Hicks/Park

Hicks/Park v. Park CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 2013B237526California1,956 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mosk, J.

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.