Partner
jboynton@knlh.com
619.231.8666

Jonathan A. Boynton

Jonathan A. Boynton received his Bachelor of Science Degree (Finance) in 1977 from San Diego State University. He continued his postgraduate education at Pepperdine University, receiving a Master of Business Administration Degree in 1983. He then attended the University of San Diego School of Law, graduating cum laude (Order of the Coif) in 1994.

Jonathan is admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of California as well as the United States District Court for the Central, Southern and Northern Districts of California, as well as the Central District of Illinois. He is also admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Jonathan is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, American Bar Association and the American Business Trial Lawyers Association.

Prior to joining Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge in 1994, Jonathan had been active in the securities industry for more than 17 years. From 1978 through 1982, Jonathan was employed by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD"), the primary self-regulatory agency for the securities industry. Jonathan rose to the rank of Supervisor of Examiners in the Los Angeles office, gaining a thorough understanding of investment vehicles, the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the NASD.

From 1982 through 1994, Jonathan was employed by a national securities brokerage firm as the head of it's legal and compliance departments. In that role, he supervised a professional staff responsible for the oversight of the firm's trading of all investment securities, including stocks, bonds, fixed income instruments, options, mutual funds and commodities, among others. His staff was also responsible for the sales practice supervision of the firm's stockbrokers, who were located in all 50 states throughout the country. In addition to his oversight responsibilities, Jonathan personally managed the firm's litigation for the period 1984 through 1994. In that role, he was involved in more than 400 litigated matters in federal court, state court and arbitration throughout the country, including actions in Florida, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Ohio, Virginia, New York, Alaska, Arizona and California. Jonathan's securities licenses included Series 7 (General Securities Representative), 24 (General Securities Principal) and 27 (Financial and Operations Principal).

Due to his general business experience and experience in the securities industry, Jonathan's practice at Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge has focused primarily on complex business litigation, with an emphasis on securities and class action litigation.

Litigation Practice Areas

Securities Litigation
Class Actions

Prior Securities Experience

1978-1982 NASD
(Examiner-Supervisor)
1982-1994 Nationwide Broker-Dealer
(Compliance Officer)

Education

University of San Diego School of Law, J.D. (Cum laude); Order of the Coif, 1994
Pepperdine University, M.B.A.,1983
San Diego State University, B.S., 1977

Professional Memberships and Activities

San Diego County Bar Association
American Bar Association
State Bar of California

Selected Case Information

BROKER-DEALER LITIGATION

Customer v. Nationwide Securities Broker-Dealer
Defense counsel in a class action against a nationwide securities broker-dealer alleging undisclosed fees in connection with the sale of variable annuity products. The case was voluntarily dismissed prior to the hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).
Customer v. Regional Securities Brokerage Firm
Defense counsel for regional securities brokerage firm on claims by plaintiff that firm was vicariously liable for sale of non-approved pay phone investment. The case was dismissed by the court on broker-dealer defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Registered Representative v. Nationwide Securities Broker-Dealer
Counsel for nationwide securities broker-dealer in class action claims brought by former representative alleging underpayment of commissions. Defeated plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in San Diego Superior Court, which denial was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Competitor Branch Office v. Nationwide Securities Broker-Dealer
Counsel for nationwide securities broker-dealer in claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition when brokers from a competitor's branch office left to join the nationwide firm. Successfully defended against plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction and plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction after a week long trial before the San Diego Superior Court.

SECURITIES REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

United States Attorney's Office
Counsel for Broker-Dealers and their Senior Management in interfacing with the United States Attorney's Office in criminal investigations and trials resulting from securities related activates.
Securities & Exchange Commission
Counsel for Registered Investment Advisors, Broker-Dealers and their Associated Persons/Registered Representatives in formal and informal investigations by the SEC. Negotiation of settlements and preparation of Wells submissions.
National Association of Securities Dealers
Counsel for Broker-Dealers and Registered Representatives in regulatory and disciplinary proceedings before the NASD. Negotiation of settlements for Registered Representatives and represent Broker-Dealers in regulatory matters, including mutual fund and variable annuity investigations.
State Securities Regulators
Counsel for Broker-Dealer and Registered Representatives in actions by State Securities Regulators, including sales practice and blue sky issues.

