Woman sues man for $10,000 for standing her up on date: ‘He lied!’
After getting stood up, she finally got her date — in court.
A Michigan woman is raising eyebrows online after suing a man for $10,000 for — wait for it — standing her up on a date. A clip of the wild virtual hearing — during which the scorned woman got into a heated shouting match with the judge — is currently blowing up online.
The woman, named QaShontae Short, had reportedly filed a lawsuit back in 2020, in which she alleged that Richard Jordan “did not show and left on her mother’s birthday and her mom had just passed away,” per legal docs obtained by TMZ.
Short sued the accused date ditcher for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that Jordan had deliberately hurt her by standing her up.
Go figure: Their Zoom hearing quickly devolved into a circus after Short locked horns with the judge over whether Jordan’s romantic no-show job was 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.”
However, Short then claimed that the man had perjured himself by allegedly lying about leaving her in the lurch — a point the judge said she was in no position to determine.
“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.
Finally, tired of Short’s complaints, Marable mutes the Zoom call and transfers the suit to circuit court. He then demands that the plaintiff should foot the filing fees for the case, adding that her suit will be thrown out if they are not paid within 56 days.
Short, who has reported being unemployed since early June, has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits, per the Daily Mail. In 2020, she sued the Flint Police Department for $300 million and also filed a suit against AT&T, all of which have since been dismissed.
In a similarly ludicrous case in 2020, a Missouri man unsuccessfully sued Apple for $1 trillion after claiming that the tech giant’s employees had monkeyed with his phone during repairs.
