Danielle K. Lewis


Danielle Kono Lewis represents public and private individuals and entities at both the federal and state levels, in matters involving municipal liability defense, employment, Americans with Disabilities Act, general liability, and business litigation. Danielle’s clients include public entities and employees, as well as private companies. She also defends insureds in disputes involving third-party claims.

Danielle’s extensive experience informs her proficiency in evaluating complex issues, investigating and assessing government tort claims, and defending cases through trial and on appeal. She works closely with clients, city attorneys, city managers, and city councils to manage their risk, to create solutions for present issues, and to provide advice and counsel to develop strategies to avoid potential future problems.

Danielle is called upon by clients and organizations to give presentations on various subject matters relating to claims and issues impacting public entities, including those specifically relating to dangerous conditions of public property, roadway design, detention and arrest, search and seizure, and use of force. She has been given the top rating of "AV Preeminent" by Martindale-Hubbell, and has also been recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer/Rising Star 2013-2015, along with many other accolades.

Danielle is originally from Santa Cruz, California, and presently resides in San Francisco with her husband and their two young children.

Representative Experience

  • Summary judgment obtained in favor of a public entity in a premises liability action, where the public entity had faced potential exposure in excess of $7,000,000 following a collision between plaintiff who had been riding a motorcycle, and the driver of a motor vehicle. The public entity had been sued on a theory of "dangerous condition of public property," due to an allegedly negligent and defective roadway design. The lawsuit also implicated the driver, two roadway design firms, two property developers and a construction company. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the public entity, finding that the public entity was immune from suit pursuant to California Government Code section 830.6.
  • Summary judgment granted, extricating a police department and its officers from an action involving the officers' response to a residence following plaintiff's prior threat to light himself on fire. Plaintiffs, a father and daughter, brought an action alleging their civil rights had been violated, and specifically that the officers had used excessive force in detaining plaintiffs, falsely arrested plaintiffs, and unlawfully entered the house where plaintiffs resided. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the officers' use of force to arrest the resisting plaintiffs was reasonable, plaintiffs' arrest was valid, and the officers entered the residence lawfully.
  • Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) granted in matter where plaintiff alleged a violation of her rights under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; false arrest; and violation of California Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiff alleged that she was issued an unlawful cease and desist order in connection with her daycare facility, her property was improperly seized, she was falsely arrested, and excessive force was used in the course of her arrest. The district court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the entire action with prejudice.
  • Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) granted in matter involving a confrontation between plaintiff and deputies as a County Government Center and a subsequent Public Records Act Request. Complaint alleged federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as state law claims for violations of California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 6250 et seq.; Article 1, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution; and for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation. The district court determined that plaintiff’s claims could not be sustained and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
  • Represented property owner in action where plaintiff, a tenant, alleged he had sustained injuries as a result of the condition of the property. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action after evidence was produced demonstrating that plaintiff could not have been injured in the manner alleged, and was in fact injured at a location blocks away from the property.
  • Dismissal obtained in an action against a police department and two of its police officers stemming from an incident where the officers responded to a residence to perform a welfare check following a "911 hang-up." The officers located the young woman who called 911 after attempting to terminate her relationship with a male at the residence, and ensured she was safely retrieved from the residence by her parents. In the meantime, the male requested that the officers arrest him, and take him into custody because all of his friends were in jail and he had nowhere else to go. After confirming that the young man did not intend to hurt himself or others, the officers used discretion and elected to not arrest the male. Several hours after the officers left the residence, the male committed suicide. The family members of the decedent sued the police department and two of its police officers, alleging that the officers had a duty to take the necessary precautions that would have ensured that the decedent would not commit suicide. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer to the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend, finding that the police officers owed no duty to the decedent, no special relationship existed between the parties, and that the officers were immune from liability.



  • American University Washington College of Law  (J.D., cum laude, 2001)
    • Editor, Administrative Law Review (Publication of American Bar Association)
  • University of California, San Diego  (B.A., magna cum laude, 1997)
    • Departmental Honors

Bar Admissions

  • California


  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Professional Affiliations

  • Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area
    • Co-Chair, Community Services Committee
  • American Bar Association
  • Bar Association of San Francisco


  • Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2013-2015)
  • Volunteer of the Year, Asian American Bar Association
  • Rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell