who's on judge mathis today? #220
an idiotic recap of the greatest syndicated courtroom show of all time
plaintiff: stacy from jamaica, new york. let me tell you something that absolutely changed my life: i can finally get coffee delivered to my home in this small ass town and now that i’ve had one precious drop of serotonin released in my brain i feel like i finally have the will to live? sure we have an aeropress but i………………….am not using that. and yes i could go to the drive thru, but: I AM AFRAID OF MY CAR. it’s like driving a big computer, which is not my ideal but unless you time travel and buy a car that was made in 1985 you just gotta fucking deal with it. a couple (??) months ago i did an unintentional 360 in the middle of the fucking highway in a goddamn snowstorm because the right rear wheel sensor suddenly stopped working and apparently it controls the all wheel drive for the entire fucking vehicle?????? (i learned this from the mechanic, who at first condescendingly asked me if maybe i’d been “pressing the brake wrong” can you believe??) one teeny weeny sensor had me slaloming all over 131 on a collision course with vehicular homicide, and it’s not even that nice of a fucking car!! it’s a honda!!!! IMAGINE ME DYING IN A FUCKING HONDA PILOT!!!!!!! so now i only drive it if i have to do something important, like take the dog to school or sitting in an empty parking lot listening to the same song over and over again. if anybody has any tips on how to con my way out of a three-year lease i just signed in august (just end my life already, who cares) i’m all ears. anyway stacy looks gorgeous in a fitted royal blue blazer that’s nipped in at the waist, her shiny black hair parted down the middle, and her accordion of truth™ wound tighter than i am.
defendant: tricia from hollis, new york. i’m not a blazer guy but i love to see people who can carry off a good one, and tricia is wearing a tight slate number with ¾ sleeves and a pale lavender blouse underneath, but the most exciting thing she’s wearing is a big chanel brooch (i am not a fashion person but i do recognize the interlocking Cs) and loops of pearls around her neck, and these two beauties legitimately look like they just stepped out of the newest issue of girlboss monthly and i am obsessed.
the complaint: stacy knows tricia from high school, so she tried to support her online boutique and claims a dress she ordered was stained and the shoes she got were knockoffs (okay…………….maybe that’s not a chanel brooch?) and she’s suing for a refund and a dry-cleaning bill.
what does she want: $348!!!!!!!! oh my GOD i love a case when the damages the plaintiff is suing for is an amount she could get from passing a collection plate around the audience!!!!!!!!!!!
how it went down: stacy says that she and tricia went to high school together and they were “pretty friendly” both during high school and after graduation, which tugs at my little heartstrings because half the bitches in my phone are people i’ve known since 1993. forgive this earnestness, but isn’t it kind of nice to still know people who’ve been around through a lifetime of your stupid ass shit? i’ve known my oldest friend since kindergarten and it’s w i l d that i can call her up like, “jen, remember when i wet my pants during recess in fourth grade” and she can say, “yeah, you were wearing lavender corduroys, you idiot.” maybe that’s only comforting to me because i don’t have parents to incessantly remind me of my early life’s myriad humiliations, but i think it’s nice. yay, friends!!!
stacy said that she heard tricia was operating an online boutique and she decided to buy some things to support her. stacy says her birthday was coming up, so she called tricia to see if she had any white dresses available to purchase. oh nooo. i don’t do white parties because my body contains too many fluids i have minimal to no control over, but i respect people who can and do! couldn’t be me looking like jackson pollock’s worst painting at the end of a birthday celebration but i love that for her!!!!!!!! tricia sent stacy pictures of three options, and she chose one dress and a pair of shoes, which are both on the podium next to her. boy what i wouldn’t give to see her pull those out of an accordion of truth™, but i digress. i gotta look up what kind of shoes these are, i mean what type of shoe this is called, because i would describe them as “untenable instagram posing shoes” but i know that’s not their real name. okay they look almost exactly like this platform peep toe stiletto (ugh RIP to my targeted ads) in a matte pinkish-nude fabric, and i broke my ankle just looking at this shit.
