Judge Faith – Bad Breeding; Bite Me (Season 1: Episode #94)


ANNOUNCER: TODAY ON “JUDGE FAITH.” THIS WOMAN SAYS HER FORMER LOVER BORROWED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO BREED PIT BULLS BUT NEVER PAID ANYTHING BACK.>>EVERY TIME IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE DOGS AND WHAT HE NEEDED MONEY FOR. JUDGE: SO YOU WERE JUST SHELLING OUT CASH?>>YES, I WAS. JUDGE: AND YOU’RE SAYING THAT THOSE WERE ALL LOANS?>>CORRECT. ANNOUNCER: BUT HE CLAIMS HE WAS ALWAYS IN CONTACT WITH THE PLAINTIFF AND THE MONEY WOULD COME IF ANY PUPPIES WERE BORN.>>I KEPT IN TOUCH WITH HER EACH MONTH. JUDGE: NO, I’M LOOKING AT THE TEXT MESSAGES. YOU WEREN’T KEEPING UP WITH HER. SHE WAS KEEPING UP WITH YOU. ANNOUNCER: AND LATER, WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BITE THAT CAUSED THIS DOG TO GET 10 STITCHES?>>THE OTHER DOG JUMPED ON LILLY’S HEAD AND WAS BITING AND CLAWING, AND THAT’S WHEN THE SKIN LITERALLY PEELED AWAY AND YOU COULD SEE THE RED FLESH UNDERNEATH. JUDGE: IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THIS INJURY CAME FROM SOME OTHER INCIDENT BESIDES THE ONE THAT SHE’S DESCRIBING?>>NO. ANNOUNCER: FAITH JENKINS, HER DISTINGUISHED LEGAL CAREER BEGAN WHEN SHE GRADUATED FIRST IN HER LAW SCHOOL CLASS. SHE QUICKLY BECAME A TOUGH NEW YORK CITY PROSECUTOR, AND THEN A PREEMINENT LEGAL ANALYST ON CABLE NEWS. AND NOW SHE’S THE JUDGE IN HER OWN COURTROOM. HER CASES ARE REAL, AND HER RULINGS ARE FINAL. SHE IS JUDGE FAITH. PLAINTIFF TYRESHA STUART IS SUING HER EX-LOVER FOR $2,950, THE MONEY SHE LOANED HIM TO START A PIT BULL BREEDING BUSINESS. DEFENDANT KELVIN JOHNSON SAYS THAT HE DOESN’T OWE ANYTHING BECAUSE NO PUPPIES WERE EVER SOLD. BARBARA: REMAIN SEATED AND COME TO ORDER. COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. THE HONORABLE JUDGE FAITH JENKINS PRESIDING. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE STUART VS. JONES. JUDGE: THANK YOU, BARBARA. TYRESHA STUART? STUART: YES. JUDGE: YOU ARE SUING THE DEFENDANT KELVIN JOHNSON FOR $2,950 FOR AN UNPAID LOAN? STUART: CORRECT. JUDGE: SO YOU SAY THAT THE DEFENDANT WANTED TO START A PIT BULL BREEDING BUSINESS? STUART: CORRECT. JUDGE: AND YOU LOANED HIM THE MONEY TO DO THAT AND HE FAILED TO REPAY YOU? STUART: YES, MA’AM. JUDGE: OK. SO HOW DID YOU MEET MR. JOHNSON? STUART: WE STARTED WORKING TOGETHER AND– JUDGE: WHERE? STUART: AT COSTCO WAREHOUSE, AND WE WERE JUST FRIENDS, DATING AND HANGING OUT. AND SHORTLY RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS, HE PURCHASED A DOG FOR ME, AND I, YOU KNOW, STARTED LOVING BULLS AND EVERYTHING, AND AS TIME WENT ON, HE STARTED SHOWING ME DIFFERENT WEBSITES ABOUT DOGS AND BREEDING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. JUDGE: SO WERE THE TWO OF YOU DATING OR JUST FRIENDS? STUART: FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE WERE STARTING TO DATE. I WAS LOOKING FOR A BOYFRIEND AT THE TIME. JUDGE: AND HE WAS A GOOD CANDIDATE? STUART: YEAH, SOMEWHAT, YES, YES. JUDGE: OK. ALL RIGHT. STUART: AT LEAST I THOUGHT, YES, MM-HMM. JUDGE: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT? JOHNSON: IT WAS A VERY CASUAL FRIENDSHIP. JUDGE: BUT WAS IT A DATING RELATIONSHIP? JOHNSON: I WOULDN’T CALL IT THAT. JUDGE: OK. TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. STUART: OK, SO THEN BY THAT TIME, HE WANTED TO DO THE DOG BREEDING BUSINESS, AND THEN HE PROCEEDED TO SAY, “WELL, I CAN