Part 1
Court
Southern District of Florida
Wikie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States
11-CV-22122 Lawrence V. MS & RE Kesef Corporation
Defendant
MS & RE Kesef Corp.
Plaintiff
Duke Lawrence
Mediator
Martin A. Soll
Judge
Patricia Seitz
Charges
Violation of Fair Labor Standards
Non-payment of minimum wage to the employee
Refusal to pay overtime payment
Retaliation against plaintiff
Forced to avoid legal proceedings
Brief Overview of case
Part 2
Trial Project
I have chosen the trial of Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp. for observation. The case was brought for trial on July 9, 2012. The case was presented in the court of Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse. It is located at 400 North Miami Ave Room 11-4 Miami, FL, USDC, Southern District of Florida. The Judge of the Case was Seitz, Patricia. The case was interesting as it took less time for the judgment and there was no big trial for the case.
Summary of Case
A complaint was filed by a person named Duke Lawrence, on May 13, 2012, against the company, named MS & RE Kesef Corp. The Plaintiff argued that he is entitled to get monetary compensation from the defendant (MS & RE Kesef Corp.) as the company has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. He claimed that he had not received pay for overtime and the minimum wage for which the company entitled him. He requested the court to recover the amount from the defendant so that he could be eligible for continuing his routine work. He also argued that he was dismissed by demanding the alleged money, and he suffered a loss for that.
The defendant was of the belief that that he did not commit such an action of refusing payment or dismiss anyone for that purpose. The case was brought in the courtroom, and the Judge pointed out all the facts related to the case. It took two days for providing final outcomes of the case. The case hearing started after observing the important information of the case that was related to the non-payment of some dues on behalf of the employee towards the employer. The hearing started on July 9, 2012. The Judge presented the case in front of all in the courtroom with the relevant information for the case. The Judge did not ask the direct question to the defendant related to the refusal of payment. However, defendant was sure that he had paid all the contracted money to the plaintiff (Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp., 2012). The judge fulfilled her responsibilities and listened to the plaintiff who argued that he was dismissed from the organization by asking money for overtime. He was unaware of the fact that employer had not dismissed plaintiff on account of demanding money.
The case did not take too much time, and the outcome was revealed in two days. The plaintiff and defendant were available to face the court, and they had presented their required evidence. The judge did not take a long hearing time to prove that the case was for defendant. The judge analyzed the case carefully and asked some questions to the plaintiff. The plaintiff recognized that he did not have strong evidence to prove and that he did not receive money for minimum wage and overtime. The Fair Labor Standards were used as an approach for the case (Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp., 2012).
The judge listened to the arguments of defendant and plaintiff and provided sentence after two days. The judge provides equal opportunity to both the parties that they are allowed to provide evidence in support of their arguments. The plaintiff failed to provide strong proof, so he was unable to convince the court for recovering compensation from the defendant. The evidence provided by the defendant were strong enough, and the case was going in the favor of the defendant. The judge gave equal chance to the plaintiff for providing strong evidence on the next day (Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp., 2012).
After two days, the judge gave a decision for Defendant and refused the argument of the plaintiff as they were not valid for the case. The judge also informed plaintiff that he had not been dismissed from the job on account of asking his desired amount. The case was interesting and short that came to an end for the company. The judge made a viable decision on the case and tried to maintain the trend of analyzing the case properly. The decision was based on the documents presented in the court, and there was no objection to court proceedings (Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp., 2012).
Reference
Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp. (2012). [Motion Picture].
