Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Background

Fourteen plaintiffs and a certified class alleged that they were transported to the United States from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia to provide labor for American companies. They alleged that the Vuzem Defendants hired them and contracted for their labor, including labor performed at Tesla’s facility in Fremont, California. The operative complaint asserted claims for minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), California wage-and-hour violations, and trafficking and coerced labor under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act (CTVPA).

Tesla and two Vuzem-related companies had previously been dismissed. The remaining defendants were ISM Vuzem d.o.o., HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, Robert Vuzem, and Eisenmann Corporation. All of those defendants defaulted. Thirteen plaintiffs and the certified class moved for default judgment. Gogo Rebic did not join the motion, and the court had separately ordered the parties to show cause why Rebic’s claims should not be dismissed.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that it had federal-question jurisdiction over the FLSA and TVPRA claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the related California claims. It also found specific personal jurisdiction over the Vuzem Defendants and Eisenmann based on alleged California business activities connected to the claims. The court concluded that the defendants had been properly served. It found that Eisenmann’s answer had been stricken after its counsel withdrew and Eisenmann failed to appear through new counsel.

For a default judgment, the court applied the seven factors commonly used in the Ninth Circuit, including prejudice, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, the possibility of factual disputes, excusable neglect, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. Because the defendants defaulted, the court treated the complaint’s properly pleaded liability allegations as true, but it separately required support for damages.

The court found the FLSA claims sufficient because the allegations and evidence showed that the moving parties were employees covered by the statute, worked more than 40 hours in some weeks, and were not paid the required minimum or overtime wages. It also accepted the evidence supporting compensation for required travel in company vans between assigned housing and worksites. The FLSA recoveries, including liquidated damages, ranged from $10,827.84 to $138,417.61 per moving party.

The court likewise found sufficient support for the California claims involving minimum wages, overtime, missed rest periods, wage statements, and waiting-time penalties. It accepted the evidence supporting compensation for required travel time under California law. The requested recoveries for California minimum and overtime wage claims ranged from $16,396.24 to $124,305.25 per moving party; rest-period recoveries ranged from $1,540.35 to $7,393.68; wage-statement penalties ranged from $1,450 to $4,000; and waiting-time penalties were $3,585 per moving party.

For the class claim, the certified class consisted of non-exempt individuals employed by ISM Vuzem d.o.o. who worked at Tesla’s Fremont facility between July 1, 2014, and April 30, 2016. After accounting for opt-outs, 177 class members remained, including the thirteen moving parties. The court accepted the class damages calculations despite their reliance on estimates because the Vuzem Defendants had not kept the required records. To prevent duplicate recovery, the court awarded the lower net class amount of $7,013,991.86, after subtracting the individual damages of the thirteen moving parties.

The court also found that Maslic sufficiently alleged trafficking under both the TVPRA and the CTVPA against the Vuzem Defendants. It found that the allegations supported TVPRA beneficiary liability against Eisenmann, but that the CTVPA did not provide beneficiary liability against Eisenmann. The court awarded Maslic $2.5 million in compensatory damages and an equal amount in punitive damages, for a total of $5 million on Claim 9.

Ruling

The court’s order states that the moving parties’ motion for default judgment is GRANTED. Against ISM Vuzem d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, Robert Vuzem, and HRID-MONT d.o.o., default judgment was GRANTED as to Claims 1 through 9. Against Eisenmann Corporation, default judgment was GRANTED as to Claim 9. Judgment was entered for the damages reflected in the court’s order and attached calculations, with class damages set at the net amount of $7,013,991.86 and Maslic’s Claim 9 damages set at $5 million.

The court retained jurisdiction over Claim 8 while the class damages were distributed. A report must be submitted within 30 days after final distribution addressing the distribution, the Claims/Notice Administrator’s fees, and any remaining funds. The moving parties were directed to file any motion for attorneys’ fees by August 15, 2025. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on July 31, 2025.