Courtroom drawing of Red Rock GMC minority owner Bryan Knight sitting at the Defendant’s table. (Anne Landman)
In a “David vs. Goliath” case, Derek Paiz, a former detailer for Red Rock GMC, lost his pro se wage theft lawsuit against Red Rock Auto Group II, Inc. on December 11, 2024 after a six person jury returned a verdict (pdf) in favor of Red Rock.
Paiz maintained he was hired under a verbal agreement to be paid by the task instead of by the hour, and that he performed detail work on many cars he was never paid for. As evidence he pointed out that in records of his work, Red Rock had billed many of the tasks he performed on specific vehicles to “Tech 999” instead of his designated Tech Number, 109. Red Rock admitted it had accidentally shorted Paiz on one of his paychecks, but said it was made up by writing him another check.
The trial lasted three days. Testimony in the case was dry, document-intensive and repetitive, with the jury hearing the words “paint protection, “fabric protection,” “sanitizing” and “courtesy wash” repeatedly over all three days.
Andrew Borders, Paiz’s former boss in the detail department, told the jury Paiz performed work he wasn’t supposed to do.
After the verdict, Paiz pointed out that Borders had testified that he worked for Red Rock GMC starting in April of 2021 until the July of 2022, even though Red Rock didn’t buy the GMC dealership from Fuoco Motors until April of 2022. He said he found other discrepancies in Borders’ testimony as well.
Paiz estimated the amount of money he believed he was due from Red Rock based on the average number of cars he had detailed per day, and all the distinct tasks he had performed on those vehicles, working 6 days/week. The lack of a clear figure substantiated by authenticated records made the case more difficult.
Paiz brought the case pro se, meaning without an attorney. He filed all his own motions and responses to motions. He faced off in court with Robert Rice, a professional corporate attorney for Red Rock who came from Utah.
Paiz hopes to appeal the verdict based in part on the discrepancies he says he’s found in Borders’ testimony.
Courtroom drawing of Andrew Borders testifying in Paiz wage theft case against Red Rock GMC
Everything in this is not true and you Anne you should stop slandering people’s names and stop drawing pictures of them! Prepare to be sued!!
Anne certainly has gone after Red Rock, but I don’t think anything in this article is an actual lie, just her reporting of the case.
It would have been wonderful if Anne had been able to help Derek prepare his case better. Or looked at his case and advised him not to pursue it because of viable evidence.
I am not an attorney or legal advisor, and apparently not much of a sketch artist either, but at least I tried. And last time I checked, a person can’t get sued over bad art. (You’re not allowed to record or photograph courtroom proceedings, making sketches necessary.)
It was very evident he didn’t have his ducks in a row.
Too bad Derek will be paying attorneys fees now. Anna you are a horrible person and you will get your day!! Mess with the wrong people and you may be the next one in court. Delete my messages I will always come beck. Human scum.
A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
The case should have been winnable.
Can’t all afford lawyers, sport.
It’s too bad no one advised Derek about his case. I read the original complaint and it was pretty sketchy and disorganized. Documentation is key and verbal agreements don’t cut it in court.
Also, the jury saw that he worked for a long time under the conditions he eventually sued about. Why didn’t he speak out sooner?
Is Red Rock going to seek lawyers’ fees?
Heck yeah they will be going after Derek for attorney fees!