A routine dog walk turned into a $305 courtroom dispute when Betty Del Porto’s cat suddenly emerged from beneath a parked car and scratched Nicole McClure’s dog. Del Porto argued that cats didn’t have to be leashed—but Judge Judy had one question that changed the case: Who should pay when an unleashed pet causes the damage?
(uc.)
Nicole McClure Takes Her Neighbor to Court
Nicole McClure came to Judge Judy’s courtroom seeking reimbursement for veterinary expenses from her neighbor, Betty Del Porto. Unlike disputes involving complicated contracts or years of conflicting financial records, the essential facts of this case centered on a brief encounter between three animals. McClure had her dog with her. Del Porto was outside with her own small dog. Del Porto’s cat was also nearby. By the time the encounter ended, McClure’s dog had been scratched on the ear and needed veterinary attention.
Del Porto told the court that she had owned the cat for approximately 10 years. She described it as an indoor-outdoor animal rather than a pet that remained exclusively inside her home. Del Porto also owned a dog, and when she walked that dog, the cat sometimes followed along. That routine was important because Del Porto’s cat was not physically restrained when the encounter with McClure occurred.
There was little dispute that the cat belonged to Del Porto or that it made contact with McClure’s dog. The larger disagreement concerned why the cat attacked, whether McClure could have done something differently, and whether Del Porto should have to pay the resulting veterinary expenses.
A Routine Encounter Between Two Dog Owners
During the hearing, Del Porto used a photograph of the area to explain where everyone had been standing. Judge Judy also showed the photograph to McClure so that the location and sequence could be established as clearly as possible. Del Porto indicated that she had been near the farthest of several poles while her small dog was relieving itself. McClure approached from another direction with her own dog.
According to Del Porto, McClure reached an area near some bushes and asked whether Del Porto’s dog was friendly. Del Porto answered that it was. McClure then approached with her dog, and the two animals began interacting. Nothing in that initial exchange suggested that the dogs themselves were fighting. The confrontation instead began when Del Porto’s cat suddenly entered the scene.
Del Porto said she had not initially seen the cat because her back was turned. She believed the animal had been underneath a parked car, somewhere around the back tire. From that location, the cat came running toward McClure and her dog.
The physical layout described in court would become one of the most important elements of Judge Judy’s reasoning. Rather than focusing solely on why the cat may have been frightened, the judge wanted to establish which animal had traveled toward the other.
The Cat Appears From Beneath a Parked Car
Del Porto’s own testimony provided much of the sequence. She said the cat came from beneath the parked car and moved across the area toward McClure, who was standing with her dog near a rock. The cat then jumped up and scratched McClure’s dog on the ear. Del Porto said she intervened quickly enough to prevent her cat from scratching the dog a second time.
Del Porto believed fear had motivated the animal. She told Judge Judy that her cat had never done anything like this before and suggested that McClure’s dog had been pulling on its leash. From Del Porto’s perspective, the cat had become frightened and reacted defensively.
That explanation, however, did not resolve the question of financial responsibility. Even if Del Porto sincerely believed her cat had been scared, Judge Judy still had to determine who should bear the cost of the injury.
The judge therefore returned to the physical sequence described by Del Porto herself. The cat had been beneath or near the parked car. McClure and her dog were standing elsewhere. The cat traveled from its location toward the dog and then scratched it.
That account made the next question unavoidable: why did Del Porto believe McClure should pay for an injury caused by Del Porto’s animal?
Betty Del Porto Says Her Cat Was Frightened
Del Porto maintained that she was not responsible. One part of her argument was that McClure could have exercised greater control over her dog. Another was based on the rules governing cats outdoors. Del Porto told the judge that there was no leash law for cats in California.
The point was relevant to whether Del Porto was required to physically leash the cat, but Judge Judy rejected the idea that it resolved the civil dispute. The judge distinguished between a rule requiring an animal to be restrained and an owner’s responsibility for damage caused by an animal that had been allowed to roam outside.
In other words, the fact that Del Porto may have been legally permitted to let the cat outside without a leash did not necessarily mean that another person had to absorb the financial loss when the cat caused an injury.
That distinction became the heart of the case.
The Cat Leash Law Becomes the Central Defense
Del Porto respectfully disagreed with Judge Judy’s interpretation. The judge then asked whether Del Porto had attended an accredited law school. Del Porto said she had not. Asked whether she had attended any law school, she again answered no.
Judge Judy proceeded to explain the principle she was applying. When someone chooses to let an animal outside and permits that animal to remain beyond the owner’s direct control, the owner can be responsible for the damage the animal causes. Whether a separate law requires a leash is a different question.
To illustrate the distinction, Judge Judy offered a hypothetical involving a roaming cat jumping onto a baby carriage and causing a serious injury. The point was not that Del Porto’s cat had done anything comparable. It was an illustration of why the absence of a cat leash requirement could not logically mean that an owner was automatically immune from responsibility for every consequence of the animal’s behavior.
The hypothetical clarified the issue before the court. Del Porto was not being sued merely because her cat had been outside without a leash. McClure was seeking reimbursement because the cat had injured her dog and generated veterinary expenses.
Judge Judy Separates Leash Laws From Liability
Judge Judy then reconstructed Del Porto’s testimony using the photograph. Del Porto had not initially known where the cat was because she had not seen it. She believed the animal was underneath the car. McClure was standing with her dog near the rock. The cat traveled from the parked car toward McClure’s position, jumped up and scratched the dog.
The judge said she believed Del Porto’s description of the event. That was a crucial moment because it meant the court did not need to decide every factual disagreement by choosing McClure’s testimony over Del Porto’s. Del Porto’s own version was enough to establish the basic sequence Judge Judy considered relevant.
On that account, the cat had not remained beside its owner while McClure’s dog crossed the entire area and attacked it. Instead, Del Porto’s cat moved toward McClure’s dog and inflicted the injury.
Judge Judy therefore concluded that Del Porto was responsible for the veterinary expenses.
Could Nicole McClure Have Prevented the Injury?
Del Porto still questioned whether McClure had some responsibility to control her own dog. She suggested that McClure could have prevented her dog from moving or pulling on its leash and therefore might share responsibility for what happened.
Judge Judy again returned to the physical evidence and Del Porto’s own description. McClure was standing near the rock with her dog, while Del Porto’s cat had come from the area of the parked car. It was the cat that covered the distance between the two positions and made contact.
The judge did not accept the argument that McClure’s handling of her dog transferred responsibility for the cat’s actions to her. Del Porto had stopped the cat before it could scratch the dog again, but intervening after the first injury did not erase the consequences of the initial contact.
Based on the version presented in court, Judge Judy found Del Porto 100% responsible for McClure’s veterinary bills.
The Mystery of the Conflicting Phone Numbers
The hearing then moved to what happened immediately after the incident. Judge Judy asked whether McClure had requested Del Porto’s telephone number before taking her dog for treatment. Del Porto said she had absolutely provided her number and insisted that it was correct.
McClure told a different story. She said she entered the number into her phone as Del Porto gave it to her. After returning home and caring for her dog, McClure said she tried calling Del Porto two more times. She also presented a phone record to the judge.
The discrepancy between the two numbers discussed in court was substantial. The number McClure said she received ended in 4321, while the number Del Porto identified as her actual number ended in 6360. Judge Judy noted that this was not the sort of difference easily explained by confusing a single digit.
Del Porto nevertheless insisted that she had provided the correct number and said she could not control what McClure had written down. McClure maintained that she could not possibly have misunderstood the number to that extent.
The transcript does not provide independent evidence proving why the numbers differed. For that reason, it would go beyond the source to state as fact that Del Porto intentionally gave McClure a false telephone number.
What the record clearly establishes is that the parties sharply disagreed about what number was provided and that McClure’s recorded number differed significantly from the number Del Porto stated in court.
Veterinary Bills Establish the Financial Loss
With responsibility determined, Judge Judy asked to review McClure’s veterinary bills. This was an important distinction from cases in which a plaintiff establishes that something happened but cannot adequately document the resulting financial loss. McClure had veterinary records available for the court to examine.
The transcript does not itemize every medical procedure performed on the dog, so the treatment should not be reconstructed beyond what the source supports. After the hearing, McClure described the injury as a large cut in the cartilage of her dog’s left ear and said there had been considerable bleeding. Those statements were McClure’s description of what she observed rather than a separate veterinary diagnosis recited by the court.
What the courtroom record establishes with certainty is the amount Judge Judy accepted as damages: $305.
Judge Judy Awards McClure $305
Judge Judy entered judgment for Nicole McClure in the amount of $305. The ruling required Del Porto to bear the veterinary expenses associated with the injury caused by her cat.
The outcome rested less on speculation about the cat’s temperament than on the physical sequence established through testimony. Del Porto owned the cat and had kept it for roughly a decade. She allowed it to live as an indoor-outdoor animal. On the day of the incident, the cat was outside without direct restraint. According to Del Porto herself, it emerged from the area beneath a parked car, traveled toward McClure and her dog, jumped up and scratched the dog’s ear.
