Advertisement

Defunct Park’s Operator Loses on Appeal

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The company that once operated Lion Country Safari said Thursday it has lost another round in an 11-year-old lawsuit against its former landlord, the Irvine Co.

A state appeals court refused to reinstate a $42-million verdict that United Leisure Corp. won in Orange County Superior Court against the Irvine Co. in 1993, United said.

The trial judge overturned the damage award in 1994, ruling it wasn’t supported by the evidence, and ordered a new trial.

Advertisement

The Irvine Co., Orange County’s largest landowner, didn’t emerge with everything it wanted, either. It had asked the appeals court to throw out the entire case, a request that was denied.

Harry Shuster, president of Los Angeles-based United, said the company is disappointed with the appeals court ruling, but is ready to go to trial again with “a compelling and strong case.”

United currently operates summer day camps and indoor play and learning centers for children in Southern California, and has a half interest in a Las Vegas shopping center and casino.

It opened Lion Country Safari, a drive-through park with exotic animals, in 1969. The site is in Irvine near the El Toro Y.

United contended the Irvine Co. undermined its business, ultimately forcing Lion Country to close in 1984, by blocking it from making full use of the 300-acre site it had leased.

Shuster’s master lease ran out last February. Despite his threats to raze improvements to the property before he departed, two businesses on land subleased from United--the Wild Rivers water park and Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre--continue to operate. They now lease with the Irvine Co.

Advertisement

In its decision, the appeals court noted that United Leisure appears to face an “uphill battle” in proving its central claim that Irvine Co. actions diminished its profits.

The court “has basically sent a very strong message” about the strength of United’s case, said Irvine Co. spokesman Larry Thomas.

Shuster said he was encouraged by the court’s refusal to throw out the suit entirely.

Advertisement