On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2017 (Free)

Released on: Mar. 10, 2017
Running Time: 06:26:35

Across the state rent is skyrocketing. While tenants organize for rent control, evictions continue. Those who are evicted face not only the loss of their home, but also displacement from their community. Effectively defending an unlawful detainer is a profound way to impact a tenant’s life; housing instability has long-term harmful consequences.

For newer attorneys with limited litigation experience, the fast-paced unlawful detainer is also an excellent opportunity to develop skills; your case may be heading into trial only a month after the summons and complaint are served.  This training provides the basic knowledge you will need to effectively defend tenants from eviction.

You will learn:

  • How to draft an effective Answer to an Unlawful Detainer Complaint and spot defects in eviction notices;
  • Strategic use of responsive motions to attack faulty notices and complaints;
  • Trial skills, including evidentiary motions;
  • Legal tools for preserving subsidized housing tenancies;
  • Basics of anti-discrimination laws protecting tenants, and how to assert a fair housing defense in an unlawful detainer;
  • How to craft a settlement agreement that protects your client’s rights.

All attorneys or law students interested in or currently assisting low-income clients with eviction matters would benefit from this program. Advocates without any experience in unlawful detainers would particularly benefit from the training.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:26:35]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:04:13]
    Madeline Howard, Jith Meganathan
  • Introduction to Unlawful Detainers [01:34:42]
    Sang Banh, Lili Graham, Irina Naduhovskaya
  • Unlawful Detainer Trial [01:31:05]
    Shirley Gibson, Lorraine López
  • Subsidized Housing Terminations [01:14:25]
    Lauren DeMartini, Navneet Grewal
  • Fair Housing in Unlawful Detainers [00:59:45]
    Laurance Lee, Deborah Thrope
  • Successful Settlement Agreements in Unlawful Detainers [01:02:25]
    Erin Katayama, Claudia Medina

 

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

 

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Unlawful Detainer Sample Packet
    Lili graham, Irina Naduhovskaya, Sang Banh
  • Introduction to Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Lili graham, Irina Naduhovskaya, Sang Banh
  • Unlawful Detainer Trial Practice Outline
    Monique Farris, Lorraine López, Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Demand for Jury Trial, CCP § 631
    Lorraine López
  • Sample Joint Statement of the Case
    Lorraine López
  • Sample Joint Exhibit List
    Lorraine López
  • Sample Joint Witness List
    Lorraine López
  • Sample Joint Jury Instructions—General & Special
    Lorraine López
  • Sample Defendant’s Proposed Jury Instructions
    Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Defendant’s Trial Brief
    Lorraine López
  • Sample Verdict Form, Habitability
    Lorraine López
  • Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance at Trial or Hearing (SUBP-001)
    Monique Farris, Lorraine López, Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Defendant’s Proposed Voir Dire Questions
    Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Prejudicial Evidence
    Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Defendants’ Motion in Limine—Exclude Witness Testimony/Exclude from Court
    Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Defendants’ Request for Statement of Decision
    Shirley Gibson
  • Form Objections and Objections to Evidence Cheat Sheet
    Lorraine López, Shirley Gibson, Monique Farris
  • Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Article 1, Los Angeles Municipal Code
    Lorraine López, Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson
  • Los Angeles County Superior Court General Order—District Hub
    Lorraine López, Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson
  • Illegal Unit Evidence Sheet, Inner City Law Center
    Lorraine López
  • Pay or Quit Evidence Sheet, Inner City Law Center
    Lorraine López
  • Unlawful Detainer Trials (PowerPoint slides)
    Lorraine López, Shirley Gibson, Monique Farris
  • Statutes, Regulations, and Notable Subsidized Housing Eviction Cases
    Navneet Grewal
  • Subsidized Housing Unlawful Detainer Affirmative Defense Checklist
    Lauren DeMartini
  • Template for Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities for Unlawful Detainer Action Based on Non-Payment of Housing Authority Portion
    Lauren DeMartini
  • Evictions and Terminations in Subsidized Housing: Defending Evictions from Federally-Subsidized Housing (PowerPoint slides)
    Navneet Grewal, Lauren DeMartini
  • Anti-Discrimination Laws Protecting Tenants Resource List
    Deborah Thrope, Laurance Lee
  • Fair Housing Issues in Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Deborah Thrope, Laurance Lee
  • Sample Request for Reasonable Accommodation Letter
    Erin Katayama
  • Sample Stipulation for Judgment, Simple Move Out Deal with Funds Paid by Plaintiff
    Claudia Medina
  • Sample Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Behavioral Hoarding
    Erin Katayama
  • Sample Stipulation Stay Agreement
    Erin Katayama
  • Drafting Successful Settlement Agreements in Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Claudia Medina, Erin Katayama

 

Presentation Material

 

  • California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2017 PowerPoint Slides
    Sang Banh, Lili Graham, Irina Naduhovskaya
  • Unlawful Detainer Trials PowerPoint Slides
    Shirley Gibson, Lorraine López
  • Defending Evictions and Terminations from Federally-Subsidized Housing PowerPoint Slides
    Lauren DeMartini, Navneet Grewal
  • Fair Housing Issues in Unlawful Detainers PowerPoint Slides
    Laurance Lee, Deborah Thrope
  • Drafting Successful Settlement Agreements in Unlawful Detainers PowerPoint Slides
    Erin Katayama, Claudia Medina
Co-Chair(s)
Madeline Howard ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Jith Meganathan ~ Policy Advocate, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Speaker(s)
Sang Banh ~ Staff Attorney, Inland Counties Legal Services
Lauren DeMartini ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Shirley Gibson ~ Directing Attorney, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Lili Graham ~ Director of Litigation, Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Navneet Grewal ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Erin Katayama ~ Supervising Attorney, Homeless Advocacy Project, Justice & Diversity Center of The Bar Association of San Francisco
Laurance Lee ~ Mable-Apallas Fellow, Legal Services of Northern California
Lorraine López ~ Supervising Attorney, Homelessness Prevention, Inner City Law Center
Claudia Medina ~ Staff Attorney, Eviction Defense Network
Irina Naduhovskaya ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Deborah Thrope ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.