The Jere Beasley Report November 2024

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Alabama House Speaker Elected Chair Of CSG South

Alabama has consistently been ranked very high for business and commercial development. That should not come as a surprise to any person who has kept up with the climate for business in the state. Recently, the state was ranked as the eighth-best state for doing business by Area Development. Alabama received high marks in several categories, including its property tax environment, and was one of six Southern states to place in the top 10 for business climate.

Alabama Commerce Secretary Ellen McNair highlighted the state’s recognition as a premier destination for business growth and success. Ellen credited Alabama Industrial Development Training’s (AIDT) continuous improvement and innovation in training for attracting new investments and supporting existing industries. AIDT was created in 1971 and has trained over one million workers for over 5,000 companies in the state. I led the team that created AIDT when I was a very young Lt. Governor. It proved to be a game-changer in the field of industrial development for my state. 

The following are additional rankings that clearly show how things are in Alabama:

• 3rd in overall cost of doing business and favorable regulatory environment
• 5th in Business Incentives Programs
• 6th in Energy Availability and Cost
• 6th in Site Readiness Programs
• 10th in Access to Qualified Labor

These accolades underscore Alabama’s strong business climate and its appeal to companies looking to grow and succeed. This is a strong message for those from out of state seeking a new home. It’s also good for those existing Alabama businesses that will be expanding their presence in the state. 

Source: AL.com

THE HISTORIC BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTI-TRUST SETTLEMENT

Monumental $2.8 Billion Settlement Announced In Provider Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Case

A monumental settlement of $2.8 billion was announced on October 14^th, by the Provider side Settlement Team in the Blue Cross Blue Shield MDL, the long-running antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of healthcare providers across the nation. Beasley Allen’s Dee Miles is part of the leadership team of this historical case. He served on the critical settlement committee that spent several years negotiating this landmark settlement with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. 

Joe Whatley and Edith Kallas, of the Whatley Kallas firm, served as co-counsel for the providers. They did a tremendous job of handling this case. Their leadership was  key to accomplishing the historic settlement. Beasley Allen lawyers served on the litigation, discovery and settlement teams. 

The settlement with all the Blue Cross and Blue Shield entities in the country, as well as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, provides billions of dollars for healthcare providers and is the largest antitrust settlement in the history of the United States healthcare industry. 

The settlement includes a $2.8 billion cash payment into a settlement fund, as well as investments by the Blues of hundreds of millions of dollars in system improvements for the benefit of providers.

Provider Plaintiffs are asking the court to preliminarily approve the $2.8 billion settlement, which would resolve their claims alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by, among other things, agreeing to allocate markets through the use of exclusive service areas and to fix the prices paid to providers through the BlueCard Program. More importantly, in addition to the substantial damages fund, the settlement outlines crucial changes in the business relationship between Blue Cross Blue Shield Association member plans – all 33 independent Blues – that will transform the BlueCard Program. 

The settlement also affects how the Blues process claims, communicate with, and make payments to healthcare providers. The new transformation parameters outlined in the settlement help alleviate and address resource-draining administrative burdens and inefficiencies currently experienced by providers. Co-Lead Counsel Edith Kallas, of Whatley Kallas, says: 

Over the past 12 years we have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time, tireless effort and resources to this historic outcome for providers. Many important issues for providers are finally being addressed. We’re pleased that we have been able to achieve relief that will create a better system for healthcare providers and that will support the organizations and people we rely on to take care of us and our families every day.

Co-Lead Counsel Joe Whatley added: “The $2.8 billion cash payment, together with the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investments the Blues are making to improve their systems, will benefit providers enormously. The actual value of the settlement to providers will be much greater than the total payments.” 

As part of the settlement, sixteen categories of transformational program requirements will hold Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans accountable for timely communication and payment, transparent decision-making and dealings with third parties, and timely claims status updates.

The settlement also gives providers increased contracting opportunities with the Blues. All Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association will be held accountable by an appointed Monitoring Committee for five years following the effective date of the settlement after the court’s final approval. The Provider Plaintiffs assembled a work group consisting of different types of providers, including representatives of large healthcare systems, teaching hospitals, rural hospitals, physicians, ancillary providers, and medical and hospital associations, which gave meaningful guidance throughout the process.

The American Hospital Association provided valuable input in this case. Jeff Gold, Vice President and Counsel for Managed Care and Insurance, Hospital Association of New York State, observed:

For nearly two decades I have helped lead, through my role at HANYS, a multi-state group of hospital associations attempting to obtain meaningful reforms for hospitals and healthcare systems, including their doctors and ancillary providers, in the Blue Card Program….This settlement represents a culmination of these necessary, meaningful reforms and will significantly improve the Blue Card Program for all Class Members. 

Matthew Katz, who has served in various organized medicine roles for decades and is currently a consultant for healthcare providers, added:

I have spent much of my professional life assisting doctors, clinicians and other healthcare professionals in addressing ongoing issues in the Blues’ system…..The injunctive relief achieved here is transformative and will result in a more transparent, efficient and accountable experience for Class Members in dealing with the Blues.

This was extremely difficult, complex litigation. It required expansive investigation and preparation. As the litigation has proceeded for the past twelve years, the providers’ lawyers, led by a team of this nation’s best lawyers, have spent approximately $100 million, most of which was used to develop the largest collection of healthcare claims data in any case in history and for involving healthcare antitrust economists to evaluate that data and to develop econometric models for the case. 

Beasley Allen lawyers, led by Dee Miles, served in the leadership of this case and served on the all-important settlement committee, Rebecca Gilliland and Jessi Haynes, lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, were on the litigation team. They did some great work in the discovery phase of this historical case, uncovering critical documents and testimony that helped lead to this landmark antitrust healthcare settlement. 

Dee, reflecting on the 12-year battle and the highly successful outcome, had this to say about our involvement in the case:  

Our firm played a key role in the success of this litigation, and we are thrilled with the result.  We look forward to implementing this settlement and delivering the long desired relief to the healthcare providers of this country. 

Our firm was honored to be paired with former U.S. District Judge U. W. Clemon as partners on the settlement committee for this historic case. Judge Clemon and Dee Miles were responsible for vetting numerous complex issues for the settlement committee that resulted in very practical solutions and settlement terms. Their combined tenacity and talent helped to produce some excellent relief for our healthcare providers. Dee says: “It was a great honor to work side-by-side with one of this country’s finest legal talents in Judge Clemon.”

The court will consider the Motion for Preliminary Approval likely in November. Filings and orders related to the settlement will be available on our firm’s webpage. Formal Notice will be sent to all class members at a later date to be determined by the court. 

The providers are represented by Whatley Kallas LLP, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Dominick Feld Hyde 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.

TALC LITIGATION

Judge Allows Third Johnson & Johnson Bankruptcy to Remain in Texas 

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Lopez ruled in favor of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talc unit Red River Talc, LLC, and kept the case in his Houston court. Judge Lopez believes the creditors voted for the venue and Red River’s proposed settlement plan.

This decision follows two prior failed attempts to address the J&J talc liability, both of which were dismissed by judges in New Jersey and in the Third Circuit. The Office of the U.S. Trustee and a coalition of talc claimants had asked Judge Lopez for transfer to the same New Jersey bankruptcy court that handled the two prior cases.

The U.S. Justice Department argued that Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) maneuvers “are an assault on the very integrity of the bankruptcy system” in support of the change of venue to New Jersey.

Beasley Allen continues to oppose this bankruptcy. The current proposed plan is grossly inadequate in the amount offered to actual victims, with no guaranteed timeline for compensation. We also believe that the voting process has been inaccurate, improper, and does not reflect the desires of many of the victims with valid claims. 

Beasley Allen’s Andy Birchfield continues to stand behind the belief that Johnson & Johnson’s tactics abuse the bankruptcy system. Andy says: 

Going forward, we will provide evidence to the court illustrating many examples of deceit, deficiencies, and discrepancies of the vote administered by Johnson & Johnson and the precedent rulings against such a third-party liability release.

The Coalition of Counsel for Justice for Talc Claimants is represented by Sander L. Esserman of Stutzman Bromberg Esserman & Plifka PC, David J. Molton, Jeffrey L. Jonas, Eric R. Goodman, Gerard T. Ccero and Susan Sieger-Grimm of Brown Rudnick LLP and Melanie L. Cyganowski, Adam C. Silverstein and Sunni P. Beville of Otterbourg PC.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee is represented in-house by Jayson Ruff, Linda Richenderfer and Ha Nguyen.

The adversary action is Red River Talc LLC vs. Those Parties Listed on Appendix A to the Complaint and John and Jane Does 1-1000, case number 24-ap-03194, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The bankruptcy case is In re: Red River Talc LLC, case number 9:24-bk-90505, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Sources: Law360 and Bloomberg

$45 Million Jury Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Upheld

An Illinois judge has upheld a $45 million jury verdict for the estate of Theresa Garcia, who died from mesothelioma after using Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder for years. Cook County Circuit Judge Patrick Sherlock rejected Johnson & Johnson’s requests for a new trial, stating that none of the company’s challenges warranted a retrial.

The jury found that Ms. Garcia’s prolonged exposure to asbestos in the baby powder caused her mesothelioma. As usual, Johnson & Johnson claimed its product was safe and free of asbestos. J&J plans to appeal the decision.

The Garcia estate contended that Johnson & Johnson knew about the asbestos risks as early as the 1930s but failed to warn consumers or develop safer alternatives. The $45 million award includes compensation for Ms. Garcia’s six children and damages for her pain, suffering, and shortened life expectancy.

Judge Sherlock dismissed various objections from Johnson & Johnson, including challenges to expert testimonies and jury instructions. The judge concluded that the trial was fair, and the verdict justified.

The Garcia estate is represented by Jessica Dean, Ben Adams and Mark Buha of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP and Christian Luciano Santiago of Vogelzang Law.

The case is Stephanie Salcedo v. Avon Products et al., case number 2020-L-004505, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Source: Law360

$15 Million Verdict Against J&J In Mesothelioma Suit

A Connecticut jury awarded $15 million in compensatory damages to real estate developer Evan Plotkin, who claimed his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder and art supplies. Plotkin, who operates a real estate business in Massachusetts, alleged that his and his children’s use of talcum powder, as well as his use of art supplies, led to his diagnosis.

The jury also decided that Plotkin should receive punitive damages, though the amount was not specified. The lawsuit included claims of strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, recklessness, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, including Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA) Inc., Pecos River Talc LLC, Kenvue Inc., and LLT Management LLC, were the defendants in the case. Johnson & Johnson says it will appeal the verdict.

American International Industries Inc., the maker of Pinaud Clubman barbering powder, settled with Plotkin before the trial. The defendants contended that their talc products did not contain asbestos and did not cause Plotkin’s mesothelioma.

Plotkin is represented by Benjamin D. Braly, Ethan A. Horn and Dana Casselli Simon of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP and by Brian P. Kenney of Early Lucarelli Sweeney & Meisenkothen LLC.

The case is Evan Plotkin et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., in the Connecticut Superior Court.

Source: Law360

$505 Million Settlement Between Talc Producers Approved

A Delaware bankruptcy judge has approved a $505 million settlement between talc producers Imerys Talc America Inc. and Cyprus Mines Corp., and Johnson & Johnson (J&J). This decision came after Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein overruled objections from a group of insurers.

Judge Silverstein ruled that Imerys and Cyprus exercised proper business judgment in reaching the settlement. Both companies had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to address numerous lawsuits alleging their talc was contaminated with asbestos.

The settlement involves J&J paying $505 million to buy back indemnity claims from Imerys and Cyprus. The funds will go into a compensation trust under each company’s Chapter 11 plan. It should be noted that J&J, not its recently created and then bankrupted Texas entity, will make the payment.

