> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Judge finds there’s more to cases than what meets the eye
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/judge-finds-theres-more-to-cases-than-what-meets-the-eye/
- Published: 2002-08-07T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T00:35:41.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Crime, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Small claims judge at a loss over fender-bender lawsuit*

*By DAVE DANFORTH Daily Press Staff Writer*

Gregory Glynn is not a relationship counselor. Nor is he a child psychologist. And he doesn’t reconstruct accidents for a living.

But Glynn, a lawyer who showed up last week for his occasional stint as a Santa Monica small claims judge, was asked to play those roles in three different lawsuits. Each time, he admonished the combatants that they should be in some higher court rather than small claims because the cases required more detailed evidence and expert testimony.

The limit a person can sue for in small claims court is $5,000, and it can be big business. It’s not unusual to see far more complex cases, for as much as $10,000, filed there. Many find it’s more economical than paying a lawyer, so they take their chances in an arena where lawyers aren’t allowed.

One case that troubled Glynn deeply was that of John Hughes, who sued the Westside Waldorf School in Santa Monica for $1,673.27 in tuition. He claimed the school hadn’t properly protected his daughter, 4, from “attacks” from another girl, who was 3.

Hughes claimed other parents had written to the school complaining about the same girl.

“He wants to rescind the contract,” Glynn suggested to the trustees’ chairwoman, Nancy Pierandozzi, who appeared on the school’s behalf. When Pierandozzi pointed out the tuition fee was non-refund-able, Glynn put the claim in legal terms.

“He’s saying it’s an implied condition of the contract that his child wouldn’t be beaten up,” he said.

Neither Glynn nor Pierandozzi knew how to interpret fights between kids so young.

“What is normal behavior and what is malicious?” asked Glynn after Pierandozzi suggested there could be “different perspectives” in looking at how the girls got along.

If the case had been in a higher court, either girl might have been evaluated before the trial. In any event, neither could testify, as children under age 7 aren’t considered “competent” witnesses.

Glynn said that though the case was out of his league, he ruled Hughes should get his tuition back.

Then there was the case involving former lovers. No one was prepared for Karen Curreri’s claim against Anthony Verderame. On the surface, the lawsuit was framed as a college placement and guidance counselor seeking payment for a bill of $1,800\. But there was one large complication — Curreri had been intimate with Verderame for some time. When the couple split, Verderame was billed by Curreri for helping guide his daughter toward college.

“She was Dad’s girlfriend,” exclaimed Verderame’s 16-year-old daughter to the perplexed judge.

“During the time you were lovers, he paid a lot of bills,” summed up Glynn after Verderame complained that he’d never expected a bill for counseling when he was paying for Curreri’s rent, meals and other items. And, Verderame noted, Curreri helped another of Verderame’s daughters and didn’t send a bill.

Curreri said she reviewed grade transcripts, extracurricular activities and a psychologist report, and recommended how to deal with any learning disabilities of the 16-year-old daughter.

“I had no idea she’d charge me,” said Verderame. When Curreri pointed out that she’d received an initial payment, Verderame said it wasn’t for college counseling, but only cash advances. When Curreri complained that notes made by Verderame’s therapist would show he said he owed the money, Verderame objected on grounds of confidentiality.

“He wants to offset your bill against his cash advances to you,” suggested Glynn, trying to frame the dispute in legal terms.

Glynn said he was having difficulty separating the shards of a broken relationship from the shreds of evidence in the case. He ruled that since there was no written contract, Curreri couldn’t collect. Curreri had claimed an oral contract, but it’s hard to prove if someone disputes its existence.

Verderame waltzed out of the courtroom singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, while Curreri asked the bailiff to escort her to her car and keep him away.

Glynn also was perplexed by the case of a fender-bender on Lincoln Boulevard near LAX. Two women disputed the other’s account of the accident, a rear-ender. Olivia Johnson sued Jennifer Gelber, arguing Gelber changed lanes behind her and plowed into her as she was waiting at a red light. Gelber claimed Johnson cut in front of her, clipping her front end in the process.

Glynn believed a neutral witness who backed Johnson’s version, and ruled against Gelber. But he warned two audience members who had an interest in the case that rules of small claims court forbade them from taking an active part. One onlooker was an assistant for a lawyer Johnson had hired from the Yellow Pages. Another was a representative of an auto club looking after Gelber. He claimed a medical bill by Johnson’s chiropractor was inflated.

Glynn said the case was too complicated for small claims court, and he surmised that the insurance company had forced the lawsuit by refusing to pay up. Though his ruling favored Johnson, he was troubled by the size of a chiropractor’s bill and cut the award. He also disallowed Johnson’s claim for costs of a rental car.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 7, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/080702.pdf?ref=smdp.com)