FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Plaintiff Seeks Refund for "Free" Service
Ms. Bartonoff appeared in court as the plaintiff.
She was suing Linda, the owner of Ultimate Encounters.
Ms. Bartonoff sought $165 from Linda.
The dispute centered on a matchmaking service.
The Magazine Advertisement
Ms. Bartonoff found Ultimate Encounters in "The Journal" magazine.
This magazine circulated throughout Los Angeles.
The advertisement stated the service was free for women.
Ms. Bartonoff presented the ad as evidence.
Initial Contact and Pitch
Ms. Bartonoff called Ultimate Encounters.
Linda, the defendant, gave her a sales pitch over the phone.
Linda claimed to have thousands of professional men in her catalog.
She stated these men earned well over $100,000 annually.
Linda invited Ms. Bartonoff to her home.
Linda operated her business from her living room in Redondo Beach.
The In-Person Meeting
Ms. Bartonoff visited Linda's home.
Linda described her service in detail.
She emphasized her years of experience in psychology and sociology.
Linda claimed a high success rate, setting up 90% of clients.
She reiterated that the service would not cost women anything.
Linda explained that men paid for the service.
The Mandatory Photography Fee
Linda then informed Ms. Bartonoff about a mandatory fee.
Women had to pay $165 for photographs.
These photos had to be taken at Linda's studio in Hollywood.
Ms. Bartonoff was not allowed to use her own photographer.
She could not even bring her own existing photographs.
Judge Judy Questions the Business Model
Judge Judy asked how Linda made her living.
She questioned how the business sustained itself if women paid nothing.
Ms. Bartonoff explained Linda's process.
Linda would contact men from her catalog.
She would tell them about a woman's profile and background.
If interested, men would visit Linda's house to review photographs.
They would then instruct Linda on which women they wanted to meet.
Linda would then contact the selected women.
Payment and Lack of Introductions
Ms. Bartonoff paid the $165 fee.
She had her photographs taken at the specified studio.
After paying, Ms. Bartonoff received no calls or introductions.
Several months passed without any contact.
The Confrontational Phone Call
After four or five months, Ms. Bartonoff finally reached Linda by phone.
Ms. Bartonoff expressed her frustration.
She reminded Linda of the promise to set her up with men.
Linda's response was direct.
Linda told Ms. Bartonoff to "Listen, had you read your contract, the service fee was free."
Linda then clarified her business model.
She stated, "I worked for the men who paid me a service fee of $5,000."
Linda continued, "And had you paid me $5,000. I would get off my butt tomorrow and start and start looking for someone for you."
Linda then told Ms. Bartonoff to "get yourself a *** life."
Linda hung up the phone.
Ms. Bartonoff's Follow-Up Call
Ms. Bartonoff called Linda back.
She wanted to know how many men she had been potentially introduced to.
Judge Judy asked why Ms. Bartonoff called back.
Ms. Bartonoff stated she was curious.
She wanted to know if she had been presented to one, two, or five men.
Linda's Defense and Experience
Linda stated she had been in business for over six years.
She claimed this was the first time such an issue had arisen.
Linda estimated she had served approximately 500 women.
Judge Judy suggested other women might have been embarrassed.
The Purpose of the Specific Photographer
Judge Judy asked why a specific photographer was necessary.
Linda explained her reasoning.
She stated that men reviewing the files are "very visual."
Linda guaranteed the photos were not airbrushed or retouched.
This ensured men felt comfortable meeting the women.
It prevented disappointment when they met for dinner.
Judge Judy's Skepticism
Judge Judy challenged Linda's explanation.
She pointed out that Linda met the women in her office.
Judge Judy stated, "You are seeing the product in your office."
She suggested Linda could verify their appearance herself.
If a woman brought in a retouched photo, Linda could identify it.
Judge Judy implied the mandatory photographer was a way to generate income.
The Kickback Revelation
Judge Judy directly questioned Linda about the $165 fee.
She asked, "How much of that $165 ends up in your pocket?"
Linda initially hesitated.
Linda then admitted, "Very little."
Judge Judy responded, "Ha! There-- very little ain't nothing."
This confirmed Linda received a portion of the fee.
The "Free" Service Contradiction
Judge Judy highlighted the contradiction.
Linda advertised a "free service" for women.
However, she received a kickback from the mandatory photography fee.
Judge Judy stated, "So what you said is a free service is not a free-- Free membership."
Linda corrected, "Free membership."
Judge Judy's Condemnation
Judge Judy expressed strong disapproval.
She stated, "God, Ms. Talon, everybody is out to make a buck on somebody else's sorrow, sadness, hopes, dreams, aspirations."
Judge Judy called Linda's business "one of the worst kind."
She included other companies doing similar practices in her condemnation.
These companies take advantage of people looking for a life partner.
They charge fees like $165 or $250 for photography.
They claim "no membership fee" but direct clients to their photographer.
Undisclosed Kickbacks
Judge Judy reiterated that Linda received a kickback.
She noted it could be $10, $20, or $50 out of $165.
Judge Judy stated the exact amount was not important.
The fact that Linda received "something" constituted a kickback.
She asked Linda if she disclosed this kickback to clients.
Linda admitted, "No, I don't."
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of Ms. Bartonoff.
She awarded Ms. Bartonoff the full amount she sued for.
The award was $165.
Judge Judy concluded, "That's what you get."
She then dismissed Linda from the stand.