The Jere Beasley Report April 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

The Life And Legacy Of The Honorable Jimmy B. Pool

Circuit Judge Jimmy Pool retired on January 16. His leaving the bench was due to the age restriction on judges. Under Alabama law, no person can be elected or appointed after reaching the age of 70. We are paying tribute in this issue to Judge Pool’s many years of service in Montgomery County. The outdated law put the man out of office as a judge far too early. 

Early Life and Education

Born and raised in Alabama, Jimmy Pool has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice and the betterment of his community. He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Finance from Auburn University in 1971 and went on to receive his Juris Doctorate from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1974. 

Career Path

Jimmy’s career in law began as an Assistant District Attorney in Montgomery County, where he served from 1974 to 1980. His dedication and skill quickly earned him the position of Chief Deputy District Attorney, a role he held until 1980. Following his tenure as a prosecutor, Jimmy transitioned to private practice, where he worked as a trial lawyer from 1981 to 2009. 

In 2009, Jimmy Pool was elected to the Montgomery County District Court, where he served with distinction until 2021. His commitment to fair and unbiased justice was recognized by his peers and the community, leading to his election as a Circuit Judge for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama in 2018. He assumed office on January 20, 2019, and has since been a cornerstone of the Montgomery County judiciary. 

Judicial Philosophy and Achievements

Judge Pool is universally known for his judicial philosophy of providing swift, fair, and unbiased justice. He has a particular interest in establishing a meaningful DUI Court aimed at reducing repeat DUI offenses through intensive rehabilitation programs. His approach to the law is characterized by a deep commitment to justice and a desire to make a positive impact on the lives of those who come before him. 

Throughout his career, Jimmy Pool has received numerous awards and recognitions, including the Pro Bono Award, the Al Sansone Service Award, the Charles Langford Statesman Award, and the Howell Heflin Award. He has also held leadership positions in various legal associations, including serving as Treasurer of the District Judges Association of Alabama and as past president of both the Montgomery County Bar Association and the Montgomery County Association for Justice. 

Community Involvement

Beyond his judicial duties, Jimmy Pool is actively involved in the Montgomery community. He is known for his dedication to public service and his efforts to improve the legal system. His work has had a lasting impact on the community, and he continues to be a respected figure in Montgomery County and throughout the state of Alabama. 

Conclusion

Jimmy Pool’s career is a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice and his community. His contributions to the legal field and his dedication to fair and unbiased justice have made him a respected and influential figure. As his time serving on the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court comes to an end, Jimmy’s legacy of integrity, fairness and service will serve to inspire future generations of legal professionals. 

Jimmy Pool has been an outstanding jurist and a credit to the legal profession and the court system. After his retirement, Jimmy will find ways to continue serving the people of Montgomery. I am honored to call this man my good friend! 

TALC LITIGATION

Talcum Powder Litigation Update

Johnson & Johnson’s attempt to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to settle all of its talc liabilities has been rejected by a Texas bankruptcy judge. This was the third time J&J has been rejected in a blatant attempt to use bankruptcy to avoid justice being served in the ongoing talc litigation. This is a huge win for the victims of J&J’s wrongdoing and their families. It is also a victory for the judicial system, the bankruptcy courts, and the rule of law.

From February 18–28, 2025, lawyers presented evidence and arguments during the trial regarding the proposed Red River bankruptcy plan before Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston. The Coalition of Counsel for Justice for Talc Claimants and the Office of the United States Trustee argued that J&J/Red River filed the bankruptcy in bad faith and that it should be dismissed. They correctly emphasized that bankruptcy courts are meant to assist the “honest but unfortunate debtor,” not to allow a solvent company such as J&J to settle mass tort cases on favorable terms while disregarding the rights of those injured.

Despite J&J’s argument that it couldn’t handle the talc liability outside of bankruptcy, the company has settled numerous talc claims outside of bankruptcy, a clear indication that it’s not in financial distress.  In fact, J&J is a huge corporation that has a net worth of $400 billion. J&J reported earnings in 2024 of $14.07 billion with an annual revenue of $88.82 billion.

Testimony during the trial highlighted several critical shortcomings of the plan, including:

• Uncertainty about the amount of money allocated to current versus future cases.
• Unpredictability of when claimants would receive payments.
• Lack of progress in resolving medical liens.
• Restrictive opt-out rights for claimants.
• Ineffectiveness of the settlement both inside and outside bankruptcy.
• A $9 billion settlement, with a significant amount of the money being allocated to future claims, would be grossly inadequate to pay the existing claims.
• There are about 90,000 cases pending at present.

Decades-old internal J&J documents clearly show that the company had been on notice of a scientific relationship between talc use and ovarian cancer. J&J ignored that notice, and even when the proof became as clear as a bell, the company continued to claim its talc product was safe for use. Thousands of women have died of ovarian cancer and during that time J&J got richer and richer.

Beasley Allen’s Andy Birchfield, who helped lead the opposition to J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy plan, observed:

“This was nothing more than a bad-faith maneuver to avoid full accountability. With this ruling, we are now moving forward without delay to trial, where our clients will finally have the chance to present their cases before a jury and obtain the justice they deserve.”

J&J says it will not appeal the Judge’s ruling, which is a victory for all of J&J’s talc victims. Their claims will now be heard by a court and jury. The decision is a clear victory for fairness, the rule of law, for all consumers and us at Beasley Allen. Our lawyers will now start gearing up for our first trial which should be set very soon.

Even though for years J&J falsely told the public that its talc products were safe, J&J ceased selling the products in the United States in 2020, and worldwide in 2023. Why would a huge company like J&J cease selling its longest-selling and most iconic brand? Could it be that the product was killing folks and the public now knows that to be true? What do you say?

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

Now that J&J’s bankruptcy plan has failed, the ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson should be nearing its end. Beasley Allen has battled J&J on every front. The third bankruptcy attempt has been our latest focus. We will continue to fight in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation is now in a position where justice will finally be served for the thousands of J&J victims. 

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, they and other team members have been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has worked with the team in all aspects of this litigation. Andy actually became J&J’s target. They have tried very hard to intimidate Andy and the firm, but that has not worked and will not work. 

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J, and now it will be in the courts.

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team:

Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Kelli Alfreds, Ryan Beattie, Beau Darley, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, James Lampkin, Caty O’Quinn, Cristina Rodriguez, Brittany Scott, and Matt Teague.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Rubris Crosslink:  A Key Tool for Camp Lejeune Litigation

Rubris Crosslink is the court-ordered litigation-management database platform for Camp Lejeune claims. Firms that have filed at least one Camp Lejeune administrative claim, agree to a protective order, and sign a participation agreement can obtain portal access to upload their claims. Firms that decide to file a Camp Lejeune lawsuit are required to use Rubris to generate the short-form complaint. There are no fees incurred by a firm for using Rubris.

Through the efforts of the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group, led by Ed Bell, plaintiffs have obtained significant amounts of exposure evidence from the government. Some of this exposure data is accessible via Rubris.

When a lawyer uploads a claim to their Rubris Crosslink portal, the system automatically conducts a thorough search to identify data matches with the attorney’s specific client across three key government datasets:

ATSDR: DMDC – This dataset includes information from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), which contains military personnel records. By matching claims with this data set, attorneys can verify their clients’ military service details and establish their presence at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1987. This can reveal exposure not necessarily contained in records you have obtained.

ATSDR: Civilian Worker – This dataset encompasses records of civilian employees who worked at Camp Lejeune between 1972 and 1987. Accessing this information can help you confirm employment details and establish exposure history for civilian clients, strengthening their claims.

Family Housing Card Database – This dataset provides records of families who lived in Camp Lejeune housing. By matching claims with this database, attorneys can verify residency details, which is crucial for establishing exposure to contaminants for family members.

By leveraging Rubris, plaintiffs’ counsel can efficiently gather and verify essential data, enhancing the accuracy and credibility of their claims. Our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team can attest that the government’s data can provide exposure evidence not otherwise contained in records obtained through the National Personnel Records Center. This includes specific exposure dates and duration at Camp Lejeune—factors that are critical to causation and damages.

We strongly encourage lawyers handling Camp Lejeune claims to utilize Rubris.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

If you need help with a claim, have questions about Rubris, any aspect of the litigation, or would like to co-counsel with us on one of your cases, reach out to a lawyer on our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team. Lawyers from our Toxic Torts Section make up this team. They are heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation, including bellwether trial work.

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation Team include Saima Khan, Wesley Merillat, Ryan Kral, Tucker Osborne, Travis Chin, Miland Simpler, Khadiga Carr, Connor Chase, Jeff Price, Elizabeth Walden and Elliot Bienenfeld.

Rhon Jones, who heads our Toxic Torts Section, is heavily involved in all aspects of the litigation, including the Resolution Committee. Rhon is in leadership as a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee.

The lawyers on our litigation team will be honored to work with you if you need help with a claim or have questions about the litigation. You can contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers on the litigation team respond to you.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

First Trial In Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Set For November 2025

Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who oversees the Social Media Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) based in Los Angeles Superior Court, has set the first personal injury bellwether trial for November 25, 2025. This will be the nation’s first trial in the sprawling personal injury litigation against defendants Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. 

Plaintiffs allege that defendants intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive, targeted youth, and failed to warn users about the risks of harm. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries include anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, sleep disorders, self-harm, and suicidality. 

The parties have been conducting discovery for a group of bellwether plaintiffs, and Judge Kuhl is expected to select the trial plaintiffs at a hearing set for April 15, 2025. The first case will be tried by a Los Angeles jury beginning in November 2025, with additional bellwether trials expected to be set soon thereafter. 

The Social Media JCCP in Los Angeles consists of more than 2,500 personal injury cases filed by plaintiffs from 44 different states. Defendants are facing 500 additional personal injury cases in the federal MDL based in Oakland, CA. 

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is Co-Lead counsel for the JCCP and serves as State/Federal Liaison in the federal MDL. Beasley Allen lawyers Jennifer Emmel, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Seth Harding, Slade Methvin, and Suzanne Clark conduct extensive work for the JCCP and MDL, representing a broad range of personal injury, school district, and government entity plaintiffs in the litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team.

Wrongful Death Claims Go Ahead In Social Media MDL

A California federal judge has allowed certain claims, including negligence and wrongful death, to proceed in a multidistrict litigation against Facebook and other social media companies. The plaintiffs allege that these platforms purposefully addict minors, leading to mental and physical health issues.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that wrongful death claims under Indiana, Florida, Virginia, and Wyoming laws could move forward. She also rejected the companies’ arguments that negligence claims were barred by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The judge emphasized that public policy supports holding social media companies accountable for fostering compulsive use and addiction among minors. The litigation involves hundreds of claims from parents, school districts, and state attorneys general, alleging that these platforms are designed to be addictive, harming minors’ mental health.

However, claims related to the dissemination of child sexual assault material were dismissed by the court citing Section 230 protections. Loss of filial consortium claims were also dismissed under the laws of 24 states and the District of Columbia.

In February, the judge criticized Google and Snap’s requests to pause litigation and denied Meta insurers’ motion to expedite a coverage dispute. The lead plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the order reaffirms the legitimacy of their claims and highlights the harmful impact of these platforms on young users.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lexi J. Hazam of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Previn Warren of Motley Rice LLC.

