As the Chair of the Civil Litigation Section of San Diego County Bar Association, Sean Ponist invites you to attend the section’s upcoming seminar entitled “The New Look of Trials:  Perspectives From the Bench and Trial Attorneys” which takes place December 15, 2021.  While trials are back in full swing, they don’t “look” entirely the same.  This presentation explores new issues and challenges, as well as means of overcoming them, in the pandemic. 

With the holidays fast-approaching and, with it, the opportunity for family to get together, we wanted to provide you with a not-so-nice family situation, so that you may better appreciate your own situation.  Happy holidays!  The recent case of McMillin v. Eare, Case No. B298990, 2021 WL 4949007 (Sept. 30, 2021) is an intriguing matter, involving a family dissolution and an ensuing fight over the family’s real estate.  The decision reminds us of two important (legal) lessons and a third (value) lesson:  first, you don’t owe a fiduciary duty to your family members, just because they are family (sorry Mom!); second, when you deed a property to another, you have transferred it and longer have any right to it, regardless of any purported conditions of the transfer; and, third, be nice to your family and grateful for your loved ones.

Sean Ponist serves as the Chair of the Civil Litigation Section of San Diego County Bar Association and invites you to attend the section’s special seminar entitled “Closing Arguments with Renowned Trial Attorneys:  James Brosnahan and Don Rushing” which takes place November 9, 2021. Closing argument is the attorney’s final statement to the jury before deliberation begins. An effective closing argument is one of the most critical parts to any trial. Together, renowned trial attorneys James Brosnahan and Don Rushing have tried well over 200 cases to verdict. In this seminar, they will help attendees understand the purpose of a closing argument, as well as the art of developing an effective closing argument.

The Ponist Law Group is pleased to announce that founding partner Sean E. Ponist has been selected to both the 2021 San Diego Super Lawyers List as well as the 2021 Northern California Super Lawyer List.  Mr. Ponist’s selection to multiple regions of the State is unique and reflects his presence and accomplishments throughout California.  The Super Lawyer award is bestowed upon those who “demonstrate the highest degree of professional achievement and peer recognition” and is awarded to less than 5% of attorneys based on peer nomination and evaluation as well as independent research.

In the recent decision in the matter of Cheng v. Coastal L.B. Assocs., LLC, Case No. B303519, 2021 WL 4305054 (Sept. 1, 2021), the Court of Appeal for the Second District upheld the trial court’s “order confirming [the] appraisers’ award valuing the parties’ respective 25 percent interests in the LLC at a discounted fair market value.” In the foregoing matter, “Appellant filed an action for involuntary dissolution of the LLC in October 2017. Respondents moved for an order staying the dissolution action and electing to purchase appellant’s [] interests in the LLC pursuant to section 17707.03” which permits the remaining LLC members to purchase the selling interests at fair market value (“FMV”). 

The Ponist Law Group is pleased to announce that founding partner Sean E. Ponist has been selected as a 2021 Northern California Super Lawyer.  Earlier this year, Mr. Ponist had also been selected as a 2021 San Diego Super Lawyer.  This unique selection in multiple regions of the State reflects the Mr. Ponist’s presence and accomplishments throughout California.  The Super Lawyer award is bestowed upon those who “demonstrate the highest degree of professional achievement and peer recognition” and is awarded to less than 5% of attorneys based on peer nomination and evaluation as well as independent research.

In the recent decision of Shaper v. Zadek, Case No. 21-cv-00493-EMC, 2021 WL 3885958 (N.D. Cal. Aug., 31, 2021), the court addressed whether loans purchased by investors were “securities” under federal securities laws and, if so, whether the seller of the notes had violated federal securities laws by failing to, among other things, register as an investment adviser and/or broker-dealer.  The answer is lawyerly and, perhaps, unsatisfactory, i.e., it depends!  Where the notes were purchased for investment purposes, offered and sold to a broad segment of the population, reasonable investors would view them as securities and not merely notes, and there is no other statutory scheme directly regulating the transaction, they should be treated as “securities.”  Nonetheless, additional considerations will determine whether the party offering the note must register as an investment adviser or broker-dealer under federal securities laws.