Grant Cardone Lawsuit, Pino v. Cardone Capital Class Action Update, Investor Rights and Trial Date

The Grant Cardone lawsuit that investors keep searching for is Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC, a federal securities class action over two real estate funds, Cardone Equity Fund V and Cardone Equity Fund VI. It is still active. The case has not settled, no judge has ruled on the merits, and no jury has decided anything. A federal judge certified the investor class on March 27, 2026, the Ninth Circuit refused to take an early appeal of that ruling, and the parties are now fighting over summary judgment ahead of a trial date currently listed as March 9, 2027.

If you bought into Fund V or Fund VI through the public offerings, you may already be a class member. The opt-out deadline (July 14, 2026) has passed, and there is no settlement claim form to file today. The defendants deny the allegations.

Grant Cardone Lawsuit Quick Facts (As of November 13, 2026)

Detail	Status
Case name	Christine Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC, Grant Cardone, Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC and Cardone Equity Fund VI, LLC
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case number	2:20-cv-08499-JFW-KS
Judge	John F. Walter
Lead plaintiff	Christine Pino (substituted after the death of original plaintiff Luis Pino)
Class counsel	Susman Godfrey LLP
Claims	Securities Act of 1933, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15
Filed	September 2020
Class certified	March 27, 2026
Appeal of certification	Ninth Circuit denied permission on June 1, 2026
Opt-out deadline	July 14, 2026 (expired)
Current stage	Summary-judgment motions filed October 2026; hearing dates reported as reset
Trial date	March 9, 2027, per the class administrator (subject to court changes)
Settlement or payout	None announced or approved
Official class website	CardoneClassAction.com

What Is the Latest News in the Pino v. Cardone Capital Case?

The newest development is that the case has moved into summary judgment. Federal docket indexes show summary-judgment filings on October 19 and 20, 2026, followed by supporting and opposing papers into early November. A docket entry on November 9 reportedly dealt with resetting hearings, and one docket summary points to a hearing continuing into December 2026. Because the dates keep moving, check the live docket on PACER before relying on any specific hearing date.

Summary judgment is a request that the judge decide some or all claims without a trial. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may do that only if there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judge can deny the motions, grant them in part, or narrow the issues left for the jury.

As of November 13, 2026, I could not verify any order granting summary judgment to either side. The full text of the newest motions and the November 9 entry was not independently reviewed, so treat the scheduling details as unconfirmed until you see the court’s own order.

Why Is Grant Cardone Being Sued by Fund V and Fund VI Investors?

Investors allege that Grant Cardone and Cardone Capital misled people who bought into the two funds. The funds pooled money to buy apartment properties, and the offerings were promoted to the public, including on YouTube and Instagram. The Ninth Circuit’s 2025 opinion describes the defendants as offering these investments to unaccredited investors.

The complaint focuses on three things.

1. Cardone’s alleged 15% return promises

Plaintiffs say Cardone told audiences the funds could deliver returns above 15% a year after fees, along with annual cash distributions of roughly 6% to 8% and the chance to double or triple an investment. They allege he did not genuinely believe those projections.

A projection that misses is not automatically fraud. The legal question is whether the statement was materially misleading when it was made.

2. The July 2018 SEC comment letter

According to the Ninth Circuit, SEC staff told the Fund V offering team in July 2018 to remove projected returns from the offering materials because they lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiffs allege Cardone kept promoting similar or higher numbers on social media without telling investors about that letter.

An SEC comment letter is part of the routine review of offering documents. It is not a charge, a finding of fraud, or an enforcement action. Its role in this case is evidence of what Cardone allegedly knew.

3. Statements about who stood behind the funds’ debt

The lawsuit also challenges statements that investors say suggested Grant Cardone personally stood behind the funds’ debt. Plaintiffs argue this could mislead investors about their real exposure. Whether debt is recourse or nonrecourse, and who bears losses, are separate questions, and the court has to read each statement in context.

What Is Cardone’s Defense in the Pino Class Action?

Cardone, Cardone Capital and the two funds deny the allegations. According to the court-authorized class notice, they say the funds disclosed risks and benefits, performed as expected, and paid investors meaningful distributions, with more proceeds possible when properties are sold. They also dispute that investors suffered recoverable losses and argue that some investors may be better off keeping their fund interests than seeking rescission.

None of those competing positions has been decided by a court.

How Did the Pino v. Cardone Capital Case Get Here? Timeline

Date	Event
September 2020	Luis Pino files the original lawsuit
Late 2022	First Ninth Circuit reversal: a mass social-media promotion can make a promoter a statutory “seller” (Pino v. Cardone Capital, 55 F.4th 1253)
October 2023	District court dismisses the complaint again
June 10, 2025	Second Ninth Circuit reversal (No. 23-3512): allegations about opinion statements, the SEC letter and debt statements are enough to proceed
March 27, 2026	Judge Walter certifies the investor class
April 2026	Defendants ask the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal certification
May 15, 2026	Judge denies defense request to send buyout offers to class members
June 1, 2026	Ninth Circuit denies permission to appeal certification
July 14, 2026	Opt-out deadline passes
October 2026	Summary-judgment motions filed
March 9, 2027	Trial date listed by the class administrator

Why Did the Ninth Circuit Revive the Cardone Lawsuit Twice?