The MDL case is In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, case number 4:22-md-03047, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is co-lead counsel for the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) for the plaintiffs in California State Court. Joseph is also a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in the MDL, helping lead the federal social media multidistrict litigation.

Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

Members of Beasley Allen’s Social Media Litigation Team are:

Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Seth Harding and Slade Methvin. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team.

Video Game Addiction Update

A study recently published in the Arab Journal of Psychology (Vol. 9, No. 4) examined the link between video game addiction and aggression among adolescents. The study surveyed 154 young people, assessing their video game addiction and aggression levels using reliable scales. Their key findings included a correlation between video game addiction and aggression. 

Boys showed higher levels of both addiction and aggression, with significant differences in aggression between genders with combat and war games linked to higher aggression levels. The study suggests that excessive video game use, especially violent games, may increase aggression in adolescents, highlighting the need for intervention and regulation. 

As we reported last month, gaming addiction cases are being filed around the country primarily revolving around poor performance in school, cognitive issues, developmental delays and self-harm in young people. Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith, Chad Cook and Mary Cam Raybon are investigating these cases and are heavily involved in the litigation.

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Active Trucking Litigation In Georgia

Chris Glover, the managing attorney of Beasley Allen’s Atlanta office, filed suit recently on behalf of the family of Sarah Elizabeth Rogers, who was killed in a multi-vehicle collision in Georgia on April 16, 2024. 

A commercial motor vehicle owned by Builders FirstSource, one of the defendants in this case, was traveling southbound on I-75 in Henry County, Georgia. The driver of this vehicle veered into Ms. Rogers’ lane of travel, causing a collision that left her vehicle disabled in the middle of the roadway. Shockingly, the driver of the Builders FirstSource vehicle fled the scene. This collision caused another collision, resulting in Roger’s vehicle being pushed into a farther lane in a disabled state. 

As Ms. Rogers’ vehicle remained disabled on the highway, it was subsequently struck by another tractor-trailer operated by defendant Malagon. Tragically, this third collision caused Roger’s vehicle to become lodged under the trailer and dragged until it ultimately collided with another tractor-trailer that had pulled off to the side of the shoulder, bringing the vehicle to a final rest. The sheer force of being dragged and crushed under the tractor-trailer resulted in fatal injuries to Ms. Rogers. 

The lawsuit seeks to hold the multiple defendant trucking companies accountable for failure to obey the rules of the road, including paying proper attention to the roadway and observing all hazards. Proving causation in a trucking case where a subsequent collision occurred as a direct result of a prior collision requires a thorough investigation. This involves collecting crucial evidence, including:

• Police Reports: providing crucial information about the sequence of events 

• 911 calls: multiple 911 calls were made about each wreck, providing real-time accounts of the incidents. 

• Witness Statements: Gathering testimonies from individuals who witnessed the accident helps us corroborate the sequence of events.

• Vehicle Data from Engine Control Module (ECM): ECMs provide data on the drivers’ activities, such as speed, braking patterns, and hours of service, which are critical in understanding the circumstances leading up to the collisions.

• Photographs of the Accident Scene: photographs taken immediately after the accident provide visual evidence of the damage and position of the vehicles, which is essential for understanding the impact and subsequent collisions.

The goal of the investigation in the Rogers case is to prove that the initial truck accident created a foreseeable hazardous situation, directly leading to the subsequent collisions and ultimately resulting in Ms. Roger’s tragic death. 

$4.5 Million Trucking Settlement In A Minimal Insurance Coverage Case

On December 15, 2021, Alfonsa D. Martin, experienced a life-altering accident on Interstate 85 caused by a negligent driver with a suspended commercial license. Despite the initial minimal offer from the insurance carrier, our lawyers handling the claim, led by Kendall Dunson, fought relentlessly and successfully secured a $4.5 million settlement in the case.

The Accident

Alfonsa Martin was driving his 2008 Chevrolet Silverado when his day took a tragic turn. A tractor-trailer driver, who had a suspended commercial driver’s license, fell asleep at the wheel and lost control of his vehicle. The truck struck the back of the Martin car, causing it to roll over and crash off the interstate.

Unfortunately, this crash caused Mr. Martin to suffer from severe injuries, including pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, and permanent physical impairment. He needed extensive medical treatment and couldn’t perform his usual activities. Sadly, on March 21, 2023, Mr. Martin passed away due to injuries from the accident.

Knowing Your Case’s Worth

When handling cases involving insurance claims, it’s necessary to understand the true value of your case. This involves thoroughly assessing all damages, including medical expenses, property damage, and lost wages. By knowing the full extent of your losses, you can confidently reject inadequate insurance offers that don’t fully compensate your client. Remember, insurance companies often aim to settle claims quickly and for as little as possible.

In the Martin case, despite the insurance company’s initial offer of minimal compensation, our lawyers fought tirelessly to ensure justice for the family. They refused to accept the inadequate settlement offer and pursued the case aggressively, ultimately securing the adequate compensation the family deserved.

Importance of Experience

Serious injuries, whether physical or psychological, can have life-altering impacts. Often, these injuries result from negligent or reckless behavior. At the core of the first mission of a personal injury lawyer is to completely investigate these claims and work to seek justice for his or her client.

Lawyers in our firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section are recognized nationally for their success in representing clients across the country who have suffered serious personal injuries. Beasley Allen lawyers are committed to fighting to make sure our clients receive justice, no matter how challenging the case might be. When it comes to these claims, having an experienced trial lawyer is important. 

FCA Facing Proposed Power-Steering Class Action Lawsuit

Fiat Chrysler is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that it sold Jeep vehicles with defective power-steering pump electrical connectors, which increase the risk of spontaneous fires. Reportedly, this defect has led to at least one death.

The lawsuit, filed in Michigan federal court, alleges that Stellantis-owned FCA knew about the defect and concealed it from consumers. The defective connectors are said to increase the risk of under-hood fires even when the vehicles are parked and not running.

The class action, led by Illinois resident Nikki Bell, aims to represent customers who purchased or leased Jeep Wrangler JL and Gladiator JT vehicles from 2021 to 2023 model years, potentially affecting around 781,000 vehicles. Reports to the Office of Defects Investigation describe fires occurring while the vehicles were off, often starting on the passenger front side of the engine compartment. Some fires reportedly caused total vehicle loss and occurred without warning.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began investigating the under-hood fires in September. The lawsuit alleges that FCA advertised the vehicles as having safety features and has not issued a recall. The customers are seeking to establish a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass, bringing claims of breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Bell and the putative class are represented by E. Powell Miller and Dennis A. Lienhardt Jr. of The Miller Law Firm PC, Steve W. Berman and Rachel Fitzpatrick of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Myles McGuire, Eugene Y. Turin and Joseph Dunklin of McGuire Law PC, John Sawin of Sawin Law LTD, and Scott A. Morgan of Morgan Law Firm LTD.

The case is Bell v. FCA US LLC, case number 2:25-cv-10583, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Collapsing Seats-A Known Danger In The Automotive Industry For Over 30 Years

You may not realize this, but the back of your seat and headrest are critical safety devices in your car. In rear-end accidents, it is the seatback/headrest that provides the primary restraint to the passenger, not the seatbelt. The reason is simply physics- a body will move toward the point of impact. In a frontal collision, the body will move forward, which is why seatbelt use is important- to restrain a passenger in a frontal collision from impacting the windshield, instrument panel or the like.  However, in a rear impact, the body will move backward, making the seatback the primary restraint system.  

Seatbacks must therefore be strong to withstand the forces of foreseeable rear impacts. They should not be designed to completely collapse. Yet, many automotive manufacturers do not design their seats to withstand foreseeable rear impact forces.  And when the manufacturers choose not to design strong seats, seats fail.  They collapse rearward, allowing the driver or passenger to be ejected into the rear of the vehicle.

When seat backs collapse in a rear-end collision, the passenger and driver are at great risk of serious injury or death.  In a rear-end collision involving a seat back collapse, seat occupants may:

• Be thrown into the rear compartment of the vehicle or another structure of the vehicle.

• Be thrown in the rear, injuring the rear occupants, especially children in car seats.

• Lose control of the vehicle, which can cause another collision.

• Be fully or partially ejected from the vehicle.

The entire automotive industry has known for over 30 years the dangers caused by seats designed to collapse under the forces in foreseeable rear impacts.  The automotive literature has documented the probability of harm to occupants seated in the deforming seat as well as those seated behind it for decades.  

Dating back as early as the 1990s, numerous studies established a high risk of harm to occupants in a vehicle due to seats designed to deform in rear impacts.  The studies establish that when, in rear impacts, seats rotate rearward beyond 60 degrees, all benefits of the seat and seat belts are lost.  The occupants ramp up the seats and can severely injure themselves or occupants in the back seats.  

The research clearly established that excessive rearward rotation of the seat back beyond 60° resulted in loss of containment of the occupant and increased risk of injuries.  

In 1989, General Motors further established that when the seat back deformed to an angle exceeding 60°, a subsequent loss of occupant retention resulted, in which case, “even belted occupants can ramp up the seat back and slide out of the lab belt.”

Similar research demonstrated that, in rear impacts greater than eighteen (18) miles an hour, a majority of restrained front seat occupants were either partially or totally ejected from the seat systems during rear impact.  

These researchers concluded that while collapsing seat structures absorb some amount of energy during the impact, they also appear to contribute to hazardous situations such as: loss of driver control; entrapment and delayed egress of rear seat passengers; injury to rear seat passengers located in non-collapsing seats; and, as mentioned previously partial and/ or total ejection and injury of restrained front seat occupants.

Regarding the risk of injury to children as a result of collapsing seats, the research data concluded that there was a two-fold increase in injury risk for children seated behind yielding seatbacks in rear-impact crashes.  

The federal government has also alerted the automotive industry to the dangers of collapsing seat designs.  In 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) acknowledged that the current standard for seat strength for cars was inadequate, and the seats needed to be strengthened to improve occupant protection in rear impact.  It specifically noted that technological advances have been made in seat designs that improved the protection of the occupants.

In 2003, NHTSA published even more data confirming that occupants in vehicles were being injured and killed as a result of collapsing seats in “real world crashes”.  The research clearly demonstrated that rear impacts occur frequently, that even belted occupants will be ejected out from under the belt and out of the seat when the seat back is allowed to collapse or grossly deform rearward, that such a circumstance exposes not only the occupant, but also occupants seated behind the collapsing seat to risk of serious injury, and that test methods and design solutions were available. 

People are being needlessly injured and killed as a result of the automobile industry’s inaction on strengthening its seatback design.  There are proven alternative designs that reduce the risk of injuries and deaths that are on the market now and have been for years.  Yet, most manufacturers choose not to implement these designs, even though the industry readily admits it could. 

INSURANCE LITIGATION

Insurance Companies Claim Poverty While Raising Rates Despite 2024 Profits Of $144 Billion

Americans are facing significant increases in auto and homeowners insurance rates, with auto insurance rising by an average of 25% and homeowners insurance by 23%, according to CNBC.  The property-casualty insurance industry has reported record profits, with $88 billion in 2023 and a staggering $144 billion in 2024, as per the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and AM Best. Even with this record, rates are still climbing. 

Insurance companies attribute the rate increases to a “hard market” caused by rising claims, natural disasters, and inflation. However, critics argue that the industry’s substantial profits contradict the claims of financial strain.

