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.
Real Estate Quarterly Supplement to the Daily Journal (April 27, 2011)
This article discusses the recent Greenwich decision which has opened the door to the recovery of lost profits, but just slightly. As explained in the article, “Aggrieved investors should seek lost profits, but need to be mindful that courts are still skeptical of lost profits damages and will not allow them where even remotely uncertain or speculative.”
“In many transactions, the seller requires that the buyer pay earnest money in the form of a non-refundable deposit. The deposit is one way the buyer can communicate to the seller that he or she really means business. Indeed, such deposits have for years been commonplace. Recently, however, the court of appeal ruled that a non-refundable deposit is in reality a form of liquidated damages and voided the practice despite the clear contractual documents that called for it…”.
San Francisco Daily Journal (August 5, 2010)
“The law is clear that a party is entitled to seek equitable indemnity against negligence claims alleged against it. Similarly, the law is clear that a party is not entitled to indemnity against fraud, intentional torts and other torts for which the application of indemnity would violate public policy. But the law is much less clear as to a party’s right to indemnity for negligent misrepresentation, a cause of action which straddles the line between negligence and fraud. Although the issue arises frequently between joint tortfeasors, the appellate courts have yet to address it. In their silence, trial courts have been all over the map…”
- The Ponist Law Group Welcomes Cary McReynolds as Of Counsel July 9, 2019
- The Keys To The House: Unraveling Equitable Remedies In Real Property Transaction (Part 2 of 2) May 5, 2019
- Sean Ponist is Scheduled to Speak at the Litigation Counsel of America 2019 Spring Conference April 29, 2019
- The Keys To The House: Unraveling Damages In Real Property Sales (Part 1 of 2) April 13, 2019
- Ponist Law Group 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