Insurers, known as the RMI insurers, objected, claiming they were entitled to protection for over $36 million in defense and indemnity expenses. However, Judge Silverstein stated that the insurers’ defended claims are not being sold to J&J, allowing them to retain their rights to pursue claims against J&J.

The cases are In re: Imerys Talc America Inc. et al., case number 1:19-bk-10289, and In re: Cyprus Mines Corp., case number 1:21-bk-10398, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

We can’t repeat it too often – so let’s make it clear as can be – Beasley Allen is totally committed to battling J&J on every front, including its third and most recent fraudulent bankruptcy attempt. We will continue to fight the good fight in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation will eventually wind up in a manner with justice being done. 

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, they have been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has also been actively involved with the team in all aspects of this litigation. Andy has become J&J’s target, and they have tried very hard to intimidate him. That has not worked. 

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down.

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune: Battle Over Causation Continues

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) of 2022 established clear criteria for individuals to pursue claims related to exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. To be eligible, claimants must: have had 30 days or more of exposure to water at Camp Lejeune between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987, and have suffered harm or illness caused by that exposure.

The CLJA also outlines a relatively straightforward burden of proof for claimants: they must show that the relationship between their exposure at Camp Lejeune and the harm they suffered is “sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship is at least as likely as not.”

Ongoing Legal Battle Over Causation

Despite the clear criteria, there is an ongoing legal battle over causation in the court. The court has already determined that plaintiffs must satisfy their general causation burden for each illness by demonstrating that the specific illness can be caused by certain exposure to a particular toxin found in the water at Camp Lejeune. If successful, they must then establish specific causation. 

With regard to the general causation phase, plaintiffs contend that general causation can be proven using qualitative and quantitative evidence from various scientific fields. The Department of Justice (DOJ), however, contends that the court should be presented with monthly concentration levels of individual chemicals in the water at Camp Lejeune from 1953 to 1987. The DOJ then argues the court should determine the minimum levels of each toxin that would be sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship exists for the disease in question.

In the event the court finds that certain chemicals were at sufficient levels to cause a particular disease, plaintiffs must then prove they were sufficiently exposed to those chemicals during that time period, and that their exposure was “at least as likely as not” the cause of their condition. This will be assessed against the background of other applicable disease risk factors the plaintiff may have had.

Lawyers who have Camp Lejeune cases should be working to understand periodic concentration levels of each toxin at the various locations on base and the specific exposure of their clients.

Preparing for Legal Proceedings

Our firm is actively working on bellwether cases, collaborating with experts, and preparing individual cases with the evidence required to establish administrative claims and/or succeed in court. If you have any questions about the Camp Lejeune Litigation or are interested in co-counseling with us on your cases, feel free to reach out to one of the lawyers on our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team. Beasley Allen would be honored to work with you

Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

Beasley Allen Toxic Tort lawyers are heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation, including bellwether trial work. If you need help with a claim, have questions about the litigation, or would like to co-counsel with us on one of your cases, contact a lawyer on our litigation team. 

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation Team include Ryan Kral, Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Elliot Bienenfeld, David Diab, Gavin King, Tucker Osborne, Elizabeth Weyerman, Saima Khan, Travis Chin, Wesley Merillat, and Miland Simpler.

Toxic Torts Section Head Rhon Jones 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 the team include Ryan Kral, Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Elliot Bienenfeld, David Diab, Gavin King, Tucker Osborne, Elizabeth Weyerman, Saima Khan, Travis Chin, Wesley Merillat, and Miland Simpler.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Judge Greenlights School Districts’ Claims Against Social Media Giants

A California federal judge has ruled that school districts can proceed with most of their claims against social media giants like Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat. We applaud U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ decision that has largely denied the motion to dismiss filed by these companies. The ruling allows most of the claims brought by school districts and local government entities to move forward. 

The litigation, which includes hundreds of actions from personal injury plaintiffs, school districts, local government entities, and state attorneys general, alleges that platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat were designed to foster compulsive use by minors, leading to various harms to children, local governments, and public health.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ 45-page order, issued on Oct. 24, underscores the validity of the plaintiffs’ claims. The judge rejected the defendants’ arguments that the alleged injuries were too remote or attenuated to seek redress. This ruling is a crucial step in holding these companies accountable for the negative impacts of their platform designs on young users.

Beasley Allen is representing hundreds of school districts that have incurred significant expenses related to addressing students’ social media addictions. These expenses include hiring mental health personnel, developing mental health resources, and implementing measures to limit access to social media platforms during school hours. Joseph VanZandt, who serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the largest centralized litigation against the social media giants in Los Angeles, California, says: 

We are encouraged by Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ decision to allow these important claims to proceed. This ruling affirms the serious nature of the allegations and the need for accountability from these companies.

The judge’s order also highlighted that certain claims related to platform features are not barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or the First Amendment. These include failures to implement age verification processes, effective parental controls, and default protective limits on the length and frequency of use.

Beasley Allen’s Joseph VanZandt and Davis Vaughn continue to lead the charge in this nationwide case, representing a broad coalition of parents, children, boards of education, and counties affected by these platforms.

A Further Update On Social Media Litigation

A bipartisan group of 42 attorneys general has urged Congress to introduce warning labels on social media Beasley Allen lawyers continue to be heavily involved in this important litigation against the world’s largest social media platforms, including defendants Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.  Our lawyers have filed lawsuits on behalf of hundreds of injured individuals, adults and minors, for injuries and damages arising out of their addiction to these social media platforms.  Lawyers in our firm are representing school districts in this litigation for the massive expenses they have incurred due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions. 

Discovery is actively underway in both the federal and state proceedings. Through a series of case management conferences and discovery management conferences in both jurisdictions in October, the court and parties continue to confer regarding the remaining discovery issues, especially with respect to each side’s discovery concerning the bellwether plaintiff discovery pool. Judge Carolyn Kuhl in the Social Media Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP), in which Beasley Allen’s Joseph VanZandt is Co-Lead counsel, entered a favorable ruling to plaintiffs in terms of defendants’ data production issue. That was an important and needed development. 

The first personal injury trial in the JCCP is expected to be scheduled for late 2025. The initial phase of bellwether discovery is underway and will conclude in late February 2025; thereafter, the initial bellwether trials will be selected.

General liability discovery is also underway. Depositions of current and former employees of the defendant-social media companies have begun and will continue through the end of the general fact discovery deadline in May 2025. 

Massachusetts Judge Denies Meta’s Request For Dismissal

A Massachusetts judge has refused to dismiss the case against Meta Platforms. The request to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the state attorney general was denied. The suit alleges that Meta designed Instagram features to be addictive for children, violating consumer protection laws and creating a public nuisance. Judge Peter B. Krupp ruled that Meta is not immune from these claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or the First Amendment.

The judge emphasized that the lawsuit targets Meta’s own business practices, not third-party content. The claims focus on features like infinite scrolling and autoplay, which allegedly exploit children’s psychological vulnerabilities to increase engagement and ad revenue. The court found that Massachusetts had sufficiently alleged that Meta’s actions caused mental and physical harm to young users and misled the public about safety efforts.

The decision allows the state to hold Meta accountable and push for changes to protect young users. This ruling follows a similar decision in California, where a federal judge allowed parts of a multidistrict litigation against Meta and other social media companies to proceed. 

The state is represented by Christina Chan, Sara Cable, Jared Rinehimer, Douglas Martland, Liza Hirsch, Kaitlyn Karpenko and Peter Downing of the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General.

The case is Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms Inc., case number 2384CV02397, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

Attorney Generals Sue TikTok Over Youth Addiction

More than a dozen states have sued TikTok, alleging the popular social media platform targets young users and manipulates them into becoming habitual users while downplaying the harmful effects it can have on mental health and development.

The suit, filed on October 8 in state court by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, asserts multiple violations of the Garden State’s Consumer Fraud Act. Attorneys general in New York, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, North Carolina and California filed similar suits.

The lawsuit claims TikTok misled parents about the app’s safety and that its recommendation system promotes excessive use, leading to negative impacts on young users’ mental health, such as sleep deprivation, academic difficulties, and increased anxiety and depression.

The suit also highlights that TikTok maintains a more restrictive platform for users under 18 in China, contrasting with its practices in the U.S. That is a significant and telling difference. This lawsuit seeks to stop TikTok from violating consumer fraud laws and to impose penalties.

Attorney General Platkin, when filing the suit, had the following to say at a press conference: 

TikTok, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance Ltd., violated state law by designing a platform that consistently and deliberately targets our youth to become more compulsive users, without making them or their parents fully aware of the risks. TikTok pushes its young users to spend all of their time on the platform with no regard for the effect it has on their mental health and well-being. TikTok built a platform to exploit teens for profit, and its reason for doing so is simple. One word: greed.

The public is becoming more aware of how TikTok’s conduct is hurting young people. There is an urgent need for both the Executive and Legislative branches of government at the federal and state levels to take all steps necessary to correct the existing problems. In the meantime, the courts are hard at work dealing with the problem. 

The New Jersey case is Platkin et al. v. TikTok Inc. et al., case number ESX-C-228-24, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Essex.

Source: Law360

Social Media Companies Face ‘Failure-To-Warn’ Claims

TikTok has urged a California state judge to dismiss failure-to-warn claims from a multidistrict litigation case concerning social media’s impact on youth mental health. TikTok’s lawyer says this theory is similar to suing newspapers for not warning that reading the news could cause a bad mood.

The case, overseen by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, involves consolidated claims that the addictive nature of TikTok, Meta Platforms, YouTube, and Snap Inc. is contributing to a mental health crisis among children. The social media companies requested the removal of seven complaints that suggest apps should warn users about potential mental health effects. TikTok contends that such product liability claims don’t apply to services offering personalized experiences and are barred by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

One of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Adam Davis, countered at a hearing before Judge Kuhl that California law supports failure-to-warn claims even without a physical product, citing examples from other contexts. He emphasized that existing legal principles can be applied to new situations.

Judge Kuhl took the matter under review and will issue a ruling at a later date. The hearing also addressed document discovery issues, with Emily Jeffcott, another of the plaintiffs’ lawyers accusing social media companies of delaying document production. Meta claimed it needs more time to process technical data. This frustrated Judge Kuhl, who warned of potential sanctions.

Parallel federal proceedings are ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where similar claims are being made. Additionally, a coalition of attorneys general recently filed new claims against TikTok related to youth addiction and fraud.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph G. VanZandt and Davis S. Vaughn of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Paul R. Kiesel, Mariana A. McConnell and Cherisse H. Cleofe of Kiesel Law LLP, Emily C. Jeffcott of Morgan & Morgan PA, Brian J. Panish, Rahul Ravipudi and Jesse Creed of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Christopher L. Ayers of Seeger Weiss LLP, Matthew Bergman and Laura Marquez-Garret of the Social Media Victims Law Center, Brooks Cutter of Cutter Law PC, Thomas P. Cartmell and Adam S. Davis of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Amy Eskin of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Kirk Goza of Goza & Honnold LLC, Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, Sin-Ting Mary Liu of Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz PLLC, Marc J. Mandich of Southern Med Law, Kelly McNabb of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jonathan D. Orent of Motley Rice LLC, Ruth Rizkalla of The Carson Law Firm PC, Frederick Schenk of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Dean Kawamoto of Keller Rohrback LLP and James P. Frantz of Frantz Law Group.

The consolidated case is Social Media Cases, JCCP5255, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Texas Claims TikTok Violates Parental Controls Law

Another lawsuit has been filed against TikTok. This one, filed by Texas, alleges that the social media platform violates the state’s Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act by collecting and selling children’s personal data without parental consent. The complaint claims TikTok gathers and shares personal information, such as names, ages, locations, and device details, with third parties and advertisers.

