Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Background

The plaintiffs sued over alleged wage-and-hour violations and human trafficking. They allege that they were transported from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia to provide labor for American companies. The operative complaint alleges violations of federal and California wage laws, including claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, waiting-time penalties, and trafficking and coerced labor.

The court had certified one damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The class consists of all non-exempt individuals employed by ISM Vuzem d.o.o. who worked at Tesla’s Fremont facility at any time from July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016. Sasa Maslic was appointed class representative, and the Law Office of William C. Dresser was appointed class counsel. The class claim is asserted against the Vuzem Defendants. The opinion states that Tesla and Eisenmann had been dismissed from all wage-and-hour claims, two Vuzem defendants had been dismissed for lack of service, and four Vuzem defendants had defaulted.

Motion and Legal Standard

Maslic moved for approval of a proposed class-notice plan. For a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to class members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must explain the nature of the lawsuit, the class definition, the claims, the right to appear through an attorney, the right to opt out, the procedure and deadline for opting out, and the binding effect of a class judgment.

Class counsel identified 177 class members. The proposed plan provides for direct mailing by International Priority Airmail, additional mailing to alternate addresses when notices are returned, and email notice when email addresses are known. The notice is to be provided in English and Croatian. Class members will have 60 days after the notices are mailed to request exclusion from the class.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that the proposed notice plan provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances and that the proposed long-form notice contained the required information. The court also found that the plan and notice would reasonably inform class members about the case and give them a reasonable opportunity to appear or opt out.

The court granted Plaintiff Maslic’s Motion for Approval of Proposed Class Notice Plan and vacated the hearing previously set for December 14, 2023. It approved Maslic’s proposed long-form notice with required modifications. Those modifications require class counsel to fill in the opt-out deadline, identify the Claims/Notice Administrator and provide its contact information, and correct the case name, filing date, and case number in the paragraph explaining access to case information through the federal court’s PACER system.

Before notice is mailed, Maslic must submit a declaration identifying the Claims/Notice Administrator and the terms of the engagement. Maslic must also submit the modified long-form notice to the court for final review, together with a proposed order allowing the notice to be mailed. The order terminates ECF 98.