“Every written proceeding in a court of justice in this state shall be in the English language, and judicial proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no other.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 185.)
“When a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom the witness can understand and who can understand the witness shall be sworn to interpret for the witness.” (Evid. Code, § 752(a).) The Legislature has specifically found that it is imperative that courts provide interpreters to all parties who require one. (Govt. Code, § 68092.1(a).)
“A person who serves as an interpreter or translator in any action is subject to all the rules of law relating to witnesses.” (Evid. Code, § 750.) “An interpreter shall take an oath that he or she will make a true interpretation to the witness in a language that the witness understands and that he or she will make a true interpretation of the witness’ answers to questions to counsel, court, or jury, in the English language, with his or her best skill and judgment.” (Evid. Code, § 751(a).)
“[F]ailure to swear an interpreter is not reversible error, per se or otherwise” (People v. Carreon (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 559, 579), as “[u]nsworn testimony does not constitute a nullity.” (Richard M. v. Super. Ct. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 370, 377.) Where a witness is permitted to testify without having taken the appropriate oath, if the defect is not timely noted, the failure to do so constitutes a waiver. (People v. Carreon (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 559, 579; People v. Mora (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 18.) Moreover, the Legislature has intended a liberal policy when courts are ruling on questions regarding formalities in oath taking. (Carreon, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 579.)
Counsel does have the right to discredit the accuracy of an interpretation through cross-examination or independent proof. (People v. Walker (1924) 69 Cal.App 475.)
“The record shall identify the interpreter.” (Evid. Code, § 752(b).)
“In all civil actions, the compensation for an interpreter… shall, in the first instance, be apportioned and charged to the several parties in a proportion as the court may determine and may thereafter be taxed and allowed in a like manner as other costs.” (Evid. Code, § 752(b)(2).) Notwithstanding any other law, a court may provide an interpreter in any civil action or proceeding at no cost to the parties, regardless of the parties' income. (Govt. Code, §68092.1(b).)
., “[e]xhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter;” see also Evidence Code § 751 and Government Code § 68561.) The Certificates of Translation by Shao Lin are similarly deficient. The exhibits attached to “Plaintiff’s Case Summary in Suuport [sic] of Request for Default Judgment” have not been authenticated. ANALYSIS Yes (10/23/19; 9/1/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)
Dec 07, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
(See also Evidence Code § 751 and Government Code § 68561.) ANALYSIS Yes (1/27/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) See above Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages.
Nov 19, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Item No. 13 claiming $1,400.00 for interpreter fees Plaintiffs argue that the Court should strike item no. 13 because evidence code 752 does not provide for this cost.
Oct 16, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The court cited Evidence Code § 751(c) (i.e., “[a] translator shall take an oath that he or she will make a true translation in the English language of any writing he or she is to decipher or translate”) and California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110(g) (i.e., “[e]xhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter”) and advised that the Li declaration was not properly translated and was thus not considered.
Jul 01, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
The court cited Evidence Code § 751(c) (i.e., “[a] translator shall take an oath that he or she will make a true translation in the English language of any writing he or she is to decipher or translate”) and California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110(g) (i.e., “[e]xhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter”) and advised that the Li declaration was not properly translated and was thus not considered.
Nov 06, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
California Rule of Court 2.890(c)(1) and Evidence Code § 752 apply to courtroom interpreters and do not bar an attorney from translating a document presented to the court. Mr. Denis is qualified to translate. He has also stated under oath that his translations are true and accurate. (Supp. Denis Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; see also Certificates of Translation.) Mr. Denis’s potential bias does not bar the evidence but rather goes to the weight of it.
Aug 01, 2019
Orange County, CA
Under Evidence Code section 752: “(a) When a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom the witness can understand and who can understand the witness shall be sworn to interpret for the witness.”
Jul 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
(Evidence Code § 751(c).) California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110(g) also provides, “Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.” The Li declaration, then, is not properly translated and is thus not considered. There is also no translation of parts of Exhibit B attached to Li’s declaration.
May 01, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Supra cites Evidence Code §§750-751 as authority for the claim that for these reasons the Court must disregard the declaration. Supra ignores Evidence Code §753, however, which provides that he translator is only required when the declarant is incapable of “deciphering or understanding,” in this case, the declaration filed because he does not speak or understand English.
Apr 16, 2019
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis: Evidence Code 752 provides, in pertinent part: "(a) When a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom the witness can understand and who can understand the witness shall be sworn to interpret for the witness.
Jan 18, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Ventura County, CA
Under Evidence Code section 752: “(a) When a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom the witness can understand and who can understand the witness shall be sworn to interpret for the witness.”
Jan 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Under Evidence Code §751: (a) An interpreter shall take an oath that he or she will make a true interpretation to the witness in a language that the witness understands and that he or she will make a true interpretation of the witness' answers to questions to counsel, court, or jury, in the English language, with his or her best skill and judgment.
Dec 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Evidence Code § 751(c). Opposition, Ex. 1. Such an oath has not been provided. Assuming the English translation is true and accurate, the agreement does not comply with the requirements of Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1295, which mandates the use of certain language in a contract for medical services containing an arbitration provision. Such a contract is presumptively not a contract of adhesion, or unconscionable, or otherwise improper if it complies with Cal. Code Civ.
Sep 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Evidence Code § 752(a), (b); § 753. Accordingly, there is no dispute that moving parties’ conduct met the standard of care. UF 9, 12. No triable issues of fact are raised with regard to causation. Causation must be proven with expert testimony.Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402. Plaintiff’s additional facts with respect to causation rely on the declaration of Dr. Salz and of Plaintiff, both of which are inadmissible given Defendants’ objections. Dr.
Jul 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Evidence Code § 752(a), (b); § 753. Accordingly, there is no dispute that moving parties’ conduct met the standard of care. UF 9, 12. No triable issues of fact are raised with regard to causation. Causation must be proven with expert testimony.Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402. Plaintiff’s additional facts with respect to causation rely on the declaration of Dr. Salz and of Plaintiff, both of which are inadmissible given Defendants’ objections. Dr.
Jul 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Even if this declaration does not constitute an exhibit for purposes of Rule 3.1110(g), Evidence Code section 752(a) provides “When a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom he or she can understand and who can understand him or her shall be sworn to interpret for him or her.”
Jan 19, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Under Evidence Code section 752: “(a) When a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom he or she can understand and who can understand him or her shall be sworn to interpret for him or her.” The court accordingly finds these declarations inadmissible, and so that no admissible evidence contradicts the propriety of service.
Jan 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The hearing was continued as to the remaining relief sought by Defendant, to permit Plaintiff Jorge Flores to re-file his declaration to comport with Evidence Code § 750-751 and to permit the parties to file supplemental papers. As a preliminary matter, with respect to Defendant’s 10/06/16 Objections, the Court SUSTAINS objection nos. 1-2, and 24. With respect to nos. 1-2, the 09/23/16 Flores Declaration and English translation are still deficient.
Oct 14, 2016
Orange County, CA
(See Evidence Code § 751, subdivision (c).)
Oct 07, 2010
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Ventura County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
