No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court order directing the Clerk to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for individual defendants Igor Grinberg and Angeline Herrera ahead of trial scheduled for September 7, 2021. This is a procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims.
Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc.
What Happened
Employee Cajero Torres sued Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc., alleging the restaurant failed to pay workers properly under federal and New York wage laws. The case involved individual defendants Igor Grinberg and Angeline Herrera, who were likely company managers or owners responsible for payroll decisions.
What the Court Decided
In July 2021, the court issued a procedural order—essentially a housekeeping decision before trial. The judge directed the court clerk to find volunteer lawyers to represent Grinberg and Herrera ahead of their September 2021 trial. This was not a ruling on whether wage theft actually occurred.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that wage theft claims proceed through the courts and can reach trial. The court's effort to provide legal representation suggests the case had merit enough to move forward. For workers, this demonstrates that wage violations can be challenged legally, though these cases require persistence through multiple court steps before reaching a final judgment.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. 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.