QaShontae Short is a Flint, Michigan woman who became nationally known in July 2022 after video spread of a Zoom hearing in which she sued a man for $10,000 for standing her up on a date. The broader picture behind QaShontae Short’s lawsuits is a two-decade pattern of filings in Michigan state and federal courts, and more recently in Wisconsin, nearly all of which have been dismissed.
The Viral Date Lawsuit
Short filed the suit on September 10, 2020, in the 67th District Court of Genesee County, Michigan, against a man named Richard Jordan. She sought $10,000 for “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” alleging Jordan had deliberately hurt her by failing to show up for a date that fell on the birthday of her late mother. Jordan told the court they had arranged one date and nothing else, and that he was now being sued for $10,000.1USA Today. Michigan Woman Sues Man Over Date
The Zoom hearing before Judge Herman Marable Jr. turned combative. Short argued with the judge over the definition of perjury, insisting Jordan had committed it by filing a false written response. Judge Marable corrected her, explaining that perjury requires a false statement made under oath and that a plaintiff cannot add a new count simply because she disagrees with the defendant’s answer.2New York Post. Woman Sues Man for $10,000 for Standing Her Up on Date After Short repeatedly yelled at the judge, he ordered her muted on the call.3Fox 2 Detroit. Michigan Woman Sues Date for $10K, Yells at Judge During Hearing
How the Court Ruled
Judge Marable found that Short’s emotional-distress claim was “not something that’s really justiciable in district court” and fell outside district court jurisdiction.4Newsweek. Woman Sues Man $10 Thousand Emotional Distress After Allegedly Being Stood Up He ordered the case transferred to the 7th Circuit Court of Genesee County rather than dismissing it outright, and required Short to pay filing fees for the transfer and cover the defendant’s costs for appearing in the wrong court. If those fees were not paid within 56 days, the case would be dismissed.2New York Post. Woman Sues Man for $10,000 for Standing Her Up on Date The transfer to circuit court was processed on July 21, 2022.1USA Today. Michigan Woman Sues Man Over Date
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a hard claim to win. As Newsweek noted, the conduct must generally be “extreme and outrageous,” must “exceed all possible bounds of decency,” and must cause severe distress no reasonable person should endure. The defendant must also have intended to cause the distress or known it was likely.4Newsweek. Woman Sues Man $10 Thousand Emotional Distress After Allegedly Being Stood Up A missed date does not typically approach that threshold.
Earlier Lawsuits
A USA Today review of Michigan court records found Short has filed at least a dozen lawsuits in state district and circuit courts going back to 2000.1USA Today. Michigan Woman Sues Man Over Date Two of the better-documented cases stand out.
In 2019, Short filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Flint Police Department, alleging excessive force, sexual assault, retaliation, and stalking by officers. She sought $300 million. Judge Victoria A. Roberts summarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice in January 2020, finding it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact, that the allegations were “sparse and unclear,” and that Short had failed to specify which defendant was responsible for which claim.5GovInfo. Short v. Flint Police Department, Case No. 2:19-cv-13715
In October 2020, Short filed a small claims suit against AT&T in Sheboygan County Circuit Court, Wisconsin, seeking $500 on what court records describe as a claim for money and tort. The case was dismissed in March 2021 after she failed to appear for a pre-trial conference.1USA Today. Michigan Woman Sues Man Over Date6UniCourt. Qashontae Hosomla Short vs AT&T
The 2025 Federal Filings
Short’s filings picked up in 2025, when she brought multiple federal lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan. All were filed pro se, meaning she represented herself, and all were dismissed.
Short v. Mosher et al.
Case No. 2:25-cv-10971 arose from Short’s incarceration at the Genesee County Jail. She named a fellow inmate, Doris Ann Mosher, another individual identified only as “Shanta,” and unnamed deputies and kitchen staff at the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office. Short alleged Mosher stole commissary items from her account, that deputies subjected her to derogatory treatment and withheld food, and that jail staff tampered with her meals. The same complaint added an unrelated claim about a January 2022 car accident, alleging officer Kris Surdu had falsified a police report to deny her a “mini tort” insurance claim. She sought $100,000. Judge Brandy R. McMillion summarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice on April 23, 2025, finding Short had failed to state a claim and that the federal statutes she cited did not support her allegations.7GovInfo. Short v. Mosher et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10971
Short v. Consumers Energy et al.
In Case No. 2:25-cv-11358, the court granted Short’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, but Judge McMillion again summarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice on May 12, 2025, concluding the claims lacked a viable legal basis.8Justia. Short v. Consumers Energy et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11358
Short v. Sullivan et al.
Case No. 2:25-cv-10998 named seven individual defendants, including Michael Sullivan and Kristin Robinson. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti recommended dismissal in a June 11, 2025 report, finding the complaint “fails to plead any plausible claim for relief and sets forth purported causes of action that are frivolous.” District Judge David M. Lawson adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2025.9GovInfo. Short v. Sullivan et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10998
Short v. AT&T et al.
Short filed another federal lawsuit against AT&T in July 2025, Case No. 2:25-cv-12328, classified as a contract dispute. As of January 2026, Judge Mark A. Goldsmith had denied her application to proceed without paying fees and directed her to pay the filing fee by late January 2026.10PACER Monitor. Short v. AT&T et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-12328
Where Things Stand
Based on available records, no court has formally designated Short a vexatious litigant or imposed filing restrictions on her as of mid-2025.8Justia. Short v. Consumers Energy et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11358 The three 2025 federal dismissals were all with prejudice, meaning she cannot refile those same claims. The recurring pattern in the rulings is the same: pro se complaints citing federal statutes that courts find inapplicable, dismissed for failure to state a viable claim.