Download PDF
Daniel Ip

Daniel Ip

Partner

CA – Los Angeles area
T: 626.683.5075 | F: 626.683.1113

vCard

Daniel focuses his legal practice on civil litigation matters including personal injury and wrongful death claims. He defends clients in premises liability cases and homeowner’s association disputes and handles housing and habitability matters, including real estate and title claims. He has additional experience representing clients in general business litigation and contract disputes, and defending municipalities, cities and school districts.

Throughout his legal career, Daniel has represented both defendants and plaintiffs and takes pride in seeing the “big picture” when litigating each case. His extensive experience includes drafting and arguing motions for summary judgment, discovery motions and evidentiary motions, and he has consistently obtained favorable results for clients in both jury and bench trials.

Prior to joining Litchfield Cavo LLP, Daniel was an associate at a Los Angeles-based firm where he focused on defending school districts and municipalities on high exposure cases.

Practices

  • Obtained defense verdict after the owner of a condo unit within a building managed by our Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and property management clients alleged that water leaked into her unit and contributed to toxic mold growth that then contributed to personal injuries, mental distress and loss of use, and personal property damages; the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defense and awarded our HOA client their demand in their cross-complaint.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of franchise motel owner and against plaintiff claiming personal injury due to allegedly being bitten by bed bugs during their stay; following evidence and arguments under applicable case law, Riverside County Superior Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a truck driver and a trucking company against claims they were responsible for summoning Plaintiff into the road without warning and creating a dangerous condition; the Court agreed that no Vehicle Code duties were violated and that no special relationship existed, predicating any duty to warn Plaintiff as a matter of law.
  • Successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication to invalidate attorney fee limits in leases; the Court sided with our position that attorney fee limits are contractually enforceable and the ruling resulted in significantly less exposure to the landlord-client of a multi-unit building.
  • Successfully defeated a high-profile case involving child abuse via demurrer.
  • Prevailed on summary judgment in a school injury case.