The district court dismissed the case more than once, and the Ninth Circuit reversed twice.

In the first appeal (2022), the court held that Pino plausibly alleged Grant Cardone and Cardone Capital were statutory sellers. That matters because Section 12(a)(2) liability only reaches a “seller,” and the Supreme Court’s decision in Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 (1988), says a seller includes someone who solicits a purchase, motivated at least in part by their own financial interest. The Ninth Circuit found that a broad social-media pitch can qualify.

In the second appeal (June 10, 2025), the court addressed opinion statements under Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015). Under Omnicare, an opinion can be actionable if the speaker did not actually hold the belief, if it contains an embedded false fact, or if it omits facts that make it misleading. The court found the complaint adequately alleged that Cardone made statements he did not subjectively believe and left out material facts about the SEC letter.

A reversal means the allegations were enough to go forward. It does not mean they were proven.

What Does Class Certification Mean for Cardone Equity Fund V and VI Investors?

On March 27, 2026, Judge Walter certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), named Christine Pino as class representative, and appointed Susman Godfrey LLP as class counsel. Certification lets the claims proceed together instead of requiring thousands of separate lawsuits.

Certification is not a finding that Cardone did anything wrong, and it does not promise anyone money.

The defendants then asked the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal under Rule 23(f), which lets a court of appeals take an interlocutory appeal of a certification order in its discretion. The petition was reported under Ninth Circuit No. 26-2252 and was denied on June 1, 2026. That denial was not a ruling on whether Cardone committed securities fraud.

Who Is in the Cardone Capital Class Action?

Per the court-authorized notice, the class covers people and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired interests in Cardone Equity Fund V or Cardone Equity Fund VI through their public offerings. It excludes the defendants, their directors, officers, employees and agents, and anyone who validly opted out.

• Invested in a different Cardone fund? Not automatically covered. The certified class is limited to Funds V and VI.
• Bought a Cardone course or event? Not covered. This is an investor case.
• Already sold your interest? The definition turns on acquiring interests in the offerings, not on holding them today. What you could recover may differ, so ask class counsel or your own securities attorney.
• Not sure which fund you own? Check your subscription agreement and account statements, then confirm with the administrator.

What Happens if You Do Nothing or Missed the July 14, 2026 Opt-Out Deadline?

The class is already certified, so covered investors generally do not need to sign up. Investors who did not opt out are bound by the court’s orders and final judgment on the class claims, win or lose, and give up the right to sue separately over the same claims. Investors who validly opted out keep the right to pursue their own case at their own expense.

The notice says ordinary class members do not pay class counsel’s litigation costs if the case fails. If the class eventually wins relief or settles, the court-approved process would tell eligible investors what to do. Anyone who believes they got inadequate notice should talk to class counsel or an independent attorney rather than assume the deadline can be reopened.

Could Fund V and VI Investors Have to Give Up Their Shares to Get Money?

Possibly. Section 12(a)(2) is a rescission-style remedy. Under 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2), a successful buyer can recover the consideration paid, with interest, less income received, upon tender of the security, or damages if they no longer own it.

The class notice says investors are not forced to give up their interests because of the lawsuit. It also explains that if the plaintiffs win, investors seeking this relief would need to tender their fund interests. For someone who still holds shares and wants a share of future sale proceeds, that is a real decision.

There is also a statutory defense to know about. Under 15 U.S.C. § 77l(b), a defendant can reduce or defeat recovery by proving that some or all of the decline in value came from something other than the alleged misstatement. Defendants also have the reasonable-care defense built into Section 12(a)(2) itself.

No verified settlement formula or per-investor amount exists. Do not assume a 15% projection equals a 15% recovery.

What Federal Laws Apply to the Grant Cardone Securities Lawsuit?

• Section 12(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2). Creates liability for sellers who offer or sell securities by means of a prospectus or oral communication containing a material misstatement or omission, unless the seller proves they did not know and, with reasonable care, could not have known of it.
• Section 12(b), 15 U.S.C. § 77l(b). The loss-causation defense described above.
• Section 13, 15 U.S.C. § 77m. Time limits: one year from discovery of the misstatement and three years from the offering or sale. The three-year period is a repose period, and the Supreme Court held in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. (2017) that it is not extended by class-action tolling. This is why investors who opted out, or who bought long ago, should get individual legal advice quickly.
• Section 15, 15 U.S.C. § 77o. Control-person liability, which is the basis for claims against Grant Cardone and Cardone Capital for controlling the entities liable under Section 12.
• Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Governs certification, notice to class members (Rule 23(c)(2)), the binding effect of judgment (Rule 23(c)(3)), interlocutory appeals (Rule 23(f)) and court approval of any class settlement (Rule 23(e)).
• Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Governs the summary-judgment motions now pending.

