Hicks/Park v. Park CA2/5

Filed 3/18/13 Hicks/Park v. Park CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

HICKS/PARK LLP et al., B237526

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC458632) v.

GARY W. PARK et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Stephen J. Kleifield, Judge. Affirmed. Hicks/Gaumer, James B. Hicks, and Christie Gaumer for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Law Office of Steven R. Lovett, Steven R. Lovett for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs James Hicks, an attorney (Hicks), and Hicks/Park LLP (HP) sued Hicks‟s former law partner in HP, Gary Park (Park); Park‟s wife; HP‟s chief financial officer, Casey Park; and others for various causes of action related to the alleged conversion of funds from Hicks‟ and Park‟s law practice. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from transferring funds and other assets pending trial to prevent fraudulent transfers of significant partnership assets during the pendency of the litigation. The trial court denied preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs appeal from that denial.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed an action against Park, Park‟s wife, Park‟s relatives, and other entities in which the Parks allegedly had an interest. Plaintiffs alleged that Hicks and Park established the HP law firm in which Hicks had a 60 percent ownership interest and Park a 40 percent ownership interest, although they later agreed to split the profits evenly. They opened an office at 824 Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, an office building owned by Park‟s family members. Casey Park acted as the office manager. According to plaintiffs, Park and Casey Park “began embezzling money” from HP. Hick suffered a stroke. Park prepared to start his own law firm and diverted clients and assets from HP. Plaintiff Hicks and HP sought up to $5,000,000 in damages and punitive damages and alleged the following causes of action: Hicks against Park and Casey Park for conversion, fraud against Park and Casey Park for breach of contract, undue influence, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; both plaintiffs against Park for breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs sought a constructive trust, accounting and injunctive relief against all the defendants.