CLASS ACTIONS

Customer v. Nationwide Securities Broker-Dealer
Defense counsel in a class action against a nationwide securities broker-dealer alleging undisclosed fees in connection with the sale of variable annuity products. The case was voluntarily dismissed prior to the hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).
Registered Representative v. Nationwide Securities Broker-Dealer
Counsel for nationwide securities broker-dealer in class action claims brought by former representative alleging underpayment of commissions. Defeated plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in San Diego Superior Court, which denial was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Blatt v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, et al.
Counsel for plaintiffs (over 300,000 class members) in a federal securities class action in one of the first cases to establish a private right of action under section 13(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Blatt v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, et al., 916 F.Supp. 1343 (D.N.J. 1996). This case was settled just prior to discovery cut-off for $91.5 million.
Marks v. Newport Pacific; Goodwin v. Newport Pacific
Counsel for plaintiffs in two federal securities class actions in the Central District of California, Marks v. Newport Pacific Mortgage Acceptance Corp., et al., Case No. SACV95-760 GLT and Goodwin v. Newport Pacific Mortgage Acceptance Corp., et al., Case No. SACV96-688 GLT, which actions were consolidated and settled after class certification was granted. This case involved the sale of unregistered securities by the issuer and five broker-dealers and was settled for more than $3 million.
CAD/CAM v. John Thomas Archer, et al.
Counsel for plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased promissory notes secured by a mobile home parks (the MHP Notes). The primary claims were the sale of unregistered securities, material representations and omissions about the risks of the investments, and breaches of fiduciary duty and negligence by the broker-dealers who failed to supervise their sales agents.

After prolonged litigation, including removal of the case to the United States District Court and remand back to the Superior Court, multiple demurrers and motions to strike, and successful prosecution of a motion to consolidate, the class was certified into two subclasses. The litigation was resolved less than 60-days before trial after more than 24 depositions were taken in various states throughout the country. Additionally, nearly 750 requests for productions of documents were served, more than 250 interrogatories were served and more than 25 requests for admissions were served.

The $1.89 million settlement resulted in the members of one subclass receiving more than 100% of their damages, and the members of the second subclass recovering more than 90% of their damages, prior deducting fees and expenses.
In Re PS Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
Defense counsel In Re PS Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (MDL-949) which involved actions in California and Illinois which were ordered consolidated in the Central District of Illinois by the MDL Panel in December 1992. The case involved shareholders' claims against the company, its subsidiaries, officers and directors concerning a large drop on the price of the stock.

OTHER LITIGATION

Cacanindin v. United States of America, et al.
Jim Lance and I represented the family of an eight year old boy who was struck and killed in a crosswalk in Temecula while rollerblading with his father and brother. The driver was diabetic who went into insulin shock and ran a red light. Unfortunately, he had no assets and limited insurance. The driver was from New York and had been treated by the VA Medical Center in Syracuse for his diabetes and a heart condition. The physicians in Syracuse had prescribed medication which could potentially block the symptoms of low blood sugar and allow a patient to go into insulin shock without notice.

The United States argued that the driver was solely responsible for the accident because he was negligent in the administration of his insulin. The United States unsuccessfully attempted to transfer the case from the Central District of California to New York. The United States also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming that New York law applied and that there was no third-party liability for physician negligence in New York. We were able to convince the court that California law applied but then faced the hurdle under California law that MICRA limited any recovery to $250,000. Post Kirby argued that the MICRA caps did not apply because the intent of the statute would not be forwarded by applying MICRA to an out-of-state physician. With the assistance of Judge Edward Infante, a Retired United States Magistrate from the Northern District of California, we were able to obtain a settlement of $874,000 for the family from the United States, and the $100,000 policy limits from the driver.
Daily Journal Corp. v. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Counsel for Daily Journal Corp. in an action challenging the Met New's obtaining of 40 separate city newspaper adjudications for publication of legal notices in an ex parte proceeding without notice and without evidence that the Met News met the requirements under the Government Code for adjudication in any of the 40 cities granted in the ex parte proceeding (the "Mass Adjudication"). The challenge was unsuccessful at the trial court level but that decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals in a published decision, In Re Molz (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 836 (26 Cal.Rptr.3d 131), which held that published notice alerting interested parties of their right to appear and contest the adjudication was required under Government Code § 6021 and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to vacate the Mass Adjudication.
Beydoun v. Casa Herrera
Counsel for Casa Herrera, the manufacturer of commercial tortillas ovens, in business litigation brought by a customer in San Diego Superior Court. The case was dismissed on directed verdict after the conclusion of evidence, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal.