On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Eviction Defense 2.0: Beyond the Basics of Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2018 (Free)

Released on: Mar. 14, 2018
Running Time: 06:08:10

Protecting low-income tenants from evictions is increasingly critical. Attorneys who have a basic understanding of California eviction defense and housing law can advance justice for low-income tenants and prevent harm from unnecessary displacement. Housing advocates and more local governments around the state recognize that representing tenants makes a difference in tenants’ lives. 

This training is designed to help mitigate California’s housing affordability crisis by providing attorneys with an understanding of key procedural issues in eviction defense and protecting tenants’ rights.  Participants will have 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 RunTime: 06:08:10]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:05:39]
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Pre-Answer Motions: Demurrers, Motions to Strike, Motions to Quash [01:02:26]
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Formal & Informal Discovery in Unlawful Detainers [01:00:35]
    Ubaldo Fernandez, Leah F. Simon-Weisberg
  • Habitability, Retaliation, SLAPP, & Other Considerations [01:00:55]
    Denise McGranahan, Deepika Sharma
  • Writing Effective Settlements [00:59:15]
    Erin Katayama, Shirley Gibson
  • Trials & Writs [01:01:30]
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Appeals & Post-Trial Motions [00:57:50]
    Richard Walker, Christian Abasto

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

COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 (1983)
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Parsons v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (2007)
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Borsuk v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 607 (2015)
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Sample Notice of General and Special Demurrer, Motion to Strike Complaint, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Proposed Order
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Sample Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Alternatives to Answering a UD Complaint Outline
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Alternatives to Answering: Demurrers, Quashes, and Strikes (PowerPoint slides)
    Lisa Greif, Oliver Ehlinger
  • Sample DISC-003/UD-106, Form Interrogatories—Unlawful Detainer
    Ubaldo Fernandez
  • Sample Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and Request for Sanctions
    Ubaldo Fernandez
  • Sample Notice of Deposition
    Ubaldo Fernandez
  • Sample Defendant’s Demand for Identification and Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set One
    Ubaldo Fernandez
  • Sample DISC-020, Requests for Admission
    Ubaldo Fernandez
  • Sample Defendant’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One
    Ubaldo Fernandez
  • Formal and Informal Discovery in Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Ubaldo Fernandez, Leah F. Simon-Weisberg
  • Sample Reasonable Accommodation Letter—Unlawful Detainer Case
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Reasonable Accommodation Letter—30-Day Notice Issue
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Reasonable Accommodation Letter, 3-Day Notice Issue
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Reasonable Accommodation Letter (2)—Unlawful Detainer Case
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Reasonable Accommodation Letter (3)—Unlawful Detainer Case
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Pursuant to CCP § 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP); Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Defendant Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of His Special Motion to Strike the Unlawful Detainer Complaint as a Meritless SLAPP
    Denise McGranahan
  • Sample Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment
    Denise McGranahan
  • Cornelia Martinez, et al. v. Optimus Properties, LLC, et al., Complaint for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (C.D. Cal. 2016)
    Deepika Sharma
  • Cornelia Martinez, et al. v. Optinnis Properties, LLC, et al., Slip Copy (2017)
    Deepika Sharma
  • Habitability, Retaliation, SLAPP & Other Considerations (PowerPoint slides)
    Denise McGranahan
  • Affirmative Defenses and Affirmative Tenant Litigation (PowerPoint slides)
    Deepika Sharma
  • Sample Stipulation and Order to Dismiss Entire Action with Prejudice, and Maintain Limited Access to Court Record Pursuant to CCP 1161.2, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Southern Branch—(Pay and Stay)
    Shirley Gibson
  • Sample Stipulation (Stay Agreement), Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco
    Erin Katayama
  • Sample Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco—(Behavioral Hoarding)
    Erin Katayama
  • Drafting Successful Settlement Agreements in Unlawful Detainers Outline
    Erin Katayama, Shirley Gibson
  • Drafting Successful Settlement Agreements in Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Erin Katayama, Shirley Gibson
  • Trial Documents
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Optional Trial Documents & Motions
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Trial Readiness Order
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Sample Writ Pleadings
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Unlawful Detainer Trials (PowerPoint slides)
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Recent Unlawful Detainer Appellate Decisions (Excerpted from Western Center on Law & Poverty’s Housing Update)
    Christian Abasto, Richard Walker
  • CA Rules of Court—General Rules Applicable to Appellate Division Proceedings
    Richard Walker, Christian Abasto
  • Appellate Division Deadlines Chart
    Christian Abasto, Richard Walker
  • APP-102, Notice of Appeal/Cross-Appeal (Limited Civil Case), Judicial Council of California
    Richard Walker, Christian Abasto
  • APP-103, Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Limited Civil Case), Judicial Council of California
    Christian Abasto, Richard Walker
  • APP-104, Proposed Statement on Appeal (Limited Civil Case), Judicial Council of California
    Christian Abasto, Richard Walker
  • APP-105, Order Concerning Appellant’s Proposed Statement on Appeal (Limited Civil Case), Judicial Council of California
    Richard Walker, Christian Abasto
  • APP-106, Application for Extension of Time to File Brief (Limited Civil Case), Judicial Council of California
    Christian Abasto, Richard Walker
  • Sample Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Supporting Declarations and Verification
    Richard Walker, Christian Abasto
  • Unlawful Detainer Appeals (PowerPoint slides)
    Richard Walker, Christian Abasto

Presentation Material


  • Alternatives to Answering: Demurrers, Quashes, and Strikes (PowerPoint slides)
    Oliver Ehlinger, Lisa Greif
  • Formal and Informal Discovery in Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Ubaldo Fernandez, Leah F. Simon-Weisberg
  • Affirmative Defenses and Affirmative Tenant Litigation (PowerPoint slides)
    Deepika Sharma
  • Habitability, Retaliation, SLAPP & Other Considerations (PowerPoint slides)
    Denise McGranahan
  • Drafting Successful Settlement Agreements in Unlawful Detainers (PowerPoint slides)
    Shirley Gibson, Erin Katayama
  • Unlawful Detainer Trials (PowerPoint slides)
    Lorraine A. López, Alex Prieto
  • Unlawful Detainer Appeals (PowerPoint slides)
    Christian Abasto, Richard Walker
Co-Chair(s)
Lorraine A. López ~ Supervising Attorney, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County
Alex Prieto ~ Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Speaker(s)
Christian Abasto ~ Managing Attorney, Disability Rights California
Oliver Ehlinger ~ Managing Attorney, Legal Services of Northern California
Ubaldo Fernandez ~ Staff Attorney & Clinical Supervisor, Housing Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Shirley Gibson ~ Directing Attorney, Home Savers Project, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Lisa Greif ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Erin Katayama ~ Supervising Attorney, Homeless Advocacy Project, Justice & Diversity Center of The Bar Association of San Francisco
Denise McGranahan ~ Senior Attorney, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Deepika Sharma ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Public Counsel
Leah F. Simon-Weisberg ~ Managing Attorney, Centro Legal de la Raza
Richard Walker ~ Staff Attorney, Public Law Center
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 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

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 “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded 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:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay 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:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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 15 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.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. 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.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2017 Mar. 10, 2017

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

California Eviction Defense 2.0: Beyond the Basics of Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2018 Alex Prieto, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Lorraine A. López, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County
 
Share
Email
"Always good info and good refresher."
- Patricia Ziegler-Lopez, Fair Housing Center of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc.

"Very insightful program."
- Jeffrey J. Ogorek, Consumer Litigation Law Center, APC


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.