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 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.