Paul A. Reynolds

Paul A. Reynolds

recognized lawyers icon Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2021
Awarded Practice Areas
Commercial Litigation
Awarded Practice Areas
Commercial Litigation
Paul A. Reynolds
Paul A. Reynolds
San Diego, CA
Works at
Shustak Reynolds & Partners PC

4 Best Lawyers awards

Shustak Reynolds & Partners PC logo

Biography

Paul Reynolds is a Partner in the San Diego, California office of Shustak Reynolds & Partners PC. His practice focuses on commercial litigation, securities litigation, and complex business disputes. For more than 25 years, he has represented businesses, investors, and individuals in high-stakes matters in courts and arbitration forums across the United States.

Mr. Reynolds maintains a nationwide practice, including substantial work in California, Delaware, and New York. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal trial courts, appellate courts, and arbitration proceedings involving securities matters, shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, and other complex commercial litigation issues.

At the trial level, Mr. Reynolds has tried and arbitrated complex securities and business cases in courts and arbitration forums throughout the country. Many of these matters have involved significant financial stakes, including disputes with amounts in controversy reaching into nine figures. His work has included proceedings before courts such as the Delaware Court of Chancery, as well as numerous favorable results through motion practice, negotiated resolutions, and arbitration awards.

Mr. Reynolds has also handled significant appellate matters involving corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities-related issues. He was the primary author of the prevailing parties’ briefs in the California Supreme Court case Grossett v. Wenaas, 42 Cal. 4th 1100 (2008), a widely cited decision addressing shareholder derivative standing. In Swortwood v. Tenedora de Empresas, S.A. de C.V., 2014 WL 1664480 (9th Cir. April 28, 2014), he obtained reversal of a preliminary injunction from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an expedited interlocutory appeal involving an issue of Delaware law concerning the rights and obligations of majority shareholders and preferred shareholders.

Before joining Shustak Reynolds & Partners PC, Mr. Reynolds was a partner at DLA Piper and its predecessor firm, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, which for many years was among San Diego’s largest law firms. During that time, he worked closely with experienced litigators in the San Diego legal community, several of whom later served as federal or state court judges.

Works at
Shustak Reynolds & Partners PC

4 Best Lawyers awards

Shustak Reynolds & Partners PC logo

Locations

Education

  • The University of Arizona, B.A.
  • California Western School of Law, J.D., graduated 1995

Bar Admissions

  • California, The State Bar of California

Affiliations

  • American Inns of Court, Chapter No. 9, Louis M. Welsh Chapter - Member
  • Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Diego Chapter - Immediate Past President, 2024, President, 2023, Vice-President, 2022, Treasurer, 2020-2021, Board of Governors member, 2016-present
  • Federal Bar Association - Member
  • San Diego County Bar Association - Member

Client Testimonials

Awards & Focus

Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026 for work in:
  • Commercial Litigation
Additional Areas of Practice:
  • Banking and Finance Law
  • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
  • Litigation - Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy)
  • Litigation - Securities
  • Securities / Capital Markets Law
  • Securities Regulation
Awards:
  • Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America.

  • Martindale-Hubbell (AV-rated; highest possible rating).

  • Super Lawyers (Business Litigation and Securities Litigation).

Additional Information

  • Lectures, Articles, and Media
  • Panelist at the Association of Business Trial Lawyers’ annual all-chapter retreat in Napa, CA, October 2024. The program addressed current issues in arbitration, including questions involving third‑party discovery. Other panelists included Hon. Suzanne Segal (Ret.), Hon. Linda Marks (Ret.), and California Court of Appeal Justice Ioana Petrou. The retreat was attended by business trial attorneys from across California as well as numerous state and federal trial and appellate judges.
  • Panelist at the Association of Business Trial Lawyers’ annual all-chapter retreat in Maui, HI, October 2016. The presentation focused on “Effective Presentation and Use of Technology in the Courtroom.” Fellow panelists included Hon. Beverly O’Connell (U.S. Dist. Judge, C.D. Cal.), Hon. Patricia A. Lucas (California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara), Christina Arguedas, and graphics and jury consultants Jim Gripp and Ron Beaton. The retreat brought together business trial attorneys from across California along with members of the state and federal judiciary.
  • 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 regarding issues and commentary related to California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
  • 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 an amended complaint).
  • Barack v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 2017 WL 4023141 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017) (denying opponent’s motion to dismiss legal malpractice claim arising from an M&A transaction).
  • Keating v. Jastremski, 2016 WL 5338072 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) (denying summary judgment in trade secret misappropriation litigation involving the “Protocol for Broker Recruitment”).
  • Campos v. Failla, et al., 2016 WL 1241545 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (dismissing civil RICO claim against clients without leave to amend).
  • Swortwood v. Tenedora de Empresas, S.A. de C.V., 2014 WL 1664480 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2014) (reversing preliminary injunction issued against client on interlocutory appeal involving Delaware law on majority shareholder rights); 2014 WL 895456 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) (addressing attorney-client privilege issues under Delaware and California law); 2014 WL 12026069 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014) (clarifying prior order regarding reconsideration); 2014 WL 12026070 (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (denying second motion for preliminary injunction); 2014 WL 12035869 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2014) (denying reconsideration of second preliminary injunction motion); 2014 WL 3388867 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2014) (denying in part motion for leave to amend complaint); 2014 WL 12026068 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014) (denying 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 case following removal by opponent); 2011 WL 5085569 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss after case was later properly removed).
  • National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corp., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (recognizing associational standing for franchisee association).
  • Schutte & Koerting, Inc. v. Swett & Crawford, 298 Fed. Appx. 613 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming summary judgment granted to client).
  • Grossett v. Wenaas, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), dismissing shareholder derivative claim for lack of standing, aff’d, 42 Cal. 4th 1100 (2008) (California Supreme Court decision addressing the “continuous ownership rule” in derivative actions).
  • Osher v. JNI Corp., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing complaint); 302 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing complaint); 308 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (dismissing complaint with prejudice), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2006 WL 1307902 (9th Cir. May 12, 2006) (affirming dismissal and remanding for analysis regarding leave to amend); Slip Op. (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2006) (reaffirming denial of leave to amend).
  • In re REMEC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (dismissing complaint); 4156 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (dismissing complaint).
  • In re NextCard, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2003 WL 23142199 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2003); 2006 WL 708663 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2006).
  • ASI Acquisition, LLC v. Rayman, 2002 WL 335311 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2002); Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So. 2d 355 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).
  • Miller v. NTN Communications, Inc., 1999 WL 817217 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 1999).

Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.

Please use the print button to print this profile page.

Spinning circle Big letter B