On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2014 (Free)

Released on: Mar. 26, 2014
Running Time: 06:14:09

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:52:12] Eviction Process: Overview of the Basics and Affirmative Defenses in Unlawful Detainer Actions Laura Lane ~ Director, Housing Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Stephanie Haffner ~ Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Madeline Howard ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:15:05] Eviction Defense After Foreclosure Kari Rudd ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Leah F Simon-Weisberg ~ Legal Director, Tenants Together
Madeline Howard ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:00] Evictions & Terminations in Subsidized Housing Maria E. Palomares ~ Staff Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Navneet Grewal ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Kent Qian ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:15] Fair Housing Protections Maria E. Palomares ~ Staff Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Navneet Grewal ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Karlo Ng ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:01:20] Pro Bono Opportunities in Eviction Defense William T Tanner ~ Directing Attorney, Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Phong S Wong ~ Pro Bono Director, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
On-Demand MP3 MP4

In the current economic climate an increasing number of low-income Californians are facing eviction.  Unfortunately, many tenants are evicted without the benefit of legal counsel to guide them through the process or the representation necessary to vigorously defend against unlawful actions.  As a result, families face the very real possibility of homelessness. This training is designed to help mitigate the crisis by providing attorneys with a basic understanding of eviction defense and housing law and an opportunity to connect with non-profit legal service agencies able to facilitate pro bono representation of low income families facing this predicament.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 06:14:09]

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

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:05:17]
    S. Lynn Martinez
  • Eviction Process: Overview of the Basics and Affirmative Defenses in Unlawful Detainer Actions [01:52:12]
    Stephanie Haffner, Madeline Howard, Laura Lane
  • Eviction Defense After Foreclosure [01:15:05]
    Madeline Howard, Kari Rudd, Leah F. Simon-Weisberg
  • Evictions & Terminations in Subsidized Housing [01:00:00]
    Navneet Grewal, Maria E. Palomares, Kent Qian
  • Fair Housing Protections [01:00:15]
    Navneet Grewal, Maria E. Palomares, Karlo Ng
  • Pro Bono Opportunities in Eviction Defense [01:01:20]
    William T. Tanner, Phong S. Wong

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

  • Unlawful Detainer Litigation
    Laura Lane
  • Common Uses of Fair Housing Law In California Eviction Defense Practice
    Stephanie Haffner
  • Eviction Process Flow Chart
    Laura Lane
  • Significant Tenant Rights Cases of 2013
    Madeline Howard
  • Eviction Process Forms
    Madeline Howard
  • Eviction Defense 101: How to Successfully Defend Unlawful Detainer Actions in California (PowerPoint Slides)
    Laura Lane, Madeline Howard, Stephanie Haffner
  • Protections for California Tenants in Foreclosed Homes
    Madeline Howard
  • How Tenants Are to Use the Claim to Right of Possession to Stop an Eviction
    Madeline Howard
  • Tenant Eviction Process After A California Foreclosure Flow Chart
    Leah F. Simon-Weisberg
  • Title VII—Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA), Public Law 111-22, (May 20, 2009)
    Madeline Howard
  • Eviction Defense After Foreclosure (PowerPoint Slides)
    Kari Rudd, Leah F. Simon-Weisberg, Madeline Howard
  • Statutes, Regulations, and Recent Notable Subsidized Housing Eviction Cases
    Navneet Grewal
  • Opinion, Community Corporation of Santa Monica v. Eisman, Appellate Division of the Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles (2012)
    Kent Qian
  • Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, Swords To Plowshares v. Smith, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (2002)
    Kent Qian
  • Order Granting Motion Without Leave to Amend, Swords to Plowshares v. Kemp, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (2005)
    Kent Qian
  • Judgment on Appeal from the Superior Court County of Orange North Justice Center, Cadigan Arbor Park v. Vohra, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Appellate Division (2006)
    Kent Qian
  • Opinion, Housing Authority of the County of Kern v. Williams, Superior Court of California, County of Kern, Appellate Department (1985)
    Kent Qian
  • Per Curiam Opinion, Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino v. Kelly, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, Appellate Division (2010)
    Kent Qian
  • Three Day Notice to Quit—(Nuisance)
    Kent Qian
  • Defending Evictions from Federally-Subsidized Housing (PowerPoint Slides)
    Kent Qian, Maria E. Palomares, Navneet Grewal
  • VAWA 2013 Continues Vital Housing Protections for Survivors and Provides New Safeguards
    Karlo Ng
  • Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate, Zheng and Chen v. Superior Court of The State of California, County of San Francisco, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Appellate Division (2008)
    Navneet Grewal
  • Assessing Claims of Housing Discrimination Against Victims of Domestic Violence Under the Fair Housing Act And The Violence Against Women Act, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, February 9, 2011
    Navneet Grewal
  • Sample Defendant’s Trial Brief
    Maria E. Palomares
  • Complaint of Discriminatory Treatment in Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(d)
    Navneet Grewal
  • Evictions, Disability, Domestic Violence, and Language (PowerPoint Slides)
    Karlo Ng, Maria E. Palomares, Navneet Grewal
  • Taking on A Pro Bono Eviction Defense Case (PowerPoint Slides)
    Phong S. Wong
  • Unlawful Detainers & Incubators (PowerPoint Slides)
    William T. Tanner

Presentation Material

  • Eviction Process: Overview of the Basics and Affirmative Defenses in Unlawful Detainer Actions: Eviction Defense 101: How to Successfully Defend Unlawful Detainer Actions in California PowerPoint Slides
    Stephanie Haffner, Madeline Howard, Laura Lane
  • Eviction Defense After Foreclosure: Eviction Defense After Foreclosure PowerPoint Slides
    Madeline Howard, Kari Rudd, Leah F. Simon-Weisberg
  • Evictions & Terminations in Subsidized Housing: Defending Evictions from Federally-Subsidized Housing PowerPoint Slides
    Navneet Grewal, Maria E Palomares, Kent Qian
  • Fair Housing Protections: Evictions, Disability, Domestic Violence, and Language PowerPoint Slides
    Navneet Grewal, Maria E Palomares, Karlo Ng
  • Pro Bono Opportunities in Eviction Defense: Taking on a Pro Bono Eviction Defense Case PowerPoint Slides
    Phong S Wong
  • Pro Bono Opportunities in Eviction Defense: Unlawful Detainers & Incubators PowerPoint Slides
    William T. Tanner
Chairperson(s)
S. Lynn Martinez ~ Managing Attorney/Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Speaker(s)
Navneet Grewal ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Stephanie Haffner ~ Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Madeline Howard ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Laura Lane ~ Director, Housing Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Karlo Ng ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
Maria E. Palomares ~ Staff Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Kent Qian ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
Kari Rudd ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Leah F. Simon-Weisberg ~ Legal Director, Tenants Together
William T. Tanner ~ Directing Attorney, Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Phong S. Wong ~ Pro Bono Director, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles

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.


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.

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 on-demand web programs cannot be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys.

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.


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 cleadministrator@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 cleadministrator@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.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Print Share Email
"Great program. Very useful information. Although the speakers focused on California law, it is relevant to pro bono practice elsewhere. Great tips!"

-Deborah L. Fletcher, Esq., FisherBroyles, LLP, attendee of the 2013 California Eviction Defense program

"Great speakers - extremely knowledgeable and passionate about the practice of law. Kudos!"
-Jeff Spellerberg, Law Offices of Jeff Spellerberg, attendee of the 2013 California Eviction Defense program


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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.