Jan Lynn Owen

Full Report

Key Points

• Subject: Jan Lynn Owen, California Commissioner of Corporations in 2010, named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Jason Shurnas.

• Legal Case: Shurnas v. Owen, a 2019 U.S. 9th Circuit Court case, where Shurnas challenged the constitutionality of California Corporations Code section 25532, related to a desist-and-refrain order issued by Owen’s office.

• Case Outcome: The 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of Shurnas’s complaint, finding section 25532 constitutional and denying Shurnas’s claim that it lacked sufficient notice for requesting a hearing.

• Role Context: Owen’s involvement stems from her official capacity as Commissioner, not personal actions. No personal allegations or misconduct are noted.

• No Consumer Feedback: As a public official, Owen has no direct consumer reviews tied to this case or her role.

• No Ongoing Issues: No additional lawsuits, financial concerns, or red flags are mentioned in the source or related web results.

Overview

Jan Lynn Owen served as the California Commissioner of Corporations in 2010, a role within the California Department of Corporations (now part of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation). As Commissioner, Owen was responsible for overseeing the regulation of financial services, securities, and corporate activities in California, including issuing desist-and-refrain orders to address violations of state securities laws. The case Shurnas v. Owen (2019) involves a legal challenge by Jason Shurnas against a desist-and-refrain order issued by Owen’s office, alleging that section 25532 of the California Corporations Code was unconstitutional for failing to provide adequate notice of hearing rights. Beyond this case, no further details about Owen’s personal background, career, or current activities are provided in the source. She appears solely in her official capacity, with no indication of private business ventures or other professional roles.

Allegations and Concerns

• Constitutional Challenge: Jason Shurnas filed a lawsuit against Owen, claiming that section 25532 of the California Corporations Code was facially unconstitutional because it did not sufficiently notify recipients of desist-and-refrain orders about the 30-day window to request a hearing. The 9th Circuit rejected this claim, citing City of W. Covina v. Perkins (1999), which states that individualized notice of state-law remedies is not required.

• No Personal Allegations: The lawsuit targeted Owen in her official capacity as Commissioner, not for personal misconduct. There are no accusations of fraud, corruption, or improper behavior by Owen.

• Procedural Due Process: Shurnas briefly raised a procedural due process challenge under Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), but this was not pursued in his opening brief, and the court did not address it. No other complaints or red flags are noted in the source or related web results.

Customer Feedback

• No Consumer Reviews Available: As a public official, Owen is not subject to consumer reviews on platforms like Yelp or Google. The case involves regulatory actions, not commercial services, so no direct customer feedback exists.

• Public Perception: The source does not mention public or stakeholder reactions to Owen’s actions or the desist-and-refrain order. The legal challenge was technical, focusing on statutory language, not Owen’s performance or conduct.

• Contextual Note: Regulatory officials like Owen typically face scrutiny through legal challenges or public audits, but no such feedback is documented here. The absence of reviews aligns with her role as a government official, not a business entity.

Risk Considerations

• Legal Risk: Owen faced no personal legal liability in Shurnas v. Owen, as the lawsuit targeted her official actions and was dismissed. However, her role as Commissioner inherently involves exposure to legal challenges from regulated entities.

• Reputational Risk: The lawsuit’s dismissal and lack of personal allegations suggest minimal reputational damage. Public records of the case may still associate Owen’s name with litigation, though this is typical for regulatory officials.

• Financial Risk: No financial risks (e.g., fines, settlements) are indicated for Owen personally. The state of California would bear any costs related to defending the lawsuit.

• Regulatory Oversight: As Commissioner, Owen’s decisions could attract further lawsuits from entities subject to desist-and-refrain orders, posing ongoing professional risks tied to her role.

Business Relations and Associations

• Professional Role: Owen was associated with the California Department of Corporations, a state agency responsible for regulating financial and securities activities. No specific partnerships or individuals are named in the case beyond Jason Shurnas, the plaintiff.

• Legal Context: The lawsuit was handled by the U.S. District Court and appealed to the 9th Circuit, with Owen represented by state legal counsel (not named in the source). Shurnas’s legal team is also not specified.

• No Private Associations: The source does not indicate any private business affiliations or personal connections for Owen. Her involvement is strictly tied to her public office.

Legal and Financial Concerns

• Lawsuit Details: In Shurnas v. Owen (2019), Jason Shurnas challenged the constitutionality of California Corporations Code section 25532, related to a desist-and-refrain order issued by Owen’s office in 2010. The district court dismissed Shurnas’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and the 9th Circuit upheld this dismissal, finding the statute constitutional. The court also denied Shurnas leave to amend, deeming further amendments futile.

• No Additional Legal Issues: No other lawsuits, complaints, or legal actions involving Owen are mentioned in the source or related web results.

• No Financial Concerns: There are no reports of unpaid debts, bankruptcy, or financial misconduct tied to Owen. The case involved no financial penalties for her or the state agency.

• Contextual Note: The case reflects standard regulatory enforcement, with desist-and-refrain orders being common tools for securities regulators. No irregularities in Owen’s actions are suggested.

Risk Assessment Table

Notes: Severity is low due to the lawsuit’s dismissal and lack of personal allegations. “Low-Medium” professional risk reflects the inherent exposure of regulatory roles to legal challenges.

Analytical Summary

Jan Lynn Owen, as California Commissioner of Corporations in 2010, was named in a lawsuit (Shurnas v. Owen, 2019) challenging the constitutionality of a state statute governing desist-and-refrain orders. The 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case, affirming that section 25532 provided adequate notice and did not violate constitutional standards. Owen’s involvement was strictly in her official capacity, with no evidence of personal misconduct or improper regulatory actions. The lack of additional lawsuits, financial issues, or public criticism suggests a clean professional record within the scope of this case. However, the absence of detailed biographical or current information limits a broader assessment of her career or activities

Cautionary Advice

Stakeholders interacting with Owen (e.g., in a professional or regulatory context) should note that her role as Commissioner involved standard enforcement actions, upheld as constitutional. There’s no evidence of personal risk or unreliability, but her regulatory decisions could attract further scrutiny from affected parties. If engaging with Owen or her former agency, verify the context of any desist-and-refrain orders or regulatory actions through official records. For historical context, consult California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation archives or court records for similar cases.