Cambridge Mgmt., Inc. v. Jadan

• Decision Date: 16 February 2021
• Docket Number: SCWC-17-0000176
• Citation: 481 P.3d 63
• Parties: CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicole JADAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

481 P.3d 63

CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Nicole JADAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-17-0000176

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

FEBRUARY 16, 2021

Gary Victor Dubin and Frederick J. Arensmeyer, Honolulu, for petitioner

Michael A. Glenn for respondent (Richard A. Yanagi on the brief)

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, AND WILSON, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE TONAKI, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY

OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Hawai‘i State Judiciary has committed that all litigants who cannot meaningfully access court proceedings based on their English proficiency will be given language access assistance, including the services of a court-appointed interpreter. The courtroom setting is often intimidating; its language, technical. In light of this reality, it is the court's responsibility to determine whether a litigant can speak and understand English such that they are able to meaningfully access justice in this extraordinary setting – not simply whether their English is passable, adequate, or otherwise "good enough" to meet ordinary day-to-day demands.

In the instant case, the Judiciary's language access commitment was not kept. Specifically, the District Court of the First Circuit (district court) failed to determine whether defendant Nicole Jadan's participation in the court proceedings would be meaningful absent language assistance when it resolved her repeated requests for an interpreter. We accordingly vacate the judgment with respect to Jadan's counterclaim for damages and remand to the district court, which must give due consideration to her request for the services of an interpreter, for further proceedings.

We also clarify that the meaningful access mandate extends to all proceedings in Hawai‘i state courts, including appeal. We recognize, however, that our rules do not contemplate how to ensure adequate language access on appeal. We therefore refer this matter to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court Committee on Court Interpreters and Language Access to determine what services are necessary and how best to provide those services in the course of the appellate process.

II. BACKGROUND

A. District Court Proceedings

All told, the district court held nine hearings on respondent Cambridge Management's (Cambridge) complaint and Jadan's counterclaim, presided over by five different judges. Although the record lacks transcripts of the district court proceedings, in light of the issues presented by this case and pursuant to Hawai‘i Court Records Rules Rule 4¹ and our authority under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 11(b)(3)² and 10(e)(2),³ this court ordered that the audio and video recordings of the proceedings below be transmitted.⁴ We have reviewed those recordings, and we observe that at eight of those court dates, Jadan either requested the assistance of an interpreter – including once by written motion during the short period in which she was represented by counsel – or indicated to the court that she struggled with understanding and communicating in English. These requests were denied all but once. Even after one judge agreed to appoint an interpreter midway through the district court proceedings, subsequent court dates proceeded without the services of an interpreter. The following description of the district court proceedings reflects the recordings of the proceedings and the written record on appeal.⁵

Cambridge, the managing agent of the apartment in which Jadan lived, filed a complaint for writ of possession against Jadan on June 21, 2016. The complaint alleged that Jadan broke her rental agreement because she gave notice she would move out by June 2, 2016, but failed to do so. With the assistance of the district court's Access to Justice Room, a volunteer-driven program providing free legal advice to pro se litigants, Jadan filed a counterclaim for about $40,000 in damages and an injunction. She claimed, among other things, that Cambridge had "destroy[ed] medical equipment" in her unit, that her unit was "not fit to be lived in," and that Cambridge should be enjoined from "interfering with [her] ability to enter into another rental agreement," alleging that Cambridge had been "speaking untruths about [her] ability to pay rent[.]"

The first status hearing was held on July 15, 2016.⁶ Immediately after stating her name, she asked the court whether a friend could assist her with English. The court never resolved this request. It instead referred the parties to mandatory mediation and, when they returned from mediation unsuccessful, set the case for trial.

The trial regarding the writ of possession occurred on August 5, 2016.⁷ Jadan initially told the court that her interpreter had not arrived, but she would attempt to proceed on her own. But roughly ten minutes later, she requested the services of an interpreter. The court asked how long she had been in the United States; Jadan responded that she had been in this country a long time, and the court told her that her English was "pretty good." Jadan explained that she had been badly injured and that the injury made it difficult for people to understand her; the court did not conclude the injury was grounds for language assistance and denied her request. The minutes reflect that the request for a Polish interpreter was denied because "[Jadan's] English is fine."

The possession trial proceeded. Numerous times that day, Jadan expressed that she was finding it challenging to translate what she wished to say into English and that interruptions (such as Cambridge's objections) made it difficult for her to communicate. For example, during cross-examination of one of Cambridge's witnesses, the district court cautioned Jadan that she was wasting time by asking irrelevant questions; Jadan responded that expressing herself in English was proving challenging and that she would be able to better communicate with an interpreter. As another example, during direct examination of one of her witnesses, Jadan stated that she was ashamed of her poor English. And one of her witnesses testified that Jadan had difficulty with the English language and that the witness had suggested that Jadan get the services of a translator.

The trial was characterized by the court's repeated admonishments for Jadan to ask relevant questions and avoid using examination as an opportunity to testify. This dynamic proved frustrating for the court – at one point, the court expressed anger at Jadan for refusing to follow the rules. At another, the court told her that if she did not cooperate and stop wasting time, it would simply find for the plaintiff. However, Jadan repeated on several occasions that she was struggling to express herself in English, implying that this challenge, rather than any dilatory intent, caused her often-lengthy questions and responses.

The court ruled in favor of Cambridge and ordered a writ of possession to issue forthwith. Per the minutes, "[t]he court found that defendant had no legal reason for not moving out."

The parties reconvened for a status hearing on September 30, 2016, at which point Jadan once more asked for an interpreter. She explained to the court that she could speak English, but she could not understand technical terms, and that the assistance of an interpreter would help her more fully express herself in English. The court again asked her how long she had lived in the United States; she again responded that she had been in the country for some time but recently was injured. The court denied her interpreter request, reasoning that she did not have an interpreter during the trial, which was only a few months prior. The minutes state, "[Jadan] speaks English well and manage[d] on her own at the trial[.]"

By the time of an October 21, 2016 status hearing, Jadan had procured counsel.⁸ This was the only hearing at which no interpreter request was made.

Through counsel, Jadan moved for appointment of an interpreter on October 31, 2016. The written motion argued:

[A] review of the videotape transcript of the [possession trial] make[s] it clear that Defendant was in need of an interpreter. Defendant's lack of proficiency in the English language should have been apparent to the Court, which indicated that it could not understand Defendant. In addition, Defendant's lack of proficiency most likely caused the Court to grow impatient with her, which caused Defendant to cry, and which lead to the Court's threat to impose sanctions on Defendant who was trying to ask questions of witnesses and of the Court.^[9]

The Court should have recognized that Defendant was in need of an interpreter, instead of ignoring her requests and her quite obvious non-fluency in English. This motion seeks to right that injustice.

Cambridge's written opposition argued that the request should be denied because Jadan had already twice asked for, and was twice denied, an interpreter. Cambridge's counsel attested in a declaration that he had met with Jadan in person in June of 2016; counsel "did not have any trouble understanding Defendant and does not believe Defendant had any trouble understanding [him]." Cambridge also cited court records indicating that Jadan had been a party in at least six other cases, one of which also involved a denied interpreter request. Cambridge argued these records indicated she had the "wherewithal" to handle matters such as orally requesting dismissal without language assistance. And Cambridge responded to the claim that the court had grown "impatient" with Jadan by asserting that any impatience was "the result of Defendant's disagreement with the Court's rulings and refusal to move on with the case." Cambridge argued appointment of an interpreter would only cause further delay.

A hearing was held on the motion on December 16, 2016.¹⁰ Jadan's counsel asserted that, in addition to the arguments raised in the written motion, he himself could not understand his client, and he would not have brought the motion if he cou...