Despite some restrictions for minors, like blocking users under 16 from messaging others and setting accounts to private by default, the state argues these measures are insufficient. The lawsuit contends that TikTok fails to provide adequate parental controls for users aged 13 to 17, as required by SCOPE.

Attorney General Ken Paxton emphasized the need for social media companies to protect children’s online safety and comply with Texas law. The state seeks civil penalties of $10,000 per violation and an injunction to prevent further breaches.

The case is State of Texas v. TikTok Ltd. et al., case number unavailable, in the District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

Source: Law360

Court Denies TikTok’s Request For Rehearing In Case Over Child’s Death

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected TikTok’s request to reconsider a decision that its “For You Page” algorithm isn’t protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This decision is part of a lawsuit involving the tragic death of a 10-year-old girl.

TikTok had asked for a rehearing earlier this month, but the court declined, stating that most judges did not support the rehearing. TikTok argued that the decision went against 30 years of legal precedent, which generally protects websites from being held responsible for user-generated content.

TikTok claimed that the panel’s decision disrupts the established understanding of Section 230, which has been crucial for the development of the modern internet. The company warned that this ruling could lead to chaos in the industry, as it might hold websites liable for their decisions on what content to show.

The panel, however, ruled that TikTok’s algorithm, which recommended a dangerous “blackout challenge” video to 10-year-old Nylah Anderson, counts as “expressive content.” This decision revived the lawsuit brought by Nylah’s mother, which had been dismissed in 2022.

The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey P. Goodman and Robert J. Mongeluzzi of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky.

The case is Tawainna Anderson v. TikTok Inc. et al., case number 22-3061, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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. The Beasley Allen litigation team handling the social media personal injury cases is set out below.

Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

If you need more information on our personal injury segment of the social media litigation or need help on a case, contact a lawyer on the firm’s Social Medial Personal Injury Litigation Team at 800-898-2034 or by email. Members of the team are:

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

CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS

Senator Katie Britt Takes A Stand For Children 

Senator Katie Britt is continuing her efforts to control a growing mental health crisis among young people. She joined with Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) in the introduction of the “Stop the Scroll Act.” This bipartisan legislation would create a mandatory mental health warning label for social media platforms, ensuring users are aware of the potential risks associated with excessive social media use and providing access to mental health resources.

While the rise of social media has brought about numerous benefits, including enhanced connectivity and access to information, it has also led to increased rates of addiction, anxiety, depression, and even suicide, particularly among adolescents. Recognizing these dangers, Senators Britt and Fetterman have taken a proactive and needed stance to mitigate these risks through the Stop the Scroll Act. The following are the key provisions of the act:

• It mandates that the Surgeon General develop, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) implement, a warning label system for social media platforms. 
• The warning would appear as a pop-up box when users open a social media app, cautioning them about the potential mental health impacts of social media use. Users must acknowledge these warnings before proceeding to use the platform.
• It will include links to mental health resources, providing users with immediate access to support and information. 

This approach not only raises awareness but also empowers users to take control of their social media habits and seek help if needed.

Senator Britt’s commitment to social media safety has been evident in her broader legislative efforts. She has co-sponsored several bills aimed at protecting children and teens online, including the Children and Teen’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). These initiatives seek to expand protections for minors, hold platforms accountable, and empower parents to safeguard their children’s online experiences.

Senator Fetterman, who has personally experienced the negative effects of social media on mental health, has been a vocal advocate for online safety reform. His involvement in the Stop the Scroll Act underscores the bipartisan nature of this issue and the urgent need for legislative action.

The Stop the Scroll Act represents a crucial step towards creating a safer digital environment for all users, especially the younger generation. By mandating mental health warnings and providing access to resources, this initiative aims to curb the adverse effects of social media and promote healthier online habits. As the bill progresses through Congress, it highlights the importance of addressing the mental health challenges posed by our increasingly digital world.

Source: Britt.Senate.Gov

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Atlanta Lawyers Resolve Commercial Vehicle Case For $6 Million

Beasley Allen lawyers Parker Miller and Key Lamberth, who are in our Atlanta office, recently settled a commercial vehicle case in Georgia for $6 million. On the day of the wreck, our clients’ vehicle was struck from behind by a commercial motor vehicle, causing fatal injuries to one passenger, and catastrophic injuries to another.  

Because of a confidentiality agreement, we are limited in the details we can share about the case. But suffice to say, Parker and Key did an excellent job in this case, especially under some unique and difficult circumstances.  These lawyers work together on a variety of case types, including catastrophic premises liability, negligent security, products liability, commercial vehicle and trucking cases.

Broker Liability Claims In Trucking Cases

In 2021, commercial truck crashes in the U.S. injured over 100,000 people and caused over 5,000 deaths.  When these crashes occur, identifying all responsible parties may not be as easy as some lawyers might think.  Of course, the trucking company and driver responsible can typically be identified through the accident report.  Currently, many trucking companies are underinsured for catastrophic injury and death claims. That is a most serious problem and one that must be addressed.

Another potential defendant in trucking wreck cases is the broker responsible for hiring the trucking company to haul the load.  Brokers can be individuals or companies who act as the middleman between shippers and smaller trucking companies.  The broker has a list of customers who need goods hauled and a list of available trucking companies that can handle the load.  

When a broker hires an unsafe trucking company to haul these loads, the broker can be held responsible for injuries or deaths caused by the driver hauling the load.  Plaintiffs can typically bring two types of claims against a broker.  

• The first is called a negligent selection claim, which alleges that the broker failed to properly investigate the trucking company before putting it out on the road.  

• The second claim is for vicarious liability, which alleges that the broker either held itself out as a motor carrier, or reserved the right to control the trucking company, and therefore, is responsible for the negligent driving that caused the crash.  

In discovery, look for documents, such as contracts with the shipper or the bills of lading, where the broker might have listed or described itself as the motor carrier.  These documents might also reveal that the broker reserved the right to track the driver and load.  

Recently, brokers have attempted to challenge negligent selection claims as preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA).  You may be asking, “What does an Aviation Act have to do with trucking wrecks?” In 1994, Congress attempted to protect motor carriers’ economic freedom with the FAAAA, which preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.”  49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) (emphasis added).  However, Congress emphasized that the FAAAA “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).  

Brokers are using the FAAAA to argue that even if the trucking companies and drivers they hire are dangerous and cause fatal collisions on our highways, that a State has no authority to hold them accountable.  Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court has refused to accept this argument as have the majority of courts. For example, in August of this year, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to take up a broker’s mandamus petition based on FAAAA preemption in a fatal trucking crash that killed ten people.  

However, some courts in our country have sided with the FAAAA preemption of broker liability claims.  Until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves this issue once and for all, the landscape of broker liability will remain uncertain.  Hopefully, the high court will take up this issue very soon. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends monthly maintenance inspections, focusing on proper tire inflation pressure, treadwear, and tire damage, in conjunction with tire rotation, balancing, and alignment. 

How And Who To Sue: Understanding The Changes To Georgia’s Direct Action Statutes

This past summer, the Georgia legislature made significant changes to the state’s direct-action statute. Plaintiff lawyers need to digest those changes and three key implications to determine how they change things.

Prior to July 1, 2024, a plaintiff injured in a trucking accident could file suit directly against the trucking company’s insurance carrier. That policy was designed to protect members of the general public against injuries caused by the negligence of a Georgia motor carrier. 

In fact, more than allowing an insurance carrier to be a party to a trucking tort suit, Georgia federal courts interpreted the state’s law to allow the plaintiff to sue only the trucking company’s insurance carrier. Scharff Bros., Inc. v. Bullseye Dispatch, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00128-WCO, 2016 WL 3128554 at *3, fn. 4 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2016). 

After the changes, Plaintiff-side trucking counsel need to know the following:

• In general, under Georgia law, the ability to directly sue insurance carriers in tort trucking cases no longer exists for wrecks that happened after July 1, 2024;

• If a wreck took place ON OR BEFORE July 1, 2024, you still likely have the right to sue the insurance company alone; and

• If your client’s collision took place AFTER July 1, 2024, but after using reasonable diligence you could not serve the trucker himself or the motor carrier – or the motor carrier is bankrupt – you still may sue the insurance company directly. See O.C.G.A. § 40-1-112(c)(1)(B).

NHTSA Death Investigation Opened After Tesla Car’s Pedestrian Crash

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating Tesla’s self-driving systems after several accidents, including a fatal pedestrian crash. The investigation covers Tesla’s Model 3, Model S, Model X, Model Y, and Cybertruck vehicles, focusing on their performance in various weather conditions like sun glare, fog, and dust.

NHTSA is reviewing the timing, purpose, and safety impact of Tesla’s software updates, particularly their effectiveness in low-visibility conditions. The investigation involves approximately 2.4 million Tesla vehicles produced since 2016.

In August, NHTSA sought information on a fatal Cybertruck crash in Texas, marking the first known death involving this model. The Cybertruck, which went on sale in November, has had four recalls, including issues with trim pieces and windshield wipers.

Earlier, in April, NHTSA began another investigation into Tesla’s software update aimed at improving driver attentiveness warnings in the Autopilot system. Tesla had agreed to a recall, but it did not fully concur with NHTSA’s analysis. The company added more controls and alerts to address concerns about driver monitoring.

NHTSA’s ongoing “recall query” will examine why Tesla’s subsequent updates were not included in the recall or deemed sufficient to address safety risks. Andrew McDevitt, a lawyer representing a family in an Autopilot crash lawsuit, criticized Tesla’s reliance on cameras without radar or ultrasonic sensors, highlighting potential safety issues. Beasley Allen lawyers handling these cases agree with this assessment. 

Source: Law360

Safety Concerns Over Makeshift Robotaxi Teslas

There is a great deal of concern around the country over the safety of self-driving Tesla vehicles. The recent incident described below illustrates why there is such concern. So, let’s see what happened to cause the great concern over the safety of these vehicles. 

A self-driving Tesla carrying an Uber passenger collided with an SUV in suburban Las Vegas, raising concerns about the safety of “robotaxis” operating in regulatory gray areas. Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveiled a robotaxi on October 10, aiming for a network of autonomous vehicles. Despite the software’s limitations, many ride-hail drivers use Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software to reduce stress and extend working hours.

Federal safety officials are investigating the Las Vegas collision. Unlike heavily regulated robotaxi operators like Waymo and Cruise, Tesla drivers are solely responsible for their vehicles. Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft claim to emphasize driver responsibility for safety.

Musk envisions a Tesla-run autonomous ride service, but drivers report issues with FSD, such as sudden acceleration and braking. Some avoid using it in complex situations. FSD is classified as partial automation, requiring driver engagement, and has faced regulatory scrutiny due to accidents.

Authorities in California, Nevada, and Arizona do not regulate full self-driving use in ride-hailing. Uber has integrated its software with Tesla’s navigation system to assist FSD users. Many experts believe ride-hail companies should proactively address safety concerns. Beasley Allen lawyers totally agree and are monitoring activity on several fronts. 

Aviation Litigation

Beasley Allen Lawyers Are Investigating A Deadly Tire Explosion At An Airport

 Beasley Allen’s LaBarron Boone and co-counsel Duane King, a lawyer from the Law Offices of Duane O. King, are investigating a tragic incident that occurred on August 27, 2024 during maintenance work at Delta Airlines in Atlanta. This incident resulted in the death of Mirko Marweg, a long-time Delta Tech.

