Maslic v. ISM Vuzem D.o.o.

• Decision Date: 19 November 2021
• Docket Number: 21-CV-02556-LHK
• Parties: SASA MASLIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

SASA MASLIC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al., Defendants.

No. 21-CV-02556-LHK

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

November 19, 2021

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 22

LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Saša Maslic, Ivan Drzaic, Robert Hernaus, Leopold Hubek, Leon Hudoldetnjak, Elvis Koscak, Tomica Panic, Stjepan Papes, Željko Puljko, Darko Štante, Nedeljko Živani, Gogo Rebic, and Mitja Pogorevc (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) were employees of Defendants ISM Vuzem d.o.o.;

USA, Inc.; Vuzem USA, Inc.; HRID-MONT d.o.o.; Ivan Vuzem; and Robert Vuzem (collectively, “Vuzem”).

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Vuzem, Defendant Eisenmann Corporation (“Eisenmann”), and Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”). Plaintiffs allege various violations of federal and California labor law, all of which arise from Plaintiffs' time working at a facility owned by Tesla. ECF No. 1-1 (“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”).

Before the Court is Eisenmann and Tesla's motion to dismiss five claims in Plaintiffs' First

1

Amended Complaint. ECF No. 22. Having considered the parties' submission, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Eisenmann and Tesla's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs are residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, or Croatia and were employees of Defendant Vuzem, which is a Slovenian construction company. FAC ¶¶ 1, 16. Vuzem has several subsidiaries in the United States, including in San Pedro, California. Id. ¶ 6.

Defendant Eisenmann is a “manufacturer of specialized paint shop equipment.” See Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 374 F.Supp.3d 923, 933 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Eisenmann is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. FAC ¶ 11.

In 2014, Vuzem and Eisenmann contracted with Defendant Tesla, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, to perform a construction project at Tesla's facility in Fremont, California. Id. ¶¶ 10, 15-16. Eisenmann was the general contractor for the project and Vuzem was the subcontractor. Id. ¶¶ 48, 50. According to Plaintiffs, Vuzem and Eisenmann “earned millions of dollars from the contracts.” Id. ¶16.

Vuzem was primarily responsible for supplying labor for the construction project and the “work itself was performed by individuals who were employees of [Vuzem], ” including Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Although Vuzem knew that Plaintiffs would be performing unskilled construction work, Vuzem brought Plaintiffs to the United States on B-1 visas that are generally reserved for skilled work. Id. ¶ 128. Additionally, although California law requires companies to obtain certain licenses to perform construction work in California, neither Vuzem nor Eisenmann obtained such licenses for themselves or for Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49, 51.

Plaintiffs performed construction work at Tesla's facility from November 2014 through June 2016. Id. ¶ 17. During that time, Plaintiffs lived in apartments provided by Vuzem. Id. ¶¶ 52-53. Additionally, pursuant to Eisenmann's instructions, Plaintiffs traveled to the construction site in vans provided by Vuzem. Id. ¶¶ 94-95. The vans picked Plaintiffs up at the

2

apartments “prior to 6:30 a.m. every day Monday through Saturday” and returned Plaintiffs “to their assigned housing units at 6:15 or 7:15 p.m. Monday through Friday . . . and at 4:15 or 5:15 on Saturdays.” Id. ¶ 53. Plaintiffs worked similar hours “at least every other Sunday.” Id. Security guards employed by Tesla checked each Plaintiff in and out of the Tesla site every day. Id. ¶ 128. Additionally, “Eisenmann and Tesla's supervisors and management” were often present at the site to oversee Plaintiffs' work. Id. ¶ 129.

Plaintiffs allege that Vuzem, Eisenmann, and Tesla failed to provide Plaintiffs with adequate compensation and benefits. Specifically, as relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid the minimum wage, id. ¶¶ 55-57; that they were not paid overtime wages when they worked more than eight hours a day, more than forty hours a week, or seven days in a row, id. ¶ 61; that they were not provided with rest periods, id. ¶ 65; and that, when they were terminated as employees, they were not provided with all unpaid compensation, id. ¶ 81.

Plaintiffs also allege that Vuzem used threats of violence and economic reprisal to coerce Plaintiff Maslic into working under dangerous conditions. According to Plaintiffs, Vuzem “caused their workers, including Plaintiff Maslic, to believe they had to provide labor or they would be subject to serious harm, including loss of visa status and civil and criminal prosecutions.” Id. ¶ 114. Additionally, Vuzem “threatened to withhold pay if any of their employees became too sick to work or reported a job injury.” Id. ¶ 115. As a result, multiple employees, including Plaintiff Maslic, suffered serious injuries. FAC ¶¶ 122, 126.

B. Procedural History of the Instant Case

On August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. ECF No. 1 ¶ 12. Plaintiffs did not effectuate service of this complaint. Id.

On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Id. ¶ 13. The FAC asserts ten claims under California and federal labor law:

(1) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 203 et seq., against Vuzem, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 24-35

(2) failure to pay overtime in violation of FLSA against Vuzem, id. ¶¶ 36-44

3

(3) failure to pay minimum wage under California law against all defendants, id. ¶¶ 45-59;

(4) failure to pay overtime wages under California law against all defendants, id. ¶¶ 60-63;

(5) failure to provide adequate rest periods under California law against all defendants, id. ¶¶ 64-67;

(6) failure to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements under California law against Vuzem, id. ¶¶ 68-76;

(7) failure to pay “waiting time penalties” under California law against all defendants, id. ¶¶ 77-84;

(8) failure to adhere to California labor laws for a class of 177 employees against Vuzem, id. ¶¶85-106;

(9) violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595 et seq., and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“CTVPA”) against all defendants, id. ¶¶ 107-39; and

(10) violation of California's workers' compensation laws under California Labor Code § 3706 against Vuzem, id. ¶¶140-46.

On March 9, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla were served the FAC. Id. On April 8, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed a notice of removal in this Court stating that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' FLSA and TVPRA claims and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4-5. As an alternative basis for removal, Eisenman and Tesla stated that the Court has original jurisdiction over all Plaintiffs' claims under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1453. ECF No. 1 ¶ 6.

On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand. ECF No. 17. On May 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Supplemental Motion to Remand. ECF No. 20. On May 19, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. ECF No. 24. On May 21, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs'

4

Motion for Extension of Time. ECF No. 25. On May 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their Motion to Remand. ECF No. 26. On June 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their Motion for Extension of Time. ECF No. 29.

In the meantime, on May 17, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed a motion to dismiss the five claims that Plaintiffs bring against Eisenmann and Tesla: (1) failure to pay minimum wage under California law; (2) failure to pay overtime wages under California law; (3) failure to provide adequate rest periods under California law; (4) failure to pay waiting time penalties under California law; and (5) violation of the TVPRA and CTVPA. ECF No. 22 (“Mot.”). On June 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Eisenmann and Tesla's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 28 (“Opp.”). On June 8, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed a reply. ECF No. 31 (“Reply”).

On October 26, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to remand. ECF No. 42. The Court held that it has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims under FLSA and TVPRA and has supplemental jurisdiction over six of Plaintiffs' state law claims. Id. at 6-12. However, the Court held that Plaintiffs' claim under California Labor Code § 3706 is not subject to removal. Id. at 17. Thus, the Court severed and remanded that claim. Id. at 13-17. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time. Id. at 19.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id....