Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Park brings a wage claim against Lantern Cup LLC for $80. She says she worked a May 14 closing shift from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at $20 per hour, forgot to clock in, and was not paid. Lantern Cup asks the court to deny the claim. The hearing record includes the parties’ submissions and three presented copies of the closing schedule. No party has changed the amount requested or sought a different remedy. 2. This is a decision on the record provided. The parties’ submissions are their accounts and arguments; they are not independent documents or testimony from additional witnesses. The schedule exhibits are presented evidence, but each states the same limited fact: Elena was listed for the shift. The exhibits are not separate corroborating records merely because the schedule appears more than once. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elena worked the May 14 shift and, if so, whether Lantern Cup owes her $80 in unpaid wages. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 directs attention to what wages were earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena argues that the café’s schedule assigns her the full four-hour shift and that the lack of a time entry explains why the pay record shows no wages. She relies also on her own account that she worked and says the requested $80 is four hours multiplied by $20 per hour. In her final statement, Elena expressly acknowledges that the schedule proves assignment, not completion, and that she has no independent record or witness confirming attendance. 5. Lantern Cup argues that Elena’s missing clock-in is not the company’s fault, that its time and pay records show no entry or payment for her, and that another worker may have covered the shift. It says the $80 was not earned and seeks denial. The record contains no supporting account or record identifying another worker or establishing that the worker covered the shift. Lantern Cup’s assertion that its records show no Elena entry or pay is a party submission; no separate time or payroll document is presented in this record. Evidence and findings 6. The closing schedule is relevant and supports that Elena was assigned to work from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on May 14. It does not record attendance, hours completed, or payment. Its weight is therefore meaningful on assignment but limited on whether work was actually performed. The repeated schedule exhibits have the same description and content and do not add independent confirmation. 7. Elena’s account is direct as to her own claimed attendance. She has stated consistently that she worked the shift and forgot to clock in. But she also candidly acknowledges that no independent evidence confirms her presence or arrival time. The court has considered her account together with the schedule; the schedule does not independently verify the account’s central point, completion of the shift. 8. Lantern Cup’s suggestion that another worker covered the shift is not established. The court does not find that another worker did cover it, nor does the absence of a clock-in entry by itself prove Elena was absent. The record leaves attendance uncertain rather than proving either party’s account conclusively. Reasons 9. Elena bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her request. The schedule is evidence that she was assigned the shift, but assignment is not the same as work performed. Elena’s own account supports her claim, and the court has not disregarded it merely because it is not accompanied by a document. However, the record provides no independent confirmation of attendance, and Elena herself identifies that limitation. Considering the evidence as a whole, the court finds that the fact she worked the four hours has not been proven. 10. This finding does not adopt Lantern Cup’s alternative explanation. Lantern Cup has not proven that another worker covered the shift. Nor does the court treat a missing clock-in as conclusive proof of absence. The result follows from Elena’s burden: where the evidence leaves the essential fact uncertain, the party seeking payment has not established entitlement to it. The court does not shift to Lantern Cup the burden of proving that Elena did not work. 11. Elena’s calculation of $80 is arithmetically clear: four hours at $20 per hour. But Rule 25 requires a basis for finding that the wages were earned and unpaid. The amount depends on the unproven premise that Elena worked the shift. Her account that she was not paid and Lantern Cup’s position that no wages were earned do not resolve that premise. Because the hours worked are not established, the court cannot find that the $80 was earned and remains unpaid. Rule 6 does not permit an award for an injury that has not been proven. 12. The court has considered the parties’ final statements. Elena’s candor about the limits of her proof strengthens the clarity of her presentation, but it cannot supply independent confirmation of attendance. Lantern Cup’s unsupported coverage suggestion does not strengthen its factual account, but it also does not relieve Elena of her burden. No specific further proof is identified as obtainable in this closed record, and an adjournment is not available. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Lantern Cup LLC. Elena Park’s claim for $80 in unpaid wages is denied, and no payment is ordered. This judgment decides only that Elena has not proven on this record that she worked the May 14 shift and earned the claimed wages. It does not find that another worker covered the shift or that Elena was absent. The amount claimed was $80; the amount awarded is $0.