In what circumstances will the courts deny access to the courts in civil cases to defendants who do not speak English?

In seeking to justify petitioner Jara's deprivation of a meaningful access to the courts as an indigent, non-English-speaking defendant, respondent municipal court and real party in interest County of Los Angeles set forth several asserted compelling state interests. One such interest asserted is that of maintaining a single language system. (See Guerrero, supra, 9 Cal.3d 808, at p. 815, 109 Cal.Rptr. 201, at p. 205, 512 P.2d 833, at p. 837); cf. Castro v. State of California (1970) 2 Cal.3d 223, 85 Cal.Rptr. 20, 466 P.2d 244.) Another state interest asserted is that of discouraging frivolous litigation by imposing costs on all litigants. Another state interest referred to is that of holding the maintenance of the courts within reasonable monetary limits. We find no merit in the contention that these state interests--most all of which are founded on financial or cost considerations--are of such a substantial nature to justify the denial of access to the courts in civil cases to defendants who are indigent and who do not understand or speak the English language.