No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff obtained a default judgment for $210,437.16 against defendants for wage-and-hour violations. A magistrate judge certified facts for a contempt proceeding after defendants failed to respond to post-judgment discovery subpoenas and violated court orders compelling compliance, with recommendation that an order to show cause be issued.
Pena v. Super Economic One Way Supermarket Corp.
What Happened
An employee named Pena sued Super Economic One Way Supermarket Corp. for wage theft—meaning the company failed to pay wages owed or violated pay laws. The company was ordered to respond to the lawsuit but ignored the court's requests for information and failed to follow orders to provide documents.
What the Court Decided
Because the company ignored the court's instructions, the judge ruled against them automatically. Pena won a default judgment for $210,437.16 in damages. The judge also recommended holding the company in contempt of court for refusing to comply with discovery requests and court orders.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts take wage theft seriously and will punish employers who ignore legal proceedings. When companies fail to cooperate with courts, judges can automatically side with workers. The large damages award signals that employers cannot simply ignore lawsuits or court orders without facing financial consequences. Workers facing wage problems have tools to hold companies accountable.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Pena 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.