Woman Sues Date For $10,000 After He Fails To Turn Up Causing Her ’Emotional Distress’

A woman from Michigan, QaShontae Short, is suing a man for $10,000 because he stood her up on a date.

Their virtual hearing has gone viral, as Short got into a heated argument with the judge.

Short started this legal journey back in 2020, claiming that the man, Richard Jordan, had abandoned her on the same day as her late mother's birthday.

She filed a lawsuit for intentional emotional distress, saying Jordan deliberately hurt her feelings.

Their Zoom hearing turned chaotic as Short and the judge argued whether Jordan's no-show could be considered a criminal offense.

"That's [her charge] not something that's really justiciable in district court," said Judge Herman Marable Jr., who was presiding over the case in Flint, Michigan. "That has to be brought in circuit court."

After some back and forth between Short and the judge, defendant Jordan weighed in, deadpanning: "To be honest with you, sir, I thought this was just gonna be thrown out."

"We had a date, one date, and nothing else after that, and now I'm being sued for $10,000," the incredulous man added. "I don't see how this is gonna go any further. I think this is a waste of your time."

But then, Short threw a curveball by accusing the man of perjury, claiming he lied about leaving her hanging. The judge, however, insisted she couldn't make that call herself.

"In that letter, he lied. And then that's what brought forth the perjury," Short declared. "It was never perjury in the beginning. It was perjury after his response."

"Well you can't say . . . listen, he has the right to put whatever is in the answer," Marable responded, to which the plaintiff retorted, "I'm not saying he can't."

The judge, growing impatient, explained. "You can't add another count because you don't like or disagree with what is in his answer!"

However, Short, who has reportedly been a widow since 2005, per the Daily Mail, refused to back down, insisting, "If he responds and his response is a lie, it's perjury. Then my documents will prove that he lied in his response."

Finally, fed up with the plaintiff, his honor asks if Short understands what perjury is, to which Short incorrectly responds, "Yes, I understand perjury is a lie. I know what perjury means!"

"No, perjury is a false statement made under oath," Marable says, correcting her. However, Short, not grasping the concept, doubles down, exclaiming, "Exactly, and I have a document that proves he was lying!"

After a protracted debate over legal semantics — during which the stubborn Short repeatedly yells "are we done here?" — she finally agrees to transfer the case to district court in line with the judge's original recommendation.

"OK, I'm gonna do that. [To another woman in the courtroom] Give me the four?" says Marable, before asking, "Ma'am, what about his costs associated with appearing because you filed in the wrong court?"

That's when Short backpedals, arguing: "Ummmm, I need to see because I was not aware, since you said perjury was not on there, I was not aware that a criminal offense for intentional infliction of emotional distress was considered a criminal offense."

"That is not what I said, that is not what I said," a beleaguered Marable protests, whereupon another circuitous shouting match ensues.

In a bid to end Short's persistent complaints, Judge Marable takes the drastic step of muting the Zoom call and transferring the case to circuit court.

In a stern tone, he instructs the plaintiff to cover the filing fees for the case, warning that her lawsuit will be dismissed if the fees aren't paid within 56 days.

Short has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits, as reported by the Daily Mail. In 2020, she sued the Flint Police Department for an incredible $300 million and also took legal action against AT&T. However, all of these cases were eventually dismissed.

In a similarly strange case from 2020, a man from Missouri unsuccessfully sued Apple for a mind-boggling $1 trillion.

He claimed that Apple employees had messed with his phone during repairs, but, like Short's cases, it also got dismissed.