One Zoom court case proved to be bizarre from beginning to end after a woman who sued a man for $10,000 over a bad date got into a heated argument with the judge.
In the United States, a person can generally sue another for any reason they want, which has opened the door for some truly strange lawsuits. But while the cases with no basis in reality tend to get thrown out quickly, some of the odd ones do actually have enough legal basis to proceed.
RELATED STORIES
So while it may be funny to hear about people being sued for feeding ducks in passing, such cases can sometimes carry serious consequences for those involved.
Although it’s not unheard of for a judge to turn a fairly petty matter into a cause for outrage, we can often find that they’re as flabbergasted by the more outlandish lawsuits out there as we are.
That was abundantly clear during one Michigan hearing that sounded exhausting for just about everyone involved.
Back in 2020, A Flint, Michigan woman named QaShontae Short-Brundidge filed a lawsuit against Richard Jordan after a bad date.
According to TMZ, Short-Brundidge claimed Jordan “did not show and left” on her mother’s birthday, which was a particularly difficult time for her as this mother had recently passed away.
Short-Brundidge considered Jordan’s actions an intentional infliction of emotional distress, while Jordan simply thought he was being sued for $10,000 because of one uneventful date and that this was a waste of the court’s time.
As he told 67th District Judge Herman Marable Jr., “To be honest with you sir, I thought this was just going to be thrown out.”
But while Marable told Jordan that he would have to file a motion to dismiss for that to happen, it was Short-Brundidge who would end up getting most of his attention.
We can see in a video capturing their exchanges that Short-Brundidge seems willing to accept Marable’s explanation that she filed her lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction and should have gone to a circuit court instead of his district court.
However, it seems that’s the only thing they could agree on as Short-Brundidge wanted to add a charge of perjury to her complaint based on lies she claimed to identify in Jordan’s written response.
Marable told her she couldn’t do that in the first place and added that Jordan explaining his version of the events in a written statement wasn’t tantamount to perjury.
Short-Brundidge then proceeded to argue with the judge about what constitutes perjury, which led him to question her understanding of the term.
This prompted their argument to escalate, as Short-Brundidge refused to let Marable explain that perjury refers to false statements made under oath and repeatedly told him, “Do not insult my intelligence. Do not do that.”
To cut a long and cyclical argument short, Short-Brundidge seemed to be under the impression that a written response to a lawsuit constitutes a statement made under oath, which it does not.
But while Marable was clearly annoyed by this point, he became incensed enough to rip his face shield off when Short-Brundidge said he described “infliction of emotional distress” as a criminal offense.
Although this was interrupted by further arguments about the definition of perjury and Short-Brundidge asking if they were done, Marable maintained that he never said that.
It took several more minutes of arguing and an eventual request to mute Short-Brundidge to get this out, but Marable eventually said that infliction of emotional distress is a civil claim that once again is not in his court’s jurisdiction.
Since Short-Brundidge appeared unaware that she had been muted, Marable then declared that he would transfer the venue to the circuit court.
And since Short-Brundidge didn’t answer when Marable asked about Jordan’s legal costs in light of the fact that she filed her suit in the wrong court, he said that she would have to pay the new filing fees.
If she fails to do so within 56 days, her case will be automatically dismissed.
Although this blow-up led commenters to wonder why Marable didn’t hold Short-Brundidge in contempt of court, it’s hard not to imagine that he was just doing his best to get rid of her since the case wasn’t under his jurisdiction anyway.
Good luck to the next judge, though.
h/t: YouTube | asu85255
