No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff Luis Velasquez obtained a settlement agreement for $17,000 against Shogy Marketplace Corporation and its owner for Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law violations. The court enforced the settlement after defendants defaulted on payment obligations, awarding Velasquez $25,220 total ($17,000 principal + $6,000 liquidated damages + $2,220 attorneys' fees).
Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation: Plain English Summary
What Happened
Luis Velasquez worked for Shogy Marketplace Corporation and claimed the company violated federal and New York state wage laws by failing to pay him properly. He sued to recover the unpaid wages he was owed.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with Velasquez and approved a settlement agreement requiring the company to pay him $17,000 for wage violations. When the company failed to pay this amount, the judge enforced the settlement and increased the total to $25,220. This included the original $17,000, an additional $6,000 in damages, and $2,220 to cover Velasquez's attorney fees.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts will hold employers accountable for wage theft—failing to pay workers what they've earned. Even when companies ignore settlement agreements and refuse to pay, judges can force payment and add extra penalties. Workers who believe their employer violated pay laws can pursue legal action, and the company may have to cover court costs if the worker wins.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Velasquez 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.