Mirko Marweg worked in Delta’s TechOps paint shop for nearly 20 years, contributing to the maintenance and repair of the airline’s fleet. On the day of the tragic incident, he was not originally scheduled to work, but he took an extra shift.

Marweg, an Air Force veteran and handyman known as “Mr. Fix-It” by his family, was performing routine maintenance on an airplane tire when the tire exploded. The tire was not mounted on the aircraft but was being prepared for transport. As workers began unloading the tire, it exploded, sending a metal piece flying and hitting Marweg with lethal force. The force was so severe that it nearly decapitated the worker and actually severed his arm. He died on the scene. 

The injuries left Marweg unrecognizable. Identification was only possible through his tattoos and a signature Mississippi State lanyard. LaBarron says: 

We are honored to represent Mr. Marweg’s family and are committed to finding out what led to his tragic death. Our ultimate goal is to achieve justice for his family and to help make sure that such a tragedy never occurs again.

This incident highlights the dangers of working around commercial aircraft equipment, including tires and engines. More importantly- it highlights the need for better safety standards. We will update this matter as our investigation goes forward. 

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Failure To Equip A Seat Belt System With A Pretensioner Poses Dangerous Risks

Most people, when asked, would consider a seat belt a safety device. However, their knowledge of the extent of the safety features of the system may be lacking. There are various components that comprise the entirety of the seat belt system and certain components that can be included to further protect vehicle occupants in the event of a crash. 

One such component is a seat belt pretensioner. A seat belt pretensioner is a pyrotechnic device that receives a signal from a vehicle’s sensors to deploy in an impending crash. 

Once the pretensioner has been triggered, it tightens the seat belt webbing, removing any slack and locking the seat belt to protect the occupant by reducing their movement in a crash and keeping them appropriately coupled to the seat. This also helps distribute the forces experienced in a crash over the whole body of an occupant. 

Pretensioners are either located in the buckle (buckle pretensioner), the retractor (retractor pretensioner), or the anchor (anchor pretensioner) of the seat belt system or some combination of these locations. Pretensioners are commonly located in the seat belt systems of front seat occupant positions of a vehicle. 

Most vehicle manufacturers use the same sensing system for the deployment of the vehicle’s airbags to also trigger the deployment of seat belt pretensioners. In fact, many automotive manufacturers time the deployment of the front seat pretensioners with the deployment of the airbags to optimize the position of the occupant as the airbag deploys to provide protection to the occupant during a crash. 

Despite the fact the automotive industry is aware of the safety benefits of seat belt pretensioners in protecting occupants in crashes, most automotive manufacturers only provide seat belt pretensioners to front seat occupants, leaving rear occupants without this safety technology and at an increased risk for severe injury. 

Seat belt pretensioners lower the risk of an occupant submarining in a crash. “Submarining” occurs when an occupant slides forward and under the lap-belt portion of the seat belt causing it to move up the abdomen of the occupant resulting in severe, and often fatal injuries, due to damage to internal organs and the spinal cord. 

When a seat belt pretensioner retracts the seat belt webbing in a crash, tightening and locking the belt in place, it helps prevent an occupant’s movement in a crash and keeps the seat belt properly positioned. 

Even though seat belt pretensioners are available for mass production and could be implemented in the design of rear seat belt systems, many automobile manufacturers do not utilize them; thus, putting rear seat occupants at risk for a “submarining” injury which could be fatal or result in a spinal cord injury rendering the occupant a paraplegic or quadriplegic. 

Beasley Allen lawyers have handled cases where rear seat occupants died or suffered severe and permanent spinal cord injuries from submarining under the lap-belt portion of a rear seat belt that was not equipped with a seat belt pretensioner. Had the occupant been provided with this safety device their injuries would have been prevented. If a rear seat occupant sustains an injury associated with submarining under the lap-belt portion of the seat belt, then a lack of seat belt pretensioner is a defect theory that should be investigated. 

Electric Vehicle Fires Are A Major Problem

Electric vehicles (EVs) have soared in popularity in recent years, with more than 10 million sold globally in 2022 alone.  EV sales are predicted to grow significantly in coming years.  With any new technology, there are bound to be challenges and complications.  

Recently, one such problem with EVs became national news as videos of electric vehicles catching on fire after becoming submerged in the wake of Hurricane Helene surfaced.  Unfortunately, this was not the first time this sort of thing has been documented.  In fact, after Hurricane Ian in 2022, there were 21 electric vehicle-related fires reported and two EV battery fires after Idalia in 2023.  Interestingly, EV battery fires have been reported in instances where the vehicles were not in flooded conditions. 

According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), when lithium-ion batteries are damaged or defective, they can experience thermal runaway.  Thermal runaway is when the battery cells begin uncontrollably heating up and spread from battery cell to cell, leading to a fire.  

Lithium-ion battery fires burn extremely hot, making them especially hard to extinguish.  In fact, lithium-ion fires have been documented to burn for days even after attempts were made to extinguish the fires.  This makes the jobs of firefighters and first responders especially difficult.  To make matters worse, lithium-ion batteries can also release toxic and flammable gases that, under certain circumstances, could cause explosions.  

Should your electric vehicle flood, experts have made these four recommendations to owners:

• If your EV has been submerged, do not drive it or attempt to charge it.

• Due to the volatile gases that may be released, vent the passenger compartment.

• Do not store the vehicle indoors.

• Call 9-1-1 if you see smoke, hear popping, or whistling or hissing sounds from the vehicle. 

Source: The National Fire Protection Association

Fisher-Price Sued After 5 Infant Deaths Linked To Swing

A group of parents is suing Fisher-Price Inc. and Mattel Inc. over the Snuga Swing, which was recalled after five infants died while using it to sleep. The lawsuit claims the recall is insufficient and that the company failed to disclose the risks involved in the use of the product.

Plaintiff Destini Bigelow, who filed the complaint, said she would not have bought the swing if she had known about the suffocation risk. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Fisher-Price announced the recall, affecting over 2 million products sold since 2010, advising parents to destroy the headrest and body support insert.

From 2012 to 2022, there were five reported deaths of infants aged one to three months linked to the swing. The CPSC warned against using the swing for sleeping or adding bedding material.

Plaintiff Bigelow criticized the recall for offering only $25 to buyers who destroy the insert, arguing for a full refund and removal of the product from retail websites. The complaint alleges Fisher-Price knew of the risks as early as 2014 but failed to act.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all U.S. buyers of the Snuga Swing and a Michigan subclass, alleging violations of consumer protection laws, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation. She is seeking damages and an order to prevent deceptive practices by the companies.

Plaintiff Bigelow is represented by Terrence M. Connors and Andrew M. Debbins of Connors LLP and Alan M. Feldman, Zachary Arbitman and George Donnelly of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter.

The case is Bigelow v. Mattel Inc. et al., case number 1:24-cv-00992, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Source: Law360

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

On-The-Job Products Liability Litigation

Beasley Allen has filed a products liability lawsuit in a Georgia Federal Court against a cargo tray manufacturer and other defendants for defects that resulted in a disfiguring injury to our client. 

The subject cargo tray was intended to store emergency response equipment on a fire truck. Once arriving at the scene of an emergency, the first responder pulls the cargo tray outward like a drawer and retrieves the enclosed equipment. If the cargo tray fails, in this case due to a defective stopping mechanism, the cargo tray can deploy and amputate body parts of person, upon impact with the ground. 

The cargo tray designer/manufacturer testified that in the design, manufacture, and assembly of their products it’s a very important goal to provide extremely safe equipment to keep first responders (such as our plaintiff) safe. This is especially important since the equipment is used in high stress situations. 

The defendant further acknowledged the importance of equipment functioning properly, stating that if the equipment fails, not only are first responders in harm’s way, but civilians that the first responders are trying to rescue are also at risk. 

That is why the concept of continuous quality improvement is so important. While the defendant agrees to the importance of this concept, they have not done any testing or quality control, consulted with any engineers, or recalled or warned against known hazards. 

Interestingly, the defendant created a prototype that did not consider material specifications nor grades of metal and then determined the product to be safe because it did not fail during their “testing period”. The test did not account for realistic application or use and was not done in any way that would measure load capacity or any factor of safety. Consequently, our client was injured. 

This is just one of many examples of on-the-job injuries resulting in products liability claims against a third party such as a manufacturer of a product.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Employment Discrimination In Alabama

Employment discrimination in Alabama remains a significant legal issue that affects workers throughout the state in various industries. Although there are little to no state anti-discrimination protections, there are federal laws that provide protections for employees from discrimination. 

The key federal laws that protect employees from discrimination are discussed by Jessi Haynes, a Beasley Allen lawyer, below:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – This Act, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) – This Act, which applies to employers with 20 or more employees, protects employees from discrimination based on age.

• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – This Act prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities in all areas of life. It also covers employment discrimination. Number of employees is not an automatic exemption for employers with less than 15 employees. 

• 42 U.S.C Section 1981 – This law prohibits race discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, including but not limited to, employment contracts.

• The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) –  The PDA is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which now explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, child birth, and child birth related medical conditions. It has recently been extended through the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers unless the accommodation will cause hardship. 

If you have a client who believes that they have been discriminated against, on the basis of any of these federal protections, time is of the essence. The statute of limitation for most of the above causes of action only allows for 180 days from the last discriminatory action to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for violations. 

In some cases, where an employee signs an agreement for a severance package, the employer may be waiving his or her right to file claims against the company. 

Because of the absence of state-specific laws related to the above federal discrimination laws, it is important that attorneys be well-versed in federal protections, limitations, and resources for potential clients who have been discriminated against in the workplace.

Beasley Allen’s team of employment litigation lawyers consistently monitor changes in laws related to discrimination and are available to investigate claims of employment discrimination. If you have a question or need help with an employment-related case, contact a lawyer on our Employment Litigation Team. The team members are set out in the next section below. 

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Lawyers on our Employment Litigation team handle employment-related litigation for the firm. These lawyers also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower) cases. Beasley Allen lawyers know that 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.

Dee Miles, who heads our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, also works with the litigation team.

Whistleblower Litigation

Oak Street Health To Pay $60 Million In Kickback Case

Oak Street Health, a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Health, has agreed to pay $60 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by paying kickbacks to third-party insurance agents in exchange for recruiting seniors to Oak Street Health’s primary care clinics.

Founded in 2012, Oak Street Health is a healthcare network of primary care centers for older adults with Medicare. 

The United States alleged in the FCA lawsuit that in 2020 Oak Street Health developed a program to increase patient membership called the Client Awareness Program. The program consisted of third-party insurance agents contacting seniors who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage or eligible to be enrolled and delivering marketing messages designed to create interest in Oak Street Health. 

The agents would then refer interested seniors to an Oak Street Health employee via a three-way conference call known as a “warm transfer,” or by an electronic submission. In exchange for the agents’ marketing work and referrals, Oak Street Health paid the agents approximately $200.00 for every Medicare Advantage beneficiary referred or recommended.  

According to the FCA lawsuit, these payments incentivized agents to base their referrals and recommendations on the financial motivations of Oak Street Health rather than the best interests of the patients. Further, the conduct of the insurance agents was alleged to have violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

The AKS prohibits anyone from offering or paying, directly or indirectly, anything of value – which includes money or any other thing of value – to induce referrals of patients or to provide recommendations of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded programs. The United States government’s $60 million settlement with Oak Street Health resolves allegations that from September 2020 through December 2022 Oak Street Health knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare arising from kickbacks to agents that violated the AKS.

The lawsuit against Oak Street Health was filed under the qui tam provisions of the FCA.   Under those provisions, a private party (commonly referred to as a “whistleblower” or a “relator”) can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. In this case, as a result of the $60 million settlement, the whistleblower (Joseph Sinson) will receive $9.9 million.

