Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE

Background

The case originally asserted thirteen claims against thirty-seven defendants on behalf of Gregor Lesnik, Stjepan Papes, and others similarly situated. By the time of this order, only three claims remained: Papes’s individual claims against the Vuzem Defendants for minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and for trafficking and coerced labor under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The Vuzem Defendants had defaulted.

Papes filed three motions: a fourth motion for default judgment on the FLSA claims; a motion for reconsideration of the earlier denial of attorney’s fees related to the TVPRA claim; and a motion for attorney’s fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 for Claims 2, 3, and 9. Lesnik was not a moving party on these motions.

Default Judgment on FLSA Claims

The court agreed with the earlier jurisdictional rulings that federal-question jurisdiction existed over the FLSA claims and that the court had personal jurisdiction over the Vuzem Defendants. It also found that service of process was sufficient for all of those defendants, including HRID-MONT d.o.o., based on an alter-ego theory.

The court nevertheless denied Papes’s motion for default judgment. Although the complaint adequately alleged that Papes was an employee covered by the FLSA, it did not provide enough specific facts to establish that he was paid less than the legal minimum wage or that he was not paid overtime. The court explained that a minimum-wage claim requires information showing that the amount paid, divided by the hours worked in a week, fell below the statutory minimum. An overtime claim requires information showing that Papes worked more than forty hours in a week and was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular rate for the excess hours.

The court found that Papes’s supplemental declaration, spreadsheets, and exchange-rate charts did not summarize or total the relevant information and required the court to piece together the evidence from prior filings. The court therefore concluded that Papes had not shown that the FLSA claims were meritorious. It denied the fourth motion for default judgment on Claims 2 and 3 and stated that no further motions for default judgment on those claims would be entertained.

Reconsideration of Attorney’s Fees for Claim 9

In an earlier order, Judge Lucy H. Koh granted default judgment in part on Claim 9, the TVPRA claim, against ISM Vuzem d.o.o., ISM Vuzem USA, Inc., Robert Vuzem, and Ivan Vuzem, while denying the motion as to Vuzem USA, Inc. and HRID-MONT d.o.o. That earlier order awarded Papes $305,500 in compensatory damages and $305,500 in punitive damages, for a total of $611,000, but denied his request for attorney’s fees because he had not submitted supporting declarations or evidence.

The court found that there had been a misunderstanding about whether Papes’s earlier request for fees was intended to be a Rule 54 motion. Because final judgment had not been entered, and because Papes asserted that his earlier statement was not intended to be such a motion, the court granted his administrative motion for leave to seek reconsideration and granted reconsideration. The court ruled that Papes was not precluded from filing a Rule 54(d) motion for attorney’s fees related to Claim 9.

Rule 54 Fee Motion

The TVPRA permits a victim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. The court explained that federal courts generally use the “lodestar” method, which begins with the reasonable number of hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. A fee applicant must provide evidence supporting the hours and rates claimed.

Papes’s existing fee motion covered Claims 2, 3, and 9, but the court stated that fees were not recoverable in connection with Claims 2 and 3 and that the submitted materials did not identify which hours were attributable to Claim 9. The court therefore denied the Rule 54 motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice. Papes could file a renewed motion limited to fees incurred for Claim 9 by June 20, 2023, supported by a counsel declaration and a summary chart showing the hours spent on that claim by biller and task. The clerk would address the bill of costs under the applicable local rule.

Disposition

The court denied the fourth motion for default judgment on Claims 2 and 3; granted the administrative motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration; and denied the Rule 54 motion for attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice. The order terminated ECF 613, 614, and 615.