Location: San Diego, California
Phone: (619) 696-9500
Direct: (619) 225-7422
Fax: (800) 868-9350
Email: [email protected]
Paul Reynolds is a Partner based in the firm's San Diego office. He has specialized, and practiced exclusively, in securities and complex business litigation for over 25 years.
ACCOLADES
EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND
Paul has a state-wide and, indeed, national (particularly in Delaware and New York) practice, representing defendants and plaintiffs in state and federal trial and appellate courts and arbitration forums.
At the trial level, he has tried and arbitrated complex securities and businesses cases to verdict or award in judicial and arbitral forums throughout the country, including multiples matters with amounts in controversy reaching into nine figures (among them before the Delaware Court of Chancery), and achieved numerous trial and arbitration victories, as well as complete victories short of trial via motion practice and successful settlements in countless matters.
At the appellate level, he has successfully briefed and argued these same types of cases—including the California Supreme Court’s seminal case on shareholder derivative standing, Grossett v. Wenaas, 42 Cal. 4th 1100 (2008), where he was the primary author of the prevailing parties’ briefs, and Swortwood v. Tenedora de Empresas, S.A. de C.V., 2014 WL 1664480 (9th Cir. April 28, 2014), where he obtained a reversal of a preliminary injunction from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an expedited interlocutory appeal on an important issue of first impression of Delaware law regarding the rights and obligations of majority shareholders as they relate to preferences afforded holders of preferred shares. (For more details, please see the “Biography” tab.)
Paul was previously a partner at DLA Piper, one of the world’s largest law firms, and its predecessor, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, which was San Diego’s oldest and largest law firm; there, he was mentored for years by some of the city's most admired lawyers, several of whom went on to become federal or state court judges.
SPECIALIZATION AND PRACTICE
Paul has, particularly, an exceptionally deep and integrated knowledge of the federal and state securities laws and regulations and accompanying case law, and, equally, the Delaware (and also California and Nevada) law and case law regarding the proper governance and operation of corporations and limited liability companies and the duties of corporate fiduciaries. He limits his practice to the following sub-specialties, on behalf of defendants and plaintiffs alike:
TECHNOLOGY/DATA FOCUS
From the very beginning of his career, Paul has been especially interested in leveraging technology to manage, analyze, and present most efficiently and effectively the vast amounts of data and evidence that are involved in large-scale corporate litigation—and has written on and presented to his peers on these topics. These technologies range from cloud-based document databases for review, searching, and coding of documents, emails, texts, and other evidence (often using relatively inexpensive outsourced teams of contract lawyers to both contain costs and scale manpower to immediate needs); specialized litigation chronology software; trial presentation tools; sophisticated graphics and demonstratives that can condense and deliver vast amounts of data in a way that is immediately and powerfully understood by the trier of fact; and carefully edited video deposition testimony from important witnesses who cannot be hauled into court to testify in person or to impeach trial witnesses on cross-examination. He is also extremely knowledgeable and experienced in gathering and preserving electronic evidence from clients and adversaries alike, as well as the litigation of sanctions proceedings where alleged non-compliance with parties’ obligations in this regard is an issue—a critical core competency in modern litigation.
PRAGMATIC PRACTICE PHILOSOPHY
Paul employs a rigorously analytical and, above all else, pragmatic view to everything he does, or does not do, in service of the particular matter at hand and the client’s interests in that matter.
There is—never—a one-size-fits-all “checklist” applied; every case and every client are unique, and approached with that reality in mind. Advice is provided in this spirit and ethos and with a sense of realpolitik—looking at things as they are, not as one may wish they were. The big picture, the costs and benefits, the upsides and the downsides (including economic and risk considerations), must always be considered.
