On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advocates’ Guide for Protecting Tenants’ Rights: Advanced Unlawful Detainer Defense (Free)

Released on: Mar. 16, 2016
Running Time: 06:24:35

Attendees of prior unlawful detainer defense trainings including last year’s California Eviction Defense 2.0 learned the skills necessary to vigorously defend eviction lawsuits. This year’s training builds on those skill sets providing a more in-depth discussion of trial skills and appeals as well as attorneys’ fees. We will also explore strategies for assisting Section 8 tenants struggling to maintain their current housing or find new housing as rents escalate across California.

You will learn:

  • Trial skills including evidentiary motions and jury issues
  • Legal tools for preserving Section 8 tenancies in a booming housing market
  • Practical skills and tips for unlawful detainer appeals and writs
  • How to win attorney fees in unlawful detainers

All attorneys or law students interested in or currently assisting low-income clients with eviction matters would benefit from this program. This training is designed for practitioners with some background in unlawful detainer and housing law, so newer attorneys and law students are encouraged to view California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2014 and California Eviction Defense 2.0: Beyond the Basics of Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2015 highlighting unlawful detainer defense basics.


Lecture Topics [Total time 06:24:35]

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


  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:04:56]
    Madeline Howard
  • Unlawful Detainer Trials [01:48:14]
    Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson, Lorraine López
  • Section 8 Subsidized Housing [01:30:35]
    Navneet Grewal, Maria E. Palomares, Sarah Steinheimer
  • Appeals and Writs [01:30:05]
    Christian Abasto, Madeline Howard, Jason Tarricone
  • Attorney Fees in Unlawful Detainers [01:30:45]
    Lisa Greif, Richard A. Rothschild

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Unlawful Detainer Trial Practice Outline
    Lorraine López, Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson
  • 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)
    Shirley Gibson, Lorraine López, Monique Farris
  • 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
    Shirley Gibson, Monique Farris, Lorraine López
  • Los Angeles County Superior Court General Order—Trial Readiness
    Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson, Lorraine López
  • Sample Demand for Jury Trial, CCP § 631
    Lorraine López
  • 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, Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson
  • Types of Housing and Statutes and Regulations Informational Sheet
    Maria E. Palomares, Navneet Grewal, Sarah Steinheimer
  • Sample Stipulation to Settle the Case and Court to Retain Jurisdiction Under CCP 664.6
    Maria E. Palomares
  • Sample Unlawful Detainer Voucher Protection Letter
    Maria E. Palomares, Navneet Grewal, Sarah Steinheimer
  • Defending Housing Choice Voucher Evictions (PowerPoint slides)
    Maria E. Palomares, Navneet Grewal, Sarah Steinheimer
  • Sample Appellants’ Opening Brief: Boyd v. Carter, No. 113-AP-001561, Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2014)
    Jason Tarricone
  • Sample Appellate Division Opinion: Boyd v. Carter, No. 113-AP-001561, Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2014)
    Jason Tarricone
  • Sample Publication Order: Boyd v. Carter, No. 113-AP-001561, Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2014)
    Jason Tarricone
  • Sample Applications for Ex Parte Order Temporarily Staying Execution of Judgment Pending Determination of Petition for Writ of Supersedeas
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Notice of Petition and Petition for Stay of the Judgment Pending Appeal
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas
    Christian Abasto
  • Sample Expert Declaration on Reasonable Rates: Declaration of Richard M. Pearl in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Nativi, et. al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 109CV158254, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2015)
    Madeline Howard, Richard A. Rothschild
  • Sample Fee Motion: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Nativi, et. al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 109CV158254, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2015)
    Madeline Howard, Richard A. Rothschild
  • Sample Fee Motion Reply: Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees; Final Fee Claim Summarized, Nativi, et. al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 109CV158254, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2015)
    Richard A. Rothschild, Madeline Howard
  • Sample Supporting Declaration: Declaration of Madeline S. Howard in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Nativi, et. al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 109CV158254, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2015)
    Richard A. Rothschild, Madeline Howard
  • Sample Supporting Declaration: Declarations of Alex Gulotta and Lisa M. Newstrom in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Re: Bay Area Legal Aid), Nativi, et. al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 109CV158254, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2015)
    Richard A. Rothschild, Madeline Howard
  • Sample Unlawful Detainer Fee Motion: Notice of Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees; Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees; Points and Authorities; Supporting Declarations; Exhibits and Order, Eccleston v. Texson, No. HG14-748052, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (2015)
    Richard A. Rothschild, Lisa Greif, Madeline Howard
  • Sample Memorandum of Costs—Worksheet: (MC-010, MC-011 and MC-025), Gable, et. al v. City of Fullerton, et. al, No. 30-2013-00675291, Superior Court of California, County of Orange (2015)
    Madeline Howard, Richard A. Rothschild, Lisa Greif
  • Sample Memorandum of Costs—Without Worksheet (MC-010), Nativi, et. al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 109CV158254, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2015)
    Madeline Howard
  • Sample Appellate Division Opinion: LG Foreclosed Properties, LLC v. Diaz, et. al, No. BV 030637, Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (2014)
    Lisa Greif, Richard A. Rothschild, Madeline Howard
  • Sample Appellate Division Opinion, Active Properties, LLC v. Perez, et. al, No. BV 030654, Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (2014)
    Lisa Greif, Richard A. Rothschild, Madeline Howard

Presentation Material


  • Unlawful Detainer Trials PowerPoint Slides
    Monique Farris, Shirley Gibson, Lorraine López
  • Defending Housing Choice Voucher Evictions PowerPoint Slides
    Navneet Grewal, Maria E. Palomares, Sarah Steinheimer
  • Unlawful Detainer Appeals PowerPoint Slides
    Christian Abasto, Madeline Howard, Jason Tarricone
  • Claiming and Securing Attorneys' Fees in Unlawful Detainer Cases PowerPoint Slides
    Lisa Greif, Richard A. Rothschild
Chairperson(s)
Madeline Howard ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Speaker(s)
Christian Abasto ~ Managing Attorney, Disability Rights California
Monique Farris ~ Staff Attorney, Centro Legal de la Raza
Shirley Gibson ~ Directing Attorney, Home Savers Project, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Lisa Greif ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Navneet Grewal ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Lorraine López ~ Supervising Attorney, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County
Maria E. Palomares ~ Staff Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Richard A. Rothschild ~ Director of Litigation, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Sarah Steinheimer ~ Regional Counsel, Housing, Legal Services of Northern California
Jason Tarricone ~ Directing Attorney, Housing and Economic Advancement Programs, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
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.

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:  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 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.


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.

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

 

Share
Email
"This was an outstanding program and the speakers were excellent.  I learned more methods to practically apply the law than I have in any other landlord/tenant program."
2015 Attendee, California Eviction Defense 2.0: Beyond the Basics of Protecting Low-Income Tenants


  • 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.