Menu Close

The Association of Independent Judicial Interpreters of California (AIJIC) is a nonprofit trade association that represents the voice of independent court interpreters in California in matters that have, or could have, a significant impact on the independent interpreting profession in the private sector.Its principal office located in Studio City, Los Angeles County, California.

One Call Corporation dba One Call, One Call Care management, and/or One Call Care Transport & Translate is a corporation registered with the Florida Secretary of State, with its principal office located in Jacksonville, California. ONE CALL provides care coordination services to the workers’ compensation industry, which services include providing interpreters. Interpretation services which are provided nationwide.

On January 31, 2024, AIJIC sued One Call in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit stems from allegations of multiple cases of identity theft of court interpreters’ names and credentials in Workers Compensation depositions.

The AIJIC lawsuit was brought pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections17200 et seq., to enjoin defendants from unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices and false advertising.

The plaintiffs allege One Call employs individuals and businesses that are impersonating certified court interpreters in California worker’s compensation cases, resulting in harm to workers alleging industrial injuries who cannot proficiently speak or understand English, However AIJIC alleges that One Call “has publicly disseminated untrue or misleading statements and advertising as regards the company’s ability to provide certified interpreters for worker’s compensation cases.”

AIJIC also alleges on “numerous occasions, individuals employed by defendants appeared in California worker’s compensation cases, and these individuals have falsely impersonated certified California interpreters. Some of these individuals have falsely impersonated certified California interpreters in more than one instance.” And that “defendants not only impersonated others, but these individuals also were not certified to interpret in California for worker’s compensation proceedings.”

The lawsuit goes on to allege that “On or about December 1, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to ONE CALL to inform it that California certified interpreters were being impersonated by unknown individuals employed through ONE CALL at Zoom depositions based in California. This letter, which was supported by sworn declarations from court reporters and impersonated interpreters, identified nine specific instances where impersonations had occurred in 2021 and 2022.”

ONE CALL responded by stating it would no longer do business with the individuals or contractors who had provided interpreters for the Zoom depositions addressed in the December 1, 2022 letter. ONE CALL, however, refused to identify any of the individuals or contractors by name.”

However AIJIC continues to allege that “ONE CALL again employed one of the individuals previously involved in impersonating certified California interpreters. On this occasion, the individual appeared for a pre- deposition meeting with a worker and his attorney. On or about July 14, 2023, Plaintiff notified ONE CALL of this impersonation and asked that the impersonator’s true name be provided. ONE CALL did not respond to Plaintiff’s request.”

“Since July 14, 2023, individuals employed through ONE CALL and/or DOE defendants have continued to appear in California worker’s compensation cases, and these individuals have falsely impersonated others in their official capacity as certified California interpreters. In some instances, these individuals also have provided fake Judicial Council of California badges bearing the names of the certified court interpreters they were impersonating “

Plaintiff seeks “an accounting of all defendants for any and all profits derived by defendants from their business acts and practices in violation of the UCL” among other relief.;

One Call will have 30 days from the date they are served with this lawsuit to respond, and the parties will then conduct discovery followed by law and motion activities.

This lawsuit has now had nationwide attention in the media including Bloomberg Law and the Daily Journal in California.