Ultimately, litigation is a dispute resolution process. Cases should only be litigated or, even, tried if there is no other option available that is superior. And this calculus must be dynamic, constantly reapplied and reanalyzed as the facts on the ground change. Part and parcel of this philosophy is to not be aggressive just for the sake of aggression itself—to fight just for the sake of fighting. Rather, the objective is to be intelligently, strategically aggressive; to pick one’s battles and only engage on those issues that actually move the ball forward toward the client’s ultimate objective. And to avoid the trap of letting emotion or stubbornness cause one to take untenable or unsellable positions—positions that will ultimately cause a loss of credibility.
RECENT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE AND ENGAGEMENTS
Matters Paul has handled as lead or co-lead counsel since leaving large law firm partnership include:
SECURITIES LITIGATION
VENTURE CAPITAL AND FOUNDERS DISPUTES LITIGATION
CORPORATE AND LLC GOVERNANCE ADVICE, INVESTIGATIONS, AND LITIGATION
DEFENSE OF SEC AND FINRA INVESTIGATIONS, COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS, AND LITIGATION
COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
CONSUMER AND OTHER CLASS ACTIONS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
OTHER NOTEWORTHY EXPERIENCE
Matters Paul handled earlier in his career include:
SECURITIES AND RELATED LITIGATION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES LITIGATION AND OTHER CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS
OTHER COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION
AWARDS
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
Weisbord v. SRP, 2022 WL 3440299 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2022) (affirming confirmation of arbitration award in favor of client).
EnSource Investments, Inc. v. Willis, 2021 WL 25881330 (9th Cir. June 23, 2021) (affirming section 10(b) securities fraud jury verdict in favor of client).
In re Cannavest Corp. Sec. Litig., 307 F. Supp. 3d (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (dismissing class action federal securities fraud complaint against client; plaintiff did not file amended complaint to attempt again to assert claim against client).
Swortwood v. Tenedora de Empresas, S.A. de C.V., 2014 WL 1664480 (9th Cir. April 28, 2014) (reversing preliminary injunction issued against client in an interlocutory appeal on an important issue of Delaware law regarding the rights and obligations of majority shareholders); 2014 WL 895456 (S.D. Cal. March 6, 2014) (decision regarding complex attorney-client privilege issues under Delaware and California law); 2014 WL 12026069 (S.D. Cal. (Apr. 18, 2014) (clarifying previous order on denial of reconsideration); 2014 WL 12026070 (May 19, 2014) (denying opponent’s second motion for preliminary injunction); 2014 WL 12035869 (Jun. 10, 2014) (denying motion for reconsideration of denial of second preliminary injunction motion); 2014 WL 3388867 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2014) (denying in part opponent’s motion for leave to amend complaint); 2014 WL 12026068 (September 9, 2014 (denying opponent’s third motion for preliminary injunction).
Diabetes Research Restitution, LLC v. Katz, 2014 WL 521702, (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2014) (affirming denial of anti-SLAPP motion brought against client).
T&S Enterprises v. Sumitomo Corp. of America, 2011 WL 1768770 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) (remanding removal by opponent), 2011 WL 5085569 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011) (denying opponent’s motion to dismiss after case was later properly removed).
LECTURES, ARTICLES, AND MEDIA APPEARANCES
Panelist at the Association of Business Trial Lawyers' annual all-chapter retreat in Maui, HI, October 2016. The panel discussed "Effective Presentation and Use of Technology in the Court Room" and also included Hon. Beverly O'Connell (U.S. Dist. Judge, C.D. Cal.), Hon. Patricia A. Lucas (California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara), noted white collar criminal defense lawyer Christina Arguedas, and well-known graphics and jury consultants (Jim Gripp and Ron Beaton, respectively). Hundreds of California's most prominent business trial lawyers, and numerous state and federal trial court and appellate judges, attended the retreat.
Trying a Case in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Report of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Diego Chapter, Vol MMXXV, No. 1 (March 2025). See link here.
Taking Depositions in Japan, Report of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Diego Chapter, Vol XX, No. 1 (Spring 2013). See link here.
In-studio panelist on KPBS’s These Days discussing proposed reforms to federal class action rules and procedures.
Interviewed by California Lawyer magazine concerning perceived abuses of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.