Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
<< Previous Rule[ Back to Title Index ]Next Rule >>Â Â Â Â | Â Â Â Â Â Printer-friendly version of this page2024 California Rules of Court
Standard 2.10. Procedures for determining the need for an interpreter and a preappearance interview
(a) When an interpreter is needed
An interpreter is needed if, after an examination of a party or witness, the court concludes that:
(1) Â The party cannot understand and speak English well enough to participate fully in the proceedings and to assist counsel; or
(2) Â The witness cannot speak English so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) When an examination is required
The court should examine a party or witness on the record to determine whether an interpreter is needed if:
(1) Â A party or counsel requests such an examination; or
(2) Â It appears to the court that the party or witness may not understand and speak English well enough to participate fully in the proceedings.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(c) Examination of party or witness
To determine if an interpreter is needed, the court should normally include questions on the following:
(1) Â Identification (for example: name, address, birthdate, age, place of birth);
(2) Â Active vocabulary in vernacular English (for example: "How did you come to the court today?" "What kind of work do you do?" "Where did you go to school?" "What was the highest grade you completed?" "Describe what you see in the courtroom." "What have you eaten today?"). Questions should be phrased to avoid "yes" or "no" replies;
(3) Â The court proceedings (for example: the nature of the charge or the type of case before the court, the purpose of the proceedings and function of the court, the rights of a party or criminal defendant, and the responsibilities of a witness).
(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(d) Record of examination
After the examination, the court should state its conclusion on the record. The file in the case should be clearly marked and data entered electronically when appropriate by court personnel to ensure that an interpreter will be present when needed in any subsequent proceeding.
(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(e) Good cause for preappearance interview
For good cause, the court should authorize a preappearance interview between the interpreter and the party or witness. Good cause exists if the interpreter needs clarification on any interpreting issues, including: colloquialisms, culturalisms, dialects, idioms, linguistic capabilities and traits, regionalisms, register, slang, speech patterns, or technical terms.
(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
"Notice" is defined in section 2.10 of the Resale Restriction Agreement (Exh. A) as written notice; and "owner" is defined in section 1.01(t) as including "all person(s) holding legal title to the Residence."
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY VS. REGINA E CARCHI
56-2008-00318244-CU-OR-SIM
Apr 08, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
" - Delete Article II, Section 2.10. - Delete Article II, Section 2.11. - In Article II, Section 2.13, delete second and third paragraphs. - Article III, Section 3.03, should be modified to require court approval of any distributions from the community property or separate property of the conservatee in the trust to the settlors' issue. - Article IX, Section 9.03, should be modified to require court approval of any de minimis termination. - Delete Article X, Section 10.05.
IN THE MATTER OF HELEN C. ROBIESON
56-2015-00468738-PR-CP-OXN
Oct 08, 2019
Ventura County, CA
Family Law
Conservatorship
"Notice" is defined in section 2.10 of the Resale Restriction Agreement (Ex. A) as written notice; and "owner" is defined in section 1.01(t) as including "all person(s) holding legal title to the Residence." The declaration of Rob Bruce, Deputy Director of Housing for the City of Simi Valley, establishes that the first time the City received written notice of any intent to transfer interests was on 5/16/08.
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY VS. REGINA E CARCHI
56-2008-00318241-CU-OR-SIM
Apr 08, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
Plaintiffs allege that Stratus breached section 2.10 by refusing to permit the sale of Stratus stock by imposing conditions that are different from what is contractually required. However, the text of section 2.10 does not support plaintiffs’ allegation of breach. As now alleged, section 2.10 is not reasonably susceptible to the meaning that Stratus had an affirmative obligation to permit the sale of Stratus stock as long as the requirements of Rule 144 alone were met.
JEFFREY MITCHELL VS STRATUS MEDIA GROUP INC ET AL
1370707
Jul 02, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Furthermore, Section 2.10 does not give Cross-Defendants sole right to make changes to utilities beyond changing utility raceways.
WEISS INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, LLC VS MUDITA HEALTH AND WELLNESS, INC., ET AL.
21PSCV00654
Dec 15, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Sep 25, 2012
Consolidation
Fresno County
Fresno County, CA
Aug 17, 2011
Non-Jury Verdict
Fresno County
Fresno County, CA
Nov 09, 2009
Stipulated Judgment
Fresno County
Fresno County, CA
May 13, 2013
Non-Jury Verdict
Fresno County
Fresno County, CA
WMATA San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-03-2004 3:51 pm Case Number: CPF-04-504129 Filing Date: Sep-03-2004 3:39 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01033531 TEXT JUDGMENT IN RE: METREON INC.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SRE SAN FRANCISCO 001001033531 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.28 DOcuMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. DOUGLAS J. 666 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10103 Teleph…
Apr 26, 2004
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 03, 2004
OTHER CIVIL PETITIONS
CONANT San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-03-2004 2:22 pm Case Number: CPF-04-504129 Filing Date: Aug-03-2004 2:21 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01010935 ORDER IN RE: METREON INC.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SRE SAN FRANCISCO 001001010935 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.28 DocumeNT PREPARED (ON RECYCLED PAPER FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. DOUGLAS J. DANZIG (N.Y. State Bar No. DD 4372) 666 Fifth Avenue New …
Apr 26, 2004
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 03, 2004
OTHER CIVIL PETITIONS
aD o 3. CAROLINE McINTYRE, SBN 159005 cmeintyre@be-law.com ELECTRONICALLY GRACE Y. PARK, SBN 239928 FILED gpark@be-law.com Superior Court of California, PIR CESON, iP Suite 300 County of San Francisco ateway Flace, suite San Jose, CA 95110-3715 JAN 29 2015 Telephone: (408) 291-6200 oclerk of the Court Facsimile: (408) 297-6000 aputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant JULIE ANNE HAMWOOD SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — COMPLEX LITIGATION LANE BECKER, …
Nov 21, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 29, 2015
SECURITIES/INVESTMENT
@ ORIGINAL @ — amu Phillip G. Vermont, SBN 132035 RANDICK O’DEA & TOOLIATOS, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 TRL Pleasanton, California 94588 AL…
Jun 26, 2018
Alameda County, CA
Oct 29, 2018
Unlimited Civil (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Probate Division Stanley Mosk Dept. - 11 22STPB07557 In re: Bruce Todd Twomey Special Needs Trust October 11, 2022 8:30 AM Honorable Mark S. Priver…
Aug 02, 2022
Open 08/02/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Oct 11, 2022
Trust (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.