Representative Clients and Industries

• Secured favorable settlement for MGM Studios in a class action arising out of the sale of its widescreen DVDs
• Secured a favorable settlement for MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay in a class action challenging their event ticket processing fees
• Secured a favorable settlement for Crown Media Holdings, the owner and operator of the Hallmark Channel, in a copyright infringement action, including obtaining insurance coverage for such settlement and litigation costs from the production company’s insurer
• Secured dismissal of action brought against the City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power by its unions after filing a motion for summary judgment
• Secured favorable settlement of action brought against City of Los Angeles Harbor Dept. by Kajima Engineering and Construction, Inc, arising out of the construction of the Badger Avenue Bridge in the Port of Los Angeles, including writing the winning appellate brief in Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921.
• Secured favorable settlement for the County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”) in over 20 cases arising out of the construction of three Metro Rail stations

Park LLP is a full-service law firm emphasizing business litigation, real estate, contracts, labor and employment matters, entertainment litigation, intellectual property disputes, and corporate transactions.

The Firm’s lawyers are well respected in the legal profession and have built excellent reputations in the business community. We have one goal: deliver results. Whether it’s prevailing at trial, negotiating favorable settlements, or strategically structuring deals, the firm constantly strives to provide the best results for our clients. Over the years, our clients repeatedly thank us for those results.

Daniel E. Park is a trial lawyer with extensive litigation and trial experience. They practiced at some of the top firms in Southern California and have a wide range of expertise. While practicing at major firms for the past 20 years, Mr. Park has obtained significant jury verdicts and favorable settlements for individuals, mid-sized businesses, and Fortune 500 companies.

The Firm’s lawyers bring top credentials, and many have previously worked at large law firms. The lawyers hail from top universities and law schools such as Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC. The Firm is committed to providing top-level client service. We deliver results.

$2.75 Million Verdict Awarded in Favor of Business Owner.

The Firm represents numerous small businesses and small business owners involved in civil litigation. The Firm most recently concluded a month-long jury trial involving a dispute over ownership of a well-established company in Orange County, California.

The Firm litigated the case up to and through trial, successfully defending against numerous dispositive motions and effectively presenting its client’s case to the jury. After two days of deliberation, the jury awarded the Firm’s client a total amount of damages of $2,750,996.00. The jury also awarded punitive damages against the defendants in this case.

Specific Performance Granted for $1.9 Million Real Property Transaction in Favor of Buyer Against Seller.

The Firm represents buyers and sellers in real estate transactions and, in particular, litigation pertaining to such real estate transactions.

The Firm, for instance, won a bench trial in Los Angeles County, California, and obtained a specific performance judgment of a $1.9 million commercial property transaction in favor of the Firm’s client and against the seller. The seller was wrongfully blocking the closing of escrow.

After trial, the judge awarded a judgment of specific performance, ordering the seller to close escrow in accordance with the parties’ written purchase and sale agreement. The Firm also obtained a monetary judgment for more than $500,000, including attorney’s fees, against the seller.

Defense Verdict in Case Brought by Large Accounting Firm against Former Employee.

The Firm secured a defense verdict in a week-long jury trial in San Diego County, California. The case was brought by a large, well-known accounting firm, represented by one of the largest law firms in the world.

The accounting firm asserted several claims, including breach of loyalty and misappropriation of trade secrets, against a former employee who had left the firm and started his accounting firm.

The plaintiff sought close to $2 million in damages against the former employee and his new firm. After a lengthy jury trial and deliberation period, the jury returned with a defense verdict on all claims.

Settlement of Three High-Profile Labor and Employment Disputes.

The Firm successfully represented a private educational institution in three civil actions against the establishment brought by former employees and students, alleging harassment, discrimination, and wage and hour violations, among other claims. The total damages sought by the plaintiffs were more than $1 million.

The Firm effectively defended against the claims against its client, resulting in settlement of all three matters.

Multiple Defense Judgments in Cases Brought by Disgruntled Elders Against a Church and its Pastors.

The Firm represents a number of pastors and Churches in various litigation. The Firm has successfully achieved defense judgments in multiple cases brought against the Church and its pastors for one Church. The cases were brought by elders of the Church seeking to affirm or dispute various actions taken in accordance with the Church’s bylaws. The Firm successfully defended against the elders’ various claims. The Firm also successfully defended against appeals of the judgments entered favor of the Church and its pastors.

Top Korean Entertainer “Rain” Sued… http://parklawcorp.com/uncategorized/top-korean-entertainer-rain-sued/ Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:00:25 +0000 http://danparklawgroup.com/?p=223

On Monday, March 10, 2009, A Los Angeles concert promoter filed a $30,000,000 lawsuit against the Korean singer Rain. The suit alleges that Rain and his management team deliberately sabotaged the highly-anticipated concert at the Los Angeles Staples Center in June 2007.

Rain is considered the most famous singing artist in Asia. By 2005, his albums topped the charts in South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia. His starring role on TV became one of the highest-rated Korean television series of all time, with over 30% viewership for each episode. His performance won him the Best Actor Award in 2005.

In the U.S., Time Magazine voted him the 2nd most influential artist in the world in 2006. In 2007, Rain was voted Number 1 on Time Magazine’s Most Influential People online poll, outranking notables such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, and Warren Buffet. He also appeared in the U.S. movie “Speed Racer.” Riding the wave of his tremendous popularity, he attempted to be the first Korean singer to “crossover” to the United States.

The concert cancellation was highly publicized and shocking to many fans since many had come from around the world and other states to see Rain perform in Los Angeles. The show was canceled for merely 2 hours on the concert day. In the lawsuit, Kim alleges that he spent over a million dollars of his money. As a result of the cancellation, Kim alleges that he suffered embarrassment and harm to his ongoing businesses.

“My client’s life was turned upside down due to the cancellation,” says Kim’s lawyer Daniel Park of Lurie & Park LLP. “He was an innocent victim caught between the gamesmanship that was engaged in by Rain, his management team, and Staples Center.” The lawsuit alleges that the motive behind the cancellation was to artificially spike Star M’s stock price on speculation that Star M would sign Rain for one more year or renegotiate the existing contract.

Kim alleges that Star M’s executives promptly dumped the shares once the news broke. “They made millions by doing this,” says Kim. “They didn’t care that they ruined my reputation and, frankly, my life for the past couple of years.”

Park hopes that Kim will receive vindication from the court. “Ultimately, it will be up to 12 jurors to determine who was at fault for the cancellation. I am confident that justice will prevail in the end.”

By Chris Lee, It’s hardly the triumphant return to the United States that South Korean pop superstar Rain had hoped for. The popular singer-actor dubbed the “Justin Timberlake of Asia” arrived in Hawaii on Monday facing two lawsuits stemming from canceling dates on his 2006-07 North American Rain’s Coming tour. The singer faces legal action in Honolulu and L.A. after canceled concerts and his breakout tour fizzled. Rain’s legal troubles follow his attempts to break into the U.S. market and build the kind of loyal fan base here that has eluded other Asian performers.

On Monday, the soft-spoken Korean Heartthrob, 26, appeared in federal court in Honolulu to answer a civil suit filed after canceling a concert at Hawaii’s Aloha Stadium three days before his scheduled appearance. On Wednesday, Seung Su Lee, president of Hawaiian concert promoter Click Entertainment, testified that Rain and his former management agency, JYP Entertainment, had breached their contract, defrauded his company, and damaged its reputation. The promoter says he lost $1.5 million because of the singer’s no-show. Last week, in Los Angeles, the promoter of Rain’s June 2007 concert at Staples Center — canceled just two hours before curtain time — filed a complaint in Superior Court suing Rain and his management team for $30 million, plus punitive damages. Promoter Andrew Kim accused Rain, his current management firm, J. Tune; JYP; and the singer’s South Korean event coordinator, Star M, of breach of contract and fraud. “He pretty much put me through hell for the last two years,” Kim said. “Rain caused me a lot of harm in the entertainment industry and caused a lot of repercussions from the cancellation. I want vindication.”

Kim alleges that Rain and JYP failed to disclose a trademark infringement lawsuit filed against the singer in Nevada in February 2007 over the use of the name Rain (a direct translation of the singer’s Korean nickname, “Bi”), which had already been trademarked by a Beatles cover band. The lawsuit threw into question Kim’s ability to promote the concert using the singer’s stage name. Sunwoo Lee, the lead attorney for Rain and JYP, called both lawsuits baseless and expressed confidence they would be dismissed. “These allegations are wrong,” Lee said. “These people are trying to take advantage of Rain’s fame. They’re finger-pointing their failures at Rain.” Things weren’t always this way. In early 2007, Rain appeared poised to take the U.S. by storm after a successful engagement in Las Vegas. A television superstar in Asia, he had also been cast in a supporting role in the Wachowski brothers’ anime-inspired “Speed Racer.” But by any yardstick, the Rain’s Coming tour was a fiasco. Performances in San Francisco, New York, and Atlanta were also canceled. According to Kim’s company, V2B Global, nearly 80% of Staples Center’s 9,429 seats had been sold, with fans flying in from as far away as Hong Kong, Seoul, and Tokyo. The company offered full refunds to ticket holders. Rain’s attorney disputed the allegation that his client had deliberately sabotaged the Los Angeles performance. “He was preparing for a concert and did his best,” Lee said. “He was in good condition to perform, and these other guys weren’t ready. They lost money, and now they’re trying to get the scoop on Rain. I’m confident they don’t have any case.” Process servers and law enforcement personnel delivered Kim’s complaint to Rain on Monday as he emerged from an elevator during his first day of trial in Honolulu. “Rain opened the papers and saw it was a lawsuit,” said Kim’s attorney, Daniel E. Park of the Brentwood firm Park Law Corp. “He chucked it on the floor and stormed out.”

Park successfully obtains reversal a lower court decision regarding alter ego matter: http://parklawcorp.com/uncategorized/lurie-park-successfully-obtains-reversal-a-lower-court-decision-regarding-alter-ego-matter

 In a significant victory for the rights of creditors to pursue alter ego claims, Lurie & Park successfully obtained a complete reversal of a lower court decision which refused to consider evidence of alter ego evidence. The Court of Appeals, in its recent decision of Ballardo v. D’Arco, B224203 on July 29, 2011, determined that the lower court erred in not considering the substantial evidence which Lurie & Park had presented on behalf of its client under CCP Sec. 187 that appellee D’Arco was an alter ego of a corporate judgment debtor.  The lower court had insisted that courts should only consider such a  matter through a separate new complaint. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, noting that CCP Sec. 187 required the lower court to consider alter ego evidence per a Motion under CCP Sec. 187 in the interests of fairness and justice, as well as efficiency.  The Court of Appeals certified its decision for publication, thus clarifying existing law on alter ego matters.  Judgment creditors can now have a solid legal basis to pursue alter ego liability pursuant to an efficient and straightforward post-judgment motion, as opposed to a costly separate trial that might otherwise take an additional year. The Court of Appeals also rejected the appellee’s argument that a judgment creditor must first have alleged fraud in the original complaint. Finally, the Court of Appeals also rejected the appellee’s argument that because the lower court had not made a specific finding of fraud against the appellee, this somehow precluded a separate finding of alter ego.  Though often related, such one does not require a finding of the other.