Novoselac v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Background

Plaintiffs sued Robert Vuzem, Ivan Vuzem, ISM Vuzem d.o.o., and HRID-Mont d.o.o., asserting federal and state wage-and-hour claims based on labor allegedly performed at Tesla’s facility in Fremont, California. Tesla and Eisenmann Corporation were later dismissed with prejudice. The four remaining defendants did not respond to the complaint, and the Clerk entered default against them.

The court later granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. On June 22, 2023, it entered a default judgment against all four defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees totaling $354,116.45. In that earlier order, the court expressly found that service was proper under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.

More than a year later, Robert Vuzem and Ivan Vuzem filed a pro se motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) seeking to set aside the default judgment for themselves and their companies.

Legal standard

Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision allowing relief from a final judgment for another reason that justifies relief when the more specific grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) do not apply. The court explained that this relief is used sparingly and generally requires extraordinary circumstances, along with injury and circumstances beyond the party’s control that prevented timely action.

Companies’ request

The court denied the motion as to ISM Vuzem d.o.o. and HRID-Mont d.o.o. because business entities may appear in the court only through licensed counsel admitted to practice in the district. The companies were not represented by licensed counsel, so the court could not consider their request for relief from the default judgment.

Individuals’ request

Robert Vuzem and Ivan Vuzem could represent themselves. They asserted five grounds for relief: lack of personal jurisdiction, a confidential release of claims, expiration of the claims’ time limits, improper service under the Hague Convention, and a public policy preference for deciding cases on their merits.

The court limited its analysis to service. It determined that only allegedly defective service could have prevented the individuals from acting in time. The other arguments could have been raised during the ordinary litigation if the defendants had responded to the complaint.

Under the applicable service rules, individuals in a foreign country may be served through internationally agreed methods such as those authorized by the Hague Convention. Plaintiffs’ counsel sent the summons and complaint to Slovenia’s Ministry of Justice, which served as Slovenia’s central authority. The Ministry later confirmed that Robert Vuzem and Ivan Vuzem had been served. Plaintiffs then filed signed returns of service reflecting service under the Hague Convention.

The court treated those signed returns as initial evidence of valid service that could be overcome only by strong and convincing evidence. The record also contained evidence that key filings had been sent by email to an attorney who identified herself as representing Robert Vuzem and Ivan Vuzem, and that other filings had been mailed to them.

The court sustained plaintiffs’ objection to Robert Vuzem’s declaration and the attached translations. Robert Vuzem had not provided a certified translation, stated that he was a certified translator, or stated that he was fluent in English and competent to translate his declaration and the Slovenian documents. The court therefore found the declaration and translations inadmissible. Even if they had been admissible, the court found that the statements were too vague and insufficient to show that service had not occurred. The statement that he first learned of the default judgment in August 2024 did not address when he learned about the lawsuit, and the statement that documents were left in a mailbox did not identify which documents were involved.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to set aside the default judgment as to ISM Vuzem d.o.o. and HRID-Mont d.o.o. because they lacked licensed counsel. It also denied the motion as to Robert Vuzem and Ivan Vuzem because they failed to meet their burden of proving that service under the Hague Convention was improper. The order terminated ECF 77.