[announcer] Previously on Tribunal Justice.
The repairs were more than the normal wear and tear on the apartment.
The amount of damage that was done were so significant.
If I sound a little sharp right now, I am, because you were nickel-and-diming.
If you think I'm just gonna sit here and let you be smug
while you threatened violence, you are nuts.
The two of you are like vinegar and oil.
It escalates and escalates.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Long Beach, California.
You're complaining that you didn't get appropriate notice
pursuant to the California Rental Laws that your rent was going to go up.
You didn't get 30-day notice.
Therefore, you are suing her for all of that year's rent increase.
However, I did see notice.
I did see notice on the lease.
I did see that you signed it and I did see that you paid it.
There really is no remedy other than you moving out.
No. Well, see, I've never got the opportunity to even consider that.
So, I paid the rent.
I was at work.
As soon as the lease was up, she showed up the next--the next…
- Right the next… - … with another one year lease.
[Judge DiMango] You were home when she came to the house, right?
- [Maria] Yeah. - What happened on that day?
She just shows up and she normally calls me or texts me.
And she just shows up and I open the door, let her in.
And she was telling me that it went up
that, uh, with the lease saying that, um--
well, basically, I felt like I needed to sign.
Where else was I gonna go? I have my kids.
So I had no choice and he wasn't there.
- So I signed the paper. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
So, they're entitled to 30 days' notice that the rent is going to go up.
However, you lived there for another year, didn't you?
- [Juan] That's correct. - Yeah. Yes, because…
- So… - … it's not easy to a find place…
- [Judge DiMango] Well… - … and you can't just leave.
[Judge DiMango] And--well, that's the point.
- Uh-hmm. - The point is you got your 30-day notice.
You've been there in a year. You never moved.
You paid the increase,
- which was the right thing to do. - [Maria] I did.
I did the right thing and then we moved…
- [Judge DiMango] And then you moved. - … prior. Yeah.
But--so the reality is maybe you don't have to be responsible
for the August 30-day increase because you didn't have the notice,
but I don't see any other remedy after that 30-day period.
- And she mailed it… - [Judge DiMango] But…
… she said, and I told her I never got that.
[Judge DiMango] That's the second thing that I was talking about.
It's certified mail?
[Judge DiMango] They didn't get that either.
In mid-June,
my assistant had posted the property and mailed it.
[Judge DiMango] I don't have any evidence of that,
but the bottom line is you and the post office have a problem.
- Judge Levy. - [Judge Levy] Thank you.
Um, you ma'am just testified that you didn't feel like you had any choice.
Nothing prevented her from hitting you up either text or email, letting you know
that for the upcoming rent for the one year lease,
there's gonna be a $255 increase.
Nothing prevented her from doing that, right?
- [Maria] Uh-hmm. - Instead…
… that's what she does at your house.
- Uh-hmm. - [Judge Levy] You don't know what to do.
- Uh-hmm. - [Judge Levy] You sign it.
- Now you're stuck. - Uh-hmm.
But when you're talking about being able to provide for your kids, it is personal.
When you're a blue collar worker, right?
- You work. - [Juan] Right.
- [Judge Levy] Where do you work? - I work at Target.
- [Judge Levy] Target. - Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] Every dollar is important.
So when someone is refusing to give you back the money
that you know you're entitled to and they're trying to act sneaky,
it has a tendency to get you upset.
- Uh-hmm. - And there are certain people,
types of people who know how to push your buttons
and they push it and they push it and they push it until you explode.
Boom, gotcha.
So, with that in mind, let's take a look.
A message, it was plaintiff's three.
Messages sent of items needed to repair the property.
- July 30th, 2021. - [Juan] Yes.
[Judge Levy] Why don't you tell us about this document?
We would have sent that to her.
That was our initial list from when we first moved in.
- And this is… - [Juan] The items…
… a list of items that you said in July of 2021,
- so you're just there like two weeks? - Yes.
[Judge Levy] Several kitchen drawers need refurbishment.
It's funny I could've sworn that she says that's what she wants you paying for.
Bathroom tub edge, caulking, delamination.
That's--actually, I wanted to bring that up.
A matter of fact, that was what we paid for…
[Judge Levy] But you forgot because you got too angry.
Yes.
Garage power outlet not secure.
What's this?
[Juan] That was when I moved out.
Photo of the garage outlet that was never secured.
No, but this can't be,
because this is what she wants you to pay for.
- [Michelle] No, it's not. - [Maria] Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] But this is something that was broken in 2021.
So all of these things you know were problems when you moved in
and now, when you're trying to get your security back
because you need that money for a new place,
you need that money for your kids, she's not giving it to you
and she's trying to gaslight you into thinking it's your fault.
All those nickel-and-dime things.
- She's needling you… - That's not true.
[Judge Levy] … hoping to get that explosion.
Now, does it work?
- July 3rd? - [Juan] Yes.
Yes, it does.
These are the text messages that Judge Acker read,
those really nasty ones that you sent.
- This is what it says. - Right.
Ms. Vargas, I just got out of the shower
and barely finding out about you guys' argument.
I want to know what's going on.
I would like to know where my deposit is.
- I've been patiently waiting. - [Maria] Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] And then, no argument from me.
He became violent in his attitude towards me.
- Not he became physically violent… - [Maria] Yeah.
[Judge Levy] … not that I was afraid for my safety.
He became violent in his attitude.
He wants a walk-through now, which isn't necessary or appropriate,
blah, blah, blah.
And then she says, I sent him an email.
- [Maria] Uh-hmm. - You remember doing that, right?
- [Michelle] Yes. - You violated the Order of Protection.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
I acted the same way with the male judge in the restraining order.
- [Judge Acker] No, no, no. - She testified to that.
So it wasn't because you're a woman.
Um, I don't know if you're single or not or any of that, you know.
-[audience laughing] -[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Juan Cardenas is suing landlord Michelle Steuber
for the return of his security deposit
and for improper notification of a rent increase.
Michelle says she was intimidated by Juan
and is now countersuing for breach of contract,
lost wages, and an overpayment on the security deposit.
- You violated the Order of Protection. - No, I did not.
- [Judge Levy] Yes, you did. - No, I didn't.
The Order of Protection directs no contact.
- [Michelle] That's not what it states. - Tell me what it says.
It states he is not supposed to have contact with me.
[Judge Levy] That's exactly right. And you know who knows that?
- People who abuse the system. - [Michelle] No, Your Honor.
- You know why? - People who abuse the system.
Just understand something.
I know full well what the order says.
The order does apply one way.
She is 100% right.
So, people who are legitimately afraid for their safety
go to court and get Orders of Protection,
demanding that the people that they're afraid of have no contact
- directly or indirectly. - [Maria] Uh-hmm.
But she did it anyway.
- Why? Because she wasn't afraid. - [Maria] Uh-hmm.
What people like her do is minimize the legitimate cases of domestic violence.
- How dare you. - [Judge Levy] That's what happens.
To me, she just wanted an order against you so she had you.
And you sir, because of your temper, gave her the reason.
- [Juan] I ran into it. - [Maria] Uh-hmm.
I have nothing further.
The messages that I read were horrible.
I think that they warranted your going to court.
So, I actually don't think that that was inflated at all.
- [Maria] It wasn't. - [Judge Acker] But my question to you is,
if when you presented the lease with the increased rental amount
and you were prepared to give them the 30-day grace period,
why take the extra money then?
Say, you know what, you didn't know, hold on to this $255…
- [Maria] Uh-hmm. - … for this month,
because you didn't do that.
And if you knew you didn't give them the proper notice,
why not on your own just say you have another 30 days under the old rent?
I was under the belief that they did have proper notice.
So I don't know.
I never talked to Juan directly about it
whether he actually got it possibly when it was posted.
[Judge Acker] Well, I think the testimony…
- I don't know but they… - [Judge Acker] … was that he didn't.
… paid it right away and they were like, okay.
[Judge Acker] Well, because you paid it.
[Juan] No, I had already paid the rent.
- Oh, then you paid the extra $255? - [Juan] Yes.
Then I paid the $250 after her notification.
- [Judge Acker] Right. And--right. - Correct. Via Zelle.
- And I provided the documentation. - [Judge Acker] Yeah.
So you didn't need to keep that $255 is simply my point.
But I understand what you're saying,
but I thought because Mr. Cardenas seems to like to throw around,
I'm gonna sue you, I'm gonna do this,
I didn't know if this was a game of his not to sign the lease
way back when and just move out
or that this was his thing of, well, I'm going to say I didn't get it,
so I'm not going to pay it.
[Judge Acker] So they tell you they're moving out.
- Did you want them to stay? - I would've had them stay, yes.
And that's why I'm so confused by him saying they're so uncomfortable there
and they don't like it because Maria always told me she liked it there,
- it was good, they paid on time. - Well, let me hear from Mr. Cardenas,
because during the course of our last interaction,
you made reference to all of these things
- that kind of brought you to this point. - [Juan] Yes.
- I stand by what I said. - I understand.
[Judge Acker] I think it was inappropriate.
I think that your behavior in this court toward me
was disrespectful and inappropriate.
I don't know if it's, uh, women you perceive to be too bossy.
- I don't know what it is. - No, that's not fair.
- [Judge Acker] No, no, no, no, no. - I acted the same way
with the male judge in the restraining order.
- [Judge Acker] No, no, no. - She testified to that.
So it wasn't because you're a woman,
um, I don't know if you're single or not or any of that, you know.
- Yeah. So I'm not like… - [Judge Acker] No.
- … single women… - No, no, no, no, no, no.
- [Juan] … you know what I mean? - No, no, no, that wasn't my point.
How old are your daughters?
I have a 17-year-old, uh…
Seven--seventeen, eleven.
- And six. - Seven.
- Seven? - Seven.
- Yeah, I've… - [Judge Acker] I know.
I'm gonna leave you with this.
You need to model for your young women
the way you want men to engage with them.
I promise I'm not the first authority figure
who you're going to engage whose trying to like see what they can see.
It was important for me to see, like, is this an anomaly?
Is this a guy who might threaten somebody into taking a deal she doesn't wanna take?
So that's why I asked those questions.
I really hope, pray, and trust that you are the kind of honorable man--
I see how she looks at you.
- Seventeen years marriage. - [Judge Acker] So be that guy.
Be that guy. And next time she does this…
… I think that's your best course.
- I do apologize. I wear my heart… - He's not that bad, I promise.
- [Judge Acker] I… - He's not that bad.
I wear my heart on my sleeve,
and unfortunately once I get emotional,
uh, my verbal skills break down.
And although I raise my voice,
it's not trying to speak over somebody or nothing, it just projects.
He's passionate.
[Judge Acker] I don't have anything else.
[Judge Levy] I do. Uh, just a couple of things.
Take a look, please, ma'am.
Page 89.
And you got to explain to me why you sent this.
Directly to me.
- [Judge Levy] Directly to you? - Yes, my email.
- Uh-hmm. To him. - Directly to you?
Michelle Steuber, 11:28 AM.
"Dear Juan, pay me $2,500."
By the way, this is after the Order of Protection…
Would you like to know, Your Honor?
[Judge Levy] Hold on, I'm not done reading.
"Pay me 2,500 bucks.
This is to compensate me for discounts
given on your security deposit accounting and errors of omission.
Since you cashed the checks and then disputed
the accounting via a small claims matter,
this amount will also compensate me for time lost from work
to seek the restraining order which was granted July 26th, 2023."
The way I read that, you give me $2,500
and then this is done, Orders of Protection are done.
I let you go on your way.
You don't pay $2,500 and you're gonna keep dealing with me,
and I got you right where I want you.
- Does that make sense? - Uh-hmm. Yes.
Yes. I felt she was eliciting a response whether it'd be negative or positive.
- Did you respond to that? - [Juan] No, I told my wife…
And you know who--and you know who would've responded to that?
- An idiot. - [Judge Levy] A nutball.
- Yeah. - [Judge Levy] A real violent person.
So Your Honor, how was I supposed to comply
with California law to file a cross-complaint where it's…
She's a tenant too, right?
But she's not the party suing me.
She's not who I am countersuing.
To put the letter to her would be inappropriate
because he is the one who called the two options against me.
He's the one who did the restraining order against me.
That is the only reason I did it.
Do you have a TRO? You filed a TRO against her?
[Juan] Uh, a restraining order.
- [Judge Acker] A restraining order. - Yes.
[Judge Acker] What was the basis of the restraining order you filed against her?
Uh, harassment. Again, I felt that she was eliciting a response
that would have put me in violation of the restraining order.
So the basis of your restraining order was that she sent this email
seeking the $2,500 payment.
- Did you get your restraining order? - It was denied.
- [Judge Acker] It was denied? - Yes.
- [Judge Acker] Thank you. - [Judge DiMango] All right, then.
Thank you very much. We're gonna retire to deliberate.
- Thank you. - Court is now in recess.
You guys may step outside.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
This man is a hard-working man who felt personally offended
by her self-righteous indignation.
He just didn't help himself. He couldn't help himself.
- I know, but-- - Respectfully, I feel like
you're trying to sanitize the behavior.
[dramatic musical sting]
I believe that the plaintiff has made out his burden
with respect to the return of the security deposit.
There was nothing in the photographs suggesting otherwise.
As far as the countersuit goes, I believe it needs to be dismissed.
There's no basis, I believe, based upon these facts
that would support the defendant's request
for $1,500 for going to court,
for the filing of the OP,
for the trips to the court,
for parking, for the painting inside of kitchen cabinets, or any of the like.
I mean, when I saw that piece about the chipped paint
because women wear fake nails,
I could not believe she actually put that.
That was her evidence.
That to me really said it all.
And so I don't believe that she has even come close.
And as far as the B case which is his request for $3,060
representing the refund for 12 months of the overcharged rent,
I think that needs to be dismissed.
Uh, I'll start there first with the B.
I completely agree with you.
Even if there was a remedy,
the only remedy would be the one month as you pointed out, Pat.
So I would dismiss that.
On the A case, with respect to the plaintiff's claim
for the return of their security deposit, they absolutely should get it all back.
As I said out there, his bad behavior does not give her the right to say,
"I'm gonna charge you for something that clearly isn't your fault."
I mean, I had this issue with a sink kind of breaking away
from the wall when it's not bolted properly.
We ultimately got testimony from her handyman
that he'd worked with the sink and moved the sink.
There's no evidence that they did anything.
She was quite overreaching.
So I would join that. They should prevail.
I'll start with the B case as well.
I wanna give her back the one month, the 30 days.
I think they were entitled to notice.
I think that they paid the $255 August rent
because they did not--
- clearly did not have notice. - Oh, yeah. You're right. I'm sorry.
- Yes, yes. - I wanna give her back that.
[Judge Levy] So if I understand you then, the judgment then on case B
would be for $255 one month's overpayment?
- Correct. - Correct.
- Okay. - Correct.
With regard to case A,
once again, I think that they are certainly entitled
to the full refund of their security deposit.
I think that she really fell short.
And anything that they didn't do was because she prevented it
by her actions and her words.
You know, listen, I mean, it was pretty clear.
This man is a hardworking man who felt personally offended
by her self-righteous indignation.
And that's the kind of personality…
- He just didn't help himself. - … that he has.
- He couldn't help himself. - I know but…
- Respectfully… - [Judge DiMango] Yeah.
- [Judge Levy] Yeah. - You were--I feel like
- you're trying to sanitize the behavior. - No, I'm not. I'm not.
I feel like you're sanitizing the behavior.
I'm not really--he was--I said it to him.
- It was awful and it was wrong. - [Judge Levy] We can understand it,
- but not justifying it… - Exactly.
… in any way.
In any way. Even with me trying to get him to stop.
- Right. - [Judge Levy] He couldn't help himself.
And that's going to unfortunately be his downfall
unless he can get that under control.
Me--because I handled it pretty gingerly…
- I [indistinct]. - … in the beginning.
And that's why he didn't have the same attitude.
And, uh, he didn't have the same attitude with you
because you didn't read his words to him,
and he didn't like hearing his words from me
and accused me of agitating him and really was out of control.
So I don't think we're just talking about a good guy who had a bad day,
but I think we have our verdict.
- I think we do as well. - Super. Thank you.
[dramatic musical sting]
Court is back in session.
All parties are reminded that you're still under oath.
We've reached a verdict.
We're gonna start with the B case.
Mr. Cardenas, your B case in which you requested $3,060
representing a refund for 12 months of an overcharged rent of $255 a month.
We are unanimous in that you shall receive $255
represents one month of that overcharged payment.
Moving now to case A.
With respect to the countersuit for $2,500, that is dismissed.
And that is the unanimous verdict of the court.
As far as the original case,
the one in which you filed, sir, for $1,289,
the return of your security deposit,
we believe that you have met your burden,
that there was no evidence,
testimony offered by either the defendant
or her employee to suggest that you or you
or your children caused any type of damage above regular wear and tear.
None. Mr. Cardenas, it is the unanimous verdict of the court
that you are to receive $1,289,
the total return of your security deposit.
Also, $255 of that overcharged payment.
That's the verdict of the court.
- Thank you. - [gavel bangs]
[Cassandra] This case has concluded.
All parties are excused.
[theme music plays]
She told me that I was delusional if I would be getting--
I thought I was getting a hundred percent of my deposit back.
Well, guess what.
I got a hundred percent of my deposit back.
And I think it was a very slanted decision.
Once, you know, my anger got to me,
there's nothing but F-bombs and I said a lot of nasty things.
It sounded like he was going to make sure that I died
and my dog would be left there with me.
It was the wrong thing.
Obviously I got a restraining order placed against me,
but it felt like it was the right thing to do.
I hope that I never have to see this gentleman ever in my life again.
I know him very well, so he is not what she says he is.
[announcer] Are you being sued?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]