GET A DOG FROM CALIFORNIA,” ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. OK, FINE, GIVE HIM THE CASH, WHATEVER. JUDGE: HOW MUCH HAD YOU GIVEN HIM AT THAT POINT? STUART: ALMOST 2,000 AT THIS MOMENT. JUDGE: AND DID HE HAVE THE DOG? STUART: NO, HE DID NOT. HE DID NOT. THAT’S WHAT I WAS QUESTIONING HIM. LIKE, OK, WHERE’S THE DOG? HE WAS TELLING ME ALL THESE DIFFERENT STORIES ABOUT HOW THE DOG WAS BEING TRANSPORTED, HOW THERE WAS ISSUES WITH THE GUY JUST TRANSPORTING THE DOG, THIS THING AND THAT. JUDGE: WHAT KIND OF DOG WAS IT? STUART: ANOTHER PIT BULL. JUDGE: HOW DID YOU FIRST APPROACH HER ABOUT STARTING THIS PIT BULL BREEDING BUSINESS? JOHNSON: OK, THE AGREEMENT WAS IF YOU PURCHASE THIS DOG FOR ME, THE PUPPIES, I WILL GIVE YOU BACK THE MONEY FOR IT. JUDGE: SO THAT’S THE AGREEMENT? JOHNSON: THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT. JUDGE: SO LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. YOU’RE SAYING THE AGREEMENT WAS SHE WOULD PURCHASE THE PIT BULL. JOHNSON: YES, MA’AM. JUDGE: AND YOU WOULD PAY HER BACK FROM THE PROFITS YOU MADE FROM THE PIT BULL BUSINESS. JOHNSON: YES, MA’AM. JUDGE: AND IF YOU MADE NO PROFITS, WHAT? JOHNSON: SHE WOULD–NO. SHE WOULD WAIT UNTIL I GET THE PROFIT OFF THE PUPPIES. JUDGE: AND IF YOU DIDN’T MAKE ANY PROFITS– JOHNSON: THAT’S ALL I WAS WAITING ON. JUDGE: AND IF YOU DIDN’T MAKE ANY PROFITS, WHAT WAS THE DEAL? JOHNSON: UNTIL THAT HAPPENS WITH THE PUPPIES AND EVERYTHING, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, TRY TO FIND A WAY TO CALM HER DOWN BUT LET HER KNOW IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I DID EVERY SINGLE MONTH. JUDGE: AND YOU ASKED HER FOR HOW MUCH MONEY? JOHNSON: $1,500. JUDGE: AND THAT’S HOW MUCH SHE GAVE YOU? JOHNSON: THAT’S HOW MUCH SHE GAVE ME. JUDGE: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER CHINA WAS SHIPPED DOWN TO SOUTH CAROLINA? DID YOU ACTUALLY START BREEDING HER AND MAKING A PROFIT FROM DOING THAT? JOHNSON: YES, OK, THERE WAS NO PROFIT IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE CHINA GOT TO ME IN APRIL. WHEN I GOT HER, SHE WAS ALREADY IN HEAT, SO I TOLD TYRESHA, I SAID, “LOOK, I GOT TO WAIT TILL HER NEXT HEAT.” NOW– JUDGE: HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE? JOHNSON: SOME FEMALES GO IN HEAT EVERY 4 MONTHS OR THEY GO EVERY 6 MONTHS. CHINA FINALLY GOT PREGNANT LAST, UH, YEAH, LAST YEAR, NOVEMBER. JUDGE: HOW MANY PUPPIES DID CHINA HAVE? JOHNSON: CHINA ONLY HAD ONE PUPPY WITH A GUY THAT I KNOW THAT HAS A BULL LIKE CHINA. JUDGE: WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT ONE PUPPY? JOHNSON: THAT PUPPY, SHE DIED BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN WITH WHAT THEY CALL LIKE AN ENLARGED HEART. YOU CAN’T, LIKE, DETECT IT AT ALL… JUDGE: LET ME SEE THE PHOTO. JOHNSON: UNTIL THEY PASS AND EVERYTHING, SO SHE HAD ONE PUPPY NAMED GIGI. JUDGE: HOW LONG DID GIGI LIVE? JOHNSON: GIGI LIVED, I THINK, PROBABLY ABOUT 5 MONTHS, 5 1/2 MONTHS AND EVERYTHING. JUDGE: DID YOU HAVE GIGI DURING THE MONTHS THAT SHE LIVED OR DID YOU SELL HER? JOHNSON: NO, I HAD HER. I HAD HER THE WHOLE TIME. I HAD A BUYER READY TO GET HER AND EVERYTHING BECAUSE THEY HAD TO WAIT TILL SHE GOT OLD ENOUGH FOR ME TO SELL HER AND EVERYTHING. JUDGE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CHINA? JOHNSON: CHINA PASSED AWAY BACK IN JUNE. JUDGE: SO CHINA DIED, TOO? JOHNSON: YEP, SHE PASSED AWAY, TOO, AND SHE PASSED AWAY–SHE GOT, UM, LIVER DISEASE. JUDGE: ARE YOU SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING WHEN IT COMES TO BREEDING DOGS? JOHNSON: I’VE HAD– JUDGE: BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK, NO, BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN GO AND JUST START BREEDING DOGS AND MAKE A QUICK BUCK, AND IT’S A LOT MORE INVOLVED IN THAT. HE ADMITS TO OWING YOU $1,500, AND HE ADMITS THE FACT THAT HE DIDN’T PAY YOU FOR THAT, BUT YOU’RE SAYING THAT HE OWES YOU FOR OTHER THINGS. WHAT’S THE OTHER $1,500 YOU’RE SUING FOR? STUART: FOR HIM JUST HAVING EXTRA CASH BECAUSE EVERY OTHER TIME IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE DOGS AND WHAT HE NEEDED MONEY FOR. JUDGE: SO YOU WERE JUST SHELLING OUT CASH? STUART: YES, I WAS. JUDGE: AND YOU’RE SAYING THAT THOSE WERE ALL LOANS? STUART: CORRECT. JUDGE: AND NONE OF THAT WAS A GIFT IS WHAT YOU’RE SAYING? STUART: NO, MA’AM. JUDGE: BUT YOU DON’T HAVE ANY OF THAT IN WRITING? STUART: YES, I DO, FROM A TEXT MESSAGE. YES, I DO, ‘CAUSE WHEN I TRIED TO GET IT BEFORE GOT FIRED FROM THE JOB– JUDGE: LET ME SEE YOUR TEXT MESSAGES . AND IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU HAVEN’T PAID HER ANY OF THIS MONEY… JOHNSON: SHE’S NOT–SHE’S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. JUDGE: …THE $1,500 FOR CHINA? JOHNSON: THE $1,500, OK. AFTER I LOST THE JOB AT COSTCO, I WAS IN AND OUT OF WORK HARD LAST YEAR. SO I KEPT IN TOUCH WITH HER EACH MONTH AND SAID, “HAVEN’T FOUND A JOB. I’M LOOKING.” SHE WAS COOL WITH THAT. ANNOUNCER: COMING UP, JUDGE FAITH ISN’T BUYING THE DEFENDANT’S EXCUSES. JOHNSON: I REACHED OUT TO HER AND SAID, “LOOK, HERE’S MY NEW NUMBER.” JUDGE: YOU THINK THAT YOU GET CREDIT FOR GIVING HER YOUR NEW PHONE NUMBER. YOU DON’T GET CREDIT FOR THAT. YOU GET CREDIT WHEN YOU START GIVING HER SOME MONEY THAT YOU OWE HER. ANNOUNCER: AND LATER, WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DOG’S INJURIES? JUDGE: HAS SHE EVER ATTACKED ANOTHER DOG…>>NO. JUDGE: …PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT?>>NO. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF TYRESHA STUART IS SUING HER FORMER LOVER FOR THE MONEY SHE LOANED HIM TO START A PIT BULL BREEDING BUSINESS. DEFENDANT KELVIN JOHNSON SAYS THAT HE WOULD HAVE PAID THE PLAINTIFF BACK IF THERE WERE ANY PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS. JUDGE: NO, I’M LOOKING AT THE TEXT MESSAGES. YOU WEREN’T KEEPING UP WITH HER; SHE WAS KEEPING UP WITH YOU. JOHNSON: NO. NO, NO. SHE GONNA SHOW YOU WHATEVER SHE GONNA SHOW YOU. I WAS TEXTING HER RIGHT BACK. JUDGE: NO, SIR. I’M LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION, AND I’M TELLING YOU YOU WERE NOT KEEPING UP WITH HER; SHE WAS KEEPING UP WITH YOU. JOHNSON: MY PHONE NUMBER GOT CHANGED. AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE] JOHNSON: MY PHONE NUMBER GOT CHANGED. JUDGE: IN FACT, IN FACT, I’M LOOKING AT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM HER BECAUSE–I MEAN, THESE TEXT MESSAGES GO BACK TO MARCH, AND I’VE REVIEWED ALL OF THEM. AND AFTER ALL OF THESE MONTHS, SHE’S TEXTING YOU, ASKING YOU ABOUT THE MONEY, THE $1,500 FOR THE DOG. YOU’RE SAYING, “I NEED TO BUY THIS CAR. AS SOON AS I BUY THIS CAR, I’M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE SOMETHING. I’M WORKING ON SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. AS SOON AS I GET MY NEXT PAYCHECK, I’M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE SOMETHING.” AND YOU’RE NOT DOING IT. YOU SAY, “YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON’T HAVE THE MONEY RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS IS WHEN I THINK I’M GOING TO PAY YOU.” AND YOU GIVE THEM SOMETHING– JOHNSON: AND I DIDN’T TELL YOU THAT. JUDGE: MR. JOHNSON, LOOK AT ME. YOU GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO SHOW YOU ARE IN GOOD FAITH, TRYING TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO PAY BACK THE MONEY THAT YOU BORROWED. THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING, AND I’M NOT SEEING THE EFFORT HERE. JOHNSON: OK, OK, HERE’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO SAY. AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE] JOHNSON: HERE’S THE–HERE’S THE ONE THING–HERE’S THE ONE THING THAT I’M TRYING TO SAY, THAT I WAS KEEPING IN CONTACT WITH HER. MY FIRST PHONE NUMBER GOT DAMAGED. I GOT A WHOLE NEW PHONE. I REACHED OUT TO HER AND SAID, “LOOK, HERE’S MY NEW NUMBER. JUST SO YOU KNOW I’M NOT DISAPPEARING ON YOU, VANISHING–” JUDGE: SIR, SHE DOESN’T WANT YOUR NEW NUMBER. SHE WANTS THE MONEY. SHE DOESN’T CARE IF YOU CHANGE YOUR NUMBER 5 TIMES. SHE WANTS THE MONEY. YOU THINK THAT YOU GET CREDIT FOR GIVING HER YOUR NEW PHONE NUMBER. YOU DON’T GET CREDIT FOR THAT. YOU GET CREDIT WHEN YOU START GIVING HER SOME MONEY THAT YOU OWE HER. ALL RIGHT, I’M RULING. MA’AM, IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVE HERE TODAY, YOU HAVE PROVEN BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT ADMITS AND BECAUSE OF THESE TEXT MESSAGES THAT HE OWES YOU $1,500 FOR THE PIT BULL. MY ADVICE TO YOU IS YOU SHOULD NOT BE SHELLING OUT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO SOMEONE WHO IS AS UNGRATEFUL AS HE IS. VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF. $1,500. STUART: THANK YOU. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF CARRIE DIAZ CLAIMS THE DEFENDANT’S DOG ATTACKED HER LITTLE CHIHUAHUA. SHE IS SUING FOR VET BILLS. DEFENDANT LOIIS BUTROS SAYS THAT HER DOG WAS ON A LEASH AND THE PLAINTIFF IS RESPONSIBLE. SHE IS ACCOMPANIED IN COURT TODAY BY HER EMPLOYEE AND FRIEND SCHIELA WAKEFIELD. JUDGE: CARRIE DIAZ? DIAZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: YOU ARE SUING THE DEFENDANT LOIIS BUTROS… BUTROS: YES. JUDGE: …FOR $783 FOR DOG MEDICAL BILLS. YOU SAY THAT HER DOG ATTACKED AND BIT YOUR DOG? DIAZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: OK, SO WHY DON’T WE START FROM THE BEGINNING. HOW DO THE TWO OF YOU KNOW EACH OTHER? DIAZ: WELL, I DON’T KNOW THE DEFENDANT, YOUR HONOR. I OWN A DOG, MY DOG LILY. SHE IS OUR LITTLE BABY GIRL. WE RESCUED HER FROM THE SHELTER. I’VE HAD HER FOR 11 YEARS. JUDGE: WOW. OK, SO GO AHEAD. SO YOU WERE WALKING YOUR DOG ONE DAY? DIAZ: I WAS WITH MY SON. WE WERE WALKING HER, AND WE WERE ABOUT TO WALK PAST WHERE THE DEFENDANTS WERE STANDING. JUDGE: WAS YOUR DOG ON A LEASH? DIAZ: YES, SHE WAS. JUDGE: AND THE DEFENDANT’S DOG WAS ON A LEASH AS WELL? DIAZ: YES, SHE WAS. JUDGE: OK, SO WHAT HAPPENED? DIAZ: WELL, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO TO PASS ANOTHER DOG THEY USUALLY WANT TO MEET AND GREET, AND I DON’T LET LILY GO UP TO SOMEONE’S DOG JUST–JUST TO LET HER GO UP. I MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT. SHE LOOKED AT ME, LOOKED AT THE DOG TO GIVE HER TIME TO LET ME KNOW IF THE DOG WAS