The People’s Court Podcast

First, the plaintiff says he has an ad business for restaurant menus. He claims the defendant, a laundromat owner, backed out of a deal they made, so he’s suing. The defendant says he agreed to an ad as long as he was the only dry cleaner advertising, but his main competitor was on the same ad page. He denies owing anything.

Then, the plaintiff claims she rented an apartment from the defendant, but the woman won’t return most of her security deposit. She denies damaging anything, so she’s suing for the balance back. The defendant says she was shocked at how filthy the apartment was after the plaintiff left and she won’t return the deposit.

Plus, the plaintiff claims he bought a used car door from the defendant’s junkyard, but it didn’t fit his vehicle in the end. He claims the defendant won’t give him his money back, so he’s suing. The defendant says the plaintiff’s truck was damaged and that’s why the door didn’t fit.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff purchased a diamond engagement ring from the defendants and asked them to resize it to fit his fiancée’s finger. He claims the defendant compromised the ring because the diamonds are falling out and he’s replacing them with diamonds of lesser value. He’s suing for the cost of the ring. The defendants argue the plaintiff’s fiancée wore the ring for months and the diamond fell out due to abuse. They say they fixed the jewelry and even sent it back to the manufacturer for a new ring.

Then, the plaintiffs hired the defendant, a distant relative, to cater their wedding. They claim the food was terrible, everyone complained, and the quality was not what he promised. They’re suing for a portion of what they paid. The defendant argues there was a tornado warning on the day of the wedding, which impacted the food prep. He doesn’t think he owes them anything.

Plus, the plaintiff rented an apartment from the defendant, but she only ended up living there for two months. She says the defendant was unprofessional and won’t return her security deposit, so she’s suing. The defendant argues the plaintiff left the apartment in complete disarray, so if anyone is owed money, it’s him. He’s countersuing for cleaning costs.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff’s dog was killed when the defendant ran over his pet. He claims the defendant is rude and won’t take responsibility. He’s suing for pain and suffering, the cost of cremation, and shots. The defendant argues she drove slowly until the dogs were safely on the side of the road, but one ended up running under her car.

Then, the plaintiff organizes biannual trips with her church. The day they were supposed to leave, the bus operator said one driver couldn’t do it, but another would show up. The second driver never showed up, either. She ended up having to cancel the trip. She’s suing for the profit of theater tickets, cost of the tickets, and pain and suffering. The defendant argues the plaintiff was vague about her trip details, and it’s not his fault.

Plus, the plaintiff bought a house from the defendant, but after a week, he found mold spots. A week later, the mold spread elsewhere around the house. He claims the previous owner painted over the mold spots to hide it. He’s suing for the cost to remove the mold. The defendant argues he never painted over the mold and the house was in perfect condition when he sold it.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff and defendant are both exotic dancers at the same club. She claims the defendant took the plaintiff’s car without her permission, crashed it, and fled. The plaintiff says the defendant won’t pay for the damages, so she’s suing. The defendant argues she and the plaintiff were both drunk, so she shouldn’t completely be at fault because the plaintiff handed her the keys.

Then, the plaintiffs, a married couple, live next to the defendant. They say the defendant failed to trim his trees, which caused a limb to fall into their car. They’re suing for the cost of car damages. The defendant argues there was a snowstorm, which damaged a lot of the trees in the area. He says he gave the plaintiffs his insurance information, but now the plaintiffs are suing for more than what the car is even worth.

Plus, the plaintiff hired the defendants, a broker and landlord, to find him a room to live in. He claims the room ended up being illegal. He’s suing for rent and return of the broker’s fee. The defendants say the plaintiff started harassing another tenant, who got a restraining order against the plaintiff.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff rented a room from the defendant and claims it was like living in a house of horrors. He says the defendant is withholding his security deposit out of spite after he called Child Protective Services on her. He is suing to get the deposit back. The defendant claims she was falsely reported to CPS and is countersuing for defamation and pain and suffering.

Then, the plaintiff claims that while she was out walking her dog in public, the defendant’s dog reached through his fence, grabbed her dog, and caused injuries to the animal. She is suing for the $5,000 she’s owed. The defendant argues he has “Beware of Dog” signs up on his property. He has surveillance footage showing it was the plaintiff’s dog who reached through the fence, and his dog was simply defending itself on his property.

Plus, the plaintiff responded to an ad in the newspaper for a 2002 Mustang convertible, which said the car was in excellent condition. When he took it to his mechanic after purchasing it, he discovered it needed loads of work just to be roadworthy. He is suing the defendant for the money he spent on the car. The defendant claims the car was in great condition, it was kept in his garage, and he only sold it because his wife never let him drive with the top down.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices