FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Plaintiff's Claim
Ranaka Cheetah sued her landlord, Charlie Shoe.
She sought compensation for property damage.
She also claimed the cost of a hospital visit.
Ms. Cheetah lived in a Section 8 subsidized apartment.
Mr. Shoe owned the building.
She had lived there for a little over a year.
Before that, she lived in another Section 8 condo in Anaheim for about a year.
She moved from there because the owner sold the property.
Prior to that, she lived on Lincoln for about six years.
She moved from Lincoln because they no longer accepted Section 8 Housing.
Difficulties with the Apartment
Ms. Cheetah claimed her current apartment had many difficulties.
She stated there was a leak in the roof.
This leak caused damage to her property.
She alleged Mr. Shoe hired roofers to repair the roof.
She claimed the roofers did not perform their due diligence.
The roofers apparently believed there was an attic between the roof and her apartment.
It turned out there was no attic.
This led to further damage to her property.
Ms. Cheetah wanted Mr. Shoe to be responsible for this damage.
Timeline of Damage and Tenancy
The damage to her property started in October 2017.
Ms. Cheetah moved into the property on July 2nd.
Her lease officially began on June 12th.
She moved her belongings out of storage on July 2nd.
She had a one-year lease.
Her lease was up in July 2018.
She did not move out immediately.
She explained she was looking for a place that accepted housing assistance.
She found a new place.
She served Mr. Shoe her notice to move last month.
She planned to move out in the middle of next month.
The Roofing Company's Actions
Ms. Cheetah stated that Mr. Shoe hired the roofing company.
She claimed the roofing company did not give her any money for the damage.
She said the roofers came to her apartment.
They gave her $100 for laundry.
They also sent two people to help clean.
Ms. Cheetah described the roofers as not speaking English.
She claimed Mr. Shoe told her to communicate with them herself.
She found this impossible due to the language barrier.
She had to "fuss" with Mr. Shoe and the roofing company owner.
This was to get them to address the issue.
She mentioned the roof "came in on her daughter's head."
Landlord's Notification and Response
Judge Judy asked Mr. Shoe why he did not come to see the damage.
Mr. Shoe responded by mentioning modern technology.
He stated Ms. Cheetah sent him pictures via text message.
He considered this sufficient notification.
He claimed he asked her for a list of the problems and damages.
He said he had evidence of this request.
Ms. Cheetah disputed this.
She claimed his account was "not true."
She stated she originally notified him differently.
Documenting the Damage
Judge Judy reviewed an email or text exchange.
This exchange was between Ms. Cheetah and Mr. Shoe.
Mr. Shoe had asked, "When would you be replacing my property?"
He also asked, "What is it? I will take a look tomorrow."
Ms. Cheetah responded with a list of five items.
These items were a white Wii, a black tablet, a camera, and a Paw Patrol piano.
The Paw Patrol piano was described as a floor piano for kids.
Judge Judy estimated its value at about $49.
Ms. Cheetah identified the camera as a Samsung camera.
She said the tablet was a Samsung tablet.
Lack of Receipts and Further Claims
Judge Judy asked if Ms. Cheetah had receipts for these items.