For instance, “Sam”, a policyholder, received an email from his insurance company warning of potential rate increases due to this “hard market.” The email cited rising claims and inflation as reasons for the hike. Yet, despite these challenges, the industry has seen profits exceeding $300 billion from 2019 to 2023 and is projected to reach $170 billion in 2024 alone. This discrepancy highlights the industry’s ability to maintain high profitability while still raising rates.

The lack of federal oversight and exemptions from anti-trust laws under the 1944 McCarran Ferguson Act allow insurance companies to raise rates with minimal accountability, leaving consumers vulnerable to price gouging. Increased oversight and consumer protection are urgently needed to address this issue.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Sexual Harassment In The Workplace Has Federal And State Protections

Employees have the right to work without the fear or reality of sexual harassment in the workplace. Where employees may not be protected by their employers in certain circumstances, employees are protected, generally by the law at both the federal and state levels, from sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Federally, the statute that provides employees protection from sexual harassment in the workplace is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where federal protections are not available, like when an employer does not meet the number of employees required to be subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then the state protections provide an alternative means of recovery for employees who have been sexually harassed on the job. 

Some states have specific sexual assault statutes, while states like Alabama have causes of action that allow the employee to bring actions against his or her employer for sexual harassment.

In Alabama, the causes of action available for a sexual assault include assault, battery, outrage, and invasion of privacy. For an employer to be responsible for sexual harassment, an intentional tort, the employee has to be able to show that:

• there is an agency relationship and the agent’s harassment was within the line and scope of the agent’s employment; 
• the harassment was done in furtherance of the employer’s business; or
• the employer participated in, authorized, or ratified the harassment.

Lawyers on our firm’s Civil and Human Rights Litigation Team analyze potential cases to determine the best course of action for potential clients. Should your office have a potential sexual harassment case, we stand ready to evaluate potential cases to determine the next best steps for those sexually harassed in the workplace. 

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

   Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team handle employment-related litigation for the firm. They also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower cases). Many whistleblowers will also have a retaliation claim related to their False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Quite often, an employee as a whistleblower will be the “original source” of an FCA claim.

Our Employment Litigation Team has had some tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country.

Whistleblower Litigation

Pfizer To Pay Nearly $60 Million To Resolve False Claims Allegations

Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer), on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiary Biohaven Pharmaceutical Holding Company Ltd. (Biohaven), has agreed to pay $59,746,277 to resolve allegations that Biohaven, before Pfizer acquired the company, violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by paying kickbacks to health care professionals to induce doctors to write prescriptions of Biohaven’s drug Nurtec ODT.  

The anti-kickback statute prohibits anyone from offering or paying anything of value to induce the referral of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and other federal healthcare programs.  The statute is intended to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives.

The settlement resolves allegations that from March 1, 2020, through Sept. 30, 2022, Biohaven paid improper remuneration, in the form of speaker payouts and meals at high-end restaurants, to healthcare professionals to encourage them to prescribe the migraine medication Nurtec in violation of the anti-kickback statute.  

The Government alleged that Biohaven selected certain health care providers to be part of the Nurtec speaker bureau and provided them paid speaking opportunities with the intent that the speaker honoraria and meals would encourage them to prescribe Nurtec ODT.  

The government further alleged that certain prescribers who attended multiple programs on the same topic received no educational benefit from attending repeat programs and that certain Biohaven speaker programs were attended by individuals with no educational need to attend, such as the speakers’ spouses, family members or friends, or colleagues from the speakers’ own medical practice.

The settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the FCA by Patricia Frattasio, a former sales representative at Biohaven.  The qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private party to file an action on behalf of the Government for false claims.  Under the FCA, whistleblowers receive 15% to 25% of proceeds in cases that the Government joins.  Frattasio will receive approximately $8.4 million of the proceeds from the settlement.

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, your reporting is confidential and protected by the FCA. Under that same statute, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud you have witnessed. If you have any questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, contact a Beasley Allen lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section for a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.  

Source: Department of Justice

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation all across the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation is increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there is also strong opposition to the litigation instigated and carried out by some powerful forces in Corporate America. 

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, or you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below. You can contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Members of the team include: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Tyner Helms.

Workplace Litigation

Lawyer In Mobile Office Files On-The-Job Product Liability Suit

Lawyers in our Mobile office continue to focus on product liability claims that involve serious injury or death. One of our lawyers, Evan Allen, recently filed a case involving an amputation at a chicken processing facility.  Workers in the meat and poultry processing industry are in an extremely hazardous occupation.  

According to the Department of Labor, workers in meat processing plants are injured five times more frequently than all other private workers.  Poultry industry workers were injured at a rate of 2.6 injuries per 100 full-time workers in 2024.  These injuries range from life-threatening injuries and amputations to slips and falls to musculoskeletal injuries from repetition such as carpal tunnel syndrome.  

The subject incident occurred while an employee was attempting to clean a machine used in the processing plant.  The machine lacked adequate guards around a set of rotating rollers.  

The machine unexpectedly energized and caught the employee’s hand.  The machine continued to pull the employee’s hand, degloving several fingers and requiring amputation.  

Interlocked safety guards would have prevented the start-up of the machine and the release of hazardous energy, preventing the accident.  All too often machines are unguarded, inadequately guarded, or the wrong type of guard is used.   

In many instances, productivity and ease of use are given more weight in machine design than user safety.  Failure to adequately guard against hazards can cause any number of injuries including amputations, lacerations, and even death.  Every on-the-job injury involving a machine must be examined on a case-by-case basis.  Just because guards are incorporated into a particular machine does not necessarily mean that the user or operator is adequately protected. 

Georgia Worker’s Compensation Act’s Exclusivity Provision Is Now Slightly Less Exclusive, Opening Door To Premises Liability And Other Claims

Most plaintiff lawyers are well-conditioned to be disappointed when they hear that an injury or death occurred in a workplace while the person was on the job. That’s because trial lawyers know that worker’s compensation laws generally prevent the working or surviving family from seeking real justice through discovery, trial, and ultimately a just jury verdict. Instead, those individuals are left to deal with the pittance of a payment that worker’s compensation laws allow when a worker is injured or killed. But in Georgia, a small window to justice has been opened. 

In December 2019, a man named Andrews found and reported a lost bag belonging to another man named Golden. This occurred at their job – Solo Cup Operation Corp. Despite Andrews turning the bag in, Golden later confronted Andrews, claiming that money was missing from the bag and that Andrews had stolen it. An altercation ensued, and Andrews was killed. An Andrews’ heir brought suit against Solo (and other defendants), alleging that, as an employer, Solo had negligently hired and retained Golden and that they had negligently failed to keep its premises safe. 

As expected, Solo moved to dismiss these claims as barred by the worker’s compensation laws, and the trial court judge agreed, reasoning that the altercation and death arose from the decedent turning in the mislaid bag, which the court said amounted to performance of a job duty. Andrews’ representative appealed that dismissal. 

A panel of three for the Appellate Courts heard the case and ultimately reversed the dismissal. On appeal were three main points; first, that the lower court incorrectly treated the worker’s compensation exclusivity bar as a question of subject matter jurisdiction. Second, that the lower court incorrectly shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff, and finally, that the court erred in applying the facts to the law in this case. 

Spearheaded by Judge Stephen Dillard, the Appellate Court disagreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the altercation arose from a job duty. While it was certainly true that an employee turning in the lost bag could be considered a job duty, the court reasoned that is not what the altercation was about. The court stated: 

There is no evidence Golden was angry because Andrews turned in the bag. Rather, the evidence – as found by the trial court – shows that Golden was angry at Andrews because he believed Andrews stole money from him. So, because any alleged theft was entirely unrelated to Andrews’s performance of his work, we find – as a matter of law – that the WCA does not apply here.

In addition, the Appellate Court found that the positional risk doctrine did not apply. Under that doctrine, an injury arises out of employment when the employee proves that his work brought him within range of the danger, even though any other person present would have also been injured, irrespective of his employment. The Appellate Court reasoned that Andrews’s death resulted from a specific personal matter, not an accident of Andrews’s locale. 

This ruling does provide a narrow window for lawyers and judges to see that justice is done in a limited set of cases, and that worker’s compensation does not totally bar all claims against the employer, just because the death happened at work. 

Source: Daily Report

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Adviser Funneled Investor Cash Into $300 Million Ponzi, Suit Says

A Georgia financial adviser has been hit with a proposed class action alleging that she funneled investors into a company at the heart of what the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has called a $300 million Ponzi scheme.

In a complaint filed on February 28, 2025, Brian Hauger alleged that Meredith Bruce and SDWC Financial LLC served as third-party sales representatives for Drive Planning, LLC, a Georgia firm led by founder and CEO Russell Todd Burkhalter that offered real estate investments promising huge returns.  According to the SEC, Burkhalter operated Drive Planning as a Ponzi scheme, raising over $300 million from more than 2,000 investors nationwide. 

Bruce and SDWC, according to Hauger, generated marketing materials for Drive Planning and sold the bogus securities without a license, personally defrauding Hauger out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He now hopes to represent a class of investors who likewise allege they were ripped off by the scheme.

“Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that their investors’ money was unsecured and that the investment vehicle was nothing more than a massive scheme to defraud,” Hauger said in his complaint. He added that Burkhalter and Drive Planning were not named as defendants because of an injunction preventing them from being sued while the SEC’s case is pending.

In August, the SEC first unveiled its lawsuit against Burkhalter and Drive Planning, alleging that they ran a “classic Ponzi scheme,” using new investors’ funds to make distributions to prior investors.  Drive Planning promised to place investor money into land development deals that would generate 10% returns every three months, but it failed to generate enough interest from property developers to issue those promised returns, the SEC said.  In reality, most of the investor payouts came from later investors in “classic Ponzi fashion,” the SEC said, though the company did receive a small amount of revenue from rental properties and life insurance sales, and through the financial planning services it was founded to provide. 

Beyond Ponzi payments, the SEC’s complaint alleges Burkhalter spent over $11 million in investor funds to “maintain a luxurious lifestyle,” purchasing designer clothes, jewelry, private jet charters, luxury car services, a $2 million luxury condominium on Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, and a $3.1 million, 89-foot yacht.  According to court records, a Georgia federal judge agreed to freeze Drive Planning’s assets shortly after the SEC’s complaint was filed.

Burkhalter, for his part, has denied any wrongdoing, saying in a November court filing that the government’s suit “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted” and that he “acted in honest and reasonable reliance on the advice and experience of others as to matters within the area of their expertise and experience.”

Bruce and SWDC, meanwhile, stand accused by Hauger of preparing “a detailed presentation that included a chart indicating projected returns from proposed … investments with Drive Planning.” She not only marketed the scheme, Hauger added, but directly sold the junk securities to investors, and tried to keep the lid on once regulators stepped in.

“Even after they were made aware of the SEC action, defendants continued to reassure investors, including Hauger, that any pause in distributions was temporary, and that they would be protected,” Hauger said. “In response to specific inquiries from plaintiff Hauger about the pause … Bruce repeatedly assured him that the SEC would protect investors and that she assumed everything would be okay.”

Alleging violations of state and federal securities laws, breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment, Hauger said that more than $5 million in investments is at stake and that he believes at least 40 other investor clients of SDWC could be added to his suit. 

The case is Hauger v. SDWC Financial LLC et al., case number 1:25-cv-01058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The SEC case is SEC v. Drive Planning, et. al., case number 1:24-cv-03583, also in the Northern District of Georgia.

Our firm continues to serve clients who have encountered securities fraud. Should you have any questions about a matter involving investments, please feel free to contact our team of lawyers assigned to this issue, James Eubank, Paul Evans or the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section Head, Dee Miles. 

Securities Litigation Team At Beasley Allen

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving corporate security issues. James Eubank, who leads the Securities Litigation Team, worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission. James was involved in a number of important securities fraud investigations while he was with the state.  

We will give an update on pending securities litigation in the May issue. In the meantime, you can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning any securities cases or issues relating to securities. The team includes the following lawyers: James Eubank, who heads the team, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the section, also works with the team. 

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She will have a lawyer on the Litigation Team respond. 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Private Action Plus DOJ Investigation Presents Real Challenge To NAR Monopoly

Homeownership is integral to the American dream, but it is increasingly difficult to realize for all too many citizens. The economic pressures of purchasing a home are made more difficult by the designs and the outsized influence of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) on the real estate industry. NAR is the largest trade association in the United States, holds $1 billion in assets, governs the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs), where the vast majority of homes sold in the United States are listed, and is self-regulating. NAR even holds the trademark for the word “Realtor,” meaning an agent must be a member to call themselves one. In short, NAR controls the players, the playbook, and the playground.

On October 31, 2023, an 8-person Missouri federal court jury only needed 2 hours and 28 minutes to award home sellers nearly $1.8 billion in damages against the NRA and some of the largest brokerages in the country for conspiring to artificially inflate sellers’ agents’ commission through NAR policies when listing a property in violation of federal antitrust law.  The suit also contended that the rules caused buyer brokers not to show homes with lower commissions being offered or to only show homes with higher commissions. The Sitzer et al. v. The National Association of Realtors et al., verdict condemned NAR’s longstanding “cooperative compensation” rule requiring home sellers to cover the broker fees for homebuyers as anticompetitive because they eliminated competition between brokers.

Thebillion-dollar Sitzer verdict impelled the NAR to reach a $418 million settlement with home sellers approved by the court in November 2024 that included fundamental reforms to the NAR rules that mandated an industry-standard commission. A series of settlement agreements totaling about $1 billion to resolve similar claims against NAR and other major brokerages over the trade group’s rules and commission structures followed.

Now the Eighth Circuit is contemplating challenges to those settlement agreements brought by homebuyers who claim their interests were not represented in settlement agreements between home sellers, brokerages, and NAR and who are disfavored by the current NAR industry standards, thus pausing several other active federal court cases challenging NAR rules. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division pursues its own resurrected investigation into the trade group over its policies with a D.C. Circuit panel’s blessing (and implicit blessing from the U.S. Supreme Court who declined the NRA’s petition for review of the decision in January 2025). 

This recent, renewed litigation illuminates the breadth of control one monopoly actor can maintain over an entire industry and the critical role antitrust litigation plays in delegitimizing conspiratorial practices. Likewise, this antitrust litigation demonstrates how the courts can challenge inequity on behalf of consumers and act as the best advocate for their rights.  Our firm is excited to participate in this area of antitrust litigation on behalf of consumers.

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Premises Liability: Third Parties And/or Independent Contractors

Generally, owner or occupiers of premises have a nondelegable duty to keep the premises and the approaches to the premises safe for people coming onto the property pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1. This duty extends to the negligence and conduct of any third parties that are hired to provide maintenance or managerial services on the property such as a property management company or janitorial services. See Sacker v. Perry Realty Services, 217 Ga. App. 300, 457 S.E.2d 208 (1995). 

On the other hand, Independent Contractors do not have a duty to inspect and remove hazards on the premises unless the contractor is a management company specifically hired to oversee the day-to-day management of the property. Simmons v. Universal Protections Services, Inc., 349 Ga. App. 374, 825 S.E.2d 858 (2019); Stelly v. WSE Property Management, Inc., 350 Ga. App. 627, 829 S.E.2d 871 (2019). 

When evaluating premises liability cases, it is imperative that attorneys always consider bringing actions against both the owner and occupier of the property as well as the third-party vendor. 

To prove a case against the owner for the negligence of the third party, there must be evidence that the third party failed to perform the owner’s statutory duty as opposed to other grounds for liability. Camelot Club Condo Assoc. v. Afari-Opoku, 340 Ga. App. 618, 798 S.E.2d 241 (2017). 

Proceeding against both the owner/occupier of the property as well as the third-party vendor due to the negligence of a third party creates a dichotomy in which the owner/occupier blames the third-party vendor and vice versa. 

However, a different scenario arises if your client is an independent contractor. When an independent contractor is injured on the premises, the owner owes the independent contractor a duty of care to keep the premises safe unless (1) the owner has relinquished control of the area to the independent contractor or a third party and (2) the owner does not have the right and does not actually control or direct the work done. Georgia Power Company v. Campbell, 360 Ga. App. 422, 861 S.E.2d 255 (2021). 

There are two different theories of liability that could arise from injuries on premises: injuries caused because of conditions on the premises versus injuries caused by an employee’s active negligence. Lipham v. Federated Dept. Stores, 263 Ga. 865, 440 S.E.2d 193 (1994). 

Again, in these scenarios, liability is determined by whether the owner/occupier had some degree of control over the condition on the premise such as a foreign substance on a floor or static condition like a raised mat. Johnson v. LT Energy, LLC, 366 Ga. App. 439, 890 S.E.2d 320 (2023). Conversely, if the injury is caused by the active negligence of the owner’s/occupier’s employer, ordinary negligence principles apply. Byrom v. Douglas Hospital, Inc., 338 Ga. App. 768, 792 S.E.2d 404 (2016); Cabrera v. Ellis, 358 Ga. App. 396, 855 S.E.2d 405 (2021).

If you have a premises case that you are investigating, lawyers in our firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section would be honored to work with you and assist with finding the best path forward.

$25 Million Verdict Against Pool-Maker After Child’s Drowning

A St. Louis federal jury recently awarded a $25 million verdict against Bestway USA Inc. after finding that the company’s defectively designed above-ground pool was largely responsible for the drowning of 2-year-old Ellieanna Justice. The jury determined that the pool’s design allowed the toddler to scale its walls using a nylon strap and that Bestway failed to warn consumers about this hazard. The company was found 65% liable for the child’s wrongful death.

Jake Plattenberger, a lawyer representing the Justice family, emphasized that the parents by way of this litigation sought a design change to prevent future tragedies. During the trial, evidence included photos of child-sized footprints on the pool’s wall. Bestway countered that the footprints were speculative and not properly measured, but the jury sided with the parents.

Rural King Holdings LLP, the retailer where the pool was purchased, was also a defendant in the case. However, the company was ultimately not held liable due to Missouri’s Innocent Seller statute. The trial concluded with the jury’s decision in favor of the Justice family, bringing them some closure and highlighting the need for safer pool designs.

The Justices are represented by Eric M. Terry, Kenneth J. Brennan, Jacob W. Plattenberger and Alan Holcomb of TorHoerman Law LLC.

The case is Justice et al. v. Bestway (USA) Inc. et al., case number 4:22-cv-00050, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Source: Law360

Class Action Litigation

First Amended Complaint Filed Against Honda In Defective Engine Block Case

Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann, along with our co-counsel from Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, are representing purchasers and lessees of 2016-2022 Honda Civics, 2017-2022 Honda CR-Vs, 2019-2022 Acura TLXs, 2018-2022 Honda Accords, and 2021-2022 Acura RDXs (the Class Vehicles) equipped with high-compression 1.5-liter and 2.0-liter turbo direct injection engines. The class defendants are American Honda Motor Company, Inc., and Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Honda).

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Honda manufactured, promoted, and sold the Class Vehicles, which suffer from a defectively designed engine block and cylinder head, including the placement of a coolant passageway at the point where the engine’s cylinder head attaches to the engine block. As a result of the defective design, the engine experiences increased wear and tear, as well as premature failure of critical components, such as the cylinder gasket seals (hereinafter Engine Defect or Defect).

The Engine Defect results in scores of issues, including reduced engine efficiency, stalling while driving, excess engine wear, increased upkeep and repair costs, coolant leaks, and in the worst cases, catastrophic engine failure. The Engine Defect often occurs at low mileage, within the warranty period and is inconspicuous until engine damage levels are critical. The Engine Defect renders class vehicles inoperable and unusable.

After careful analysis by plaintiffs’ independent automotive consultant, plaintiffs determined that the Engine Defect was not isolated to 1.5-liter engines and that the 2.0-liter turbo direct injection engines were equally defective. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on March 3, 2025, adding the 2.0-liter turbo direct injection engines as Class Vehicles, as well as adding plaintiffs for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Minnesota.

The case is Bissell et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al, 3:24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP, and is filed in the Southern District of California. We look forward to keeping our readers informed on this important litigation.

Court Grants Final Approval To Mazda/Denso Fuel Pump Class Action Settlement

On March 4, 2025, Judge Josephine Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of a class action alleging that Denso manufactured defective low-pressure fuel pumps that were installed in certain Mazda vehicles built between 2017 and 2020. The settlement, which provides free repair and replacement of the fuel pumps and related relief to over 1 million owners of nearly 631,000 Mazda vehicles, has an estimated value of over $172 million. 

The settlement is the third of four class actions pending against auto manufacturers whose vehicles were fitted with defective Denso-made fuel pumps. Let’s examine each of these settlements. 

The first class action against Toyota and Denso, which covered a larger number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles built over a longer period of time (2013-2019), resulted in a settlement providing an estimated $287 million in economic relief to the settlement class. 

Plaintiffs also settled the second class action against Subaru and Denso which was approved by Judge Christine O’Hearn in the District of New Jersey. This settlement provided an estimated $380 million in economic relief to class members. 

Plaintiffs continue to prosecute the fourth class action against Honda pending in the Northern District of Alabama. 

A fuel pump supplies fuel to a vehicle’s fuel injection system while the engine is in operation. The fuel pumps manufactured by Denso contained a defective impeller – which acts as a rotating “motor” and plays a vital role in maintaining pressure in the fuel pump – made from material that is too porous to withstand its environment. As a result, the impeller can deform due to excessive fuel absorption and interfere with the body of the fuel pump. In turn, that can result in rough engine running, difficulty starting the vehicle, and stalling. There are many reports by drivers of near misses and other dangerous conditions caused by the faulty fuel pumps. 

Between April and June 2020, Denso itself recalled its dangerously defective fuel pumps, disclosing they were installed in over 2 million vehicles, including Subarus, Hondas, Mazdas and Toyotas. In November 2021, Mazda recalled nearly 120,000 of its vehicles manufactured between April 2018 and January 2020 and admitted the vehicles were equipped with Denso’s fuel pumps, which could increase the risk of accidents.

The class action against Mazda and Denso was filed in the Central District of California in September 2021. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged Mazda’s recall was deficient because it did not include all affected Mazda vehicles equipped with the defective fuel pumps. 

The settlement provides the very relief plaintiffs have been seeking since November 2021. In the settlement, Mazda will provide a 15-year warranty on the fuel pumps in more than 510,000 additional Mazda vehicles that were not previously recalled but also contain the defective Denso fuel pumps. The settlement also provides for a 15-year or 150,000-mile warranty on the fuel pumps of the 120,000 Mazda vehicles that were recalled and had their fuel pumps replaced. 

Thus, the owners and lessees of all affected vehicles, whether or not their vehicles were previously recalled, or their fuel pumps replaced, are entitled to have their fuel pumps replaced at no cost. In addition, class members are entitled to free loaner vehicles during the repairs and towing, if necessary. 

The settlement also includes a consumer-friendly out-of-pocket expense reimbursement program with no cap on the amount of reimbursements for fuel-pump-related repairs, and settlement oversight with the participation of class counsel. 

Dee Miles, from our firm, serves as co-lead Class Counsel in this litigation.  Dee had this to say: 

We are pleased that we now have final approval by the court of this important settlement and we’re able to provide these valuable class benefits directly to the settlement class members.

Plaintiffs are represented by Dee Miles, (class counsel), Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen, along with Timothy G. Blood (class counsel), Paula R. Brown, and Adam M. Bucci of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP, and DiCello Levitt LLC. 

The case is Vance v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01890-CJC-KES, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

Court Grants Final Approval To Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper Class Action Settlement

On February 28, 2023, Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the Western District of New York granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of a multidistrict litigation against Fisher-Price and, its parent company, Mattel, which manufactured, marketed and sold the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper, an inclined infant sleeper, that plaintiffs alleged posed a grave danger to infants. The product was recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Mattel in April 2019 after it was reported that 32 infants died while in the Sleeper. The product has been linked to positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly and torticollis in infants.  

In the settlement, Mattel agreed to pay $19 million into a common fund to be used to compensate consumers in varying amounts depending on whether they currently own the product; whether they purchased the product but no longer have it, and, if so, if they have proof of purchase; and whether they participated in Mattel’s 2019 recall. Payments will range from a full refund to $60, $50 or $40 for current owners, $35 or $25 for purchasers of Rock ‘n Plays with proof of purchase who are not current owners, and $10 for purchasers of the product who are not current owners and lack proof of purchase, and for recall participants.

Judge Crawford found that the settlement, which was negotiated over nearly four years and included five mediations, “is not like the token payment cases in which consumers are offered nothing of real value in exchange for the extinguishment of their claims. If a consumer chooses to submit a claim, she is likely to receive a substantial percentage of the original price of the RNPS.”

The court appointed Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans of Beasley Allen as co-class counsel representing the settlement class. 

In the litigation, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants falsely marketed the Sleeper as safe and suitable for infant sleep despite knowing that the use of the product posed a serious safety risk. Among other things, prior to the recall, the American Academy of Pediatrics and major consumer groups issued warnings about the serious dangers of inclined sleepers, and regulators in Canada and Australia did not allow defendants to market Rock ‘n Plays as “sleepers.” Nonetheless, defendants sold 4.7 million Rock ‘n Play Sleepers in the 10 years the product was on the market, during which plaintiffs alleged there were infant fatalities and injuries of which defendants were aware.  

Plaintiffs brought claims for violations of various state consumer protection statutes, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. Plaintiffs also alleged that the recall, which did not incentivize consumers to participate in the recall, was deficient and sought injunctive relief to improve the terms of the recall, and for defendants to engage in a “corrective advertising campaign” to alert consumers to the potential dangers of the Sleeper. 

In June 2022, the court certified a class of New York consumers on the issue of liability and set a bellwether trial for 2025. At the time of the settlement, the New York trial, as well as potentially 15 additional bellwether trials, remained in the multidistrict litigation.

Judge Crawford granted preliminary approval of the settlement in August 2024. Subsequently, notice of the settlement was disseminated, either directly or via social media, to approximately 34 million potential class members. No class members objected to the settlement, and only three class members opted out of the settlement. 

The case is In re: Rock ‘n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:19-mdl-2903,  in the Western District of New York.

Plaintiffs are represented by these lawyers: 

Demet Basar (class counsel), James Eubank, Paul Evans, and Dylan T. Martin, of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC; Executive Committee members Tim Fisher of  Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Stephen P. DeNittis of DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C., Daniel Smolen of Smolen & Roytman, Jonathan A. Sorkowitz of Law Offices Of Jonathan A. Sorkowitz; Liaison Counsel Terrence (“Terry”) Connors of Connors LLP; Settlement Counsel Robert Shelquist of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; and Additional Plaintiffs’ Counsel Elbert F. Nasis of Forchelli Deegan Terrana LLP, Mark G. Reich of Reich Radcliffe & Hoover LLP, J. Barton Goplerud of Shindler Anderson Goplerud & Weese PC, Mark A. Smith of Caruso Law Firm, P.C., Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Howard Longman of Longman Law, F. Jerome Tapley of Cory Watson P.C., Kate McGuire of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Chris T. Hellums of Pittman, Dutton & Hellums, P.C., J. Gerard Stranch, IV of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, and Daniel M. Cohen of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Court Ruling In TikTok Editing App Privacy Software Suit

An Illinois federal judge has partially dismissed a proposed class action against ByteDance, the owner of TikTok. The lawsuit alleges that the company secretly collects and profits from biometric data through its CapCut video-editing tool. Judge Alexakis dismissed the claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act. However, the judge allowed other privacy claims to proceed. Also, some claims were dismissed by the court with the option to amend. Key points from the court’s ruling include the following:

• The lawsuit, initially filed in July 2023, claims ByteDance secretly harvested and profited from users’ private data through CapCut.

• The judge found that consumers sufficiently alleged privacy violations under the California Constitution and other California laws.

• ByteDance’s argument that users consented to data collection by downloading the app was rejected.

• The judge dismissed several claims with leave to amend, including those under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act.

• The judge also dismissed claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act but allowed for amendments.

• A claim under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act was dismissed for good, as the app is not considered a “video tape service provider.”

• The litigation continues as ByteDance faces scrutiny over its data practices in the U.S., with recent legislative actions requiring the company to divest TikTok or face a ban.

The consumers are represented by Steve W. Berman and Jeannie Evans of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Douglas G. Smith of Aurelius Law Group LLC.

The case is Evelia Rodriguez et al. v. ByteDance Inc. et al., case number 1:23-cv-04953, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Source: Law360

Boeing Class Certified In Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A California federal judge has certified a class of Boeing investors in a securities fraud lawsuit, accusing the company of making false statements about the safety of its 737 Max fleet. However, Judge Leonie Brinkema excluded option holders from the class, stating their inclusion would prejudice Boeing.

The class includes individuals and entities who purchased or acquired Boeing common stock during a three-year period. The plaintiffs, representing the Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer and Local #817 IBT Pension Fund, attempted to include options holders, but the judge ruled against expanding the class.

Judge Brinkema sided with Boeing on the class period’s start and end dates, setting it from January 7, 2021, to January 8, 2024, instead of the plaintiffs’ proposed dates. The lead plaintiffs were appointed as class representatives, with Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel.

The lawsuit alleges Boeing misled investors about the safety of its 737 Max fleet, causing stock prices to drop after a midair incident in January 2024. The judge previously denied Boeing’s motion to dismiss the suit, citing a strong inference of scienter on Boeing’s part.

The pension funds plaintiffs are represented by Carol C. Villegas, Christine M. Fox and Jake Bissell-Linsk of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Chad Johnson, Noam Mandel, Jonathan Zweig, Desiree Cummings and Brent Mitchell of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, and Steven J. Toll and S. Douglas Bunch of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and attorney Craig C. Reilly.

The case is State of Rhode Island Office of The General Treasurer, on Behalf of The Employees’ Retirement System of The State of Rhode Island v. The Boeing Company et al., case number 1:24-cv-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Source: Law360

Kia Faces Proposed Class Action After Recall

Kia is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court, alleging that the recall of over 137,000 Kia Soul and Seltos models from 2021 to 2023 is insufficient to address the damages caused by engine issues.

Plaintiff Eric Jasinski claims that Kia’s February recall to fix a piston oil ring defect does not compensate for the time needed to replace the engines and lacks assurance that the issue will be permanently resolved. The recall involves replacing the engine and installing “piston-ring sensing noise software” free of charge.

The lawyers representing Jasinski contend that the recall does not fully cover all damages, including diminished vehicle value, loss of use, and overpayment. The inconvenience and costs associated with the repair process are also cited. Jasinski, who owns a 2021 Kia Soul, seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers or lessees of the affected models. The lawsuit includes claims of violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, strict liability, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Jasinski is represented by Stuart A. Carpet of Carpey Law PC.

The case is Jasinski v. Kia America Inc., case number 2:25-cv-01234, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

NEC Infant Formula Update

Beasley Allen lawyers are investigating and prosecuting infant formula cases for infants who have suffered from necrotizing enterocolitis as a result of being fed infant formula derived from cow’s milk. 

Giving cow’s milk formula to premature, underweight newborns dramatically increases their risk of getting this often permanent, life-threatening intestinal condition.  Virtually every pediatric health organization in the world encourages mothers to breastfeed their premature newborns or use human donor milk when breastfeeding is not feasible. Non-cow’s milk formulas are the third best option.  

A recent National Institutes of Health-funded study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that extremely preterm infants fed donated human milk had half the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) compared to those fed cow’s milk-based formula (4.2% vs. 9%).  Despite the well-established risk of necrotizing enterocolitis to premature, underweight infants from cow’s milk formulas, the manufacturers of these products have put no warning on their products of any kind whatsoever.  In fact, they aggressively market these products to unsuspecting parents, clearly putting profits over the safety of children.

The litigation focuses primarily on two infant formula manufacturers: Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products).  The federal lawsuits are centralized in an MDL established in the Northern District of Illinois, with the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer presiding.  In those cases, discovery is ongoing, and the first bellwether trial is presently scheduled to start on May 5, 2025, against Abbott Laboratories.  A second bellwether trial is scheduled for August, also against Abbott.

Our state court cases are pending in Madison County, IL.  However, they remain temporarily stalled as we await a ruling from the 5^th District Court of Appeals on defendants’ jurisdiction challenges.   While we wait, our lawyers continue to work with our experts and prepare for trial.  We expect a ruling from the appellate court at any time and hopefully very soon.

New Investigation Reveals Kratom-Related Deaths in Texas

A recent investigation by the Houston Chronicle has uncovered that over 300 Texans have died from kratom-related overdoses in the past decade. The investigation reports that many deaths were due to a combination of kratom and other substances, but at least 30 individuals overdosed solely on kratom. The Chronicle detailed their methodology, showing a thorough process of examining medical examiners’ reports.

Researchers and medical professionals have linked kratom to severe health issues, including seizures, organ failure, overdoses, and deaths. Kratom is available in pill or liquid extract form, with liquid extracts being more potent. While kratom is illegal in states like Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, it remains widely available throughout the country, often sold at local gas stations without adequate labeling.

Beasley Allen is actively litigating products liability cases involving kratom. The firm will represent individuals seeking to hold kratom companies accountable for deceptive marketing and sales practices that have led to severe injuries.

Source: Houston Chronicle 

Depo-Provera Issues First Pre-Trial Orders, Hosts Leadership Presentations

Things are moving along quickly in the newly formed Depo-Provera Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida.  MDL Judge M. Casey Rogers recently issued her first Case Management Order that outlined the initial steps for organizing pretrial proceedings and selected five (5) pilot cases to guide the litigation’s process.  

