claim in 2022, correct?

- [Michael] Yes. Correct. If I...
- Just answer my question.

That's why courts say you have to act
within a period of time that's reasonable.

Two years is not reasonable.

We say that to her with regard
to the property she's fetching about.

And I say the same to you. You have
a problem with her damaging your property.

You should have brought
an action two years ago.

I dwelled on it for a while.

Well, dwell on my dismissal for a while.
This case is over.

- [Kevin] This court is adjourned.
- [theme music]

Well, I... planned on having a case
for two years, putting it together,

and, you know, didn't get a chance.

This case was a great display
of timeliness and why it matters,

especially in courts.

I think two years is a long time
to wake up every single day

and you still have the property damage
every single day.

And then you don't decide
until one morning,

"You know, maybe I should sue for that."
And it takes up court's time.

And not to say it's not important,
but if it was that important to you,

you would've sued in a timely,
as you said,

to the reasonable person,
which in this case is you.

- [Judy] Well, it's unreasonable.
- [laughs]

You're putting the defendant
in the position

of having to respond to a cause
of action without any specificity.

- [Judy] And that's unreasonable.
- Yeah.

Okay. Good.

Case 3156, Davis versus McClain.
All parties, please come forward.

[announcer] Verona Davis is suing
her son's friend, Leonard McClain,

for a refund of catering services
for her birthday party.

Alright. Ms. Davis,
you were planning a birthday party.

- Yes.
- [Judy] You were planning,

and it was a big birthday party,

- and you hired the defendant...
- [Verona] Yes.

- ...to prepare the food for the party.
- Correct.

[Judy] And it is your claim in this
lawsuit that he served bad food?

- Correct.
- [theme music]

It was my 70th birthday party
and he humiliated me

[sobs] in front of all
my friends and my family.

- I paid a lot of money...
- Let me explain something to you.

Everybody celebrated,

so don't give me tears
because the fried chicken was bad.

[theme music]

[announcer] Verona Davis claims
her son's friend, Leonard McClain,

owes for a refund of catering services

after he served cold food
during her 70th birthday party.

- Okay. So the birthday party was when?
- December the 16th, 2023.

- [Judy] How many people were there?
- Approximately, 60, 70 people.

- Well, I need to know how many...
- [Verona] Seventy people.

- [Judy] So 70 people were being fed?
- Yes.

- And he charged you $1,800?
- That's correct.

- [Judy] Or $25 a person.
- [Veronica] Correct.

- Correct?
- [Leonard] No.

- [Judy] How much did you charge her?
- $1,900.

- [Judy] Did she pay you the $1,900?
- No, she paid 1,800.

So stay with it. $25 a person. Okay.

And how many courses
was he supposed to serve?

It was courses of fried chicken,
baked chicken, cod fish, roast beef,

meatballs, tossed salad,
potato salad, string beans...

[Judy] Okay. That's a lot of food
for $25 a person.

Okay. And you had your birthday party
and you claim that the food was bad.

The fried chicken was not well-cooked.
Is that correct?

- That's correct, Your Honor.
- [Judy] Right. The baked chicken?

The baked chicken
was not well-cooked either.

- What about the roast beef?
- The roast beef was raw.

[Judy]
Do you have any photographs for me?

Yes, I do, ma'am.

I'd like to see the photographs
of the food that you're talking about.

I don't see anything wrong
with these pictures.

I see you have circled
a piece of fried chicken

and you have circled
that it looks as if it was bloody inside.

- Correct, Your Honor.
- [Judy] But there's nothing wrong

with the other pictures you showed me.
This doesn't do it for me.

Your Honor, if you see,
there's pink in the middle.

I saw that. He acknowledges that.
He said he took it off.

When you showed it to him,

you acknowledged that you saw that
the fried chicken had red inside

and you took it off.
That's either a yes or a no.

- That's what you say in your answer.
- Yes. Yes.

I'm getting hungry and testy.

- [chuckles]
- [Leonard] I'm sorry.

- [Judy] So just answer my question.
- Yes.

Don't think about what I would like
to hear or what's good for you.

You say in your answer,
you took the fried chicken off

- 'cause it wasn't prepared right?
- Yes.

[Judy] Okay. Did she complain
about any other of the food to you?

- No.
- [Judy] Okay.

You didn't complain about any of the
other food in your complaint, either?

I complained... after the party, Your Honor,
we had a meeting... we had three meetings.

I explained to him
the chicken was half-cooked.

I have complaints from my guest.

[Judy] Just a second.
Can't tell me about complaints.

The fried chicken he acknowledges
was not cooked enough.

Next, next.
I looked at the other pictures.

There's nothing wrong
with the other pictures of the other food.

Nothing. What do you want me
to see in the other pictures?

Look perfectly fine.
You were feeding 70 people for $1,800.

