Saša Maslic, individually and on behalf of a certified class; Ivan Drzaic; Robert Hernaus; Leopold Hubek; Leon Hudoletnjak; Elvis Koscak; Tomica Panic; Stjepan Papes; Željko Puljko; Darko Šincek; David Štante; Nedeljko Živanic; Gogo Rebic; and Mitja Pogorevc v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.; ISM Vuzem USA, Inc.; Vuzem USA, Inc.; HRID-Mont d.o.o.; Ivan Vuzem; Robert Vuzem; Eisenmann Corporation; and Tesla, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees following default judgments against the Vuzem Defendants and Eisenmann Corporation for wage-and-hour violations and human trafficking. The Court awarded $438,275 in attorneys’ fees, excluding fees incurred in a separate action and fees related to Tesla’s motion for summary judgment.

Holdings

1. A defendant whose default and default judgment have not been set aside is not entitled to file opposition to a post-judgment motion.
2. Plaintiffs were entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees incurred litigating the FLSA, specified California Labor Code, and TVPRA claims on which they obtained default judgment.
3. The reasonable lodestar was $438,275, based on 863 attorney hours at $400 per hour and 1,241 paralegal hours at $75 per hour, without an upward or downward adjustment.
4. The fee award was apportioned according to the defendants against whom the work was pursued: $388,325 jointly and severally against the Vuzem Defendants and Eisenmann, $26,250 against the Vuzem Defendants only, and $23,700 against Eisenmann only.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defaulting defendants that had not moved to set aside entry of default or default judgment could oppose plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees.
2. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under the FLSA, California Labor Code, and TVPRA.
3. Whether the hours claimed and hourly rates were reasonable under the lodestar method.
4. Whether fees incurred in a different action, or in litigating Tesla's summary-judgment motion, could be recovered from the Vuzem Defendants or Eisenmann.
5. Whether the fee award should be apportioned among the Vuzem Defendants and Eisenmann.

Disposition

other