Claire McCormack (Certified Law Student No. 14205)
David Sapp (Certified Law Student No. 13781)
Craig Largent (Certified Law Student No. 12860)
Margaret Stevenson (State Bar No. 112982)
Severa Keith (State Bar No. 218167)
Peter Reid (State Bar No.045808)
STANFORD COMMUNITY LAW CLINIC
2117 University Avenue, Suite A
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 475-0560
(650) 326-4162 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
MARTHA LOPEZ,Plaintiff,
vs.
HARRIS HOTDOG, WIDA FEDAIY, an individual, JOHN FEDAIY, an individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant / )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) / Case No. 1-03-000895
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, Wida Fedaiy.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Martha Lopez
SET NUMBER:ONE
Plaintiff Martha Lopez responds to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories as follows:
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
The following discovery responses are based on current investigation and discovery and this responding party therefore reserves the right to amend or supplement these responses based on information resulting from further investigation and discovery, and to introduce at trial any and all such evidence. This responding party makes the following responses with express reservation of all objections as to the competency, relevance, materiality, and the admissibility of the response, the subject matter thereof, and any documents discussed, produced or identified in connection therewith, as evidence for any purpose in any further proceedings in this action, with further reservation of the right to move for a protective order to protect the confidentiality of the information provided.
1.0Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories
1.1Name, relationship to Ms. Lopez, address, and telephone number of each person who prepared the responses to these interrogatories: Claire McCormack, certified law studentat the Stanford Community Law Clinic (hereinafter SCLC) representing Ms. Lopez, Craig Largent, certified law student at SCLC representing Ms. Lopez, Naomi Abasta-Vilaplana, interpreterat SCLC for Ms. Lopez, 2117 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650-475-0560.
2.0General Background Information
2.1Answering Party Information
2.1.1Your name: Martha Lopez
2.1.2Every name used in the past: Magdalena Lopez Cervantes
2.1.3Dates Ms. Lopez worked as Magdalena Lopez Cervantes: Approximately from 1997 through mid-2003.
2.2Date of birth: April 30, 1957; Place of birth: Aviacion Civil, Mexico, MEXICO
2.3No drivers license at the time of the incident.
2.4No permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle at the time of the incident.
2.5Residence Addresses and Dates Lived There
2.5.1Present residence address: 1163 Ayala Drive #2, Sunnyvale, CA94086 from October 2002 to present
2.5.2Previous residence addresses: 2260 California Avenue #5, Mountain View, CA from February 2000 to October 2002; (specific address unknown) Escuela Avenue, Mountain View, CA from approximately 1998 to February 2000.
2.6Employer Information
2.6.1Lozano’s Car Wash, 2690 El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040, 650-941-0590.
2.6.2
1)Harris Hotdog, 2690 El Camino Real, March 1997 through March 8, 2003. For the first part of her employment, from March 1997 to on or about September 9, 2000 (hereafter referred to as "Period One"), the Plaintiff worked as a food seller. Starting on or about September 10, 2000 until March 8, 2003 (hereafter referred to as "Period Two”), Defendants increased Ms. Lopez's duties by asking her to cook food and purchase groceries, in addition to her selling duties.
2) Lozano’s Car WashEl Camino Real, Mountain View, CA94040. Plaintiff worked from approximately 1998 until present. Her duties include washing and drying cars.
2.7No high school education.
2.8No felony convictions.
2.9Ms. Lopez does not speak English with ease. She speaks Spanish.
2.10Ms. Lopez does notread and write English with ease.
2.11Yes, Ms. Lopez was acting as an employee for John Fedaiy and Wida Fedaiy at Harris Hotdog located at 2690 El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040. See answer to 2.62 for description of Ms. Lopez’ duties. She was also an employee of Manuel Lozano at Lozano’s Car Wash at 2690 El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA94040, 650-941-0590.
8.0Loss of Income or Earning Capacity
8.1No, as described in detail in the complaint, Plaintiff suffered loss of income due to Defendants’ violation of California wage and hour laws. Plaintiff believes the definition of INCIDENT is vague with respect to interrogatories 8.1 - 8.8. Plaintiff does not attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to any particular incident, for example, resulting from an injury sustained at work.
9.0Other Damages
9.1No, as described in detail in the complaint, Plaintiff alleges loss of income due to violation of California wage and hour laws. Plaintiff believes the definition of INCIDENT is vague with respect to interrogatories 9.1 and 9.2. Plaintiff does not allege any damages due to any particular, for example, resulting from an injury sustained at work.
9.2Not applicable based on answer to interrogatory 9.1.
12.0Investigation—General
12.1In addition to Defendants and Defendants’ family members, the following individuals witnessed or have knowledge ofMs. Lopez’ employment at Harris Hotdog.
1)A) Martha Garces,1885 California St., #9, Mountain View, CA94040, (650) 564-9476, witnessed and assisted Ms. Lopez in preparing food in her home. B) Lupita, last name, and address unknown, (650) 960-1670, witnessed Ms. Lopez preparing food in her home. She also witnessed John Fedaiy picking up prepared food for the hotdog stand. C) Other neighbors, identities unknown, who witnessed Ms. Lopez preparing food for the hotdog cart.
2)A) Irvin, last name, address and telephone number unknown, former employee at Lozano’s Car Wash, witnessed Ms. Lopez working at Harris Hotdog. B) Other former employees, identities unknown, who witnessed Ms. Lopez working at Harris Hotdog.
3)A) Claudia, last name, address and telephone number unknown, cashier at Lozano’s Car Wash, witnessed Ms. Lopez working at the hotdog stand. B) Arminda, last name, address and telephone number unknown, cashier at Lozano’s Car Wash, witnessed Ms. Lopez working at the hotdog stand. C) Veronica, last name, address and telephone number unknown, cashier at Lozano’s Car Wash, witnessed Ms. Lopez working at the hotdog stand. D) Other employees, identities unknown, who witnessed Ms. Lopez working at Harris Hotdog.
4)Witnesses employed at various grocery stores, identities unknown, witnessed Ms. Lopez purchasing groceries in order to prepare food for Harris Hotdog.
12.2Severa Keith, of the Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, EastPalo Alto, CA94303, 650-475-0560, interviewed Martha Garces, 1885 California St., #9, Mountain View, CA94040, (650) 564-9476. Ms. Garces was interviewed on March 15, 2004.
12.3TheSCLC obtained a written statement from Martha Garces1885 California St., #9, Mountain View, CA 94040, (650) 564-9476, regarding the Plaintiff’s employment by Harris Hotdog and John Fedaiy. The statement was obtained by Severa Keith, of the Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA94303, 650-475-0560 on March 15, 2004. The original statement is located at SCLC.
12.4Plaintiffhas one photograph of Martha Lopez working at Harris Hotdog. The photograph was taken by Martha Lopez’ niece, Maribel Cortez. Maribel Cortez is presently residing in Mexico. Plaintiff has made diligent efforts to locate this photograph. She will provide it as soon as it is located.
12.5No, Plaintiff has no knowledge of diagrams, reproductions, or models of any place or thing concerning the INCIDENT.
12.6Plaintiff is not aware of any reports made concerning the Plaintiff’s employment by John Fedaiy. Plaintiff is aware of reports that were generated during her employment by the Santa Clara Public Health Department in relation to Harris Hotdog. Plaintiff believes reports generated bySanta Clara Public Health Department were delivered to John Fedaiy. Such reports have never been in the Plaintiff’s possession.
12.7Neither Plaintiff nor SCLC representatives inspected the scene of the INCIDENT. However, Plaintiff worked at the scene, i.e., Harris Hotdogs, and Plaintiff’s representatives have been there.
13.0Investigation—Surveillance
13.1Representatives of SCLC conducted surveillance of Harris Hotdog. Surveillance was conducted on February 27, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. and February 28, 2004 at 10:35 a.m. by Kaylan Lasky, Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, Suite A, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650.475.0560. Additionally, representatives of the SCLC conducted surveillance at FashionCity, 2089 E 14th St., San Leandro, CA94577, on January 8, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Additionally, Margaret Stevenson, attorney at Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, Suite A, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650.475.0560, visited Harris Hotdogs on September 25, 2003 to deliver a letter.
13.21) A written report regarding the surveillance conducted at Harris Hotdog was prepared. The title of the report is Harris Hotdog Observation. The report was prepared on March 15, 2004 at the Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, Suite A, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650.475.0560. The original report is located at Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, Suite A, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650.475.0560. This report is attorney work product, and therefore, is not discoverable.
2) A written report regarding the surveillance conducted at FashionCity was prepared by representatives of the SCLC. The report is entitled Declaration of Sarah Pappas in Support of Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment. The report was prepared on March 16, 2004by Sarah Pappas, Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, Suite A, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650.475.0560. The original report is located at the Stanford Community Law Clinic, 2117 University Avenue, Suite A, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, 650.475.0560.
14.0Statutory or Regulatory Violations
14.1As described in detail in the complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated California wage and hour laws, including, but not limited to 8 C.C.R. § 11050 ¶¶ 3(A), 4(C),7(B), 11(A), 11(B), 12(A) 12(B);Cal. Lab. Code §§ 218.6, 226, 201-204, 1194; Cal. Civ. Code § 3289; and Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
14.2No, Plaintiff is unaware of any person being cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT.
50.0Contract
50.1As described in detail in the complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated California wage and hour laws, including, but not limited to8 C.C.R. § 11050 ¶¶ 3(A), 4(C),7(B), 11(A), 11(B), 12(A) 12(B);Cal. Lab. Code §§ 218.6, 226, 201-204, 1194; Cal. Civ. Code § 3289; and Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff contends that her employment arose from a verbal employment contract entered into by Plaintiff and Defendants on or about March 1997. Initially, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $40 per day to prepare food in the hotdog cart. Around September 10, 2000, this agreement was verbally amended to $50 per day for Ms. Lopez to prepare food at home, prepare food in the hotdog cart and to attend to customers.
50.2No, Plaintiff does not allege any breach of agreement, since the basis for violations alleged in the pleadings are statutory.
50.3Not applicable. See 50.2.
50.4Not applicable. See 50.2; except to the extent that the facts alleged in the pleadings refer to an employment agreement. That employment agreement was unilaterally terminated by John Fedaiy on March 8, 2003.
50.5No, Plaintiff does not allege that any agreement is unenforceable. Plaintiff alleges that various aspects of the employment contract do not comply with legal requirements.
50.6No, Plaintiff does not allege that any agreement is ambiguous.
DATE: ______, 2004STANFORD COMMUNITY LAW CLINIC
By:
______
Claire McCormack
______
Margaret Stevenson
VERIFICATION
I have had the foregoing read to me and know its contents. I am informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the matters stated in it are true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on this _____ day of ______, 2004 at ______, California.
______
Martha Lopez
I am fluent in English and in Spanish. On ______day of ______, 2004, I read the foregoing to Martha Lopez by accurately translating it from English to Spanish.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on this _____ day of ______, 2004 at ______, California.
______
Guadalupe Buenrostro
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES
- 1 -