California Legal Brief

The Rule of Detrick v. Shimada is that a non-English speaking witness's declaration is inadmissible without foundational evidence of a qualified interpreter and attestation that the translation accurately reflects the witness's words, under circumstances where the witness cannot read, write, or speak English and provides no evidence of interpreter qualifications or translation accuracy.

Appeal from judgment after summary judgment in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Defendant Appellant was Brian S. Detrick — an attorney who was sued for malpractice by his former client and then sued for malicious prosecution after the malpractice suit was dismissed.

Plaintiff Respondent was Keiko Shimada — Detrick's former client in an estate dispute who filed and then voluntarily dismissed a malpractice suit against him.

The suit sounded in malicious prosecution. There were no cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Shimada filed a malpractice complaint against Detrick in December 2019 alleging he provided false advice and withheld information during estate mediation. In September 2020, Detrick's counsel sent a letter threatening demurrer on statute of limitations and mediation confidentiality grounds, including a malicious prosecution warning. Shimada dismissed her malpractice suit with prejudice in October 2020. Detrick then sued for malicious prosecution in October 2022.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shimada, ruling that her voluntary dismissal was based on technical grounds (statute of limitations) which does not constitute a favorable termination for malicious prosecution purposes. The court overruled Detrick's objection that Shimada's declaration was incompetent because she could not read or speak English and provided no interpreter attestation.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court erred in overruling Detrick's objection to Shimada's declaration as incompetent evidence when Shimada could not read, write, or speak English and provided no evidence of interpreter qualifications or translation accuracy.

The Appellate Court held that Shimada's declaration was inadmissible because she was disqualified as a witness under Evidence Code section 701 since she could not express herself directly in English and failed to provide foundational evidence of interpretation, including the interpreter's identity, qualifications, or attestation of translation accuracy.

The case is inapplicable when the non-English speaking witness provides proper foundational evidence including identification of the interpreter, evidence of interpreter qualifications, attestation from the interpreter that the translation accurately reflects the witness's words, or when the witness can read and understand English sufficiently to verify the declaration's accuracy.

The case leaves open whether dismissal based on mediation confidentiality constitutes a substantive (rather than procedural) ground that would support malicious prosecution, and questions regarding discovery limitations and continuance of summary judgment motions pending further discovery.