Judge Judy fight spills out of "court"

The loser in a recently-taped episode of Judge Judy is harassing the winner, according to a restraining order filed in Los Angeles—all over a dog.

The two squared off on an episode of "Judy" that was taped May 23 -- after Gardenhire claimed Whitman owed her money for taking care of an Ace of Hearts dog while the org. searched for a permanent owner. Judy ruled for Ace of Hearts ... but after the show, Whitman claims Gardenhire began a campaign of harassment ... and even made violent threats. According to legal docs obtained by TMZ, Whitman claims Gardenhire warned her, "Watch your back bitch" and threatened to steal Whitman's dogs in retaliation.


  1. I kind of come here in part to pretend “entertainment” like that doesn’t exist.  I’m not sure how newsworthy this is…frankly, I’d be surprised if TV litigants didn’t routinely chew each other’s faces off after taping.

      1. I almost always knew that shows like this were not truly small claims court but my wife and I were willing to go on the show to settle our case; if for noting else than a free trip to California.

        Interesting tidbit – the producer explicitly told my wife and I that Judge Judy would rule in our favor. Of course she could have been blowing smoke but it does make one wonder how pre-determined these shows are even before the “judge” hears the arguments. 

    1. Judge Judy does a great disservice to the legal system.  People expect that real life judges behave like her.  No wonder nobody shows up for jury duty.  They’re terrified of being at the mercy of an angry psychotic with the power to imprison for contempt.

      1. Except that she actually was a judge. Not on the show but she was a New York criminal court judge and a family court judge. And it was her reputation for being tough that got her appointed as judge in the first place.

        Are judges supposed to be nice?

        1. Are judges supposed to be nice?

          Well, yes, actually. Being civil from the bench is a minimum expectation. Not confusing personal opinion with judicial opinion is also a reasonable requirement. Judges generally don’t act like her in real life. And those who do need to be tossed out of their courtrooms.

          1. I don’t make a habit of watching the show – mostly have seen in by accident or on late night reruns when the insomnia is in force – but when I have seen it I’m not sure that I’d say that she was not being civil. In most cases it seems that her ire was directed at a deserving party.

            Not confusing personal opinion with judicial opinion is also a reasonable requirement.

            Oh, common. You don’t really think that it’s possible to not have your personal opinion affect your judgment?

            Judges generally don’t act like her in real life.

            All the more interesting then that it’s her actions that got her the job of judge in two New Your courts – appointed by the mayor himself no less.

            I’ve been in a couple of court rooms. I’ve also listed to some Supreme Court arguments and while they are civil I’d hardly characterize the judges attitudes as “nice.” 

          2.  But she isn’t acting as an actual Judge on TV, she’s there to entertain us.

        2. No but when you’re faced wit hthe prospect of having an angry woman screaming at you the whole time for speaking the idea of volenteering loses it’s appeal.

          1. Generally speaking if a judge asks you to stop talking then you should. If you continue then well… what do you expect?

        3.  No one with half a brain  shows up for jury duty because there is no renumeration – or if there is, it’s not enough to cover the cost of your parking or lunch.  Frankly, being a juror with a judge like Judge Judy presiding would be more fun and amusement than you could expect as a juror.  Besides, some people should be yelled at.

          1. Also, if she wasn’t entertaining enough for TV, she wouldn’t have been on for years, and no one is forced to appear on her show.

      2. If the television industry can do a worse PR job for the legal industry than the legal industry can for itself (see: Charles Carreon) then I’ll rule it admissible to the court of public opinion.

        If daytime TV is a person’s primary source of education and what they use to form their opinions, then it’s probably better for everyone if they skip jury duty.

  2. What’s dumb is that the show pays whatever ruling is handed out. Plus you get $100 for appearing on the show, travel and lodging. So other than pride I’m not sure what Whitman would be so upset about.

    Source: my wife and I were once contacted to come on the show to settle a small claims case that we filed. We did not go on the show, however.

  3. What’s up with the Chinese/English mismatch in the image?

    The Chinese says “Arbitrating Grandma,” nothing about bindingness, anger or Judaism.

Comments are closed.