No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant for FLSA and New York Labor Law violations in July 2022, awarding $93,564 in damages plus $28,620 in attorneys' fees and $1,331.51 in costs. The current order grants plaintiff's motion to compel an information subpoena seeking asset information to satisfy the judgment.
Rose v. Willoughby Court Ruling Summary
What Happened
Rose worked for Robert Willoughby and claimed the employer did not pay wages owed, violating federal wage laws and New York labor rules. Rose took legal action seeking compensation for unpaid earnings.
What the Court Decided
In July 2022, the court ruled in Rose's favor, awarding $93,564 in damages for the wage theft. The court also ordered Willoughby to pay Rose's attorney fees ($28,620) and court costs ($1,331.51). In a follow-up order, the judge approved Rose's request to force Willoughby to reveal his financial assets so the court could collect the judgment money.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts take wage theft seriously. Workers who don't receive proper pay can win significant compensation, including attorney fees—meaning legal representation becomes more affordable. The court's decision to pursue the employer's assets demonstrates that winning a judgment is not the end; courts will actively work to ensure workers actually receive the money owed to them.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Rose from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.