stacy ordered the dress and shoes on january 4 and when they hadn’t yet arrived a week later she reached out to tricia who responded “a bit anxious, are we?” this is my #8 nightmare, someone talking to me about something i’ve purchased in a way that sounds vaguely judgmental. as a person who both lives for the endorphin rush that accompanies clicking “add to cart” and also dreads the inevitable crash back down to earth once i’ve gone through with the purchase i would immediately cancel my order because tricia made me feel weird about it. that’s why i can’t go to trader joe’s, because i don’t want to have an in-depth conversation about the snacks in my cart. i would happily talk about literally anything other than the watermelon jerky i am impulse-buying and will soon regret, want to get into my recent bloodwork or maybe a list of every single person i’ve ever slept with??? anyway, i am crushingly mentally ill!
stacy was like “well yeah, i actually am? i’d like to make sure it fits and looks nice before my 30th birthday party” and tricia called her two days later to tell her the dress and shoes were in and she could pick them up. stacy says that when she went to pick them up her items were out of the original packaging and waiting for her in a glittery gift bag, and after chatting with tricia for a few minutes she took them home to try them on and discovered the dress fit but the shoes were too big. she asked tricia if she could get the shoes in a smaller size and tricia informed her that she could have them in three days, despite the fact that it took three weeks to get the original order in.
the next morning stacy woke up and went to look at her outfit again and realized that the neck and sleeve of the dress were stained and was dismayed to discover that the shoes she’d been given were fake louboutins. YES i had to google how to spell it (i am currently wearing a pair of those crocs cloud shoes they made for sick people so yeah i’m ~unfamiliar~) and since i was already looking i think these are the style tricia’s boutique was trying to replicate, and this one pair of shoes costs one thousand one hundred and forty-five american dollars and i will scream if stacy thought she was getting a designer dress and shoes for under five hundred bucks???? (and duh i understand how boosting works but this woman is braver than the troops if she brought an internet scammer on television court to sue her for fraudulent stolen goods!!!!!!!!!!!)
oh thank goodness i can still love stacy because she says she didn’t think they were louboutins, she thought she was just buying a sexy tan shoe, but when she looked at them she saw they had fake red bottoms and a fake louboutin imprint/logo and that grossed her out. greg is like SHE DID NOT and stacy’s like YES SHE DID and the judge busts out laughing as he examines the shoe and whaddya know there’s a “louboutin” logo etched into the sole. “knockoffs! bootleg!” he exclaims while everyone laughs, and now i’m getting nervous because what if mr. louboutin is a fan of courtroom drama and he sees this??? DO YOU THINK HE WILL SUE TRICIA IN JUDGE MATHIS’S COURT?????????
stacy says tricia “couldn’t believe the dirty dress and replica shoes” and swore to her that they were authentic and that the only thing she’d done was remove them from their original shein packaging. (jk jk jk) tricia says that everything stacy is saying about high school and her online boutique is correct and that she was so excited that stacy liked and ordered the dress that she even named it after her on her website. (“it’s spelled wrong.” - stacy) tricia also says that she took the dress right out of the ups box it came in so if the dress is stained it’s not on her, and that on her website it states that there is a strict no return policy on footwear. greg asks if tricia intentionally misled stacy about the louboutins and tricia says no, stacy asked if she sold “red bottoms” (louboutin shoes are known for their trademark red soles) and tricia gives judge mathis a printed out text sheet™ in which she replied “yeah these are red bottoms.” greg is like “so you lied?” and tricia says, “technically i didn’t, those shoes have red bottoms, don’t they? they’re just not louboutins.” BAHAHAHA THERE GOES MY HERO. greg starts laughing so hard he can’t even catch his breath. this is hilarious but also i’m wondering if stacy’s birthday was okay? did she find a non-replica nude pump for her party????? see, this shit doesn’t happen when you wear brooks orthopedic walking shoes from the store attached to the podiatrist’s office!!!
the ruling: tricia says she offered to have the dress cleaned but since stacy “dragged [her] to court” she rescinded the offer, but come on girl this process takes months and her birthday was in january!!! and, she continues, how was she supposed to know that stacy didn’t dirty the dress intentionally after their initial dust up over the…………….[in my trump voice] FAKE SHOES? this has been a lot of fun but the judge’s ruling is pretty straightforward: tricia gets her “red bottoms” returned and stacy gets $18 to dry clean the dress she’s gonna keep, plus the $180 she spent on the shoes which is enough to buy *does some quick calculations* at least 49 pairs of medical crocs.
did uncle greg say anything fucked up to anyone: “i am very familiar with louboutins! what made you think you were getting some real louboutins for a hundred and ninety dollars???????”
*bangs gavel*