[In the original version of this post I confused readers by forgetting to erase pieces of the source article that I had pasted to the draft to save me the time of jumping back and forth between screens. My fault. Then I compounded the problem by leaving out the link. Fixed. It was all my fault; can’t blame WordPress this time.]
What a moron.
But then if criminals were smart, we’d be in even more trouble than we are…
Lady Gaga promised to pay a $500,0000 reward for the return of her two kidnapped French Bulldogs Gustav and Koji (two of the three above: sorry, I don’t know which). The pop icon’s dogwalker was shot and injured during the theft. Emulating the plot twist in the Mel Gibson thriller “Ransom,” however, one of the participants in the kidnapping scheme decided to collect the reward, arguing that because Gaga had said she would pay for the dogs’ return “no questions asked,” she was obligated even to pay someone who was involved in the crime.
Seeking the outlandish reward, Jennifer McBride was arrested when she turned in the dogs at a police station. She pleaded no contest to knowingly receiving stolen property and was sentenced to probation. I suppose the scheme was to have her collect the reward and split it with the dognappers.
After Lady Gaga warbled, “You’ve got to be kidding!’ when McBride asked for the money, McBride sued her for breach of contract.
Uh, no.
In rejecting the claim, Judge Hollie J. Fujie of Los Angeles Superior Court cited the ancient “unclean hands doctrine,” which holds that a litigant cannot benefit from a situation he or she deliberately helped to bring about by illegal or unethical conduct.
“The unclean hands doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy,” Fujie wrote, adding that the UHD “is an equitable rationale for refusing a plaintiff relief where principles of fairness dictate that the plaintiff should not recover, regardless of the merits of their claim.”
The judge also noted that because receiving stolen property allows the robbery victim to sue for damages, McBride would have to pay back the reward as restitution to Lady Gaga anyway. Judge Fujie gave McBride 20 days to amend her lawsuit.
I’m sure Jennifer was blowing spit-bubbles and thinking about her favorite “Barney” episodes while the judge was talking and didn’t understand.

Why should she be allowed to amend her suit if she is barred from recovery because of the UHD? This should have been dismissed with prejudice or am I missing something?
Second. Jut?
The particular legal theory underlying the lawsuit was rejected, and the plaintiff is being given an opportunity to present a new theory. She is also being warned that Lady Gaga has a potential counter claim even if a reasonable legal theory could be presented. Thus, it is essentially a = polite way of saying, “This is your right (but cut your losses)”.
Bingo.
You are not taking into account that the venue is in Los Angeles.