“Kickbacks, in any form, have no place in our federal healthcare system,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Morris Pasqual for the Northern District of Illinois. Special Agent in Charge Mario Pinto of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG), added:

Kickbacks impose hidden costs on the federal health care system and compromise medical choice and decision-making. Working determinedly with our law enforcement partners, HHS-OIG will continue to protect the integrity of federal health care programs, and we encourage the public to come forward with information about violative conduct.

Source: Office of Public Affairs – U.S. Department of Justice

Teva Pharmaceuticals Will Pay $450 Million To Settle FCA Kickback Claims

Teva Pharmaceuticals will pay $450 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act by fixing prices of several generic drugs and raising the price of its multiple sclerosis treatment, Copaxone, while covering Medicare recipients’ copays. This settlement resolves a 2020 lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court and a separate investigation into price-fixing of pravastatin and two antibiotics, clotrimazole and tobramycin.

Teva, the largest generic drug manufacturer in the U.S., had previously agreed to a $225 million criminal penalty for price-fixing. This $450 million civil settlement is in addition to this penalty. It should be noted that Teva did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

The government alleged that Teva used supposedly independent charitable organizations to provide copay assistance for Copaxone, violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and leading to false Medicare claims. Teva will pay $425 million by 2029 to settle this case. Additionally, Teva will pay $25 million to resolve civil allegations related to the price-fixing scheme for the antibiotics.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Levy stated that Teva’s kickbacks undermined the Medicare copay system. U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero noted that such arrangements increase drug costs for citizens and federal health programs. The government also settled with four charitable organizations and a specialty pharmacy involved in the scheme.

The settlement avoids a potentially complex legal battle over whether the False Claims Act requires a direct link between kickbacks and false claims. The Third Circuit had ruled that only “some connection” is needed, while other circuits required a “but for” causation. Beasley Allen lawyers who handle FCA litigation believe the Third Circuit takes the correct position. 

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton sided with the government, not requiring “but for” causation. It is noted that U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV had a differing opinion in a similar case involving Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The First Circuit heard arguments on this issue in July.

The government is represented by Abraham George, Diane Seol and Evan Panich of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, Landon Y. Jones III, Rebecca S. Melley and Anthony D. Scicchitano of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Douglas Rosenthal, Nelson Wagner, Jennifer L. Cihon and Laurie A. Oberembt of the U.S. Department of Justice, Susan E. Gillin of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General and Salvatore Maida of the U.S. Department of Defense.

The case is U.S. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al., case number 1:20-cv-11548, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

New Ruling Sparks Debate Over FCA Qui Tam Provisions

A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in Florida has created debate over the constitutionality of the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam provisions. This is the part of the FCA that allows whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the federal government. Judge Mizelle dismissed a Medicare Advantage fraud case, stating that qui tam relators act as “officers of the United States,” violating the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This decision, influenced by a dissent from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is the first court action to declare the FCA’s qui tam clause unconstitutional.

This ruling – if it stands – will greatly undermine efforts to combat fraud against the government, potentially increasing federal program costs. The FCA, which dates back to 1863, has been a key tool in recovering over $50 billion by way of whistleblower litigation since 1986.

The full impact of this decision won’t be known for a good while. Most knowledgeable observers believe the decision will be overturned. If that doesn’t happen, a Supreme Court review of this issue is virtually certain. If upheld, the decision might prompt changes to the FCA, possibly giving the Department of Justice more control over whistleblower cases. There are lawyers who believe alternative models, like those used by the IRS and SEC, could partially fill the gap if qui tam provisions are curtailed.

In any event, if the decision in this case stands and is followed by other courts, it will bring about significant changes in the application and effectiveness of the FCA. Beasley Allen lawyers will monitor this situation closely. 

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers across the country in claims against multiple bad corporate actors. The widespread Whistleblower litigation continues to increase at a rapid pace. Our lawyers will determine how the changes by the DOJ mentioned above affect this litigation. 

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud  Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below:

Insurance Litigation

The Importance Of Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Persons who have liability insurance on their vehicles also have uninsured motorist coverage. That is – they have that coverage unless they have rejected it. Persons should never reject uninsured motorist coverage in their automobile liability policies. In all too many motor vehicle accidents the wrongdoer will be uninsured or at least underinsured. That makes the importance of having uninsured motorist coverage a necessity. We will give a basic understanding below of what uninsured motorist coverage is. 

Uninsured motorist (UM) coverage isn’t required in every state but driving without it is definitely risky. Surveys show that about 13% of drivers nationwide don’t have auto insurance. In some states, this number is over 20%. Without UM coverage, an injured person is limited to a responsible party’s liability policy limits. If the responsible party has no liability insurance, and the injured party has no UM coverage, then there is no insurance coverage available. 

Some states require both uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM and UIM) coverage, while others only require uninsured motorist coverage. It’s important to know your state’s requirements and options. For example, Alabama law requires that all insurance companies offer uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage to drivers, but drivers can decline it without penalty. It’s my recommendation that the UM coverage should always stay in place and with adequate amounts of coverage. 

UM coverage includes bodily injury damages for the policyholder (the insured) and passengers in the policyholder’s vehicle. It also includes underinsured motorist bodily injury (UIM) and underinsured motorist property damage for situations where the at-fault driver doesn’t have enough liability insurance to cover the injuries and damages suffered by the injured party. 

When considering UM coverage, a person should get the highest limits available in their state.  For bodily injury, it’s recommended to get as much as allowed. At the least, you should match the liability coverage limits for your vehicle. For example, if the liability limit is $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident, choose the same UM. If a larger amount is available, get it! 

Bad Faith Litigation Relating To UIM Coverage

We will take a look at an aspect of UIM coverage that involves a failure by the insurance company to pay the policy limits under Alabama law. There can be an element of bad faith relating to the payment of policy limits. We will discuss this kind of litigation below. 

There are two versions of Bad Faith in the uninsured motorist (UIM) context in Alabama. In the first, bad faith conduct occurs when a judgment is entered, and therefore is owed, but the UIM insurer fails to pay. The second is a bad faith refusal by the insurance company to settle a valid claim in the first place. Given the rarity of the first occurrence and the difficulty in proving the second, many lawyers can be excused for thinking that there is, in reality, no bad faith claim available in Alabama. While a bad faith failure to settle is a very difficult needle to thread, it is still a valid claim that lawyers need to be aware of.

Alabama law is clear that a verdict or a judgment is not a prerequisite to bringing a bad faith claim. However, the injured person claiming UIM benefits still has to show that the uninsured motorist was at fault and must show the extent of the damages. This requirement, showing the extent of the damages, is usually why pre-judgment bad faith claims quite often fail. 

This burden to “prove the extent of damages” is difficult, but not impossible for a plaintiff to prove. That’s true even in a wrongful death suit. In a case entitled Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., Inc. v. Beggs, the Supreme Court provided some insight as to how that burden can be met. The testimony of a qualified lawyer with experience in handling injury and death cases, certifying that the claim is in that lawyer’s opinion, worth more than the policy’s limits (or whatever amount is claimed), is enough. 

Having demonstrated the injury through medical records and the client’s own statements, an independent lawyer’s review of the file and an affidavit as to the value of the claim in that specific venue containing specific facts, establishes “the extent of the damages” requirement.

Once the extent of the damages is established, a UIM carrier has a duty to its insured to perform a reasonable investigation of the claim within a reasonable time period, and to state the reasons for the denial of the claim. Any dispute as to the value must be reasonable. While it’s true that courts will likely give deference to an insurance company’s valuation in the context of a bad faith claim, the plaintiff’s lawyer should make sure to get a specific reason for a lower valuation or the denial of a claim. Providing evidence controverting the company’s reason is also very helpful. The insurance company must take the new evidence into account. If it does not, then the company has acted in bad faith. 

It’s certainly true that a counter from the company will likely defeat a bad-faith claim. But very rarely do plaintiff’s lawyers require a reason. An insurance company should be able to justify its position. At times, however, insurance companies will simply ignore a demand or request additional information to investigate the value of a claim. 

It is in these cases that properly setting up a bad faith claim can be an important tool to force an insurance company to come to the table and pay their policy limits. Information requested by the insurance company should be provided, and a reasonable time should also be provided to perform an investigation. Once done, justification for any action the insurance company takes is required and any lack thereof can be used to make a bad faith claim survive summary judgment.

Many lawyers and judges may default to the assumed position that bad faith doesn’t exist pre-judgment, but with the right set-up and education on the law, bad faith claims can and should be used to stop UIM carriers from dragging their feet and refusing to settle clear policy limits cases.

Third Circuit Declines Pandemic-Loss Disputes Brought By Businesses 

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to rehear consolidated pandemic-related loss coverage disputes brought by businesses in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This decision upholds the court’s earlier ruling that insurers, including Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. and certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, are not liable for the claimed losses.

Led by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael A. Chagares, the court decided against both panel and en banc rehearings. The businesses argued that their insurance policies were ambiguous regarding “physical loss of or damage to” property. However, the court maintained its January 2023 decision that COVID-19 and related government closure orders did not cause direct physical loss or damage to properties.

The businesses had requested the Third Circuit to reconsider and allow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to determine coverage. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that physical loss or damage requires tangible alteration to property, reversing a lower court’s decision.

This ruling continues the trend of policyholders attempting to secure insurance coverage for pandemic-related losses. According to Law360’s COVID-19 Insurance Case Tracker, 56% of such suits have been dismissed, with 26% voluntarily dismissed and 14% still pending.

Rhonda H. Wilson, representing her firm in the dispute, acknowledged the court’s decision, reflecting recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings. 

The businesses are represented by lawyers from Beasley Allen; Lynch Carpenter LLP; Reed Smith LLP; Levin Sedran & Berman LLP; the Law Offices of Rhonda Hill Wilson PC; Golomb Spirt Grunfeld PC; Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose & Podolsky PA; Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP; and Francis Mailman Soumilas PC.

The cases are 1 S.A.N.T. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins Co., case number 21-1109; Rhonda Wilson et al. v. USI Insurance Services LLC, case number 20-3124; LH Dining LLC v. Admiral Indemnity Co., case number 21-1038; Newchops Restaurant Comcast LLC v. Admiral Indemnity Co., case number No. 21-1039; Adrian Moody, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., case number 21-1106; ATCM Optical Inc. et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., case number 21-1107; Independence Restaurant Group LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, case number 21-1175; Ultimate Hearing Solutions ll et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., case number 21-1240; and Whiskey Flats Inc. v. Axis Insurance Co., case number 21-1294, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Source: Law360

SECURITIES AND SHAREHOLDER Litigation

Suit Against AT&T Over $24 Million in Stolen Cryptocurrency Continues

In a 28-page published opinion, the Ninth Circuit partially revived a cryptocurrency investor’s suit accusing AT&T of failing to protect his information amid a fraudulent SIM swap that cost him $24 million, finding there to be a triable question whether AT&T gave hackers access to his proprietary information through the scheme.  

Previously, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II granted AT&T’s summary judgment bid against plaintiff Michael Terpin.  Terpin claimed AT&T violated a provision in the Federal Communications Act prohibiting telecommunications carriers from disclosing or allowing access to “customer proprietary network information.”

Terpin initially alleged in his complaint that AT&T allowed hackers to access his phone by swapping or reassigning his SIM card to them and that the company failed to provide sufficient data security.  Terpin fell victim to two different SIM swap schemes, the latter of which happened in 2018, when hacker Ellis Pinsky bribed AT&T store employee Jahmil Smith to circumvent security measures and switch Terpin’s number to a SIM that Pinsky possessed.  Pinsky then updated Terpin’s AT&T account to link to a device controlled by the fraudster.  