The notice describes claims under the Securities Act of 1933, not a Rule 10b-5 case under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. That affects what plaintiffs must prove and which remedies are available. For a contrast, see our coverage of the NVIDIA Class Action Lawsuit, Jensen Huang Investor Case, January 8 Deadline, and Every Other NVIDIA Class Action Explained.

Did the Judge Block Cardone From Making Buyout Offers to Investors?

On May 15, 2026, Judge Walter denied a defense request for permission to send proposed buyout offers to class members. That was a ruling about communications with class members after certification, not a finding that any offer was fraudulent. Later court papers also show a dispute over proposed corrective notices tied to investor communications, but I could not confirm how that motion was resolved.

If you receive an offer for your Fund V or VI interest, read the terms and ask whether accepting it affects your rights in the class action before you sign.

How Much Could Investors Receive From the Cardone Capital Lawsuit?

No one can say yet. There is no settlement fund, no court-approved payout formula, and no claims process. Any recovery would depend on the outcome of summary judgment, trial or settlement, what each investor paid, distributions already received, and whether the investor still holds the interest. A class settlement would also need court approval under Rule 23(e). For an example of how a finished securities settlement works, see $2.3M Sun Communities Securities Class Action Settlement, Do You Qualify for a Payment? File Your Claim by July 1. It is a different case with different eligibility rules.

What Should Cardone Equity Fund V and VI Investors Do Now?

1. Confirm which fund you invested in using your subscription agreement and statements.
2. Keep your investment paperwork, distribution records and any posts, videos or messages that influenced your decision.
3. Use only the court-authorized website, CardoneClassAction.com, for notices and updates. Ignore ads or messages promising an instant payout.
4. Get independent legal advice before accepting any buyout offer.
5. Watch for rulings on the summary-judgment motions and any change to the trial date.

Does Grant Cardone Face Other Lawsuits?

Yes, but they are separate from the investor class action and are not connected to Fund V or Fund VI.

• Howell v. Cardone (Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 25-024299-CA-01): Chealse Sophia Howell filed a defamation and tortious interference suit on December 11, 2025, seeking $500 million. The dispute grew out of a landlord-tenant disagreement. Cardone has publicly said the suit is a deflection from the eviction case.
• Robb v. Cardone (Florida, Case No. 2026-CA-180): Former Cardone Capital chief marketing officer Brian H. Robb sued in May 2026 for defamation, seeking more than $1 billion, and alleges retaliation after reporting suspected fraud.

No court has found Cardone or Cardone Capital liable in either matter, and the allegations are unproven.

What Happens Next in the Grant Cardone Class Action?

The next step is a ruling on the summary-judgment motions. The judge could deny them, grant them in part, or narrow what goes to the jury. After that, the case either settles, goes to trial, or ends in a ruling that disposes of the claims. Any settlement would require notice to the class and court approval before money is paid.

Grant Cardone Lawsuit FAQ

Is Grant Cardone being sued by investors?

Yes. A certified class of Cardone Equity Fund V and VI investors is suing Grant Cardone, Cardone Capital and the two funds. The allegations are unproven.

Did Grant Cardone lose the Pino lawsuit?

No. I could not verify any final judgment as of November 13, 2026.

Is the Cardone class action certified?

Yes. Judge John F. Walter certified it on March 27, 2026.

Why did the Ninth Circuit revive the Cardone case?

It found the complaint adequately alleged that Cardone was a statutory seller, made opinion statements he did not believe, and omitted material facts about the 2018 SEC letter. That is a ruling on pleading, not proof.

Can I still join the Grant Cardone lawsuit?

If you bought Fund V or VI interests in the public offerings and did not opt out, you are generally already in the class. The opt-out deadline was July 14, 2026.

Is there a Grant Cardone settlement claim form?

No. No settlement has been announced or approved.

Did the SEC charge Grant Cardone?

The 2018 SEC comment letter was not an enforcement action, and I found no SEC or criminal case against Cardone tied to these claims.

When is the Grant Cardone trial?

The class administrator lists March 9, 2027. The court can change it.

Bottom Line

The Pino case is the most significant investor litigation involving Grant Cardone. It has survived two dismissals, won class certification, and is now at summary judgment. But certification is not a finding of fraud, and investors have no settlement to claim. If you held Fund V or VI, protect your records, use the official site, and get independent advice before making any decision about your investment.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Ninth Circuit opinions in Pino v. Cardone Capital (2022 and June 10, 2025), the court-authorized class notice at CardoneClassAction.com, the Central District of California docket for No. 2:20-cv-08499, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 77l, 77m and 77o, as of November 13, 2026. Last Updated: November 13, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Primary Sources

• Official class action website and notice
• Ninth Circuit opinion, June 10, 2025 (No. 23-3512)
• Ninth Circuit docket, No. 23-3512
• 15 U.S.C. § 77l
• 15 U.S.C. § 77o
• PACER (C.D. Cal.)

Originally published August 6, 2026. Updated November 13, 2026.