Ron Park joined Friedman | Rubin to help people harmed by the wrongdoing of others. Even though we see and hear about court cases and legal proceedings every day, many of us have no idea what to do when we are injured while crossing a poorly designed street, harmed by an obstruction carelessly left on the road, or poisoned by a reckless corporation. While working for the federal courts, there were many times when Ron saw seemingly meritorious claims dismissed or defeated because of a legal technicality or because the case was not presented in the right way. Ron realized that one way he could make a difference was to represent people who have been wronged or harmed, guide them through the legal process, and make sure their claims get heard.
Today, Ron is an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of Washington, California, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He litigates cases at both the trial and appellate level in both state and federal courts and regularly works with other attorneys on cases located all over the United States. Ron’s current cases involve serious personal injury, wrongful death, products liability, toxic torts, and municipal liability.
Ron has briefed, argued, and won appeals before all three divisions of the Washington Court of Appeals as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His successes on appeal include:
In addition to his appellate victories, Ron was part of the trial team that obtained a $185 million verdict against Monsanto in the case of Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, No. 18-2-11915-4 SEA, and a $62 million verdict against Monsanto in the case of Long v. Pharmacia LLC, No. 18-2-00001-7 SEA. Ron drafted many of the legal briefs submitted both before and during trial as well as substantial portions of the oppositions to Monsanto’s post-trial motions in both cases.
Before joining Friedman | Rubin, Ron served as a law clerk to the Hon. Josephine L. Staton at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Hon. Jacqueline H. Nguyen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He earned his Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, from the University of California, Irvine School of Law and his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
California ● Washington
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Note, Is the Political Question Doctrine Jurisdictional or Prudential?, 6 UC Irvine L. Rev. 255 (2016)
When Racism Affects Legal Representation, WSAJ Trial News (Dec. 2018)
Avoid 12(b)(6) Dismissal – Tell Client’s Story, WSAJ Trial News (May 2019)
A Sea Change in the Failure to Enforce Exception to the Public Duty Doctrine, WSAJ Trial News (May 2020)
Ford Motor Re-empowers State Courts Over Out-of-State Defendants, WSAJ Trial News (Jun. 2021)
Downing Brings Ford’s Personal Jurisdiction Holding to Washington, WSAJ Trial News (Jun. 2022)
President, 2021-22, Board of Directors, 2019-Present
Korean American Bar Association of Washington
Editorial Board, 2018-Present
Washington State Association for Justice
WSAJ 2021 New Lawyer “Ready to Soar” Award
Washington State Association for Justice
Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2017-2018
Judge Josephine L. Staton, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2016-2017
Shouchen Yang v. Lynch, 822 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2016) (Oral argument). The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum-seeker’s motion to reopen case and held that because the BIA cannot make adverse credibility determinations in denying a motion to reopen, the BIA also cannot apply the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” to deny motions to reopen.
Soucy v. Gilbertson, 14 Wash. App. 2d 1016 (2020) (Oral argument). The Washington Court of Appeals, Div. I, reversed the trial court’s refusal to instruct jury on res ipsa loquitur, held that a jury could infer chiropractor negligence when there is an injured patient and all experts agree the injury could not have occurred absent the chiropractor’s negligence, and ordered a new trial.
Downing v. Losvar, No. 36298-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2022) (Oral argument). The Washington Court of Appeals, Div. III, affirmed the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state aircraft manufacturer who systematically served the Washington market for its airplanes in a case where one of those planes crashed in Washington and killed Washington residents.
Crabtree v. Jefferson County Public Hospital District No. 2, 500 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (Oral argument). The Washington Court of Appeals, Div. II, reversed summary judgment on a pregnancy discrimination case and held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employer’s stated reasons for terminating its pregnant employee were pretext and whether the employee’s pregnancy substantially motivated her firing.
University of California, Irvine School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 2016
University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 2008
Peace Corps Volunteer, Nicaragua, 2011 to 2013, fluent in Spanish