UNFRIENDLY AND WE SHOULD JUST KEEP WALKING AND NOT STOP. JUDGE: OK, GOT IT. DIAZ: SHE DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING. SHE SAW IT, AND THEN WENT BACK TO HER CONVERSATION, AND THE DOGS WENT–CAME NOSE TO NOSE AND SNIFF, SNIFF, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE OTHER DOG JUMPED ON LILY’S HEAD AND WAS BITING AND CLAWING, AND IT WAS VERY VICIOUS. I WAS SHOCKED. I WAS VERY SCARED. AND THE DOGS HAD TO BE PULLED APART TO GET LILY AWAY FROM THE OTHER DOG. JUDGE: WHO PULLED THEM APART? DIAZ: WE WERE BOTH PULLING OUR DOGS APART. SO ONCE WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE DOGS APART, I KNELT DOWN TO LOOK AT LILY. YOU KNOW, I WAS LOOKING FOR SOME MAJOR DAMAGE BECAUSE IT WAS SO VICIOUS, AND MY SON WAS WITH ME. HE’S VERY SMALL, AND SO REALLY I JUST WANTED–WE LIVE REALLY CLOSE. I JUST WANTED TO GO HOME AND GET AWAY FROM IT. JUDGE: OK. SO, MA’AM, WHAT KIND OF DOG DO YOU HAVE? BUTROS: A JACK RUSSELL. JUDGE: A JACK RUSSELL? BUTROS: YES. JUDGE: OK, HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD– WHAT’S YOUR DOG’S NAME? BUTROS: LUCY. JUDGE: LUCY. HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD LUCY? BUTROS: 3 YEARS. JUDGE: HAS SHE EVER ATTACKED ANOTHER DOG… BUTROS: NO. JUDGE: …PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT? BUTROS: NO. JUDGE: AND YOU’VE HAD HER FOR 3 YEARS? BUTROS: YES. SINCE SHE’S BABY. SINCE SHE WAS TWO MONTHS. JUDGE: OK, SO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW SHE DOESN’T HAVE VICIOUS TENDENCIES? BUTROS: NO, NO. JUDGE: WHAT DO YOU SAY HAPPENED? BUTROS: OK, WE’RE CLOSING MY STORE. I HAVE A PHARMACY. AND WE’RE CLOSING AT 7:00. AND SCHIELA, SHE’S EMPLOYEE WITH ME. SO WE’RE CLOSING THE STORE, AND AFTER WE’RE CLOSING, WE’RE CHATTING. JUDGE: STANDING OUTSIDE, TALKING TO EACH OTHER? BUTROS: YES. AND THEN HER DOG APPROACHED MY DOG, AND THEY LIKE SNIFF EACH OTHER LIKE SHE SAID, AND THEN THEY START TO JUMP ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, BOTH OF THEM. SO I TOOK MY DOG, PULL IT BACK, AND SHE PULLED HER DOG BACK. JUDGE: AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS, MA’AM? WAKEFIELD: YES, THAT’S TRUE, YOUR HONOR. WE WERE JUST STANDING OUTSIDE, CHATTING. THE PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING HER DOG. SHE WAS WITH A SMALL CHILD, AND SHE WAS WALKING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, BUT SHE CAME TOWARDS US. SHE APPROACHED US WITH THE DOG. THERE WAS A SCUFFLE BETWEEN THE DOGS. LOIIS APOLOGIZED AFTER THEY PULLED THEIR DOGS APART. ANNOUNCER: COMING UP ON “JUDGE FAITH,” WHOSE FAULT IS IT REALLY? AND WILL THE PLAINTIFF GET THE MONEY SHE’S SEEKING? DIAZ: SHE HAD TO GET 10 STITCHES. SHE HAD TO BE ON PAIN MEDICINE. SHE HAD TO GO UNDER AND HAVE SURGERY. JUDGE: WELL, WHEN IT COMES TO DOG-ON-DOG BITES, THE LAW REQUIRES ME TO LOOK AT WHAT THE DOG OWNER DID AND IF THE DOG OWNER DID SOMETHING WRONG. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF KERRIE DIAZ CLAIMS THAT THE DEFENDANT’S DOG ATTACKED HERS. SHE’S SUING FOR VET BILLS. DEFENDANT LOIIS BUTROS SAYS THAT IN THE 3 YEARS OF HAVING HER DOG SHE’S NEVER ATTACKED ANOTHER AND DOESN’T HAVE VICIOUS TENDENCIES. JUDGE: HOW DID THE SCUFFLE START? DID YOU SEE IT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING? WAKEFIELD: YES, I WAS THERE. JUDGE: WHAT HAPPENED? WAKEFIELD: LUCY WAS ON A HARNESS, AND SHE WAS PULLING FORWARD SO THAT SHE WAS ACTUALLY ON HER HIND LEGS. AND THE PLAINTIFF APPROACHED WITH HER DOG. THE DOG WALKED DIRECTLY UP TO LUCY, AND LUCY KIND OF DROPPED DOWN, LIKE ON TOP OF THE DOG. THEN THERE WAS SOME SNARLING AND A LITTLE SCUFFLE, AND THEY PULLED THE DOGS APART, AND LOIIS APOLOGIZED. SHE SAID, “I’M REALLY SORRY.” AND THE LADY SAID– JUDGE: BECAUSE LUCY–DID YOU SEE LUCY SORT OF START IT, TOWARDS HER DOG AT THE VERY BEGINNING? DIAZ: NO APOLOGY, YOUR HONOR. THERE WAS NO– JUDGE: I’M SORRY. I’M ASKING THEM A QUESTION. DID YOU SEE LUCY PULL TOWARDS HER DOG WHEN SHE APPROACHED WITH HER DOG? WAKEFIELD: SHE WAS PULLING ON THE HARNESS BEFORE THE LADY APPROACHED. JUDGE: OK, LET ME SEE A PHOTO OF LUCY. I UNDERSTAND YOU SUBMITTED ONE TO COURT. OK, YOU SAY YOUR DOG WAS INJURED? HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THE INJURIES? DIAZ: WELL, AS SOON AS WE GOT HOME– JUDGE: BECAUSE YOU SAID AT THE TIME THERE WERE NO VISIBLE INJURIES THAT YOU COULD SEE. DIAZ: AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO WAY FOR ME TO SEE THE INJURY BECAUSE IT WAS BASICALLY A PENCIL-THIN SLASH IN SORT OF HER FOLD OF SKIN AND FUR, AND WHEN WE GOT HOME AND SHE WAS ABLE–YOU KNOW, I COULD TELL SHE WAS IN PAIN, AND THAT’S WHEN THE SKIN LITERALLY SORT OF PEELED AWAY AND YOU COULD SEE THE RED FLESH UNDERNEATH, AND THAT REQUIRED 10 STITCHES FROM HERE TO HERE, AND SURGERY AND– JUDGE: LET ME SEE THE PHOTOS. SO SHE HAD TO GET 10 STITCHES? DIAZ: SHE HAD TO GET 10 STITCHES. SHE HAD TO BE ON PAIN MEDICINE. SHE HAD TO GO UNDER AND HAVE SURGERY, AND THEN SHE HAD TO HAVE THE CONE FOR TWO WEEKS, AND THEN SHE HAD TO GO BACK AND HAVE THE STITCHES REMOVED. JUDGE: OH, WOW. DIAZ: AND HER FACE IS VERY SMALL, AND THE VET SAID BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE WOUND, THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD HAVE SEEN IT AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS BASICALLY THE SKIN THEY MOVED AWAY FROM WHERE THAT LACERATION WAS. JUDGE: WOW. BUTROS: CAN I SAY SOMETHING? JUDGE: SHE’S OK NOW? DIAZ: THANK GOODNESS SHE’S OK AND SHE’S STILL LOVEABLE AS EVER, AND I’M SURPRISED, YOU KNOW. SHE JUST DOESN’T HOLD A GRUDGE AND SHE’S STILL HAPPY, YOU KNOW? AND IT WAS JUST HEARTBREAKING TO SEE HER LIKE THAT. SHE’S SUCH A SWEET GIRL. JUDGE: YOU SAY YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE DEFENDANT. HOW DID YOU FIND HER TO BRING THIS LAW SUIT? DIAZ: RIGHT. UM, WELL, I LIVE IN THE AREA, AND I NOTICED ALL THE BOXES, AND I JUST KIND OF PUT IT TOGETHER. WELL, SHE MUST EITHER WORK THERE OR OWN THE STORE THERE BECAUSE WHY WOULD SHE BE STANDING THERE? JUDGE: SO YOU FOUND HER THAT WAY? DIAZ: THAT’S HOW I– JUDGE: AND WHAT WAS YOUR–WHEN SHE APPROACHED YOU ABOUT PAYING THE DOG’S VET BILLS, WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT? BUTROS: YEAH, LET ME TELL, YOUR HONOR, LIKE, WE ASKED HER BEFORE SHE LEFT IF ANYTHING WRONG WITH HER DOG. SHE CHECK HER DOG, AND SHE SAID, “NO, EVERYTHING IS FINE.” AND SHE LEFT. SHE DOESN’T KNOW ME, DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING, ANY INFORMATION. TWO, 3 DAYS LATER SHE CALLED MY HUSBAND. MY HUSBAND IS A PHARMACIST IN THE STORE. AND THEN SHE TELL HIM WHAT’S HAPPENED. AND HE TELL HER, “THIS IS NOT MY DOG, THIS IS MY WIFE’S DOG, AND IT DOESN’T HAPPEN INSIDE THE STORE, SO WHY YOU CALL ME?” JUDGE: OK, SO YOU’RE DISPUTING THAT YOUR DOG CAUSED THIS INJURY? BUTROS: BOTH OF US HAD CHECKED THE DOGS, LIKE, BECAUSE THEY– JUDGE: WELL, I MEAN, WHAT SHE’S SAYING IS IT WAS UNDER THE FUR AND SO SHE DIDN’T SEE IT AT THAT TIME AND THEN SHE WENT BACK HOME AND SAW IT LATER. DIAZ: YOUR HONOR, MAY I– JUDGE: SO–IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THIS INJURY CAME FROM SOME OTHER INCIDENT BESIDES THE ONE THAT SHE’S DESCRIBING? BUTROS: NO. I DON’T KNOW. JUDGE: YOU DON’T KNOW. BUTROS: YEAH. SHE CALL US, SHE CALL MY HUSBAND AFTER 3 DAYS, SO I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT TIME. JUDGE: OK. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT? DIAZ: THAT’S NOT TRUE. I CALLED THEM THE DAY SHE WAS IN SURGERY. I WENT INTO THE STORE, AND THEN I CAME BACK. THEY SAID SHE WASN’T GONNA BE IN UNTIL POSSIBLY MONDAY. AND I KNEW THAT I NEEDED TO LET HER KNOW NOW, SO I LEFT HER A MESSAGE, AND HER HUSBAND, HE DID CALL ME THE DAY SHE WAS IN SURGERY AT THE TIME. JUDGE: WHY DO YOU THINK SHE SHOULD PAY FOR YOUR DOG’S VET BILLS? DIAZ: I THINK SHE SHOULD PAY BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEIR DOGS DO, AND MY DOG DID NOT–SHE DIDN’T ATTACK HER DOG. HER DOG ATTACKED MY DOG AND MADE THIS INJURY THAT THEN RESULTED IN THIS VET BILL THAT I–I CAN’T AFFORD TO JUST PAY THAT BIG OF A BILL. ANNOUNCER: AND NOW JUDGE FAITH RULES. JUDGE: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE LAW IS, OK, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE COME IN HERE WITH THESE CASES INVOLVING DOG BITES, AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU. IN THESE CASES WHERE DOGS BITE OTHER DOGS, IT’S NOT ABOUT WHAT THE DOGS DID BECAUSE DOGS WILL FIGHT. THEY’LL GET INTO FIGHTS IF YOU LET THEM. IT’S ABOUT IF SHE’S RESPONSIBLE OR IF YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE. IT’S ABOUT WHAT THE OWNER DID, DID SHE DO SOMETHING WRONG? BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, IF I ACCEPT EVERYTHING YOU TOLD ME TODAY– SHE WAS STANDING OUTSIDE OF HER BUSINESS. HER DOG WAS ON A LEASH, AS IS REQUIRED. SHE WAS STANDING THERE MINDING HER OWN BUSINESS. YOU APPROACHED HER WITH YOUR DOG. JUST BECAUSE HER DOG BIT YOUR GOD, THAT DOESN’T MEAN SHE’S RESPONSIBLE. STRICT LIABILITY IN YOUR STATE WHEN IT COMES TO DOG BITES IS WHEN A DOG BITES ANOTHER PERSON. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DOG-ON-DOG BITES, THE LAW REQUIRES ME TO LOOK AT WHAT THE DOG OWNER DID AND IF THE DOG OWNER DID SOMETHING WRONG. YOU LET YOUR DOG GET CLOSE TO HERS. LEGALLY I CAN’T HOLD HER RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME SOMETHING SHE DID WRONG. AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE] JUDGE: AND SO, YOU KNOW, I’M SORRY THIS HAPPENED TO YOUR DOG. I BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU SAY YOUR DOG WAS INJURED AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT. I REALLY DO. AND IF I ACCEPT EVERYTHING YOU TOLD ME TODAY LEGALLY, I CAN’T HOLD HER RESPONSIBLE. I CAN’T ORDER HER TO PAY YOUR DOG’S VET BILLS. JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IS FOR THE DEFENDANT. GOOD LUCK. BUTROS: THANK YOU. AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE] ANNOUNCER: IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAS A DISPUTE, DON’T TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. LET JUDGE FAITH RULE ON IT FOR YOU. TO SUBMIT YOUR CASE, GO TO JUDGEFAITH.COM AND TELL US YOUR STORY. SEE YOU IN COURT.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