You never said anything was wrong
with the baked chicken.

You said there was something wrong
with the fried chicken.

So what did you have meetings about?

Your Honor, I complained
about the baked chicken

and the fried chicken after the party

when I called Lenny up and showed him the
chicken, 'cause he gave me a thumbs up.

I said, "Come here,
I need to show you something."

When I showed it to him, he acknowledged
that the chicken was half-cooked.

Also, the chicken was cold. Everything
was cold. So, when I told him that,

he explained to me that...
his worker cooked the food, right?

So I explained to him later on the next
day, 'cause he sent me a text,

saying that he apologized for
the food was bad and he apologized...

[Judy]
Oh, I'd like to see... just a second.

If you have a text
that he apologized to you

because the food was bad,
other than the fried chicken,

which he acknowledges, I'd like to see it.

- Just a second.
- [Verona] Yes.

Just a second.

Very nice. He says he apologizes
for the fried chicken. That's it.

He said, "I need to truly apologize
for the mishap with the fried chicken."

He took responsibility for it,
for the fried chicken.

- So people didn't eat the fried chicken?
- Nobody ate the fried chicken.

[Judy] Good. Nobody ate
the fried chicken. Everybody ate.

There were a lot of other things
for them to eat.

By the way,
did you have a contract for $1,900?

Because she's a family friend,
I didn't do a contract.

What kind of accommodation...

'cause she wants the full amount she paid
for you. That is never gonna happen.

- You served one dish that was not cooked.
- [Leonard] Correct.

What kind of accommodation
were you prepared to make?

I was willing to reimburse her
for the price of the fried chicken.

- And how much was that?
- For two pans, it was $250.

- [Judy] For both?
- Yes, 125 each.

- Did he offer that to you?
- Yes, ma'am.

[Judy] You should have taken it.
You had a party. People ate.

If you don't like him as a caterer,
don't use him again.

He acknowledged he made a mistake.

His chef undercooked... or whoever it was,
undercooked the chicken.

He was prepared to give you a substantial,
based upon the whole number that you paid,

accommodation of $250. I'm telling you,
you should have taken it and run.

- Ma'am, may I say something, Your Honor?
- [Judy] Say whatever you want.

- [Verona] Okay. Your Honor...
- In 30 seconds.

[Verona]
He... okay. Real quick.

$250 he offered me, plus a $800
food credit. So I explained to him,

"If you offer me a $800 food credit,

why should I use your $800 food credit
when you ruined my party?"

It was my 70th birthday party
and he humiliated me

[sobs]
in front of all my friends and my family.

- I paid a lot of money...
- Let me explain something to you.

I had several weddings,
two or three of my own,

a lot of weddings for my children,
even a couple for my grandchildren.

And every once in a while
there was a bad dish,

but everybody ate and everybody celebrated

because they were celebrating
your birthday or a wedding.

So don't give me tears
because the fried chicken was bad.

You should have taken the $250.

Are you still prepared
to offer her the $250?

Yes. Minus the $100
that she still owed me.

[Judy] Well, all I wanna see is,
that she owed you the 100.

She said 1,800. Show me the conversation
where she was supposed to pay you 1,900

and I will certainly do that.

Unless Ms. Davis acknowledges
that the bill was supposed to be 1,900.

- You wanna acknowledge that?
- [Judy] Shh. Don't ask her.

- I'm sorry.
- [courtroom laughs]

- I asked her. She understood me.
- [Leonard] Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

Do you acknowledge
you were supposed to pay him 1,900?

I acknowledge
I was gonna pay 1,900, but...

[Judy] And that you gave him 1,800?

- I gave him 1,800.
- [Judy] Okay.

So that I will give you the credit
for the $100 she didn't pay you.

So judgment for the plaintiff
in the amount of $150.

We are finished here. Thank you very much.

- All right. Thank you.
- [Kevin] This court is adjourned.

[theme music]

I'm happy with the decision.

Nobody didn't eat any food at that event.

I tried to offer her the money.
We didn't have to go through this.

It was very disappointing.
It was humiliating and I am...

It was... it was horrible.

These are things when people try
to be greedy, this is what happens.

My 70th birthday party and it was ruined.

You know, I really thought that defendant
did everything he could to make it right.

Sometimes, things get
undercooked and served.

He was notified about it
by her at the party.

He pulled it away, as soon as he heard,
took accountability, said, "I'm so sorry

for this one dish out of many
that didn't turn out how it should have.

And I am willing
to give you this discount.

Obviously, you don't have to pay for it."

And I thought that was
a pretty standup response.

So I thought he did everything right
and I think...

- [Judy] I did, too.
- ...the right thing happened in the end.

- Me, too.
- [Sarah laughs]

[announcer]
Want Justice?

[theme music]