Plaintiff wanted $836 for vet bills, and defendant still owes $377.ĭisability Debate! -Plaintiff/ mother Bridget Mora suing defendants/ ex-husband Keith Henderson, and her adult children (son) Keith Henderson, Jr. Plaintiff says the dog went right to defendant’s driveway, and on defendant’s porch after the attack. Defendant claims manager of complex told defendant to pay the vet bills, or get the dog out of the mobile park. Defendant claims her dog looks like another dog in the park, and the dog didn’t have blood on him, or look like he’d been in a fight. I wonder if the mobile home park allows Pit Bulls, or mixes? Plaintiff wanted vet bills for her dog. After the attack, someone opened defendant’s gate, and let her Pit Bull back into her yard after the attack. When plaintiff was getting the Pit off of her dog, plaintiff scraped her knees up, and had other bruises and abrasions.ĭefendant says she didn’t see the attack, her cousin did. Plaintiff was afraid the Pit Bull would rip out the dog’s throat, so she put the Pit in a choke hold. dog, when defendant’s dog got loose, and attacked plaintiff’s dog without warning. Plaintiff was walking her leashed terrier mix, a 20-lb. They both live in the same mobile home park. Pit Bull Choke Hold -Plaintiff Kerri Flook suing defendant/Pit Bull owner Jennifer Diottaviano for medical bills when plaintiff intervened when defendant’s Pit Bull attacked. In the hall-terview, defendant says plaintiff has had the illusion She doesn’t like the overlap of charity, and profit business, and I don’t either. JJ doesn’t like the case, and tells plaintiff she will dismiss the case without prejudice to go back to local small claims court. Plaintiff claims he doesn’t used the illusions funded by the foundation in his private business. I agree with JJ, plaintiff makes $5,000 a year through foundation, but pays for tricks or illusion for many times that amount with foundation money, but uses the same illusions for his profitable business. However, the foundation money paid for a trick that would be for the non-profit events, and his profitable business. Plaintiff would pay retailer the full price, and defendant would drop ship to plaintiff, check paying retailer to defendant was from the 501 (c )(3) foundation he runs. Contract with defendant was through a retailer, so defendant didn’t have a separate contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff wanted defendant’s magic trick or illusion, and put down a deposit of $6450, and there is no written contract. Tamaka’s Magical Tales (name is Tamaka’s Magical Revue is his company., Tamaka is Mr. Plaintiff does 10 events during the year and gets $500 for each show, and does non-sponsored magic shows and gets all of that money for income, not under the foundation. Foundations gives his 501 ( c) (3) registered charity money to sponsor shows, and plaintiff’s income comes from that money too. Plaintiff runs a nonprofit for veterans, schools, Native American events, to raise money to support his magic fundraisers. Plaintiff has been a working magician since 1989. Illusionist -Plaintiff Robert Bailey suing defendant/magic trick or illusion builder David Pavlov for the return of a deposit for a $19,000 magic trick, deposit was $6450.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |