Gardiana v. Small Claims Court

• Decision Date: 23 June 1976
• Docket Number: LEANDRO-HAYWARD
• Citation: 59 Cal.App.3d 412,130 Cal.Rptr. 675
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Eusebia GARDIANA and Jesus Gardiana, Plaintiffs, Respondents and Appellants, v. The SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR the SANJUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant, Appellant and Respondent; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Real Party in Interest, Appellant and Respondent. Civ. 36574.

Page 675

130 Cal.Rptr. 675

59 Cal.App.3d 412

Eusebia GARDIANA and Jesus Gardiana, Plaintiffs, Respondents and Appellants, v.The SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR the SAN LEANDRO-HAYWARD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant, Appellant and RespondentCOUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Real Party in Interest, Appellant and Respondent.

Civ. 36574.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

June 23, 1976.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1976.

Hearing Denied Aug. 18, 1976.

Ronni Jackl, Clifford Sweet, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, Oakland, Scott Noble, Oakland, for plaintiffs, respondent and appellants.

Richard J. Moore, County Counsel, Paul M. Loya, Neal Snyder, Deputy County Counsels, Oakland, for defendant, real party in interest, appellants and respondents.

BRAY^*, Retired Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs Eusebia Gardiana and Jesus Gardiana appeal from certain portions of the judgment of the Alameda County Superior Court.Real party in interest County of Alameda and respondent the Small Claims Court of the San Leandro-Hayward Judicial District appeal from the judgment.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1.The court did not err in authorizing the use of volunteer interpreters.

2.There is no substantive evidence to support finding of fact 14.

3.Respondent Small Claims Court has the inherent power to appoint an interpreter free of charge to non-English-speaking litigants.

4.The judgment improperly grants relief to all non-English-speaking litigants.

RECORD

Plaintiffs Eusebia and Jesus Gardiana filed a petition for writ of mandamus on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated seeking to compel respondent Small Claims Court of the San Leandro-Hayward Judicial District(hereinafter 'respondent Small Claims Court') to appoint a qualified interpreter for plaintiffs in the trial of their action then pending in said court without charge to plaintiffs, and to appoint without charge qualified interpreters for members of the class represented by plaintiffs.Thereafter respondents Small Claims Court and the County of Alameda filed a demurrer to the complaint.It was overruled.Respondents then filed a return and answer.After a hearing had on the petition the court made findings of fact and entered judgment.All parties appealed.

FACTS

This proceeding grew out of a suit in respondent Small Claims Court brought by one Encarnacion Rodriquez against the plaintiffs for damages.Both plaintiffs are indigent and do not speak or understand the English language.Plaintiffs moved respondent Small Claims Court for an order appointing an interpreter at no cost to them.The court denied the motion solely on the ground that it had no inherent or statutory power to appoint an interpreter at the expense of the county or any other governmental entity.Thereafter plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.The class they represent is comprised of all persons who are or will be defendants in actions pending in respondent Small Claims Court, who speak only Spanish and are incapable of understanding the English language, and who, like plaintiffs, are indigent and entitled to sue in forma pauperis.The petition alleges that they were sued in the respondent Small Claims Court and were unable to obtain an interpreter and that the court did not have interpreters on its staff.The petition further alleges that the plaintiffs then filed with respondent Small Claims Court a motion for an order appointing an interpreter and permitting plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis.The court denied the motion on the ground that it had no inherent or statutory authority to appoint an interpreter at the expense of the county or any other governmental authority.

The superior court issued an alternative writ of mandamus staying the trial of plaintiffs' small claims action.The judge who was presiding over the action filed a declaration which stated that it was the practice of the court in cases involving parties who cannot speak English to accept the voluntary services of individuals from the community to translate for such parties and that he would have arranged for such a public-spirited individual to interpret had the proceeding not been stayed by the writ.

The superior court made findings of fact to the effect that the policy and practice of respondent Small Claims Court with regard to the securing of interpreters for litigants who do not speak English is not to appoint qualified interpreters under Evidence Code sections 730,731, and752, but is to utilize the services of a relative, friend or other person appearing with the litigant without further inquiry into the person's qualifications.When a litigant does not appear with a person to interpret for him, the court inquires as to whether the litigant can secure the services of a volunteer interpreter.If he is unable to do so the court attempts informally to secure the volunteer services of individuals from the community.In such cases no independent inquiry is made regarding the qualifications of such person.The court does not fix or in any manner provide compensation for persons rendering interpretive services.

The court then concluded as a matter of law that plaintiffs and other members of their class are entitled as a matter of right, free of charge, to be provided with a qualified interpreter.The fee of a qualified interpreter is a necessary litigation cost which the court is required to provide under its inherent common-law power to allow indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis where the court has been unable to secure the voluntary services of an interpreter or where the utilization of a voluntary interpreter would result in undue delay or prejudice to the litigant.

Thereupon the court issued its peremptory writ of mandamus directing respondent Small Claims Court, whenever it appears that an interpreter is necessary, to provide qualified interpreters free of charge to litigants in small claims proceedings who do not understand English; to conduct an independent inquiry to insure that the interpreter is qualified and competent; to direct the interpreter to make truthful and accurate interpretation of all testimony; to require that the interpreter affirm, under oath, that he or she will perform the duties required.The judgment further requires that respondent Small Claims Court appoint an interpreter and fix the compensation under the procedures set forth in Evidence Code sections 730and731 in all cases where the utilization of a volunteer will result in undue delay or prejudice to the litigant, a requirement that the litigant be made to bear the burden of securing such person, the failure to meet the obligations set forth in the judgment; and orders that compensation for interpreters be made in accordance with section 68091 of the Government Code and that such compensation be paid from the County Treasury of Alameda County upon warrants drawn by the County Auditor.

1.The court did not err in authorizing the use of volunteer interpreters.

It is useful to first review the nature of a small claims court.'It is apparent that such a court was established in order to offer a means of obtaining speedy settlement of claims of small amounts.The theory behind its organization is that only by escaping from the complexity and delay of the normal course of litigation could anything be gained in a legal proceeding which may involve a small sum.Consequently, the small claims court functions informally and expeditiously.The chief characteristics of its proceedings are that there are no attorneys, no pleadings and no legal rules of evidence; there are no juries, and no formal findings are made on the issues presented.At the hearings the presentation of evidence may be sharply curtailed, and the proceedings are often terminated in a short space of time.The awards--although made in accordance with substantive law--are often based on the application of common sense; and the spirit of compromise and conciliation attends the proceedings.'(Sanderson v. Niemann(1941)17 Cal.2d 563, 573--574, 110 P.2d 1025, 1030.)

Plaintiffs' appeal is only from that portion of the judgment which permits or authorizes respondent Small Claims Court to fulfill its obligation to provide interpreters for small claims litigants by formally or informally securing the voluntary services of private citizens or the services of a court officer or government employee other than a person specifically employed as an interpreter under the provisions of Government Code section 26806.

They contend that the California statutes provide only two methods for the appointment of interpreters and that the court does not have the discretion to deviate from these procedures and informally secure the voluntary and gratuitous services of private citizens or government employees.The two procedures to which they refer are described in Evidence Code section 752 and in Government Code section 26806.

Section 752 of the Evidence Code provides: '(a) When a witness is incapable of hearing or understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter whom he can understand and who can understand him shall be sworn to interpret for him.( )(b) The interpreter may be appointed and compensated as provided in Article 2(commencing with Section 730) of Chapter 3.'

The question whether an interpreter shall be called for the purpose of rendering the testimony of a witness who does not understand the English language rests in the discretion of the trial court.'(People v. Holtzclaw(1926)76 Cal.App. 168, 173, 243 P. 894, 896.)'(T)hecourt is required to appoint an interpreter in those cases only where the witness does not understand or speak the English language.The question is one for the judicial determination of the court, and its ruling will not...