There is a growing need for English legal translation due to the fact that the Dominican Republic has recently reported in the news of numerous unexplained tourist deaths as well as the execution of the famous baseball player David Ortiz. Recently, in Prado v. Sanchez, the California Court of Appeal, has reached a verdict in a case where a physical altercation took place between U.S. citizens on vacation in the Dominican Republic. This confrontation has led to serious violations, the involvement of the Dominican Republic`s legal system and legal action. For example, while the defendants claimed that the applicant`s uncle had read the transaction agreement in Spanish and English, the applicant, in his opposition to the summary decision request, argued that he did not want to sign the agreement, that he was obliged to sign the agreement and that the agreement had not been read or explained in English or Spanish. The complainant also stated at the time of his dismissal that he did not want to sign the agreement, but that a D.R. judge told him that the only way to leave the country was if he had to reach an agreement. In addition, the complainant claimed that armed police were present when he was forced to sign the Spanish language agreement, claiming that a “public lawyer” told him that if he did not sign the agreement, he would go to jail for Mr. Sanchez`s violations and for “waste of court time”. The complainant continued to refuse to sign the agreement, but when an official from the Dominican Republic told him: “Okay. You`re going to jail,” he finally gave in. The Tribunal also justified this decision by the fact that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the evidence, since, on the facts of this case, it was likely that the Tribunal would have dismissed the summary decision application if it had ruled on the merits on the merits on the ground of material litigation.
The court stated that the applicant`s version was presented in total contradiction with the defendant`s version. In addition, the Tribunal found that the applicant`s testimony on the circumstances of the transaction contract and whether the applicant had signed the Spanish language agreement under duress referred to three facts. After the complainant and Mr. Sanchez were discharged from the hospital, they appeared before a D.R. judge. The judge told them that they must either settle their dispute or stay in the country and wait three months for a trial. Although he claimed that he did not cause the complainant`s injuries, the accused Sanchez would have settled the dispute with the complainant anyway by signing a transaction agreement written in Spanish for wanting to bring his pregnant wife into the United States as soon as possible. Defendant Sanchez paid part of the complainant`s medical bills, but did not pay any additional bills upon his return to the United States.
After the court acted on the accused`s request for a summary decision, the applicant appealed the fourth district to the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the Court of Appeal had abused its discretion by not taking into account the evidence that the applicant had filed late and that the court had left an error in the award of summary judgment on the basis of timely evidence. which makes the examination redundant. Referring to Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 89, 97. The court found that there was no evidence in that case that the applicant`s early filing was intentional and that it appeared to be due to an error in communication between the applicant`s former and current counsel. The case is William Prado v. Rick Sanchez, Court No.
E070030 ruled On April 15, 2019 in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District. In this case, the parties went to the Dominican Republic (“D.R.”) for a wedding in January 2015 and stayed at a resort.