Top 10 Quickest Cases on The People's Court

This plaintiff went in, initially wanting to sue his former landlord for a security deposit and eight months of rent. While he later relinquished his suit for the return of rent, he still felt he was owed his security deposit. Well, Judge Milian agreed and, in fact, she awarded him one month of rent on top of that. And rightfully, so. The conditions of the basement this man was living in were, put simply, disgusting. The defendant told lie after lie, even when indisputable evidence was presented against her. And her blasé, almost sleepy demeanor, even when the judge verbally destroyed her, is kind of eerie to watch. While evidence triumphs all, her attitude certainly didn’t do her any favors.

The absolute baseline for winning a court case is, obviously, suing the right person. Plaintiff Solange Fletcher has filed a complaint against a former landlord over an unreturned security deposit. The problem is the defendant did return the deposit to Fletcher’s roommate, who originally paid it. This landlord seems exceptionally kind, especially seeing as she let the two out of their lease early. The judge is sympathetic, but if anyone is liable for the money in question, it might be the plaintiff’s ex-roommate, who also happens to be the grandmother of her child. That’s a story that must have continued outside Judge Milian’s courtroom.

Some litigants have a pretty broad, and also wrong, idea about what a deposit is. The plaintiff initially got in contact with the plaintiff, a contractor, with plans to build an addition on his house. While the first estimate was free, the plaintiff kept moving the goalposts for the project, and this required multiple estimates. So, in order to compensate the contractor for his time, the plaintiff paid him a deposit of $500. When it later turned out that the plaintiff would not be hiring the defendant after all, he asked for his deposit back. The judge took the opportunity to offer everyone a lesson in the legality of deposits. If a professional charging you for their time is criminal, then we all have a case.

During a hair threading session at a salon, the plaintiff alleges the salon employee removed a mole from her face. So, she’s suing for $5,000. It’s a dramatic reaction to say the least. There’s some debate over whether it really was a mole or a skin tag, and the judge also points out the lack of urgency on the plaintiff’s part to seek medical help if she really thought she’d sustained a personal injury. All this resulted in Judge Milian siding with the defense. In fact, she went so far as to accuse the plaintiff of trying to simply make some money off of the whole incident.

Sometimes, people take a little too much stock in the phrase “the customer is always right.” Our next pick goes all the way back to Judge Wapner’s tenure on the original iteration of “The People’s Court.” A man sues a pizza shop for not having the thick pizza slices they advertised. His blank expression and calm, collected demeanor didn’t change, not even when the judge awarded him his $3. It seems no one came out of this one a loser. The defendants are suspiciously prepared to give a televised pitch for their pizza restaurant, but maybe it’s just a case of grabbing opportunities when they’re in front of you. They even brought a box of one of their contentious pizzas as evidence.

Yet another case where the litigants seem shaky on the way deposits work. Half a day after putting down a deposit for a room, the plaintiff’s circumstances changed and she asked for a return. The problem is that deposits are typically non-refundable unless otherwise stated, and the plaintiff didn’t ask any questions about it. Though she had a story we can sympathize with about how her boss couldn’t come through with more hours, the law is the law. It was such an obvious outcome that the defendant barely had to defend himself. Judge Milian once again delivers a life lesson about renting, deposits, and sticking to your commitments.

It’s not the first friendship we’ve seen flame out in Judge Milian’s courtroom, but it’s one of the most vicious, and also one of the most clear-cut from the judge’s perspective. Two former friends, one the godmother of the other’s child, reunite after falling out. Unfortunately, the defendant pulls a fast one with a contested PayPal payment, and pockets her friend’s money. When the defendant says she can’t access her PayPal, it’s pretty clear exactly what happened here. Judge Milian is ruthless in this case and asks the defendant to try logging into her account all the same. When the account is successfully accessed, the defendant’s guilt is indisputable. And Judge Milian once again rips a liar to shreds.

When you’re in a jam, who can you depend on if not a friend? The plaintiff, Shevon Wilson, gave the defendant, Cameo Krepp, her bank card and PIN to bail her out of jail. Once the bail money was released, Ms. Krepps kept it, asking the judge “who does anything for free?” Well, that’s not how that works. While the defendant did do the plaintiff a favor, no prior agreement for payment was ever decided on. The defendant’s greed and personal feelings got involved, and none of what she said is even close to being a legitimate legal defense. It made things awfully clear to the judge. The defendant not only admitted to what she did, she went so far as to gloat about it too.

The plaintiff in this case insisted a few small cuts she sustained during a nail salon visit was damaging enough to her modeling career that she was entitled to nearly $10,000. The faces in the crowd said it all. It became pretty clear though that it was the plaintiff’s mother who was driving the ship, and her constant attempts to coach her daughter’s answers didn't sit well with the judge. Without any concrete evidence, the model and her mother were quickly schooled in the law, though the judge did award them the price of the manicure in damages for the cuts. The mom’s smug behavior is a clear-cut example of what not to do if you’re trying to get a judge to award you a ridiculous amount of money.

After causing a car accident in which both cars sustained significant damage, the defendant was caught in several contradictions. It didn’t help her case that the plaintiff was one of the most well-prepared litigants in the show’s history. It was hard to see how she would have stood a chance from the beginning, but when she started tripping over herself and spewing outrageous allegations, it was over. It also helped that the police report backed up the plaintiff’s story. While Judge Milian is not as quick to throw out a case as some other TV judges, this one riled her up enough that she made her decision fairly quickly – though not before throwing the defendant out of the courtroom for committing perjury. The secondhand embarrassment is SO real.

Which of these litigants had you wanting to bring the gavel down? Render a judgment in the comments.