Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ferrer v. Spring House Care

October 27, 2009

MARIO FERRER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SPRING HOUSE CARE, INC., A BUSINESS ENTITY; ZAREEN FAIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: The Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank

REVISED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (RULE 52, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

COURTROOM: 9

All parties having waived trial by jury, a bench trial was conducted on October 20, 2009, and October 21, 2009, before the Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, United States District Judge Presiding. Witnesses were sworn and testified, and documents were admitted into evidence. Based upon the testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits received in evidence, and as set forth in its oral statement of decision on October 14, 2009, this Court concludes and finds as follows:

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Factual Findings Pertinent to Interstate Commerce

1. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Zareen Faiz was engaged in the operation of a residential care facility for mentally disabled persons. (See Exhibits 19, 20, 28 & 32; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer and Lolita Fernando.)

2. Plaintiff was employed as a caregiver at a residential care facility for mentally disabled persons operated by Defendant Zareen Faiz and, in this action, seeks wages for work performed at such facility. (See Exhibits 19, 20, 28 & 32; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer and Lolita Fernando.)

B. Factual Findings Pertinent to Hours Worked, Wages Earned and Wages Paid

3. Effective April 23, 1999, Zareen Faiz personally was licensed by the California Department of Social Services to operate a residential care facility for developmentally disabled persons located at 3205 Ruth Place, Orange CA 92869 (hereinafter "the Ruth Place facility"). (Exhibits 28 & 32; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz.)

4. On June 1, 1999, Defendant Zareen Faiz submitted to the Regional

Center of Orange County a vendor application, the purpose of which was to allow the Ruth Place facility to receive developmentally disabled clients from regional centers throughout the State of California. (Exhibit 29; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz.)

5. On June 22, 1999, Defendant Zareen Faiz became an approved vendor eligible to receive developmentally disabled residents from regional centers located in the State of California. (Exhibit 30.)

6. The developmentally disabled residents who reside at the Ruth Place facility suffer from mental retardation. (See Exhibit 20, page 4; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz.)

7. The Ruth Place facility's operational hours are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. (See Exhibits 19, 20, 26.) The Court rejects as not credible Defendant's trial testimony regarding the facility's operational hours. Such trial testimony, without explanation or excuse, contradicted Defendant's prior deposition testimony. (Faiz deposition, page 88, lines 14-18.)

8. The Ruth Place facility is required to have an authorized person continuously present at the Ruth Place facility during operational hours. (See Exhibits 26 & 49.) The Court rejects as not credible Defendant Zareen Faiz's trial testimony that the facility was not required to have an authorized person continuously present at the facility because such testimony (without explanation) contradicted Defendant's previous deposition testimony. (Faiz deposition, page 89, line 22 through page 90, line 1.)

9. Defendant Zareen Faiz was, at all times relevant to this action, contractually bound by an agreement with the Regional Center of Orange County to provide staff coverage, to pay wages for staff coverage, and to retain documents proving payment of wages for staff coverage at the Ruth Place facility for all 168 hours of each week. (See Exhibits 20, 29, 38, 39, 40, 43 & 44; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz.)

10. Dr. Faiz's agreement with the Regional Center of Orange County included the requirement that a caregiver be present, and compensated for being present, at the Ruth Place facility from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. each day. (Exhibits 20, 29, 38, 39, 40, 43 & 44; Faiz Deposition, page 28, lines 3-14; page 34, lines 18-20; and page 41, lines 10-17.) The Court rejects as not credible Defendant's trial testimony that a caregiver was not required to remain present at the facility between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Defendant's trial testimony in that regard contradicted her previous deposition testimony.

11. The developmentally disabled residents who reside at the Ruth Place facility need assistance with activities of daily living. (Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz.)

12. The primary duty of a caregiver at a residential care facility for developmentally disabled persons is to monitor the disabled residents, including during the night. (Trial testimony of Lolita Fernando.)

13. Defendant Zareen Faiz was never a caregiver at the Ruth Place facility. (Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz.)

14. In March of 2006, Lolita Fernando, the administrator of the Ruth Place facility, hired Plaintiff Mario Ferrer and trained him to be a caregiver at the Ruth Place facility. (Trial testimony of Plaintiff Mario Ferrer and Lolita Fernando.)

15. Lolita Fernando instructed Plaintiff Mario Ferrer that he was required to live at the Ruth Place facility, to take care of the developmentally disabled residents, and not to leave them unattended at any time unless he was relieved of his duties by another caregiver. (Trial testimony of Lolita Fernando.)

16. Between March 27, 2006, and March 31, 2006, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer attended at least 14 hours of training classes. (See Exhibit 51; Trial testimony of Plaintiff Mario Ferrer.)

17. On March 30, 2006, in a document submitted to the California Department of Social Services, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer was designated as the person to whom the licensee had delegated the responsibility to perform the licensee's duty "to have an authorized person continuously present at the facility during operational hours to represent the facility and to accept licensing reports." (See Exhibit 49.)

18. Before April 3, 2006, Plaintiff was instructed that he would be on-duty and responsible for the care of the developmentally disabled residents of the Ruth Place facility from 6:00 p.m. on Sunday until 6:00 p.m. on Friday each week, but that he could leave the facility between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. if all the disabled residents were away from the facility attending a day program. (Testimony of Lolita Fernando and Plaintiff Mario Ferrer.)

19. Between at least April 3, 2006, and July 25, 2008, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer worked as a caregiver at the Ruth Place facility. (Exhibit 66; Trial testimony of Defendant Zareen Faiz, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer, and Lolita Fernando.)

20. Between at least April 3, 2006, and July 25, 2008, between 4 and 6 developmentally disabled persons resided at the Ruth Place facility. (See Exhibit 70.)

21. Between April 3, 2006, and July 25, 2008, as instructed, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer remained continuously on duty at the Ruth Place facility each week between 6:00 p.m. on Sunday until 6:00 p.m. on Friday with the only exception that he was relieved of his duties between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. if all disabled residents were attending a day program. (Testimony of Lolita Fernando and Plaintiff Mario Ferrer.)

22. In addition, there were occasions when Plaintiff Mario Ferrer was on duty at the Ruth Place facility between Friday at 6:00 p.m. and Sunday at 6:00 p.m. because no caregiver was provided to relieve him. (Testimony of Mario Ferrer, and corroborated by testimony of Lolita Fernando.)

23. The time records admitted into evidence as Exhibit 66 were contemporaneously prepared by Plaintiff Mario Ferrer and accurately reflect both (a) the time periods between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. when not all developmentally disabled residents attended a day program and thus plaintiff remained on duty caring for disabled residents, and (b) the time periods between 6:00 p.m. on Friday and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday when Plaintiff was not relieved of his duties by another caregiver and therefore remained on duty caring for disabled residents. (Exhibit 66; Testimony of Plaintiff Mario Ferrer and corroborated by Lolita Fernando.)

24. During his employment at the Ruth Place facility, Plaintiff was not allowed to circulate literature of any nature, including political and religious literature, at the Ruth Place facility without the approval of the administrator. (Exhibit 22.)

25. During his employment at the Ruth Place facility, Plaintiff Mario Ferrer was not allowed to solicit, sell tickets, or collect money at the Ruth Place facility without ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.