The court also invited submissions for proposed plaintiff lawyers’ leadership and permitted presentation from the prospective applicants on March 13.  Meanwhile, the litigation continues to grow in number with additional cases being filed and transferred into the MDL.  Nearly 80 cases have been transferred to the MDL to date. 

Depo-Provera is an injectable birth control medication that was originally approved by the FDA in 1992. Depo-Provera became linked to meningioma tumors, which are tumors that develop on the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord. Although most often benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines.  Lawsuits against Depo-Provera grew after studies were published within the last year solidifying this causal connection.

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith, Mary Cam Raybon, and Leighton Johnson are actively investigating cases involving Depo-Provera use for at least one (1) year where the injured later suffered a cerebral or spinal meningioma. 

Ozempic MDL Update

The Ozempic/GLP-1 MDL has recently seen a significant uptick in filings. Between January and February, 188 new lawsuits were filed, bringing the total number of pending cases in the MDL to 1,521. These lawsuits allege that manufacturers of popular GLP-1 RA drugs, such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Mounjaro, Trulicity, Zepbound, and Saxenda, have failed to warn or have not adequately warned about the consequences associated with these drugs. 

Lead counsel for plaintiffs expect these numbers to continue rising due to increased marketing efforts for these drugs and their widespread availability. Notably, over the past few months, manufacturers have made GLP-1 RA medications more affordable for consumers. 

Along with the uptick in recent GLP-1 MDL filings and heightened GLP-1 marketing comes a growing amount of scientific evidence linking GLP-1 drugs to increased risk of a multitude of health complications, including severe gastrointestinal issues, intraoperative pulmonary aspirations, Ileus, bowel obstructions, deep vein thrombosis, vision loss, and other related injuries. There will be an evidentiary hearing focusing on the admissibility of scientific evidence with Judge Karen S. Marston, the MDL judge, on May 14, 2025. Lawyers at Beasley Allen continue to investigate cases for people suffering from injuries caused by GLP-1 RA medications.

Ultra-Processed Foods 

Ultra-processed foods are mere imitations of food that are becoming one of the greatest threats to human health. These products are engineered to be addictive, consisting of former foods that are fractioned into substances, chemically modified and combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion, and pressurization. Research has shown that these ultra-processed foods, made with excessive sugars, unhealthy fats, and artificial additives, disrupt natural hunger cues, spike blood sugar levels, and cause fat buildup in the liver.  

Despite the dangers these foods pose to consumers, they dominate the shelves of American grocery stores and are extremely prevalent. The ultra-processed food industry is led by manufacturers of “Big Tobacco,” such as RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris, which bought major U.S. food companies like General Foods and Kraft in the 1980s. Building upon their experience designing and marketing addictive tobacco substances, these companies began intentionally designing American food with ultra-processed addictive substances to drive consumption while admittedly shifting their marketing tactics to primarily target American children.  

These lawsuits allege that companies like Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars, and ConAgra Brands have knowingly marketed and sold ultra-processed foods that contribute to serious health conditions such as type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). 

Court Denies Motion To Dismiss In Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits For Second Time

In a significant ruling, Judge Mary M. Rowland of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, has denied motions to dismiss filed by Advanced Beauty Inc., John Paul Mitchell Systems, Wella Operations US LLC, and Wella AG. This decision keeps the defendants in the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning toxic chemical hair relaxer products.

Beasley Allen plaintiffs in the MDL allege that their frequent use of hair relaxers and hair straightening products from these companies resulted in serious health consequences, including ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and endometrial cancer. The lawsuits claim that these products contained harmful chemicals that posed significant risks to consumers.

The defendants, Advanced Beauty Inc., John Paul Mitchell Systems, Wella Operations US LLC, and Wella AG ,— known as the “second wave” defendants in this litigation — sought dismissal on the grounds that the master complaint lacked specific allegations directly linking their products to the plaintiffs’ injuries. However, Judge Rowland rejected this argument, emphasizing that the MDL’s master and short-form complaints must be read together as a single operative complaint. This comprehensive approach, she ruled, provided sufficient detail to establish a meaningful connection between the defendants’ conduct and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

This marks the second time Judge Rowland has denied motions to dismiss in this MDL. Previously, she ruled against the initial set of defendants who similarly argued that the plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient. In her February 19 ruling, Judge Rowland concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations, when viewed collectively, adequately claimed that the defendants’ products contributed to the increased risk of cancer. The court determined that the complaints provided fair notice of the claims, ensuring the litigation could proceed.

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

$2 Billion Verdict Against Monsanto In Roundup Weedkiller Trial

Jurors awarded $2 billion last month to John Barnes, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. This is the first case of its kind in Georgia state court. The verdict includes $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages against Bayer-owned Monsanto.

Barnes claims glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, caused his cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn him of the risks. Monsanto contended there is no reliable link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, citing studies and EPA conclusions. It was proved at trial that Monsanto knew of the risks but chose to hide them.

Monsanto plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that scientific evidence supports the product’s safety.

The case is among thousands of similar claims across the country alleging Roundup caused consumers’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of blood cancer. The trial centered largely on glyphosate’s alleged links to the disease and Monsanto’s conduct over decades of selling the product.

The jurors found that Monsanto knew of glyphosate’s links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but failed to warn the public, worked for decades to undercut studies showing the chemical’s risks, and lobbied to avoid any warnings.

John Barnes is represented by Kyle Findley, Noah Wexler, and Kala Sellers, from Arnold & Itkin; Frank Bayuk, from Bayuk Pratt; and John Bevis, from Barnes Law Group.

The case is Barnes v. Monsanto Company, case number 21-A-444, in the State Court of Cobb County.

Current Status Of Litigation: An Overview Of Paraquat Lawsuits

As previously highlighted, the landscape of litigation surrounding Paraquat, an herbicide linked to serious health concerns, remains extensive and dynamic. Currently, over 5,800 lawsuits against Paraquat manufacturers are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In addition to this federal consolidation, significant litigation is also unfolding in various state courts, notably in California and Pennsylvania. With major developments anticipated in the coming months, we want to highlight some key things to pay attention to.

Upcoming Trials

Several pivotal trials are on the horizon. In Philadelphia, trial dates have been set for June 2, August 4, and October 6, 2025. Concurrently, the first trial in the federal court litigation is scheduled for October 14, 2025. These trials represent crucial opportunities for both plaintiffs and defendants to present their arguments, theories, and evidence before a judge and jury. Often referred to as “test” trials, these proceedings can provide valuable insights into how future similar cases may be adjudicated. The outcomes of these trials could also play a significant role in shaping potential global settlements.

What Should Plaintiffs do to best prepare their case for potential settlement?

As lawyers for the plaintiffs gear up to position cases for potential trial or settlement, there are primary objectives that remain clear. Several factors may influence the amount of recovery or settlement, particularly the quality and quantity of evidence lawyers can present regarding exposure to Paraquat and the extent of injury or treatment received. 

Evidence of Exposure and Injury

To bolster your potential claim, it is essential to gather comprehensive evidence of your exposure to Paraquat. This may include:

• Witness Identification: Locating individuals with firsthand knowledge of Paraquat use.

• Documentation: Collecting receipts, photographs of Paraquat or related spraying equipment, and relevant business or employment records.

• Medical Records: Ensuring we have the most up-to-date treatment records related to Parkinson’s disease or other health issues linked to Paraquat exposure.

If you suspect there may be additional evidence concerning your exposure or treatment that we have not yet obtained, please inform Beasley Allen at your earliest convenience. Your proactive communication is crucial in building a robust case.

4th Circuit Rules PFAS Suits Should Not Have Been Sent Back To State Courts

A split Fourth Circuit panel ruled that U.S. district court judges made a mistake by sending lawsuits filed by Maryland and South Carolina against 3M back to state courts. These lawsuits involve environmental contamination from consumer products containing “forever chemicals.”

The states attempted to separate their lawsuits into two categories: one for consumer products and another for firefighting foams (AFFF) made for the government. However, the panel decided that this separation wasn’t enough to prevent 3M from moving both types of lawsuits to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.

Judge G. Steven Agee, writing for the majority, stated that 3M’s federal work is related to the contamination claims, as the pollution from consumer products and firefighting foams is intertwined. The panel sent the case back to district courts to determine if 3M meets other criteria to keep the case in federal court.

In dissent, Judge Henry F. Floyd contended that the connection between 3M’s federal work and the consumer product pollution is too weak to justify federal jurisdiction. The judge expressed concern that this decision could limit state courts’ ability to handle similar cases.

Maryland is represented by Stephanie Biehl, Ashley Campbell and Victor Sher of Sher Edling LLP, Melissa E. Byroade and John D.S. Gilmour of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Scott E. Kauff, Alexander Lantanision and Derek Sugimura of Law Offices of John K. Dema and Anthony G. Brown, Adam D. Snyder and Patrica V. Tipon of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

South Carolina is represented by Fred Hanna, Austin T. Reed and Jonathan M. Robinson of Smith Robinson Holler Dubose & Morgan LLC, Vincent Sheheen and Michael D. Wright of Savage Royall & Sheheen LLP, A.G. Solomons III of Speights & Solomons LLC and Clyde H. Jones Jr., Jared Q. Libet, Danielle Robertson, Kristin Simons, William Jeffrey Young and Alan Wilson of the Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina.

The lead case is State of Maryland v. 3M Co., case number 24-1218, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Source: Law360

Michigan Supreme Court Sends PFAS Regulations Challenge To Lower Court

The Michigan Supreme Court has sent 3M Co.’s challenge to state PFAS regulations back to a lower court. The justices vacated a previous ruling that the state’s drinking water restrictions were improperly established due to insufficient consideration of business compliance burdens. The lower court must now determine if newer PFAS regulations issued in 2022 make 3M’s lawsuit moot and whether the company should have pursued an administrative appeal before suing.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) remains committed to maintaining PFAS standards to protect clean water access. EGLE established limits on seven PFAS compounds in tap water in August 2020, which temporarily became groundwater cleanup standards for two compounds, PFOA and PFOS.

3M, a manufacturer of PFAS, challenged the drinking water regulations, arguing they would be subject to environmental remediation criteria if PFAS were found at their properties. Reportedly, the company plans to stop manufacturing PFAS by the end of this year.

The courts previously ruled that EGLE violated the state’s Administrative Procedures Act by not fully analyzing compliance costs. The Michigan Supreme Court’s order also asks the lower court to address whether 3M should have requested a declaratory ruling from EGLE before filing suit. 3M argues that exhausting administrative remedies does not apply to rule validity challenges and would have been futile.

The state is represented by Richard S. Kuhl of the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

The case is 3M Co. v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, case number 166189, in the Michigan Supreme Court.

Source: Law360

NJDEP’s Actions Complicate Federal Court’s DuPont Chemours Cleanup Case 

New Jersey’s environmental regulators have ordered EIDP and DuPont Chemours to start cleaning up “forever chemical” contamination at a former facility in Salem County. This move, which is part of ongoing litigation, has raised concerns about undermining a federal judge’s authority and potentially delaying a May trial.

U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb expressed confusion over the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) decision to assert regulatory control so close to the trial date. She noted that the actions ordered by NJDEP are the same goals being pursued through the litigation.

