Maslic v. ISM Vuzem D.O.O.

• Decision Date: 26 October 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

October 26, 2021

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

RE: DKT. NO. 21

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge

On April 8, 2021, Defendants Eisenmann Corporation and Tesla, Inc. removed this putative class action from the Superior Court for the County of Alameda asserting federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1453. See ECF No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”). ECF No. 8. The plaintiffs in this matter-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”)-are fourteen employees of ISM Vuzem d.o.o., ISM Vuzem USA, Inc., Vuzem USA, Inc., HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, and Robert Vuzem (collectively, the “Vuzem Defendants”).

1

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Motion for Extension of Time to File a Supplemental Motion to Remand. ECF Nos. 17, 20. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion to Remand was untimely and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File a Supplemental Motion to Remand. The Court also concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction to review nine of Plaintiffs' ten claims, and therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand IN PART. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand with respect to Plaintiffs' tenth claim. The tenth claim is therefore REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Instant Litigation

This dispute arises out of employees' dissatisfaction with how they were paid and treated by their employers. On August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs, who are all residents of Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Slovenia, or Croatia, filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against Eisenmann, Tesla, and the following defendants to whom the Court collectively refers as the “Vuzem Defendants”: ISM Vuzem d.o.o., ISM Vuzem USA, Inc., Vuzem USA, Inc., HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, and Robert Vuzem.

Plaintiffs asserted ten claims in their Amended Complaint:

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

2. failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Vuzem Defendants, id. ¶¶ 36-44

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;

2

6. failure to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements under California law against the Vuzem Defendants, 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 only the Vuzem Defendants, id. ¶¶85-106;

9. violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595 et seq., and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act against ISM Vuzem d.o.o., id. ¶¶ 107-39; and

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

Though Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in October 2020, Eisenmann and Tesla were not served with the Amended Complaint until March 9, 2021. Notice of Removal at 5.

Eisenmann and Tesla, who allegedly contracted with the Vuzem Defendants to engage Plaintiffs to do work at Tesla's Fremont, California plant, removed this action to this Court on April 8, 2021. See Notice of Removal. Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand on May 5, 2021. ECF No. 17. Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Supplemental Motion to Remand on May 17, 2021. ECF No. 20. On May 19, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, and on May 21, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time. ECF Nos. 24, 25. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of its Motion to Remand on May 26, 2021, and a reply brief in support of its Motion for Extension of Time on June 2, 2021. ECF No. 26, 29.

B. Prior Litigation

Before bringing the instant case, the same plaintiffs' counsel, on behalf of some of the same plaintiffs in the instant case, sued the same defendants in the instant case in federal court in March 2016. See Complaint, Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, No. 16-cv-01120 (March 7, 2016), ECF

3

No. 1. Like the instant case, all the plaintiffs in the 2016 case were foreign citizens. See Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1-2, Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, No. 16-cv-01120 (October 31, 2018), ECF No. 269. The plaintiffs in the 2016 case also alleged nearly identical claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, and California wage laws in October 2018. See Id. Only after receiving adverse rulings in federal court did plaintiffs in the 2016 case dismiss the class claims and file the instant case in state court. See Notices of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, No. 16-cv-01120 (December 17, 2018), ECF Nos. 304-13.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A suit may be removed from state court to federal court only if the federal court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the case had the case bene filed in federal court in the first instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”). “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, Eisenmann and Tesla assert that the court has both federal question jurisdiction and a modified “diversity jurisdiction” under CAFA.

Generally, “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Even when only some of a plaintiff's claims present a federal question, federal courts may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims when those claims are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. “A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it shares a ‘common nucleus of operative fact'

4

with the federal claims” such that “the state and federal claims would normally be tried together.” Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)).

CAFA expands the federal courts' typical diversity jurisdiction in putative class actions. In putative class actions, the federal courts have jurisdiction if at least one defendant is diverse from at least one plaintiff, the putative class has more than 100 members, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Therefore, “under CAFA, complete diversity is not required; ‘minimal diversity' suffices.” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs are fourteen employees of defendants ISM Vuzem d.o.o., ISM Vuzem USA, Inc., Vuzem USA, Inc., HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, and Robert Vuzem (collectively, the “Vuzem Defendants”). In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following ten claims against defendants Eisenmann, Tesla, and the Vuzem Defendants: (1) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Vuzem Defendants, Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 24-35; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Vuzem Defendants, id. ¶¶ 36-44; (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 the Vuzem Defendants, 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 only the Vuzem Defendants, id. ¶¶85-106; (9) violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595 et seq., and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act against ISM Vuzem d.o.o.,

5

id. ¶¶ 107-39; and (10) violation of California's Labor Law § 3706 against ISM Vuzem d.o.o., id. ¶¶140-46.

Eisenmann and Tesla assert that this Court has jurisdiction over all ten claims. First, Eisenmann and...