Following the swap, Pinsky successfully sought password resets using Terpin’s phone number to get past two-factor authentication protocols.  Pinsky accessed Terpin’s online accounts, found his cryptocurrency login credentials, and then used them to siphon off nearly $24 million worth of cryptocurrency. 

Terpin sued AT&T for fraud, a violation of the Federal Communications Act, negligence, breach of contract, deceit by concealment, misrepresentation, declaratory relief, and punitive damages, which the lower court nixed after multiple rounds of dismissal motions and AT&T’s motion for summary judgment.

Judge Wright found, among other things, that Terpin’s FCA claim failed because the swap did not disclose information that would be protected under the law.  But the Ninth Circuit panel revived Terpin’s FCA claim, which imposes a duty on telecommunications companies to protect customer proprietary network information, including incoming or outgoing communications on a customer’s account. The opinion by the panel states: 

Here, there is a genuine issue of material fact over whether AT&T gave hackers access to Terpin’s CPNI. Terpin produced evidence that the SIM swap allowed Pinsky to associate Terpin’s customer account with a new mobile device in Pinsky’s control and gave Pinsky access to all future communications with Terpin’s phone number.

While the lower court focused on whether any CPNI was shared with Pinsky during the scam, the law does not simply prohibit companies from using or disclosing the information — it also blocks them from permitting access to that information, the opinion said. The panel said further: 

The [Federal Communications Commission]’s rules implementing Section 222 likewise require that carriers ‘take reasonable measures to discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to CPNI. Through the SIM swap, Pinsky updated Terpin’s wireless account to associate Terpin’s phone number with a new SIM in Pinky’s control.  

The password reset correspondences are also communications sent to Terpin’s number and constitutes as CPNI, the judges on the panel added.  

But the panel affirmed Judge Wright’s rejection of Terpin’s other claims, including deceit by concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, contract breach and negligence, holding that the claims don’t plausibly demonstrate that AT&T had the duty to disclose that the extra security boost it promised him could be circumvented by AT&T personnel acting in concert with the fraudsters. 

The panel also affirmed summary judgment on the breach of contract claims, holding that “[t]he wireless customer agreement bars recovery ‘for any indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential losses or damages’ Terpin ‘may suffer by use of, or inability to use, services, software, or devices provided by or through AT&T.’”  “Because Terpin seeks only consequential damages, his breach of contract claim is barred by the parties’ limitation of liability clause.”

The panel held that Terpin’s negligence claim also failed based upon the economic loss doctrine.  The opinion said: 

What’s more, Terpin’s negligence claim seeks to impose duties that would exceed express limitations in the parties’ agreement, including a bar on recovery for any indirect or consequential losses, and disclaimers making clear that AT&T’s security measures are not impenetrable.

The investor’s initial suit was reduced down in July 2019 after Judge Wright found that Terpin failed to adequately explain how the theft of his phone number was connected to the theft of his digital assets.  Terpin filed an amended complaint one month later, only to have further claims dismissed in February 2020.

U.S. Circuit Judges Roopali H. Desai, Richard R. Clifton and Holly A. Thomas sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

The case is Michael Terpin v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., case number 2:18-cv-06975, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

$162.5 Million Settlement In Squeeze-Out Merger Lawsuit

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. has agreed to a $162.5 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit by stockholders over a $2.5 billion minority squeeze-out merger. The settlement was reached in September, just before a scheduled trial. 

The class includes former holders of SCUSA common stock as of January 2022, who received $41.50 per share. Investors accused Santander’s board of setting up a tender offer with no minimum approval requirement, completed with less than 30% stockholder support. Shareholders argued that controlling shareholder Santander Holdings USA Inc. received $6.3 billion in distributions post-merger, with $1.23 billion that would have gone to minority shareholders.

The class was certified in January, with Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as class counsel. A trial was set for September 16, but a mediator recommended the settlement on September 7, which was accepted two days later. 

Additionally, shareholders sought sanctions against Santander’s board for deleting messages before the merger, arguing that the use of the Signal app’s auto-delete features hindered their investigation.

The shareholders are represented by Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Benjamin M. Potts, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Jeroen van Kwawegen and Edward Timlin of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Kimberly A. Evans, Lindsay K. Faccenda, Jason M. Leviton, Irene Lax and Robert Erikson of Block & Leviton LLP and J. Daniel Albert, Eric L. Zagar, Matthew C. Benedict and Lauren Lummus of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

The consolidated case is In re: Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. Stockholders Litigation, case number 2022-0689, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Securities Litigation Team At Beasley Allen

Lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving corporate security issues including shareholder litigation. 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.  

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.

Premises Liability Litigation

The Georgia Court Of Appeals Shields Landlord From Liability In Shooting Death Of Minor

On a summer night in 2017, a child lost his life in a Rolling Bends apartment after being fatally shot by another child. The child who fired the shot obtained the loaded gun from his mother’s closet. The mother pled guilty to various criminal charges, including second-degree murder and cruelty to children, because of the tragic incident.

The family of the deceased child filed a premises liability suit against the owners and managers of the Rolling Bends apartment complex pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 (premises statute) and O.C.G.A. § 44-7-14 (landlord-tenant statute). 

During trial, the deceased child’s family presented evidence that three Rolling Bends residents – just days before the shooting – “saw the minor who retrieved the gun, with something resembling a gun in his hand . . . on a balcony; on a sidewalk; and outside an apartment building. All three residents testified that they told security guards about seeing the minor with what appeared to be a gun.” 

The trial court granted the defendants’ directed verdict motion on the § 44-7-14 claim and the jury returned a defense verdict on the § 51-3-1. Plaintiff and defendants both appealed. 

The dispositive issue on appeal was whether § 51-3-1 could serve as a source of liability for the defendants given the shooting took place inside of a resident’s apartment rather than in a common area. According to the Georgia Court of Appeals, it could not. 

The court reasoned that the defendants fully departed with possession of the apartment where the shooting occurred even though the lease agreement provided the defendants “shall have the right to enter any apartment at reasonable hours . . . as they deem necessary for safety . . . or for the safety or convenience of the occupants.” 

The court concluded that the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict not only on the § 44-7-14 claim but also the § 51-3-1 claim.

Premises liability practitioners should be aware of this decision when evaluating potential cases with particular emphasis on where a given injury took place. The case is styled Jordan v. H.J. Russell & Company, Case No. A23A1387. As the Georgia Court of Appeals made clear, the location of an incident is very important and can determine whether a property owner faces any liability no matter how egregious the set of facts.     

Class Action Litigation

Class Action Filed For Transmission Defects In Toyota Tacoma Trucks

Lawyers from Beasley Allen and Blood Hurst & O’Reardon are pursuing a very important class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc. (Toyota). The suit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. 

The class complaint alleges that the model year 2024 and newer Toyota Tacoma trucks (Class Vehicles) are designed, manufactured, sold, and leased with a defect that causes the vehicles’ transmissions to harshly engage or fail to shift into gear, limits forward motive power through “Limp Mode,” and causes internal component damage and catastrophic transmission failure (the transmission defect).

All Class Vehicles are equipped with an internal combustion engine and an Aisin-Toyota AL80E, AL80F, or L580F 8-speed automatic transmission (the transmission or transmissions). Transmissions, of course, serve a critical role in the function of Class Vehicles, transferring engine rotational power to the wheels. In high-torque vehicle applications, the drivetrain, which includes the transmission, must be designed and manufactured with components that are tolerant of high torsion, heat, and shear stress and must be immune to internal component dislodgment or breakage. 

According to Toyota, the transmissions were designed to improve the Class Vehicles’ fuel efficiency, reduce torque loss, and provide smooth and quick acceleration. However, plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the transmissions, and their related components, are designed and/or manufactured with inadequate materials, causing the Class Vehicles’ transmissions to suffer premature degradation and unexpected failure without even a warning. 

These defective vehicles present a serious safety risk to the safety and health of vehicle occupants and others on the road. 

Our plaintiff alleges that Toyota knew of the transmission defect as early as 2016, based on its pre-release design and testing of the transmissions. Toyota has not recalled the Class Vehicles for the transmission defect, nor has Toyota determined its root cause or offered an extended warranty. 

Rather, Toyota issued a limited Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) for certain 2024 Toyota Tacoma trucks built within a specific VIN range, excluding all other Class Vehicles. 

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Toyota’s TSB is deficient, because it requires the Class Vehicles to present to the dealer with certain diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) to receive a free replacement transmission and torque converter, and replaces the defective equipment with equally defective units. 

Some consumers have reported experiencing symptoms of the transmission defect even after receiving the repair. The lawyers continue to add to our investigation additional incidents of failure.

The plaintiff and the proposed class are represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin and Trent Mann, along with Tim Blood, Paula Brown and Tommy O’Reardon of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP.  Dee Miles, who heads up our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, will be involved in this case. 

The Tacoma transmission case is Syed, et al., v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al. and is filed in the United States District Court for Central District of California. 

Class Action Filed Against Honda Alleges Defective Sliding Doors

Beasley Allen lawyers and our co-counsel from Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP, are handling another important case involving a motor vehicle maker. This Class Action lawsuit was filed against Honda Motor Co., Ltd, and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) on behalf of individuals who own or lease a 2018-2023 Honda Odyssey (the Class Vehicles) equipped with allegedly defective rear power sliding doors. in this case. 

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the rear sliding doors’ pinch sensors fail to detect obstructions in the door’s path as it closes – such as a child’s hand or fingers—placing the vehicles’ occupants at an increased risk for severe injuries, such as broken bones or amputations. 

The Door Defect poses a particular risk to young children because it occurs in vehicles primarily used to carry children and even occurs where children are typically seated, in the rear seats. 

Plaintiffs’ independent automotive consultant’s testing confirmed that the Class Vehicles’ rear sliding doors can close on, and severely injure, hands, fingers, toes, and feet, among other dangers. 

Despite knowledge of the defect, Honda kept it from the public. Honda has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Door Defect, nor has Honda extended the warranty of Class Vehicles, offered customers a suitable repair or replacement or reimbursed consumers who incurred out-of-pocket expenses to repair the Door Defect.

The Beasley Allen Lawyers working on this case are Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann, along with Tim Blood, Thomas O’Reardon, Paula Brown, and Adam Bucci, lawyers from Blood Hurst & O’Reardon. Dee Miles, who heads up the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, will also be involved 

The case is Leon v. Honda, Case No. 2:24-cv-07872, pending in the Central District of California. We look forward to keeping our readers informed on this important litigation.

Judge Allows Claims Against Ford Motor Co. To Proceed

U.S. District Judge Brandy R. McMillion has partially dismissed a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. The lawsuit alleges Ford knowingly sold trucks with weak roofs prone to collapsing in rollovers. The judge dismissed claims from states where the plaintiffs don’t reside or didn’t buy their vehicles and warranty claims since the plaintiffs still use their trucks.

However, Judge McMillion allowed other claims to proceed, rejecting Ford’s argument that the lawsuit was time-barred. The judge noted that statute-of-limitations defenses are typically addressed later in litigation.

The ruling keeps alive some claims in consolidated lawsuits following a $1.7 billion verdict against Ford in a similar case. Plaintiffs allege Ford sold 1999 to 2016 F-Series Super Duty trucks with defective roofs and failed to disclose the risks, causing consumers to overpay.

Ford argued that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue and that their claims were based on publicly available documents. The judge rejected these arguments, allowing the case to move forward.

Judge McMillion also dismissed certain state law claims but upheld others, including fraud and consumer protection claims. She found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Ford knew of the risks and had a duty to disclose them. The case continues with some claims intact.

