No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff Daniel Paul obtained default judgment against Sentinel Protection, LLC on Count I for unpaid overtime wages. The court awarded $19,500 in unpaid overtime wages (inclusive of liquidated damages), $5,950 in attorney's fees, and $402 in costs. Counts II and III were dismissed without prejudice.
Paul v. Sentinel Protection, LLC: Court Rules in Favor of Worker Over Unpaid Overtime
What Happened
Daniel Paul worked for Sentinel Protection, LLC and was not paid the overtime wages he was owed. Paul took the company to court, claiming he earned money for extra hours worked but the employer refused to pay him.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with Paul and ruled that Sentinel Protection, LLC must pay him $19,500 in unpaid overtime wages plus an additional penalty. The company was also ordered to cover Paul's legal fees ($5,950) and court costs ($402), bringing the total to $25,852. The court issued a default judgment, meaning the employer did not successfully defend itself against the overtime claim.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that companies cannot ignore overtime pay requirements. When workers win wage theft cases, courts often award not just the missing wages but also penalties and attorney's fees—making it costly for employers to break the rules. If you work overtime without receiving proper payment, you may have legal options to recover what you're owed, with courts potentially covering your legal expenses.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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.