Davis v. Shri Hari Hotels LLC
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- Labor: Fair Standards
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- default judgment
- State
- Arizona
- Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Court granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment in a wage-and-hour case. Defendants failed to respond to the complaint and default was entered, resulting in judgment for unpaid wages under the FLSA, Arizona Minimum Wage Act, and Arizona Wage Act.
What This Ruling Means
Davis v. Shri Hari Hotels LLC: Court Rules in Favor of Employee
What Happened
An employee named Davis sued Shri Hari Hotels LLC, claiming the company failed to pay wages owed. The case involved alleged violations of federal and state wage laws, including failure to pay minimum wage.
What the Court Decided
The hotel company never responded to the lawsuit. Because of this failure to defend itself, the court automatically ruled in Davis's favor. The judge granted what's called a "default judgment," meaning the company lost the case without the matter going to trial. The court found that Davis was owed unpaid wages under federal law and Arizona state wage laws.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that employers who ignore wage complaints can lose automatically in court. When a company fails to respond to wage-theft allegations, courts will often side with the employee. This ruling reinforces that workers have legal protections against unpaid wages and that employers must take wage disputes seriously or face automatic judgment against them.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
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.