Overlawyered has a story about a man whose suit against God has been dismissed. This seems a bit like a dead end street for the guy. On the one hand, his legal arguments hinge on God's existence. For example, the plaintiff argues that He or She doesn't need to be physically served since He or She is all-knowing. If God doesn't exist, then the plaintiff's legal argument falls apart.
If, on the other hand, God does exist, would you want to be the guy to piss Him/Her off by taking Him/Her to court?
If this ever does go to trial, it must absolutely be in front of either Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown.
All Judge Judy would care about would be whether either party is living with someone without being married or has kids out of wedlock. I can't speak for the plaintiff, but God has a son (perhaps some religions believe) and I don't believe he is married. God could argue that he is married to all peoples of the world, but polygamy doesn't fly in Judge Judy's courtroom.
Judge Joe Brown only cares about one thing: do you have a Jay-Ohh-Bee? God would have to say no, unless He/She argues that being the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator is a job. "How much money do you make a week?" Judge Joe Brown would ask. "Well, er, none, Judge Joe Brown," God would be forced to reply.
Which means either that Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown are proof that God doesn't exist, or that the shows each is known for maybe aren't the greatest examples of American jurisprudence. I'll leave it to the individual to decide.