Del Porto’s argument that California did not require cats to be leashed did not change Judge Judy’s analysis. The court distinguished between permission to let an animal roam and responsibility for the consequences when that animal causes damage.
The case therefore turned on a relatively narrow principle. Del Porto did not necessarily have to violate a leash ordinance before she could become financially responsible for her cat’s behavior. Once the animal injured McClure’s dog and the veterinary expenses were documented, the court concluded that those costs belonged to Del Porto rather than McClure.
The Neighbors Continue to Disagree After Court
The judgment ended the lawsuit, but it did not resolve the neighbors’ disagreement about what had happened. After leaving the courtroom, McClure continued to maintain that Del Porto had given her a false telephone number. Del Porto denied lying and said she had been a government official for 15 years and did not tell lies.
Their disagreement about the cat’s motivation also remained. McClure described being horrified by the sudden incident and emphasized the injury to her dog’s ear. Del Porto continued to believe the cat reacted because it was frightened by McClure’s dog pulling toward it. At the same time, Del Porto said the cat’s best friend was a Great Dane, suggesting that she did not regard her pet as generally fearful of dogs.
Those statements represent the parties’ competing interpretations after the ruling rather than additional factual findings by the court. What Judge Judy actually decided was considerably narrower and clearer: Del Porto’s cat approached McClure’s dog and injured it, Del Porto was responsible for the resulting veterinary expenses, and McClure had documentation supporting a $305 recovery.
McClure ultimately said that her dog was going to be fine. That brought a relatively reassuring end to an incident that had escalated from an ordinary neighborhood encounter into a courtroom dispute. The dog recovered, but the financial question remained until Judge Judy answered it.
For pet owners, the case highlights why the absence of a specific restraint rule does not necessarily answer every question about responsibility. An animal may be legally permitted outdoors, yet its owner can still face consequences if it injures another person or pet. In this dispute, the decisive evidence did not come from an elaborate investigation or a dramatic eyewitness revelation. Much of it came from Del Porto herself.
Her description established where the cat had been, where McClure was standing, how the animal moved and what happened when it reached the dog. Once those facts were placed together, Judge Judy’s conclusion was straightforward: McClure should not be left paying the veterinary bill for an injury caused by Del Porto’s cat.
(uc.)
FAQ
Why did Nicole McClure sue Betty Del Porto?
Nicole McClure sued her neighbor Betty Del Porto after Del Porto’s cat scratched McClure’s dog on the ear. McClure sought reimbursement for the veterinary expenses resulting from the injury.
What did Betty Del Porto say happened?
Del Porto said she was outside with her small dog when McClure approached with her dog. She believed her cat had been underneath a parked car. According to Del Porto, the cat ran toward McClure’s dog, jumped up and scratched its ear before Del Porto intervened.
Was Betty Del Porto’s cat on a leash?
No. Del Porto described the animal as an indoor-outdoor cat and acknowledged that it was not leashed. She argued that California did not have a leash law requiring cats to be restrained in the way dogs may be required to be.
Why did Judge Judy reject the cat leash-law argument?
Judge Judy distinguished between a legal requirement to leash an animal and financial responsibility for damage caused by that animal. In the court’s reasoning, the absence of a cat leash requirement did not automatically protect an owner from liability when a roaming cat caused an injury.
Did Judge Judy believe Nicole McClure was partly responsible?
No. Del Porto suggested that McClure could have controlled her dog differently, but Judge Judy relied on Del Porto’s description showing that the cat traveled from the parked car toward McClure and her dog. The judge found Del Porto responsible for the veterinary expenses.
What was the dispute about Betty Del Porto’s phone number?
Del Porto said she gave McClure her correct telephone number after the incident. McClure said the number she recorded and later attempted to call was substantially different. The transcript confirms the discrepancy but does not independently establish why the numbers were different.
How much did Judge Judy award Nicole McClure?
Judge Judy entered judgment for Nicole McClure in the amount of $305, representing the veterinary expenses accepted by the court.
Was Nicole McClure’s dog okay afterward?
Yes. Although McClure described a significant cut to the cartilage of the dog’s left ear and considerable bleeding, she said after the hearing that her dog was going to be fine.
Sources
Judge Judy. The transcript is the controlling source for Nicole McClure and Betty Del Porto’s names, Del Porto’s ownership of the cat, the physical sequence described through the photograph, the leash-law argument, the disputed telephone number, the veterinary bills, the $305 judgment and the parties’ comments after the hearing.