The consumers are represented by Steve W. Berman and Shelby Smith of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, E. Powell Miller and Dennis A. Lienhardt Jr of The Miller Law Firm PC, Joseph H. Meltzer, Melissa L. Yeates and Tyler S. Graden of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Gretchen F. Cappio and Ryan P. McDevitt of Keller Rohrback LLP, and Elizabeth A. Fegan and Jonathan D. Lindenfeld of Fegan Scott LLC.

The case is Steven Beck v. Ford Motor Co., case number 4:22-cv-12079, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

$150 Million Chevrolet Bolt Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

A Michigan federal judge has preliminarily approved a $150 million settlement to resolve claims that General Motors (GM) sold Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicles with faulty batteries made by LG units. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg found the settlement fair and reasonable after four years of litigation including discovery and proceedings in courts.

The settlement class includes all U.S. residents who bought or leased Chevrolet Bolt vehicles from model years 2017 to 2022 before August 19, 2021, and did not receive a buyback from GM or an authorized dealer. The Miller Law Firm PC and Keller Rohrback LLP have been appointed as co-lead class counsel, with several other firms on the steering committee.

A fairness hearing for final approval is scheduled for March 25, 2025. Objections to the settlement must be filed within 120 days of the preliminary approval. The defendants are required to deposit $5 million into an escrow account for notice and administration.

The litigation, which began in December 2020, consolidated eight potential class actions accusing GM and LG of failing to disclose a defect in the Bolt’s lithium-ion batteries and inadequately addressing the issue after three safety recalls. In August 2021, GM recalled all Chevrolet Bolts due to fire risks from manufacturing defects in LG Chem’s batteries.

The settlement covers over 100,000 consumers, offering battery replacements or a software upgrade to monitor battery health. Class members needing battery replacements will receive $700, while those eligible for the software upgrade will receive $1,400. Class representatives are set to receive a $2,000 service award.

The buyers are represented by The Miller Law Firm PC, Keller Rohrback LLP, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, Fine Kaplan & Black RPC, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.

The case is In re: Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litigation, case number 2:20-cv-13256, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

Tik-Tok Car Theft Trend Leads To $145 Million Settlement Against Hyundai & Kia

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna has approved a $145 million settlement in a case against Hyundai and Kia. The lawsuit claimed the automakers sold vehicles with design flaws that led to a surge in car thefts, fueled by a viral TikTok trend showing how to break into their cars using a USB cable.

Judge Selna granted final approval to the settlement, which addresses claims that Hyundai and Kia prioritized profits over safety by not equipping millions of 2011-2022 models with standard immobilizers. These devices prevent cars from being started without their keys.

The settlement, initially reached in May 2023, includes up to $145 million in cash payments for customers with out-of-pocket losses and a free software upgrade for certain vehicles. Customers who experienced vehicle theft can be reimbursed up to 60% of their vehicle’s value, while those with vehicle damage or stolen property can receive up to 33% of their vehicle’s value or $3,375 per claim.

For vehicles not eligible for the software upgrade, owners can get up to $300 for anti-theft devices like steering wheel locks or alarms. Hyundai and Kia have also provided free anti-theft solutions to over 1.4 million vehicles and distributed thousands of steering wheel locks to police departments.

The settlement also includes $13.4 million in attorney fees and $244,526 in litigation expenses. Claims from various U.S. cities, municipalities, and insurers are still pending.

The consumer class plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan of Fegan Scott LLC, Kenneth B. McClain of Humphrey Farrington & McClain PC and Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd PC.

The governmental entities are represented by Gretchen Freeman Cappio of Keller Rohrback LLP and Rick L. Ashton of Allen Stovall Neuman & Ashton LLP, among others.

The MDL is In re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Litigation, case number 8:22-ml-03052, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Source: Law360

ExecuPharm Data Breach Victims Will Receive $10,000 Each In Settlement

ExecuPharm, a U.S. pharmaceutical company, will compensate victims of a 2020 data breach with up to $10,000 for out-of-pocket losses, $300 for lost time, three years of credit monitoring, and $675,000 in attorney fees. This follows a class action settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert.

Over 3,600 class members are eligible for these benefits. The settlement, approved by Judge Pappert, addresses the fallout from a ransomware attack by the group Cl0p, which exposed sensitive personal and financial data of employees.

The initial plaintiff, Jennifer Clemens, a former ExecuPharm employee, will receive $5,000 for her role as class representative. Ms. Clemens alleged that ExecuPharm failed to protect her personal information, which was compromised in the hack.

The data breach victims are represented by J. Austin Moore, Norman E. Siegel and Caleb Wagner of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, and Mark S. Goldman of Goldman Scarlato & Penny PC.

The case is Clemens v. ExecuPharm Inc. et al., case number 2:20-3383, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

Information Sharing Can Violate Antitrust Laws

In a federal antitrust lawsuit involving collusion among pork processors using a data firm to inflate pork prices, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest to argue that information sharing can violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The statement of interest came after Agri Stats, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that its reports to pork producers, who are competitors, did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Pork purchasers alleged in their lawsuit that large producers such as Tyson and Hormel entered a price-fixing conspiracy to inflate pork prices by sharing competitively sensitive information through the data firm, Agri Stats.   While the DOJ took no position on the merits of Agri Stats’ motion for summary judgment, it filed its statement of interest to make clear “information sharing alone” can violate antitrust laws.  Additionally, the DOJ clarified that the Sherman Act does not require competitors to directly share information with one another for there to be anticompetitive conduct. 

The DOJ further stated that information sharing among competitors can be evidence that a price-fixing agreement exists.  In the words of the DOJ, “when rivals come together to share competitively sensitive information instead of closely safeguarding that information, courts are concerned that the rivals are undermining the competitive process.”  The DOJ also made clear that the more sensitive the information that is shared, the more it can restrain competition at the expense of consumers and other market participants. 

The case is In re: Pork Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 0:18-cv-01776 (District of Minnesota). As of the date of publication, the court had not ruled on Argi Stats’ motion for summary judgment.  

Beasley Allen is not involved in the above case, but the firm has a team of lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section who handle and monitor antitrust litigation. Those lawyers include James Eubank, Ali Hawthorne, Rebecca Gilliland, Paul Evans, Lauren Miles, and Jessi Haynes.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Infant Formula Litigation Update

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to investigate and file infant formula cases for children who have suffered from necrotizing enterocolitis as a result of being fed bovine-derived infant formula immediately after birth.  Giving “cow’s milk” formula to premature, underweight newborns dramatically increases their risk of getting this permanent, life-threatening condition.  

Virtually every pediatric health organization in the world encourages mothers to breastfeed their premature newborn if possible or use human donor milk when breastfeeding is not feasible. Non-cow’s milk formulas are the third recommended 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%).

Federal court lawsuits against Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products) are pending in an MDL established in the Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer presiding.  In those cases, discovery continues and corporate depositions of defendants are ongoing.  Plaintiffs have submitted expert reports, and defendants’ expert reports are due in two weeks.  The first bellwether trial is scheduled to start May 5, 2025. 

Beasley Allen’s state court cases pending in Madison County, IL remain stalled as we await a ruling from the 5^th District Court of Appeals on defendants’ jurisdiction challenges. We continue to work with our experts and prepare for trial as we await the appellate court ruling.  

In the neighboring city of St. Louis, a plaintiff was recently awarded a jaw-dropping $495 million against Abbott Laboratories (makers of Similac Infant Formula) for failing to warn consumers of the risk of NEC from formula in premature infants.  Abbott is appealing that verdict.

Class Action Filed Against Kratom Manufacturers

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on October 7^th against kratom manufacturers in the Northern District of California alleging that the manufacturers failed to disclose that their products are as addictive as opioids, if not more addictive.  

The Complaint further alleges that the product is falsely advertised as safe when it activates the same opioid receptors in the brain like heroin, morphine, and other opiates.  As a result, kratom products carry the same risk of withdrawal, addiction, and other adverse health effects.  The case is currently assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

Kratom, sometimes referred to as “gas station heroin,” is an herb with opioid- and stimulant-like effects. American use of the Southeast Asian plant has grown dramatically in recent years, spurring a lucrative industry and a national lobbying effort while worrying health experts who fear its addictive effects and the increase in associated hospitalizations and deaths.

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to advocate for individuals that have suffered severe, life-threatening injuries from kratom.

Ozempic/GLP-1 Litigation Update

As of October 1, 2024, there were 1,090 cases pending in the Ozempic/GLP-1 MDL. Over the past few months, Judge Karen Marston has been assigned to oversee the MDL and has entered various case management orders that will play a part in how key issues in the GLP-1/Ozempic MDL will proceed, ironing out issues such as the structure of discovery.  

Despite the media coverage of reported side effects linked to the use of GLP-1 drugs, Novo Nordisk and other GLP-1 RA manufacturers continue to drive the use of these weight loss drugs through aggressive marketing campaigns targeted directly to consumers. 

The widespread use and popularity of these drugs in the U.S. has also gained the attention of pharmaceutical manufacturers and developers. 

Recently, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, a manufacturer working towards development of a generic to Novo Nordisk’s popular drug Ozempic, and Novo Nordisk (Ozempic manufacturer) reached a settlement in a patent lawsuit tied to Ozempic, making a potential launch of yet another GLP-1 generic more likely in the U.S.

Potentially dangerous side effects related to these drugs, such as gallbladder disease and gastroparesis, are gaining increased attention. With a nearly 20% increase in the number of cases in the MDL from August to September, and the increased marketing and availability of GLP-1 drugs, the number of cases in the MDL is projected to continue growing.  

Members Of Congress Question FDA On Delay In Banning Formaldehyde From Hair Relaxer Products

Beasley Allen continues to seek justice in both federal and state courts for women harmed by the Hair Relaxer industry. Recently, two U.S. congresswomen have again questioned why the FDA continues to delay a ban on formaldehyde in hair relaxer products. In 2023, Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley and Shontel Brown wrote the FDA urging it to investigate the potential health threat caused by the carcinogenic hair straightening products. 

The letter follows a 2022 study from the National Institutes of Health, which concluded that people who used hair straighteners had an increased risk of developing uterine cancer.  A 2023 study from Boston University likewise found that postmenopausal women who used hair relaxers often had a greater than 50% increased risk of uterine cancer compared to those who seldom used these products. The FDA’s publication of a proposed ban has been delayed multiple times, but the agency has refused to state why, other than general references to the rule-making process takes time. 

Perhaps more concerning than the FDA’s delay in proposing a ban is the fact that the corporations manufacturing hair relaxer products continue to sell these products when many of the ingredients, such as formaldehyde, have been classified as known human cancer-causing carcinogens for more than a decade. While the Congresswomen continue to push the FDA for a ban on carcinogens, Beasley Allen will continue to fight the manufacturers directly in court.   The firm has a team of lawyers led by Matt Teague, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section. 

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Lawsuit Filed Against Biolab After Chemical Fire

Beasley Allen has filed a lawsuit against Biolab Inc. arising from the fire that broke out on September 29, 2024, at its facility in Conyers, GA. Thousands were exposed to hazardous chemicals in the surrounding areas. This lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

The fire released toxic chemicals, including chlorine, leading to the evacuation of over 17,000 residents and a countywide shelter-in-place order. Our lawyers are currently representing persons affected by the exposure. 

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiff Tracey Latrice Herd and others, seeks compensation for property damage, and economic losses from the exposure to toxic chemicals. The lawyers are pursuing claims of negligence, trespass, strict liability, and wantonness, aiming for both compensatory and punitive damages.

There is a history of hazards at BioLab. This is the third major incident at BioLab in the past seven years. Previous incidents also involved the release of hazardous chemicals.

