California Rules of Court|Standard 2.10. Procedures for determining the need for an interpreter and a preappearance interview

                                                

<< Previous Rule
[ Back to Title Index ]
     |       Printer-friendly version of this page

2024 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)  The party cannot understand and speak English well enough to participate fully in the proceedings and to assist counsel; or

(2)  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)  A party or counsel requests such an examination; or

(2)  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)  Identification (for example: name, address, birthdate, age, place of birth);

(2)  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)  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.)

Standard 2.10 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; repealed and adopted as sec. 18 effective January 1, 1999.

View Latest Rulings

"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."

  • Name

    CITY OF SIMI VALLEY VS. REGINA E CARCHI

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00318244-CU-OR-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2009

" - 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.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF HELEN C. ROBIESON

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00468738-PR-CP-OXN

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2019

"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.

  • Name

    CITY OF SIMI VALLEY VS. REGINA E CARCHI

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00318241-CU-OR-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2009

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.

  • Name

    JEFFREY MITCHELL VS STRATUS MEDIA GROUP INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1370707

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2012

Furthermore, Section 2.10 does not give Cross-Defendants sole right to make changes to utilities beyond changing utility raceways.

  • Name

    WEISS INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, LLC VS MUDITA HEALTH AND WELLNESS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21PSCV00654

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

Filed

Sep 25, 2012

Status

Consolidation

Judge

Hon. Adolfo Corona Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Adolfo Corona

Court

Fresno County

County

Fresno County, CA

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Domestic Violence

Filed

Aug 17, 2011

Status

Non-Jury Verdict

Court

Fresno County

County

Fresno County, CA

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

Filed

Nov 09, 2009

Status

Stipulated Judgment

Judge

Hon. Mangano, Robert Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mangano, Robert

Court

Fresno County

County

Fresno County, CA

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

Filed

May 13, 2013

Status

Non-Jury Verdict

Judge

Hon. Kalemkarian, David Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Kalemkarian, David

Court

Fresno County

County

Fresno County, CA

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

View More Dockets

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 17 pages

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…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Sep 03, 2004

Category

OTHER CIVIL PETITIONS

preview-icon 18 pages

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 …

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Aug 03, 2004

Category

OTHER CIVIL PETITIONS

preview-icon 3 pages

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, …

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jan 29, 2015

Category

SECURITIES/INVESTMENT

preview-icon 4 pages

@ ORIGINAL @ — amu Phillip G. Vermont, SBN 132035 RANDICK O’DEA & TOOLIATOS, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 TRL Pleasanton, California 94588 AL…

County

Alameda County, CA

Filed Date

Oct 29, 2018

Category

Unlimited Civil (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...)

preview-icon 1 page

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…

Case Filed

Aug 02, 2022

Case Status

Open 08/02/2022

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Oct 11, 2022

Category

Trust (General Jurisdiction)

View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope