“Panoramic view,” “expansive view,” “scenic view”—these are all common descriptions used to market highly coveted view property. A great view can substantially increase the desirability and value of a property, with view properties often selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than neighboring properties of comparable square footage without views. Developers also routinely charge substantially more for premium lots with views in new developments. In most cases, however, the property owner’s view is not protected and, accordingly, buyers unwittingly pay a hefty surcharge for something that can be taken away without recourse.”
In a groundbreaking decision, the appellate court overturned years of precedent which denied businesses the right to a jury trial in civil enforcement actions brought by the State of California against businesses. In this matter, the State of California sought tens of millions from a client for alleged unfair business practices and sought to do so without the right to a jury trial. Attorney Ponist successfully argued that trial without a jury violated his clients’ fundamental, constitutional rights, arguing, in part, “California has never afforded parties lesser rights than what they’re afforded under the United States Constitution. That’s never happened. It’s not that you come to California, you might get higher minimum wage, better environmental protections, but when it comes to Constitutional rights, tough luck.”
The Ponist Law Group defended a laboratory against claims that it had erroneously switched paternity testing results, allegedly inaccurately indicating that one man was the father of the subject child when, according to plaintiff, it was another man. According to plaintiff, this caused “irreparable damage” and “emotional distress.” The Ponist Law Group was able to successfully resolve the matter early for a nuisance settlement.
The Ponist Law Group represented an elderly client in an arbitration in connection with the purchase of a business and asserted claims for breach of contract, rescission, fraud/misrepresentation and financial elder abuse. Following a multi-week arbitration proceeding, the Ponist Law Group was able to reach a favorable resolution on behalf of our client.
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is set to face its first jury trial in April in what is shaping up to be a critical test of the agency’s authority … Ponist said he hoped to put the bureau’s Choke Point tactics on trial, and prove that the CFPB failed to provide Nationwide with the opportunity to respond to the allegations before it filed its lawsuit. “Our position is that it’s not fair, it’s just not right that the federal government came up with a way to pressure businesses that they do not like, for their own reasons, by putting pressure on their banking partners,” Ponist said. “Rather than giving companies their day in court, what they do instead is threaten [their bank partners] with subpoenas, an investigation, an audit, if they don’t comply.””
Representing multiple families, the Ponist Law Group alleged that a rogue broker of a securities broker-dealer, charged with managing the accounts of their clients, improperly churned the clients’ accounts, excessively traded the clients’ accounts and placed the clients in unsuitable investments. The Ponist Law Group was able to successfully negotiate a settlement for $2.2 million on behalf of their clients.
The Ponist Law Group represented a commercial real estate brokerage company, its designated broker, and its agent in a dispute in which plaintiff real estate investors alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duties and conduct falling below the standard of care. After a two-week trial, the Ponist Law Group obtained a complete defense verdict, absolving their clients of any wrongdoing.
In the matter of WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 148, investors in a real estate deal alleged that their broker had made material misrepresentations and committed fraud. Specifically, the investors alleged that their broker had represented that the property had been subjected to a thorough due diligence review and that the sales load would be less than 10%. According to the investors, however, this was not true. Rather, the actual sales load was purportedly in excess of 20%.
Putting aside the alleged oral representations, the court noted that a written Offering Memorandum provided to the investors had indicated that the sales load exceeded 10%. Thus, the court held that the inconsistency between the Offering Memorandum and the alleged oral representations of the broker put the investors on notice of a falsity and that the investors had a duty to inquiry thereafter. The investors failure to inquire was not only in breach of their obligations, but also started the running of the statute of
limitations on any claims by the investors. As the investors failed to timely bring suit against their broker based on the time of the receipt of the Offering Memorandum, the court concluded that their claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the case was dismissed.
A judge has ruled an Allied Gardens school, which caters to special needs students, will be able to stay at its location until 2021, despite objections from the San Diego Unified School District.
In May, Excelsior Academy filed a lawsuit against the SDUSD, claiming the district violated the terms of the school’s lease when it told administrators to vacate their location by March 2018.
The SDUSD sold the property to the Islamic School of San Diego for $2,775,000 in February.
“The reason the school district did not want Excelsior to stay in the property longer, as far as we understand it, is that they received a notice from the Islamic School of San Diego requesting that we be thrown out, or Excelsior be thrown out,” said Sean Ponist, the attorney for Excelsior.
- Attorney Schneider authors article published in the Daily Journal entitled “Do you have a fundamental right to a view in California?” November 1, 2018
- The Ponist Law Group Obtains a Dismissal of the Action Based on the Pleadings and Judgment in Client’s Favor August 23, 2018
- NBA Appellate Opinion June 13, 2018
- In a Published Decision, Attorneys Ponist and Yockelson Secure Right to Jury Trial for Businesses in BP 17200/17500 Civil Enforcement Actions June 13, 2018
- How to Keep Your Expert In and Keep Their Expert Out May 22, 2018
- The Ponist Law Group Favorably Resolves Paternity Testing Claim Against Laboratory May 14, 2018
- Dual Agency Law. Following the California Supreme Court’s Landmark HORIIKE Decision March 27, 2018
- The Ponist Law Group Reaches Favorable Confidential Settlement on Behalf Elderly Client Defrauded in Connection with Purchase of a Business March 9, 2018