Skip to main content
Daniel Rasmussen is an experienced business trial lawyer who represents clients in every aspect of litigation, providing strategic counsel on pre-trial tactics, approach to trial, and any subsequent appeals.
An effective advocate, his many successes include disputes decided by juries, justices, judges, magistrates, arbitrators, and administrative bodies.
Dan also serves as the outside General Counsel of a large construction company and its affiliates. In that role, he provides strategic advice as a member of the Executive Committee, counsels with human resources activities and labor compliance, drafts contracts and policies, and supervises construction litigation, arbitration and bid protests.
Background
Dan took a three-year leave from the practice of law from July 2015 to July 2018 to serve as the Mission President of the Peru Piura Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among his many responsibilities were the care and direction of 483 young men and women (ages 18 to 25) and support of local Peruvian church leaders. He and his spouse, Shauna, were involved in many humanitarian endeavors, including the drilling of freshwater wells in rural communities, delivery of school desks and supplies, providing equipment and training to local hospitals, disaster relief following flooding and training and delivery of equipment to combat mosquito-borne diseases. Dan served as the firm’s Managing Partner from 2007 through 2010. He speaks, reads, and writes fluently in Spanish.
Representative Matters
- Allergan USA, Inc. v. Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., case number 8:17-cv-01551, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, before the Honorable David Carter. In a jury trial which concluded May 16, 2019, Dan represented the defendant, a compounding pharmacy, in its defense of efforts by a pharmaceutical giant to put it out of business. The plaintiff argued that our client had violated the Lanham Act and other laws by making false statements in its product advertisements. It sought more than $7 million in direct damages and additional millions of disgorged profits. The federal jury returned a verdict in Imprimis’ favor, awarding Allergan only $48,500.00 on its damages claim and none of Imprimis’ profits.
- Baughman v. Disney, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (2013). Dan, with other attorneys from Payne & Fears, 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 Unruh Act and California Disabled Persons Act.
- Surrey v. True Beginnings LLC, 168 Cal. App. 4th 414 (2008). Dan prevailed at both the trial court and appellate level on the question of whether the plaintiff had the standing to pursue discrimination claims against a Texas-based company that 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). Dan 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, Dan and his team 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.
- Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, 169 Cal. App. 4th 523 (2008). Dan 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. 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). Dan led an appellate team that secured the first published decision allowing a hospital to sue a healthcare 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.