Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Background

Fourteen plaintiffs sued ISM Vuzem d.o.o. and related entities, Tesla, Inc., and Eisenmann Corporation. They alleged that Vuzem employed workers from Bosnia and Herzegovenia, the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia and sent them to California for construction work at Tesla’s Fremont facility. The plaintiffs asserted federal and California wage-and-hour claims, human-trafficking claims, and a claim under California Labor Code section 3706.

The opinion addresses Claim 8, a proposed class claim for violations of California wage-and-hour laws. Maslic sought to represent Vuzem employees who worked at the Tesla facility. The operative complaint described a class covering employees of Vuzem and related entities who worked at the facility between November 2014 and June 2016. The motion proposed a narrower class of non-management individuals employed by ISM Vuzem d.o.o. who worked there from July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016.

The court allowed the modification because it was minor, did not create a completely different class, and would not prejudice the Vuzem Defendants, who had not appeared. The court changed “non-management” to “non-exempt” for clarity and consistency with California Labor Code provisions. Tesla and Eisenmann had previously been dismissed from all wage-and-hour claims. Four Vuzem Defendants had defaulted, while two others did not appear to have been served; the court stated that it would address service on those two entities separately.

Class-certification analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. The court evaluated whether Maslic met Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, as well as Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements that common issues predominate and that a class action be superior to other methods of resolving the dispute.

For numerosity, the court relied on counsel’s declaration identifying 177 non-supervisory Vuzem employees who worked at Tesla’s Fremont facility during the relevant period. The court found that the proposed class was sufficiently numerous.

For commonality, the court identified questions capable of classwide resolution, including whether Vuzem paid non-exempt employees a flat monthly rate that resulted in less than minimum wage or failed to include overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to provide wage statements, and failed to pay all wages due at termination. The court also identified whether certain other Vuzem Defendants could be liable under an alter-ego theory. The court found the commonality requirement satisfied.

For typicality, the court found that Maslic’s claims were typical because he stated that he worked for Vuzem at the Tesla facility, was paid a flat rate, was not paid overtime, worked long hours, did not receive all required rest breaks, did not receive a wage statement, and did not receive all wages owed when his employment ended.

For adequacy, the court found no conflict of interest between Maslic, his counsel, and the proposed class. It also found that Maslic understood his responsibilities as class representative and that he and his counsel intended and were able to prosecute the case vigorously.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), the court found that common questions predominated because the class claim focused on alleged common employment practices involving flat-rate pay, minimum wages, overtime, wage statements, and payment of wages at termination. The court also found that a class action was superior because the class members were foreign residents who worked in the United States for a limited time and were unlikely to pursue individual claims. The court determined that concentrating the litigation in the forum would be efficient because the claims relied on common evidence and the court was familiar with the issues.

Order

The court granted Maslic’s motion for class certification on Claim 8. It certified this class: “All non-exempt individuals employed by ISM Vuzem, d.o.o., who worked at the Tesla facility located in Fremont, California, at any time from July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016.”

The court appointed Sasa Maslic as class representative and the Law Office of William C. Dresser as class counsel. It ordered Maslic to file a proposed notice plan by August 7, 2023. The court’s ruling addressed whether the requirements for proceeding as a class were met; it did not resolve the ultimate wage-and-hour claims.