Dan Rowan Cortright

Experienced litigator with 20+ years' experience in a variety of legal fields, including personal injury, products liability, real estate, landlord-tenant, breach of contract, business disputes/litigation, construction defect/contracts law, employment law, commercial litigation, pre-litigation disputes/resolutions, mediations/arbitrations.

• Free Consultation
• Credit Cards Accepted
• Contingent Fees
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  Payment accepted by Zelle, Venmo and PayPal.

California

State Bar of California

ID Number: Bar # 206856

Since 2000

9th Circuit

Since 2000

Principal Attorney

The Rowan Firm

2021 - Current

Owner/Principal attorney at full-service law offices managed/run by myself, representing a variety of clients in many different legal fields.

Senior Counsel

Tyson Mendes

2019 - 2020

Represented insurance, contractor and business clients in a variety of matters.

Senior Counsel

O'Brien Law

2019 - 2019

Represented insurers in variety of claim disputes (personal injury, property damage, etc.).

Associate Attorney

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith

2009 - 2009

Acted as local national counsel for insurer in toxic tort litigation.

Senior Associate Attorney

Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall LLP

2005 - 2009

Handled all aspects of litigation practice, including representation of insurance carriers and San Francisco Housing Authority, supervised 9 associates for one insurance client.

Associate Attorney

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP

2002 - 2004

Represented secured creditors in bankruptcy and loan workouts.

University of San Francisco School of Law

J.D. (1999) | Law

1996 - 1999

University of California - Los Angeles

B.A. (1995) | Political Science

1990 - 1995

Activities: Cycling Team Director

State Bar of California  # 206856

Member

Current

SONOMA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

2021 - Current

Q. Inquiry about applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for punitive damages in a civil case against a doctor in California.

April 16, 2025

A: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only applies to state and local government officials/employees, or anyone acting under color of state law, i.e. when the person is exercising the authority given to them by the government and the action is taken with the appearance that the government authorized it. In your scenario, unless the doctor is a government doctor, the protection of § 1983 does not apply.

I found this article on Thomson Reuters blog that you may want to read:

While Section 1983 creates a remedy for seeking redress for the violation of a federally protected right, it does not create any rights itself. Therefore, simply alleging a violation of a federal law is not enough to give rise to a Section 1983 claim. Rather, plaintiff must allege that a specific right that arises from federal law (whether constitutional or statutory) has been violated.

While claims brought under Section 1983 can take many different forms – such as a claim of excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment or the denial of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment – all Section 1983 claims must allege the following:

a person subjected the plaintiff to conduct that occurred under color of state law, and

this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Who can be a defendant in a Section 1983 action?

Who can be properly named as a defendant in the cause of action or who is considered a “person” under the statute? While this may seem like a straightforward issue, it is not always the case.

For example, employees and agents of local governments can be sued in both their personal and official capacity, but employees of a state can only be sued personally. In addition, local and municipal governments can be named as defendants, but neither a state nor the federal government can be sued under Section 1983. Private individuals can also be sued under Section 1983, but they must be acting on behalf of a state or local government (referred to as “acting under color of law”).

Does “acting under color of law” simply mean employed by the government?

The short answer is no. A person does not need to be an employee to be “acting under color of law.” However, simply because a person is an employee of a municipality does not automatically mean they were acting under color of law either.

An action is “under the color of law” when the person is exercising the authority given to them by the government and the action is taken with the appearance that the government authorized it, even if they are abusing that authority.

What types of violations give rise to a Section 1983 claim?

While Section 1983 enables a plaintiff to bring an action for a violation of their federally protected rights, it does not create any right itself. What does this mean in practice? In short, to have an actionable claim under Section 1983 the plaintiff must allege more than just a violation of federal law, they must allege the violation of a clearly established right. The most common types of Section 1983 cases arise out of violations of the various rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as:

First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion;

Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, including the use of excessive force during an arrest and detention;

Fifth Amendment protections against the government taking private property without paying for it;

Eighth Amendment protections against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment; and

Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive and procedural due process, as well as equal protection claims. ... Read More

Q. Seeking advice on personal injury and medical malpractice after a fall and missed diagnosis of brain injury.

April 16, 2025

A: I'm sorry to hear of your uncle's injuries. With personal injury and malpractice cases, it's important to act swiftly as there are Statutes of Limitation that apply and may prevent a claim from being made if it is made too late. For medical malpractice in CA, the SOL is 1 year from the date of injury (or discovery of the injury), and for personal injury cases it's 2 years from the date of injury. Whether there is a valid personal injury claim against the owner/operator of the rest area depends on if there was any negligence on their part (e.g. not warning of a danger or not repairing a known dangerous condition like a hole or large sidewalk crack) and whether your uncle was negligent (e.g. if he did something dangerous that was likely to cause injury, etc.). Medical malpractice cases are a different animal and largely depend on whether the standard of care in the medical arena was breached. Seek out the advice/consultation of an experienced injury lawyer to provide more details of the injuries and treatment so that you will have a better understanding of potential remedies/rights to pursue damages. ... Read More

Q. Seeking legal advice for potential medical negligence case after husband's passing.

April 2, 2025

A: I'm very sorry to hear of your loss. Reach out to an experienced medical malpractice attorney to discuss filing a possible malpractice lawsuit. But keep in mind that there is a 1 year Statute of Limitations on filing such a claim, which runs from the date you discovered the malpractice.