Judge Bumb questioned whether NJDEP might disregard the court’s rulings and rely on its administrative oversight if dissatisfied with the judicial outcome. Consequently, she decided to pause deadlines for pending briefs and scheduled a conference on April 1, to discuss the case’s future.

The lawsuit involves contamination of PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at the Chambers Works facility in Salem County. New Jersey officials have accused 3M and DuPont entities of discharging numerous hazardous substances, including forever chemicals.

The litigation has been ongoing for six years, and Judge Bumb was surprised by NJDEP’s recent decision to place the site under direct oversight. On February 28, NJDEP informed Chemours that it was taking control of the site and required the companies to establish a remediation funding source, matching the amount suggested by an expert in the litigation.

NJDEP’s actions were prompted by Chemours’ report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing the cleanup was too costly. NJDEP learned of this report in January.

Judge Bumb criticized NJDEP’s plans, stating that its direct oversight undermines the court’s jurisdiction and suggests there will be no finality until NJDEP achieves its goals through either the court or administrative proceedings.

The case is New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. et al., case number 1:19-cv-14766, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

$1.25 Million Water Meter Malfunction Victory In Phenix City

Beasley Allen lawyers Gavin King and Elizabeth Walden are pleased to announce a $1.25 million settlement for Phenix City, a municipality in Russell County, Alabama, against Master Meter, Inc. and Empire Pipe and Supply Company. This significant outcome came just hours before the case was set to be tried in a Russell County court. The case was handled by the Beasley Allen lawyers along with Jim McKown of the McKown law firm. 

The case stemmed from defective water meter components that caused the city’s water metering system to fail. This failure required Phoenix City to estimate bills based on prior months’ consumption, leading to unexpected retroactive charges for many residents.  A glitch in the register—a component of the City’s water metering system—caused the registers to die prematurely. As a result, city employees were unable to get accurate readings from thousands of registers.

This systemic failure cost the city of Phenix City a great deal in the way of time and resources. As a result, the city sued the manufacturer and seller of the defective water metering products in 2021. Phenix City’s Assistant City Manager, Chan Gamble, expressed gratitude for the settlement, stating: 

The City extends our sincere thanks to Beasley Allen Law Firm, particularly Elizabeth Walden and Gavin King, and to Jim McKoon of the McKoon Law Firm, for their work which resulted in the settlement of Phenix City’s lawsuit against the maker and distributor of defective water metering products. Their efforts have been crucial in protecting the interests of our community and addressing the significant costs in time and money caused by these issues. These funds will help us replace our current system, ensuring more reliable and efficient water services for our residents.

This resolution not only compensates Phenix City, but it also addresses the broader impact on the community, ensuring precise billing methods moving forward. Residents can now look forward to more accurate water bills and a sense of justice being served. Gavin King made this observation relating to the settlement: 

As a native of East Alabama, it was a true privilege to represent a community so close to my hometown. This settlement is the result of a collaborative effort between our firm, the McKoon Law Firm, the City’s leadership, and the City’s counsel to ensure the interests of the people of Phenix City were protected. I am proud to practice law at a firm where we have the opportunity to improve the lives of people in communities across this state and nation.

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients

Beasley Allen operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked very well. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and has also allowed our lawyers to bring about national changes in product and workplace safety. 

For over 45 years, Beasley Allen lawyers have handled all sorts of civil litigation for plaintiffs. The Administrative Section supports the four litigation sections that could be described as “mini-firms” within Beasley Allen. Those four litigation sections are the Mass Torts Section, the Toxic Torts Section, the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. 

Each section has a team of lawyers and support staff working closely together, creating efficiency and case proficiency within each section. Successful section performance leads to better firm performance overall, allowing us to expand our resources and enabling firm growth. Year after year, we believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most. 

The Mass Torts Section

Andy Birchfield heads our Mass Torts Section. Melissa Prickett serves as the Section’s Director. With over 50 years of combined legal experience, Andy and Melissa lead the firm’s largest section in medical devices, medication and other practice areas. The section currently handles cases involving Acetaminophen, Hair Relaxers, Kratom, NEC Baby Formula, Ozempic, Social Media, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Depo-Provera and Talcum Powder.

The Toxic Torts Section

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune Water Contamination and Paraquat. 

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section

Dee Miles is the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Michelle Fulmer is the Director of the Section. The section currently handles cases involving Business Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Securities cases, Civil & Human Rights, Employment Law and Whistleblower cases.

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section

Cole Portis heads our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section with Sloan Downes serving as the Director of the Section. The section handles Auto Accidents, Auto Products, Aviation Accidents, Defective Tires, Negligent Security, On-the-Job Injuries and Truck Accident cases. 

The Administrative Section

Finally, the Administrative Section includes Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT) and Marketing. Michelle Parks is the Director of Accounting, Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations, and Kimberly Youngblood serves as the Director of HR, IT and Marketing.

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The structure has contributed greatly to our firm’s success. Section Heads and Directors have been able to concentrate on the volume of cases in their section. They quickly recognize when additional resources are needed. Lawyers in each Section have been able to focus on cases within their specialty. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. The efficiency and teamwork generated by the sections concept has resulted in our firm being recognized as one of the best litigation firms in the country. This has been for the benefit of the folks we represented. 

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

Our BeasleyAllen.com website provides the latest information on the current case activity at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, the top navigation, or the practices page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Sections. 

Practices

• Business Litigation
• Civil & Human Rights
• Class Actions
• Consumer Protection
• Employment Law
• Medical Devices
• Medication
• Personal Injury
• Product Liability
• Toxic Exposure
• Whistleblower Litigation

Cases 

The cases in the categories listed below are handled by lawyers in the appropriate Litigation Section at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, on the top navigation, or on the Cases page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Recent-Cases/).

• Acetaminophen
• Auto Accidents
• Auto Products
• Aviation Accidents
• Camp Lejeune 
• Defective Tires
• Depo-Provera
• Hair Relaxers
• Kratom
• NEC Baby Formula
• Negligent Security 
• On-the-Job-Injuries
• Ozempic
• Paraquat
• Social Media 
• Talcum Powder
• Truck Accidents 
• Ultra-Processed Foods
• Video Game Addiction

We will give a brief explanation below for each of the listed categories:

• Acetaminophen
  Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD. 
• Auto Accidents
  Our lawyers handle life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks. 
• Auto Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents
  Lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune 
  Our firm handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires
  Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures. 
• Depo-Provera
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Our firm investigates cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security 
  Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  We investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic
  We investigate cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat
  Our firm handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Social Media 
  Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder
  Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers. 
• Truck Accidents 
  Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Ultra-Processed Foods
  We are actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction 
  We are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

Beasley Allen is a civil litigation law firm solely handling cases for plaintiffs.  From the firm’s beginning in 1979, Beasley Allen has only represented victims of wrongdoing, and that will never change. 

The firm only represents individuals, companies and governmental entities that have been wronged and have suffered damages due to the wrongdoing of another. Our lawyers do not handle any defense work, neither civil nor criminal. There are no exceptions. The only time we represent companies in Corporate America is when they are victims of wrongdoing and are plaintiffs in civil litigation. This has been our policy since the firm’s establishment.

We are honored and humbled that our firm has been consistently recognized as one of the leading law firms in the country representing only claimants involved in civil litigation, much of it being complex and complicated. Being trial lawyers representing only victims of wrongdoing is a privilege for us. Our firm has been truly blessed.

We understand the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our peers in the legal profession. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our fellow trial lawyers in their work. We have compiled a list of our most popular resources for those seeking to work with us or seeking information to help their law firm with a case.

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter

Beasley Allen sends out a Co-Counsel E-Newsletter specifically tailored with lawyers in mind. It features case updates, highlights key victories achieved for our clients, and informs readers about the firm’s latest resources. You can get it online by visiting our website, BeasleyAllen.com, and clicking the Articles link.

Recalls Update

We try our best to stay current on the latest significant consumer recalls. Contact our JLB Report Team at [email protected] if you have any questions or believe we may need to include a recall.

The Jere Beasley Report

We also consider The Jere Beasley Report a service to lawyers and the general public. We provide the Report at no cost monthly. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link.

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Keys To Preparing A Successful Products Liability Case

Beasley Allen lawyers currently represent plaintiffs and consumers nationwide in product liability cases. These cases can, and often do, prove crucial not only to ensuring that those injured by the wrongdoing of others are adequately compensated, but that the general public is protected in the future. 

Products liability litigation prompts industry-wide changes which improve the safety of all consumers and create a safer market moving forward. It’s important to realize that these cases can be extremely difficult and complicated, expensive and time-consuming. 

A successful products liability case begins with a strong foundation. This concept applies to all aspects of the case including early preservation of evidence, effective communication with opposing counsel, and a strong relationship with your client. 

Shelby Mitchell, a lawyer in our firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, has prepared some tips on the subject of preparation of a products liability case. Let’s take a look at what Shelby has for us. 

Preserve evidence. It is imperative that you take swift action to preserve evidence such as the vehicles or equipment involved in the accident. Model number, year and date of sale, the manufacturer and where the product was made are critical to your investigation. Research any recalls or investigations related to that product. Scour consumer report studies and investigate any warnings related to the product showing the maker knew there were concerns about the product. Witness testimony is also key when analyzing what evidence is present, what is needed, and what must be done to preserve this information. Neutral first responders, doctors, co-workers and eyewitnesses are more apt to come across as credible because they have nothing to gain at the end of the case. 

Communicate with opposing counsel. We have all heard the phrase “communication is key,” and it rings true when considering how to approach opposing counsel. Oftentimes, the discovery process can become bogged down by a lack of effective communication between parties. This often leads to the filing of motions to compel and a resulting slowing of the case while discovery disputes are resolved. While these motions are often necessary to move a case forward, many can be prevented by effective communication. Your client is relying on you to obtain information that supports their case, but this does not always mean that the process has to be contentious. Many disputes can be resolved through honest communication. 

Maintain a relationship with your client. It is important to remember that we represent individuals who have been injured due to no fault of their own, and they have come to us for help. A close, trustworthy relationship with clients should begin at the outset of a case and continue until the case is fully resolved. How the judge or jury perceives your client is paramount both in the courtroom and in mediation. Their credibility is just as important as the story and details behind their case. If you have questions about whether your client is trustworthy, sympathetic or likable, you can expect the judge, jury or defense lawyer will, too. Make sure to have honest conversations with your client about their case and what to expect so that as their case progresses, an open line of communication is already present as questions arise. 

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Aigner Kolom Serves On The Executive Committee Of Hope Inspired Ministries

Beasley Allen lawyer Aigner Kolom was recently elected to the Executive Committee of the Board of Hope Inspired Ministries. She will also serve as Secretary of the Board. The organization is dedicated to transforming the lives of low-skilled, poorly educated, and chronically unemployed individuals by preparing them to obtain and maintain employment. Aigner, who is very busy as a trial lawyer, gives her time to help this worthwhile group in carrying out its mission. 

Aigner, a talented lawyer, brings a wealth of experience and a deep commitment to community service to her new role. Known for her empathy and problem-solving skills, Aigner has been recognized on the Midsouth Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” list and The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 list. Her dedication to justice and advocacy, particularly in cases involving hair relaxers, underscores her passion for representing those in need. Aigner is an outstanding trial lawyer, but more importantly, she is a good person. 