52 thoughts on “Judge Faith – Bad Breeding; Bite Me (Season 1: Episode #94)

  1. I like that "oooo!" "really??" reaction y'all sneak in every episode lol.No but I like this show she's a very encouraging insightful judge

  2. Second case: the judge ruled exactly as I was thinking. The owner of the dog was minding her business. The plaintiff and her dog are the ones that approached for 'sniffing purposes'. So whatever happens is not the owners fault because she can't read her dogs mind.

  3. A lot of people let their dogs do that to other dogs and humans and its not right. Unless someone invites your dog into their personal space you should keep your dog close to you and not them. A lot of dog owners I run into make sorry ass excuses and play victims when someone goes off on them on their dogs for letting them to close. Have more respect. I should not have to wear a shirt to the park informing ever dog owner that I do not like dogs just so you can keep them away from me.

  4. The plaintiff may need a few lessons how to handle her dog, the defendant may need a reality check. Her dog did bite another dog with a medical bill for the plaintiff's dog as result. Both women did something wrong in this case, they both may need to be forced to go to training with their dogs to stop this from happening again.

  5. If you have a little dog you have to be extra careful. Speak up and ask people if their dog is friendly. If there is any chance they aren't get away. If you are walking a little dog with a little child stay away from every dog. Why would you risk trouble with your small child there.

  6. If you do not have training and experience with animal breeding, are not breeding to improve the breed (IE ensuring the animals are free of defects, no history of genetic issues, breeding only the gentle and well-mannered dogs, etc.), you have no business doing it. It's not cheap if you do it right, but the dogs are worth more and you reduce the risk of your animsls being aggressive in their homes. Sadly, at least half of the breeders of Pit Bulls are not responsible breeders and you end up with animals who have the risk of a violent episode.

  7. People personalize dogs too much, giving them human qualities that they really don't have. A dog is a dog, and its behavior is governed primarily by instinct and modified by training. The plaintiff shouldn't have allowed her dog to approach the other dog, as she really didn't know how the other dog would handle the encounter.

  8. I always enjoy listening to Judge Faith's analysis of a case and the way she explains her ruling.
    She does a great job πŸ™‚

  9. In the first case the defendant is a first-class loser. Women stop loaning men money, when are you going to learn that when it's time to payback they get amnesia? They don't care about you. Men take advantage of women in so many ways…monetary and sexually.

  10. I hate guys like the first defendant. When she giving you the money, she is your girl but when she suing you, she just a girl…STFU, be a man and stop taking money from women.

  11. Here's somezhing fun for everyone with a bad eyesight. Take of your specks and take a short glimpse at the defendants. If i do this i spot an actress, who is known for strugling with her weight and a musician, who is known for biting bats heads of. 🀣

  12. Was Lucy the dog a Jack Russell? I've never known a jack to be vicious, not saying they can't be just saying I've never known or heard of a Jack Russell attack, my sisters got a jack and even though he's annoying he's not vicious at all

  13. I hate all dogs and they are not to be trusted and I hope I will never have the need for one " People really think they are humans and there dogs animals are going to heaven so please show me a woman who has ever had a dog and were is it written in the Bible.

  14. This is exactly what is going against the breed of pitbulls, backyard breeders that breed dogs for the wrong reasons. He is not helping this breed at all. Makes me sick because if he bothered caring and took time to go to the shelters to see his many pit bull's and mix pitbull breeds that are being put down and sitting in cages due to the careless breeding and owning and raising of this breed. Coming from a career of training and work within the animal and canine field, his kind make me sick and I'm over his kind. These dogs aren't born bad, they go bad under bad owners that don't train and give the correct ownership of this breed. His kind is the vet ones that get people and pets bitten and killed. The dogs pay the price for human idiot abusers

  15. OK as a trainer of many years I can say this is two humans that don't know how to read of introduce dogs for the first time. I find the lady that was the or to walk up on the defendant, was in the wrong. Defendant wasn't to blame for the dogs fighting. That is the chance you take by being an owner that doesn't know what they are doing. It can be minor physical behavior that instigated this fight. It could be the way they held their head, people think a dog humping another or human is funny but to dogs that is a behavior that is used for dominance or a behaviour not taught not to do to another dog. Woman needs to learn dogs before offering one to just go up to another. Calm doesn't mean calm in dog language. Idiots

  16. My former neighbor did this. You don't make alot of money. She was evicted from her rental home. This guy needs another "hustle".

  17. Why does the second woman let her dog go "sniff sniff" when it's so tiny. What did she expect. Sorry it happened but you created this situation.

  18. second case: as an experienced dog trainer it is never a good idea to allow dogs to meet on leash due to leash reactivity it doesnt matter size breed or temperament

  19. I’m sorry but most of the time, Chihuahua’s are usually always vicious so I’m sure Lucy was just protecting herself. πŸ™‚

  20. I respect judge faith for taking the time to listen to the plaintiff in the second case. The moment I heard the plaintiff tell the story I was like I already know how this is gonna go down. If anything it was the plaintiffs fault, she put her dog in danger.

  21. China should never have been bred. She would not have passed health testing with bad livers (typical to breed and scresned)– the puppy passed from poor breeding as well.

    He needs to stop breeding. He doesn't know what he is doing. A disgrace.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *