On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2013 (Free)

Released on: Mar. 27, 2013
Running Time: 06:12:40

This program has expired for credit in many states. Please check the credit calculator on the right. No certificate will be issued if credit has expired in your state.

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 06:12:40]

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

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:03:24]
    S. Lynn Martinez
  • Eviction Process: Overview of the Basics and Affirmative Defenses in Unlawful Detainer Actions [01:52:51]
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • Eviction Defense After Foreclosure [01:15:10]
    S. Lynn Martinez, Dean Preston, Kent Qian
  • Evictions & Terminations in Subsidized Housing [00:59:39]
    Navneet Grewal, Kent Qian
  • Evictions in Rent-Controlled Jurisdictions & Mobilehome Parks [01:00:46]
    Navneet Grewal, Stephanie Haffner, Phong S. Wong, Christian Abasto
  • Fee Waivers, Requests for Jury Trials, and Appellate Division Writs [01:00:50]
    Phong S. Wong, Christian Abasto

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

  • Eviction Process Flow Chart
    Laura Lane
  • Overview of Unlawful Detainer Litigation
    Laura Lane
  • Eviction Process: Overview of the Basics and Affirmative Defenses in Unlawful Detainer Actions (PowerPoint Slides)
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • Title VII--Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA), Public Law 111-22, (May 20, 2009)
    Kent Qian
  • The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act: Three Years Later, Housing Law Bulletin, Volume 42, September 2012
    Kent Qian
  • Assembly Bill No. 2610, Chapter 562, Legislative Counsel's Digest
    Kent Qian
  • Assembly Bill No. 1953, Chapter 695, Legislative Counsel's Digest
    Kent Qian
  • Per Curiam Opinion, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Elisabeth J. Detelder-Collins, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, Appellate Division (2012)
    Kent Qian
  • Order Re: Defendant's Motion to Quash, PNMAC Mortgage v. Kamie Stanko, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (2012)
    Kent Qian
  • Tentative Ruling, JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Robert Calandra (2010), Motion: Summary Judgment
    Kent Qian
  • Tentative Ruling, Alta Community Investment III Et Al v. Patricia Ottoboni (2010), Demurrer
    Kent Qian
  • Tentative Ruling, E Trade Bank v. Joe Saltar Et Al (2011), Demurrer
    Kent Qian
  • Order, Bhatt v. The Superior Court of Riverside County, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, Appellate Division (2012)
    Kent Qian
  • The Foreclosure Process and Foreclosure Timeline (PowerPoint Slides)
    S. Lynn Martinez
  • Eviction Defense After Foreclosure (PowerPoint Slides)
    Kent Qian, Dean Preston
  • Model Lease for Subsidized Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Form HUD-90105A
    Kent Qian
  • Tenancy Addendum, Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance Housing Choice Voucher Program, Form HUD-52641-A
    Kent Qian
  • Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 966 (24 CFR Ch. IX), 247 (24 CFR Ch. VIII), 880.607 (24 CFR Ch. VIII)
    Kent Qian
  • HUD Occupancy Handbook, Chapter 8: Termination
    Kent Qian
  • Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 982.309 (24 CRF Ch. IX), 983.257
    Kent Qian
  • Gersten Companies v. Deloney, 212 Cal. App. 3d 1119, Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California (1989)
    Kent Qian
  • Three Day Notice to Quit--(Nuisance)
    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. Deepak Vohra, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Appellate Division (2006)
    Kent Qian
  • Opinion, Housing Authority of the County of Kern v. Leasure 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. Mary Kelly, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, Appellate Division (2010)
    Kent Qian
  • Evictions & Terminations in Subsidized Housing (PowerPoint Slides)
    Kent Qian, Navneet Grewal
  • California Cities with Rent Control Ordinances and/or Just Cause Eviction Controls
    Phong S. Wong, Navneet Grewal
  • Rent Control & Eviction Protections (PowerPoint Slides)
    Phong S. Wong, Navneet Grewal
  • Mobile Home Park Tenancies (PowerPoint Slides)
    Stephanie Haffner
  • Government Code Sections 68630-68641
    Phong S. Wong
  • California Rules of Court, Rules 3.50-3.58
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample FW-001 Request to Waive Court Fees; FW-003 Order on Court Fee Waiver
    Phong S. Wong
  • Fee Waiver Process Flowchart
    Phong S. Wong
  • What to Do When a Fee Waiver Application Is Denied
    Phong S. Wong
  • Increasing Court Access Through Fee-Waiver Reform: California's Model, Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, July-August 2009, Volume 43, Numbers 3-4
    Phong S. Wong, Richard Rothschild
  • Sample Demand for Jury Trial
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample Statement of the Case
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample Defendant's Proposed Special Verdict Form
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample Defendants' Proposed Exhibit List
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample Defendants' Proposed Witness List
    Phong S. Wong
  • Sample Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Applications for Ex Parte Order Temporarily Staying Execution of Judgment Pending Determination of Petition for Writ of Supersedeas; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations in Support Thereof
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Notice of Petition and Petition for Stay of the Judgment Pending Appeal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations of Deana Tenant and Gary Doctor, M.D.; Proposed Order (Filed Concurrently)
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Stay Requested; Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Supporting Declarations and Verification
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
    Christian Abasto
  • Fee Waivers, Requests for Jury Trials, and Appellate Division Writs (Powerpoint Slides)
    Phong S. Wong, Christian Abasto
  • Index to California Eviction Defense

Presentation Material

  • Common Uses of Fair Housing Law in California Eviction Defense Practice Memorandum
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • CP 10 CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION AND NOTICE OF HEARING
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • DISC-003/UD-106 Form Interrogatories-Unlawful Detainer
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • UD-100 Complaint-Unlawful Detainer
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • UD-105 Answer - Unlawful Detainer
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • UD-150 REQUEST/COUNTER-REQUEST TO SET CASE FOR TRIAL—UNLAWFUL DETAINER
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • Eviction Process: Overview of the Basics and Affirmative Defenses in Unlawful Detainer Actions
    Stephanie Haffner, Laura Lane
  • The Foreclosure Process & Foreclosure Timeline
    S. Lynn Martinez
  • Eviction Defense After Foreclosure
    Dean Preston, Kent Qian
  • Evictions and Terminations in Subsidized Housing
    Navneet Grewal, Kent Qian
  • Evictions in Rent-Controlled Jurisdictions and Mobilehome Parks: Rent Control
    Navneet Grewal, Phong S. Wong
  • Evictions in Rent Controlled Jurisdictions and Mobilehome Parks: Mobilehome Parks
    Stephanie Haffner
  • Fee Waivers, Requests for Jury Trials, and Appellate Division Writs
    Phong S. Wong, Christian Abasto
Chairperson(s)
S. Lynn Martinez ~ Managing Attorney/Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Speaker(s)
Christian Abasto ~ Of Counsel, Public Law Center
Navneet Grewal ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Stephanie Haffner ~ Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Laura Lane ~ Director, Housing Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Dean Preston ~ Executive Director, Tenants Together
Kent Qian ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
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.

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.

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.


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

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

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