Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Background

Fourteen employees sued Eisenmann Corporation, Tesla, Inc., and the Vuzem Defendants in California state court. The complaint asserted ten claims: two under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wages and overtime; six California wage and labor-law claims; a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and a claim under California Labor Code section 3706 concerning an employer’s failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance.

Eisenmann and Tesla removed the case to federal court, invoking federal-question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court and separately sought an extension of time to file a supplemental remand motion.

Claims One Through Nine

The court held that it had federal-question jurisdiction over claims one, two, and nine because those claims were based on federal statutes. It also held that claims three through eight fell within supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims that arise from the same underlying facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

The court found that the wage, rest-period, wage-statement, waiting-time-penalty, and class wage claims shared a common set of facts with the federal wage and trafficking claims. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the parties’ foreign citizenship prevented the court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction. The court also concluded that none of the statutory exceptions allowing it to decline supplemental jurisdiction applied.

Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand as to claims one through nine. It did not reach the defendants’ alternative argument based on the Class Action Fairness Act because federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction were sufficient.

Claim Ten

Claim ten alleged that ISM Vuzem d.o.o. violated California Labor Code section 3706 by failing to secure workers’ compensation insurance. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), a civil action arising under a state’s workers’ compensation laws cannot be removed to federal court.

The court held that section 3706 claims arise under California’s workers’ compensation laws. The court relied on the statute’s effects on the lawsuit, including a presumption of employer negligence, limits on certain defenses, and the requirement that the employee show the employer failed to secure insurance. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the claim was essentially an ordinary personal-injury action.

The court therefore granted the motion to remand as to claim ten, severed that claim, and remanded it to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The court declined to remand the six state-law claims over which it retained supplemental jurisdiction.

Supplemental Remand Motion

The plaintiffs filed their supplemental remand motion 39 days after removal. Section 1447(c) requires procedural objections to removal to be raised within 30 days. The court held that the deadline applied even though the plaintiffs had already filed a timely remand motion and concluded that it could not consider the late procedural arguments.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to file the supplemental remand motion.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to remand as to claims one through nine, granted it as to claim ten, severed and remanded claim ten to state court, and denied the motion for an extension of time.