Repair Bill Riot (second case)

It's only March, but the plaintiff in the second case qualifies for the Top Ten List of Miserable, Pathetic PC litigants in 2016.

She's the woman who was suing an acquaintance for the return of money given to the acquaintance (defendant) to watch the plaintiff's child while the plaintiff made an "emergency visit" to Honduras.

The plaintiff was a mess, and her story didn't add up-- especially when the defendant filled in the blanks. The "emergency" was bogus, the plaintiff has an alcohol problem that caused her children to be taken from her and put into foster care, etc. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff owed her money from previous transactions.

The plaintiff was suing, though, because her planned trip supposedly fell through, so she didn't need the defendant to care for her child. And there was no dispute that the plaintiff had given the defendant $300 in advance.

Judge Milian ruled against the plaintiff, which is fine with me. Still, there was something shaky about her decision. Usually, if both parties agree that contracted services were never provided, money paid for the services must be returned.

Of course, if the contracted party doesn't perform the services through no fault of their own, they are entitled to keep any deposits, and be reimbursed and made whole for any expenses they incurred in good faith when the contract was in force.

Here, though, there was no indication that the defendant spent any money, or was out any money, as a result of the babysitting deal falling through. So I actually expected the wretched plaintiff to get her $300 back.

Judge Milian just chased the plaintiff away with a some doubletalk. It seemed to me that Milian was just so disgusted or creeped out by the plaintiff that she just refused to let her win the case on general principles.