When an individual who cannot read or speak English submits an English-language declaration in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, what must that declaration contain to be competent evidence?
The Court of Appeal addressed that question in its recent decision in Detrick v. Shimada, 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 (2026). In short, two declarations are needed: one from the non-English speaker and one from a translator.
The facts and proceedings in Detrick
Brian Detrick, an attorney, sued his former client Keiko Shimada for malicious prosecution after she voluntarily dismissed a malpractice suit against him. Shimada moved for summary judgment, arguing that she had dismissed the malpractice suit because the statute of limitations had run, not because her malpractice suit was meritless. To establish her reason for dismissing, Shimada submitted a declaration in English. It was undisputed that Shimada could not read, write, or speak English.
Detrick objected to the declaration as incompetent. In reply, Shimada argued that she had reviewed the declaration with “a Japanese-speaking employee of her attorney’s office” and had “attested to each statement before signing.” The trial court overruled the objection, concluding that Evidence Code provisions governing interpreters do not apply to written declarations, and granted summary judgment.
The Court of Appeal reversed.
A non-English speaker is incapable of expressing themself in English or certifying the truth of an English-language declaration without a translator
A witness is disqualified if he or she is “[i]ncapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him.” Evid. Code § 701(a). Shimada could not directly express herself because she did not know English. Nor could she certify the contents of her English-language declaration because she could not read it, and she could not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5’s requirement that a declarant certify the declaration to be true and correct under penalty of perjury. Thus, to be competent as a witness, Shimada required a translator as an intermediary.
But Shimada provided insufficient evidence of the translator. Shimada only identified the translator as “her attorney’s Japanese-speaking employee,” did not identify the interpreter’s qualifications, did not explain how Shimada’s declaration was generated, and did not submit an attestation from the interpreter as to the accuracy of the translation. “Without this information,” the court held, “Shimada’s certification that her English-language declaration is true and correct was not competent.” Detrick, 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 521.
The Evidence Code’s translator requirements apply to written declarations, not just oral testimony
The trial court had overruled Detrick’s objection on the ground that Evidence Code section 751’s interpreter attestation requirement applies to oral testimony, not written declarations. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that Evidence Code sections 751-53 provided an alternate basis for its holding.
Evidence Code section 751(c) provides that “[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.” Section 753(a) provides that when written characters “are incapable of being understood directly, a translator who can decipher the characters or understand the language shall be sworn to decipher or translate the writing.” Both provisions expressly address writings and require the translator to certify any translation under oath. The California Rules of Court reinforce the point: rule 3.1110(g) provides that “[e]xhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.” Id. at 525.
What the non-English speaker’s declaration needs to say
Detrick gives trial counsel a specific checklist for the contents of a declaration by a non-English speaker:
Translator Required. The client’s declaration must state that she does not read, write, or speak English and required a translator. This establishes why the intermediary is necessary in the first place.
Declarant’s Understanding. The declaration must also state that the declaration understands what she is signing. Detrick called out the absence of this statement specifically, holding that without it the client’s certification under penalty of perjury is not competent. 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 521.
Creation of the Declaration. The declaration must explain how the declarant worked with the translator to ensure the English-language declaration accurately reflects her words and how the declaration was generated. Id. at 523. The Detrick court identified the absence of both explanations as foundational gaps. Id.
What the translator’s declaration needs to say
The translator must submit a separate declaration that addresses the following:
Identity. Evidence Code section 753(c) requires the identification of the translator. A generic reference to a bilingual employee is not a substitute. Detrick, 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 523.
Qualifications. The translator does not need to be a certified court interpreter, but the translator does need to explain why the translator is qualified. California law treats translators as expert witnesses whose qualifications “may be shown by any admissible evidence, including the [translator’s] own testimony,” based on “special knowledge, skill or experience.” People v. Roberts, 162 Cal. App. 3d 350, 355 (1984). A bilingual person who “ha[s] spoken [the relevant language] since she was a small child” qualifies. See, e.g., People v. Torres, 164 Cal. App. 3d 266, 270 (1985). It is sufficient for the translator to describe the translator’s fluency in English and the relevant language and how long the translator has spoken the relevant language.
Creation of the Non-English Speaker’s Declaration. The translator must explain how the English-language declaration was produced and how she ensured it accurately reflects the non-English speaker’s words. For example, in Little v. Sanchez, the following text was approved: “Before the above declarant signed the above declaration, I accurately translated it into Spanish for the declarant.” 166 Cal. App. 3d 501, 513 (1985).
Accuracy of the Non-English Speaker’s Declaration. Evidence Code section 751(c) requires the translator to swear to make a true translation, and Detrick described the absence of “any kind of attestation from the interpreter that the declaration accurately reflected [the client’s] words” as fatal. 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 520. Because the translator’s declaration is itself signed under penalty of perjury, it satisfies the oath requirement when it includes an express attestation of accuracy.
You do not need to file a foreign-language version of an English declaration
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(g) requires that exhibits written in a foreign language be accompanied by a certified English translation. As Detrick explains: “if [the party] originally drafted her declaration in Japanese and someone else translated it to English, the translator would, at minimum, have to certify the translation under oath.” 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 525.
But the rule does not run in the other direction. If you file an English-language declaration with the necessary foundation, you are not required also to also file a version in the client’s language.
If you are opposing a deficient declaration, object in the trial court or forfeit the argument
A deficient translator declaration does not render the underlying testimony inadmissible per se. That means if you fail to object in the trial court, you forfeit the challenge on appeal. Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1045-46 (2016).
We can help. If you have a motion where you intend to rely on or oppose testimony by a non-English speaker, contact us to discuss your options.
