Donald R. Brown

Attorney in Los Angeles, CA

Donald Brown's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in federal and state courts, at both the trial and appellate levels. Mr. Brown has substantial experience defending nationwide consumer class actions on behalf of e-commerce, direct marketing, entertainment, and media companies. Mr. Brown also has a wide range of experience in commercial cases involving, among other areas, banking and lender liability, online advertising, e-commerce and entertainment, land use and outdoor advertising, defamation, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In addition, Mr. Brown defends e-commerce and direct marketing companies in FTC investigations.

Mr. Brown also has extensive experience representing retailers, banks, and online companies in lawsuits and government investigations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state disability access laws. Mr. Brown's ADA expertise encompasses issues of physical access as well as access to websites, ticketing and banking kiosks, and other interactive media. In addition to handling ADA litigation, Mr. Brown advises health insurers, retailers, property developers, e-commerce companies, nonprofit foundations and educational institutions on a wide variety of ADA issues.

Representative Matters

(Past 10 Years)

Ticketmaster v. RMG, (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). Obtained a judgment for $18 million and an injunction prohibiting the manufacture, distribution and use of bots to illegally access Ticketmaster's website. Also obtained dismissal of antitrust counterclaims. 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2007); 536 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

NML Capital v. Spaceport Systems and Republic of Argentina, (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). Defeated lawsuit by bond creditor seeking to enforce $300 million judgment against foreign sovereign. Creditor sought injunction and attachment to prevent the launch of multinational satellite to conduct scientific survey of oceanic conditions. 788 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Blanks v. Greenfield, (Los Angeles County Superior Court). Successfully defended executive in dispute over $140 million in profits from exercise infomercial, resulting in published decision by Second Appellate District under the Talent Agencies Act. 106 Cal. App. 4th 743, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 (2003).

In re Ticketmaster Sales Practices Litigation, (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). Defense of consolidated, putative class action against Ticketmaster and TicketsNow alleging deception in the online sale of tickets. The trial court has preliminarily approved a nationwide class settlement.

Blackford v. Huntington Beach City Council, (Orange County Superior Court). Successfully challenged proposed ballot measure in municipal election, resulting in published decision by Fourth Appellate District. 94 Cal. App. 4th 1417, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 (2002).

DePhillips v. Ticketmaster, (Los Angeles County Superior Court). Obtained dismissal of putative class action alleging that Ticketmaster's website discriminated against people with visual disabilities. Then obtained dismissal of appeal.

Yan v. Chinese Daily News, (Los Angeles County Superior Court). Successfully defended newspaper against defamation claim by high-profile Chinese dissident. Attorneys' fees awarded under anti-SLAPP Act.

King Media v. Nederlander and Staples Center, (Los Angeles County Superior Court). Successfully defended Nederlander Organization and Staples Center in lawsuit by concert promoters claiming that tickets were not properly sold for New Year's Eve concert event.

Gracenote v. Musicmatch, (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California). Defended Musicmatch in patent infringement action regarding online digital music services. Prevailed on summary judgment as to noninfringement and patent invalidity.

Graham v. Goldman Sachs, (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). Obtained dismissal of lawsuit claiming violation of state and federal law regarding affiliate's operating policies. Affirmed on appeal.

Ticketmaster/National Federation of the Blind, Represented Ticketmaster in negotiations with National Federation of the Blind regarding access to Ticketmaster's website, resulting in widely publicized agreement.

Representative Published Cases (Partial)

Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1417, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 (4th Dist. 2002).

Greenfield v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. App. 4th 743, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 (2d Dist. 2003).

Memberships & Activities

AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Speaking Engagements

Speaker at annual International Ticketing Association conference in 2011 on "Understanding the New ADA Regulations."

310.312.4318
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Advertising Litigation
  • Advertising
  • Marketing & Media
  • Class Actions
  • Unfair Competition Litigation
  • Digital Media
  • Entertainment & Media Litigation
  • Financial Services Litigation
  • Litigation

 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Position

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1989, New York
1991, California
United States District Courts in California
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Law School Attended

New York University School of Law
Class of 1989
J.D.
Member, Journal of International Law & Politics

University Attended

Swarthmore College
B.A.
Economics

Associations & Memberships

Memberships & ActivitiesAV rated byMartindale-Hubbell.Admitted to practice in the courts of California, the United States District Courts in California, and t... More

Representative Cases

Representative Matters: Ticketmaster v. RMG (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). Obtained a judgment for $18 million and an injunction prohibiting the manufacture, distribution and use of bots to illegally access Ticketmaster's website. Also obtained dismissal of antitrust counterclaims. 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2007); 536 ... More

Contact Information

Phone

310.312.4318

Fax

310.312.4224

Email

Send email to Donald R. Brown


Office Information
Donald R. Brown
Partner
Trident Center, East Tower 11355 West Olympic Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Loading...

Logo
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (Los Angeles, California)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.