Payne&Fears

Tel: 949.797.1250
Fax: 949.851.1212
dlr@paynefears.com

Daniel L. Rasmussen is the managing partner of Payne & Fears LLP.

Mr. Rasmussen’s expertise is in business litigation and appellate law. He has extensive experience in real property, product liability, contract law, commercial law, corporations, fiduciary relations, unfair competition and business torts.

Mr. Rasmussen is an experienced trial lawyer who advises clients in every aspect of litigation, providing strategic counsel on pre-trial tactics, approach to trial and any subsequent appeals.

Representative Matters/Areas of Concentration

Mr. Rasmussen’s representative matters include:

Baughman v. Disney, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (CD Cal. 2010).  Mr. Rasmussen, with other attorneys from Payne & Fears LLP, successfully defended the firm's client against allegations that its policy prohibiting two-wheeled vehicles from entering its theme park was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Surrey v. True Beginnings LLC, 168 Cal. App. 4th 414 (2008).  Mr. Rasmussen and Julie Bisceglia prevailed at both the trial court and appellate level on the question of whether the plaintiff had standing to pursue discrimination claims against a Texas-based company which provides online dating services to its clients both nationally and internationally.

Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage, 530 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2008).  Mr. Rasmussen won summary judgment for a New Jersey intellectual property law firm, in an action brought by a California tool distributor and its Taiwanese supplier.  The complaint alleged that the client violated federal antitrust law, the Lanham Act and state law when it brought a prior suit against the distributor and supplier for patent infringement, and sought millions in damages.  In 2005, Mr. Rasmussen and Daniel F. Lula brought a successful motion for partial summary judgment on litigation privilege grounds, which eliminated six of nine claims.  After discovery, they persuaded the federal court that the underlying patent case was supported by probable cause and protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, resulting in the dismissal of the three remaining claims against our client.  The result was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Abdali v. Owiessy, (2008).  Following a two-week trial, Mr. Rasmussen and Mark Earnest prevailed for their client.  The verdict was based on breach of both real property and equipment leases.

Nanco v. Miller, (2008).  Mr. Rasmussen successfully defended their clients in a trial held in the Orange County Superior Court.  The allegations of the Complaint included claims for Corporate Securities Law violations, professional negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, 169 Cal. App. 4th 523 (2008).  Mr. Rasmussen was retained by Corinthian Colleges to defend claims that the company’s sponsorship of a promotional giveaway of tote bags on Mothers’ Day at Angel Stadium of Anaheim violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.  Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed pursuant to a Motion for Summary Judgment prepared by Mr. Rasmussen and Julie Bisceglia.  The matter was then affirmed on appeal.

Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. UHP Healthcare, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, (Cal. App. 2 Dist. Dec 23, 2002).  Mr. Rasmussen led an appellate team which secured the first published decision allowing a hospital to sue a health care service plan or HMO directly for reimbursement for emergency and medically necessary services provided to the plan’s enrollees, even if that hospital has no contract with the plan or HMO.

Pelagalli v. Premier Laser System, et al, (2000).  In a case that involved a dispute over the ownership of valuable patent rights, the Federal District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Rasmussen’s client.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Garner, et. al, (1999).  As counsel for the defendants, Mr. Rasmussen successfully steered through complex issues surrounding the closing of a federally chartered financial institution and claims of defalcation against its officers and directors.  The five-year litigation included a successful mock trial in federal court which eventually led to a global settlement of hotly disputed claims.

Wynn Oil v. ITT Industries (1997).  As counsel for the defendant, Mr. Rasmussen obtained summary judgment in favor of the firm’s client in a case involving millions of dollars in product liability claims.  ITT was also awarded a significant portion of its attorney fees and costs in the matter.

United States v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 107 F.3d 1374, (9th Cir.(Cal.) Feb 27, 1997).  As counsel for the defendant, Mr. Rasmussen obtained for the defendant both a judgment in United States District Court and an affirmation of the judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against claims of illegal discrimination.

Brown v. Orr, (1996).  Mr. Rasmussen obtained summary judgment dismissing multi-million dollar claims of negligence, intentional interference with contractual relationships and prospective business relationships, fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional concealment, negligent misrepresentation, business disparagement, and unfair business practices against shareholders, employees and consultants of a medical device manufacturer.

Lapin v. Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. 1995).  As lead trial counsel, Mr. Rasmussen obtained jury verdict on behalf of the hospital in a case involving alleged mismanagement of funds and breach of fiduciary duty.  He also successfully defended companion probate and ERISA actions.

Anchor Electric Supply Company v. Molinaro, (1994).  Mr. Rasmussen represented Anchor Electric in a successful trial which involved the sale of a luxury yacht.

EECO, Incorporated v. Litton Systems, Inc., (1989).  Mr. Rasmussen was the second chair in a 15-day jury trial in which the jury returned a $3.3 million verdict for the client.

U.S. Aluminum Corporation/Texas v. Alumax, Inc., 831 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1987).  Mr. Rasmussen participated in the successful appeal of case involving claims of malicious prosecution of an underlying patent infringement action.

Deauville Savings & Loan Assn. v. Westwood Savings & Loan Assn., 648 F. Supp. 513 (C.D. Cal. 1986).  Mr. Rasmussen’s client benefited from a successful Motion to Dismiss.

Nutrilite Products, Inc. v. Research Industries Corporation, (1986).  Mr. Rasmussen won his first trial in Federal District Court, Los Angeles.  The matter involved breach of an option to purchase real property.