Hope Inspired Ministries says it’s excited to welcome Aigner to the Executive Committee. Her leadership and vision will further the organization’s mission of developing individual worth, encouraging personal responsibility, and promoting the value and honor of work. As Secretary, Aigner will assist in guiding the strategic direction of the ministry and ensuring its continued impact on the community.

Aigner’s involvement with Hope Inspired Ministries is a testament to her commitment to making a difference in her community. Her legal experience, combined with her dedication to community service, positions her as a valuable asset to the organization. The Board of Directors and the entire Hope Inspired Ministries community look forward to the positive contributions Aigner will bring in her new role.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Kendall Dunson

Kendall Dunson, who joined Beasley Allen in 1999, is a lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury and Products Liability Section. He focuses on product liability, general personal injury, and workplace injury cases involving defective industrial machinery. Kendall’s dedication to securing justice for his clients is evident in his tireless efforts to compensate individuals for their losses and encourage corporations to prioritize safety in their product designs. 

Kendall shares two key influences that inspired him to become an attorney. The first was the popular 1980s legal television series “L.A. Law,” which sparked his initial interest in the legal field. As he delved deeper, he found inspiration in the court system’s pivotal role in advancing the Civil Rights movement, where landmark cases helped shape a more equitable society. 

Beyond his professional accomplishments, Kendall shares a fulfilling life with his wife, Samarria Munnerlyn Dunson, who was recently appointed by Gov. Kay Ivey to be a District Court Judge in Montgomery. Prior to that, Samarria had been elected as a Montgomery Municipal Court Judge in 2020. She previously served as the director of Compliance and Ethics at the Alabama Department of Public Health. 

Kendall and Samarria have three children: Kenneth, Kendall, and Kennedy. They are deeply involved in their children’s activities, especially basketball, which keeps the family busy with both school and travel games. In his free time, Kendall is passionate about golf and enjoys reading, he also has a particular fondness for science fiction TV shows and movies. He jokes about spending more time than he anticipated watching Nick Junior and Disney Junior because of his daughters. Kendall also cherishes the moments spent discussing professional wrestling with his son, creating enjoyable family interactions. 

Kendall finds immense satisfaction in his work, especially when he can secure recoveries for clients who have suffered life-altering injuries or losses. He values the opportunity to explain complex legal matters to families, helping them navigate their situation while ensuring they fully understand their case. Kendall adds: 

What makes Beasley Allen unique is a blend of location, size, purpose, and a familial culture that makes each day fulfilling. I believe this supportive environment amplifies the firm’s mission, allowing each attorney to pursue justice passionately.

As Kendall continues to champion the rights of those affected by wrongdoing, his commitment to safety and justice remains unwavering, genuinely embodying the values of Beasley Allen. We are truly blessed to have Kendall with us!

Merritt Rae Hays

Merritt Hays has worked as a paralegal at Beasley Allen since June 2016, where she supports the firm’s lawyers in the Mass Torts section, specifically focusing on talcum powder litigation. With more than 35 years of experience in legal and law enforcement, she brings dedication and expertise to her role. Through her work at the firm and her involvement in various charitable initiatives, Merritt demonstrates a strong commitment to positively impacting both her professional and personal life.

Merritt has been married to her husband, Daryl, for 17 years, and they enjoy traveling and hiking together. They are also the proud parents to a son, Parker (39), a daughter, Jordan (34), and a 14-year-old granddaughter, all of whom bring them immense joy. Merritt Hays has called Montgomery, Alabama, home since 1992. Her diverse journey began in Georgia and included stops at Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, as well as in Mississippi and Texas. Montgomery is where she found her community and truly settled down.

Merritt values Beasley Allen’s commitment to prioritizing family and community service, which aligns with her own beliefs. She finds fulfillment in the firm’s efforts to create a positive impact locally and beyond. We are blessed to have Merritt with us!

Amy Hollon Norris

Amy Norris has been with Beasley Allen for over five years and is an intake specialist in the firm’s Toxic Torts section. In her role, Amy manages initial and follow-up contact with clients, handling phone calls and emails. She assists clients with initial forms, sends links for electronic documents, and helps them understand the claims process and litigation updates. Throughout her tenure, Amy has provided support on significant cases involving 3M Earplugs, Roundup, Paraquat, nursing homes, Camp Lejeune, AFFF/PFAS, and BioLab, while also assisting with opioid litigation data for Alabama and Georgia.

Family is a priority for Amy. Her daughter, Ashley, is a Certified ICU Patient Care Technician and Scentsy consultant, while her son-in-law, Luke, is the 2024 Millbrook Firefighter of the Year. Amy also has two grandsons, Will (12) and Charlie (9 months), and a son, Tyler, currently in U.S. Navy boot camp. In her spare time, Amy enjoys family time, caring for her pets, reading, cooking, binge-watching Netflix, and visiting the beach. 

What Amy loves most about working at Beasley Allen is being part of a team that helps those in need. She finds fulfillment in providing compassion to individuals who have been injured or have lost loved ones due to toxic elements, reassuring them that the team is fighting for their rights. We are most fortunate to have Amy at Beasley Allen.

Erin Lindsay Sharpe Little

Erin Little joined Beasley Allen five years ago and currently, she is the Associate Director of Finance in the firm’s accounting department. In this role, Erin manages various financial functions, including budget preparation, general ledger reconciliation, cash flow maintenance, and preparing financial reports and tax returns. Erin appreciates working with a dedicated team that strives to support clients and each other.

Erin and her husband, Jason, have been married for eight years and have a one-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old rescue dog. In her spare time, Erin enjoys cooking, entertaining, and spending time with family and friends. She is actively involved in her church community at the Church of the Ascension and loves returning to Tuscaloosa, her alma mater, for sporting events. Traveling, especially to the beach, is a favorite activity for the Little family.

What Erin cherishes most about working at Beasley Allen is the incredible team of people. She adds, “I see firsthand the dedication and hard work that my colleagues put in daily to support clients and each other, creating a supportive and productive work environment.” We are thankful to have Erin with us!

Matt Teague

Matt Teague joined Beasley Allen in 2011 and is a principal in the firm’s Mass Torts section.  Matt has made a significant impact in the area of product liability law, focusing on dangerous and defective pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices. Currently, he is deeply involved in the firm’s talc litigation, bringing his experience to trial teams and working tirelessly to advocate for clients. 

Outside of his professional life, Matt is devoted to his family. He and his wife, Erin, are proud parents to their four children: Meagher, Miller, Butler, and Garner. Balancing a busy life with kids aged 6 to 17, Matt enjoys attending school events, sports activities, and community gatherings, often cherishing the simple moments together, like bike rides or family trips to the beach and mountains. 

Matt’s journey into law was inspired by his parents, Barry and Dianne Teague. Following in his father’s footsteps, who also practiced law and served his community, Matt seeks to counsel and uplift those facing legal challenges. He expresses that the most rewarding aspect of his job is getting to know his clients and becoming part of their lives, making a real difference in their stories. 

At Beasley Allen, Matt highlights a commitment to client-centric values. He adds, “Each attorney places the client’s needs first, fostering a collaborative effort to achieve the best possible outcomes. The firm’s unique approach combines legal expertience with a deep understanding of various industries, effectively allowing them to tell their clients’ stories in court.” We are thankful to have Matt, a dedicated and talented lawyer, with us!

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Erin Little, one of our staff employees being featured in this issue, shares her favorite Bible verses with us.

  The first verse is a reminder to let our “light”- our love, our goodness, our kindness- be seen by everyone. Especially in today’s world, we all need to show more love and kindness to one another.

Let your light shine in front of men. Then they will see the good things you do and will honor your Father Who is in heaven. Mathew 5:16

The second verse is one from the Book of Psalms.

The Lord is my light and the One Who saves me. Whom should I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life. Of whom should I be afraid? Psalm 27:1

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Law Firms Ordered To Disclose BCBS Settlement Opt-Outs 

An Alabama federal judge has ordered four law firms representing hospitals that opted out of the $2.8 billion Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) antitrust settlement to disclose if their clients were influenced by “quick payments” from litigation funders. Judge R. David Proctor’s ruling aims to assess the settlement’s fairness and determine if financial motivations played a role in the opt-out decisions. The firms, which are named in the judge’s order, must provide this information by April 9 and discuss it at an April 16 hearing.

The BCBS settlement has attracted significant interest from litigation funders due to potential multibillion-dollar payouts for hospitals that opt-out and sue independently. The opt-out deadline was March 4, with about 15,450 healthcare providers opting out. Approximately 70% of these hospitals are represented by the four firms mentioned in the order. These firms have filed eight lawsuits across the country.

For those who aren’t familiar with this matter, I will give a brief account. The antitrust litigation, filed in 2012, accuses BCBS of stifling competition and driving up profits by dividing the country into exclusive geographical blocks. The settlement includes a $2.7 billion deal for subscribers and a $2.8 billion deal for providers, making it one of the largest antitrust settlements ever.

The providers are represented by Whatley Kallas LLP, Dominick Feld Hyde PC, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Hayes Hunter PC, Wood Law Firm LLC, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb, Podhurst Orseck PA, Reich & Binstock LLP, U.W. Clemon LLC, Eyster Key Tubb Roth Middleton & Adams LLP, White Arnold & Dowd PC, the Law Offices of David A. Balto, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Bunch & James, Axelrod LLP, the Frankowski Firm LLC, the Law Office of John C. Davis, Glast Phillips & Murray PC, Gray & White, Michael E. Gurley Jr., the Law Office of Stephen M. Hansen, Jinks Crow PC, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA, Penn & Seaborn LLC, the Pittman Firm PA, Strom Law Firm LLC, Shelby Roden LLC, Horn Aylward & Bandy LLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Cusimano Roberts & Mills LLC, Bailey Glasser LLP, Wojtalewicz Law Firm Ltd., Sears & Swanson PC, Archie Lamb & Associates LLC, Dillon & Findley PC, Lundberg Law PLC, Heidman Law Firm PLLC and Simons & Associates Law PA.

The case is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, case number 2:13-cv-20000, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Source: Law360

MONTHLY REMINDERS

These reminders are for all of us at Beasley Allen. They are put in the Report for a purpose. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. While they are for all at Beasley Allen, we send them to all who get the Report. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned from them in their daily lives. 

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 

2 Chronicles 7:14

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.

Rep. John Lewis speaking on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 1, 2020

Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part.

Rep. John Lewis on movement-building in Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America

The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country….corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 

PARTING WORDS

We live in a mixed-up world with all sorts of major problems. There is far too much hate, disobedience, and violence in America. The political scene in our country is as divided as I have ever seen it. The Rule of Law and the court system are under constant attack. All too many of the American people have lost respect for the government and do not support our leaders. 

It’s said on Wikipedia, “The rule of law is a political and legal ideal that all people and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers, government officials, and judges. It is sometimes stated simply as, ‘no one is above the law’ or ‘all are equal before the law.’”

My prayer is for our people and the elected officials at all levels of government to trust God and seek His guidance. All should follow God’s will in their lives.

The Bible gives us the only real solution to our problems in America. It’s said in 2^nd Chronicles 7:14:

If my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

We must all do our part to help save America. It’s a mistake to sit on the sideline and not be involved in the government. We can learn from history what happens in a country where people sit back and fail to get involved in a positive manner.

God Bless America!