This incident led to the evacuation of around 17,000 residents and the closure of several roads, including I-20. Due to ongoing concerns about the smoke, a countywide shelter-in-place order was issued. The smoke, which became a chemical reaction, posed ongoing concerns. The exact extent of exposure is still under investigation. 

On September 30, air quality monitors around metro Atlanta detected moderate to high levels of small particulate pollution. These tiny particles can penetrate the lungs, exacerbating conditions like asthma. They can also enter the bloodstream, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Since the accident, numerous people in the area have already reported respiratory issues, burning eyes and other symptoms, injury, and damage from exposure to the deadly chemicals. 

The Beasley Allen litigation team handling this case includes Connor Chase, Travis Chin, and Elliot Bienenfeld. Rhon Jones, who heads up our firm’s Toxic Torts Section, is involved with the litigation team in this litigation. Rhon observed: 

The lawsuit aims to compensate those harmed. Our clients deserve that. This is not the first time that BioLab’s negligence has exposed the surrounding community, and it is a shame that members of this community are suffering because of it.

Beasley Allen has joined forces with other firms, including Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys, who have also filed lawsuits against BioLab and KIK Consumer Products. The plaintiff class is expected to exceed 1,000 people, all affected by the chemical fire and subsequent evacuation orders.

Nearly All Zantac Cases Settled By GSK For Up To $2.2 Billion

We wrote last month on the EPA’s removal of the weed killer Dacthal from the market. The EPA issued the GSK has agreed to pay up to $2.2 Billion to settle approximately 80,000 state court cases alleging that the heartburn medication, Zantac, caused cancer. These settlements cover about 93% of the Zantac litigation against GSK in the U.S. The terms are expected to be implemented by mid-2025. Despite these settlements and evidence in support, GSK still claims that there is no consistent evidence linking ranitidine, Zantac’s active ingredient, to cancer.

In addition to the state court settlements, GSK has also reached a $70 million settlement in a whistleblower lawsuit. This lawsuit, filed by Valisure LLC, alleges that GSK defrauded federal health insurance programs by hiding for 40 years that Zantac decomposes into a carcinogen, NDMA, even when just sitting on the shelf. This settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had previously requested the withdrawal of all Zantac products in April 2020 due to findings that NDMA, a carcinogen, was associated with ranitidine medications. Since then, GSK and other makers of the drug have faced hundreds of personal injury lawsuits, which have been playing out in state and federal courts across the country.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated several personal injury cases against the defendants and sent the suits to the Southern District of Florida in February 2020. In December 2022, the judge overseeing the Zantac MDL dismissed all claims against Pfizer, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi, stating that “no scientist outside this litigation” has concluded that the drug’s active ingredient causes cancer.  However, the litigation continues, with some cases dismissed and others ongoing.

Implications Of Recent Developments In Paraquat Litigation: Equality In Herbicide Regulation

The legal landscape surrounding Paraquat litigation has remained relatively stagnant in recent months, with no substantial developments on the litigation front. However, a significant legislative move on October 4, 2024, may alter the trajectory of this ongoing battle. Non-profit organization Beyond Pesticides has officially petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action similar to its recent ban on Dacthal, an herbicide that shares alarming similarities with Paraquat.

Dacthal, or dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA), is an herbicide widely used for grass and weed control. Like Paraquat, it has been linked to numerous health risks, including cancer, birth defects, liver damage, and skin damage. The EPA’s decision on August 7, 2024, to ban Dacthal under the “Imminent Hazard” clause has raised questions about the agency’s regulatory approach to other hazardous substances, particularly Paraquat.

The “Imminent Hazard” clause is a rarely invoked enforcement tool that allows the EPA to act swiftly against substances that pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment. The application of this clause for Dacthal has left many organizations, scientists, and affected individuals advocating for a similar ban on Paraquat. Their argument is straightforward: if Dacthal is deemed hazardous enough to warrant immediate action, why should Paraquat be treated differently?

Paraquat, with its documented health risks and the availability of safer alternatives, presents a compelling case for regulatory action. The ramifications of this petition could be profound for the ongoing Paraquat litigation. The potential for a ban on Paraquat looms large, and its impact on ongoing litigation could be transformative for plaintiffs and manufacturers alike. 

Things To Consider In Handling PFAS Lawsuits

Beasley Allen lawyers are handling a number of cases in the PFAS litigation. These lawsuits are quite different from some of the cases in the Toxic Tort litigation. A lawyer handling these cases must consider several things. First of all, lawyers must stay up to date on the latest scientific research due to new regulations and increasing lawsuits. PFAS litigation has surged around the country, involving concerns about contamination from companies like 3M.

Lawyers must understand both the scientific and legal aspects of PFAS. These chemicals, used in various products, persist in the environment and human body, posing significant health risks. They are known as “Forever Chemicals” for an obvious reason. 

Evidence gathering is critical in PFAS cases, requiring a thorough understanding of the science and environmental factors involved. The correct defendants must be discovered. The lawyers and support staff must understand the historical knowledge of PFAS in order to build strong cases.

Selecting the right experts is essential for presenting information effectively to a judge and jury. Experts must have a deep understanding of PFAS science and be able to explain it clearly. This is important for both jury education and ensuring accurate testing and analysis.

The increasing and changing regulations surrounding PFAS require constant monitoring. New rules and regulations are frequently introduced, impacting litigation strategies and requiring lawyers to stay ahead of potential changes. There has been a great deal of activity. We will discuss the PFAS litigation further below. 

PFAS/ AFFF Litigation Update

The Aqueous Film – Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation is pending before U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel in the United States District Court of South Carolina. The current “presumptive injuries” in the litigation are kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism/thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer. 

Per the second amended Case Management Order (CMO) No. 28, plaintiffs seeking to assert or asserting injuries other than the presumptive ones noted above, and not pregnancy – induced hypertension or high cholesterol, were to file dismissals without prejudice by August 22, 2024. However, due to the thousands of plaintiffs seeking dismissals, the court entered CMO No. 28A extending the dismissal deadline to September 10, 2024. All other dates and deadlines from the second amended CMO 28 remain in effect. 

In April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new drinking water standards to help limit exposure to certain PFAS chemicals in water. The standards require water systems to monitor for the chemicals and remove them if above allowable limits. Per the new rule, water systems will have five years to address the PFAS concerns; three years to sample their systems and establish the existing PFAS levels and two years to install water treatment technologies if levels are too high. 

There is a grant available to the water systems and private well owners for the initial testing and treatment. If the funds run out, some costs may eventually pass onto consumers.

3M Faces Multiple PFAS Lawsuits

3M Co. is facing multiple lawsuits across the country related to “forever chemicals.” Vermont is challenging 3M’s attempt to move its state court case to federal court, arguing that 3M missed the 30-day deadline for removal. Vermont claims that 3M had enough information to assert a federal officer defense by November 2, 2023, but did not act until 62 days later. A Vermont federal judge had previously remanded the case to state court, but 3M is appealing the decision.

In addition, plaintiffs in Ohio and New Jersey have successfully kept their cases out of a larger multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that the Ohio case, focused solely on PFAS, does not belong in the South Carolina MDL, which deals with aqueous film-forming foams. The New Jersey case remains in its current court due to its advanced stage in litigation.

3M maintains that it will continue to defend itself in court or seek negotiated settlements as appropriate.

Vermont is represented by Charity R. Clark and Laura B. Murphy of the Office of the Vermont Attorney General, Matthew F. Pawa of Seeger Weiss LLP, and Kyle J. McGee of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

The Ohio plaintiffs are represented by Robert A. Bilott, David John Butler and Jonathan N. Olivito of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

The New Jersey plaintiffs are represented by Steven J. Phillips, Victoria E. Phillips and Melissa Stewart of Phillips & Paolicelli LLP, Arnold C. Lakind of Szaferman Lakind Blumstein & Blader PC, and Kevin Conway and Michael J. Lubeck of Cooney & Conway LLP.

The cases are Vermont v. 3M Co. et al., case number 24-1250, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Hardwick v. 3M Co. et al., case number 2:24-cv-03121, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Deese et al. v. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA LLC et al., case number 1:21-cv-00217 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

Another PFAS Lawsuit Filed Against 3M – This One In Massachusetts 

Residents of Nantucket, Massachusetts, have filed a class action lawsuit against 3M Co., The Chemours Co., and other companies, alleging that perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminated their properties, drinking water, and themselves. The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts federal court, claims that PFAS (forever chemicals) linked to cancer and other health issues contaminated the island’s groundwater due to the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) for firefighting training at Nantucket Memorial Airport since the 1960s.

Contamination was first detected in a private well near the airport in February 2020, with more contaminated wells found in May 2020 and subsequent years. The public water system was also affected. Additionally, an AFFF spill by ACV Environmental in December 2022 further contaminated private wells, wastewater, and a landfill.

By May 2024, a new water system was installed, and all wells on Tom’s Way were decommissioned. The proposed class action includes a “medical monitoring class” for residents who ingested the contaminated water and an “economic damages class” for those with contaminated wells. The residents claim ongoing exposure to high PFAS levels has caused significant health risks, property damage, and reduced property values.

The proposed class is represented by Sean K. McElligott, Ian W. Sloss, Johnathan Seredynski, Krystyna D. Gancoss and Kate Sayed of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP.

The case is Ruley et al v. The 3M Company et al, case number 1:24-cv-12564, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

3M Denied Stay In Connecticut Class Action Lawsuit

A Connecticut federal judge has denied 3M Co. and other companies’ request to stay a proposed class action by firefighters. The firefighters allege their turnout gear contains harmful perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decides whether to include the case in a South Carolina multidistrict litigation (MDL).

U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson ruled that the MDL mainly deals with PFAS from firefighting foams, whereas the firefighters’ claims focus on their gear. He noted that waiting for the JPML’s decision could cause delays due to discovery disputes. The judge emphasized that the firefighters’ claims are distinct from the MDL’s bulk, raising questions about overlapping discovery needs.

The firefighters’ lawsuit, filed in June, seeks to stop the production of PFAS-containing gear and establish a medical monitoring program. 3M requested a stay in August, arguing that the JPML’s decision, expected in December, would not disrupt early discovery. However, Judge Thompson pointed out that the decision might be contested, leading to further delays.

The judge also highlighted the public interest in resolving the firefighters’ claims swiftly, given their public service role. The suit names several other companies as defendants, most of whom supported 3M’s motion to stay. The judge denied these motions as well.

The firefighters are represented by Ian W. Sloss, Jennifer Sclar and Kate Sayed of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP.

The case is Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut et al. v. 3M Co. et al., case number 3:24-cv-01101, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Source: Law360

$615 Million Kiddle-Fenwal Firefighting Foam Settlement

Carrier Global Corp. has agreed to pay at least $615 million to settle claims related to its ownership of bankrupt Kidde-Fenwal Inc., which faces litigation over its firefighting foam containing harmful “forever chemicals.” These settlements involve:

• Kidde-Fenwal (now KFI Wind-Down Corp.);
• The official committee of unsecured creditors in KFI’s bankruptcy case; and 
• The plaintiffs’ executive committee in the firefighting foam multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina.

Kidde-Fenwal filed for bankruptcy in May 2023 due to numerous lawsuits over its foam, which contains dangerous PFAS chemicals. Carrier’s settlements aim to resolve all claims related to KFI’s liabilities and direct claims against Carrier.

Carrier will pay $615 million over five years, plus proceeds from KFI’s asset sales and insurance recoveries. The company expects insurance payments to cover the settlement costs.

Additionally, Carrier is selling its fire units to Lone Star Funds for $3 billion, completing its plan to focus on its core ventilation business. This follows previous sales of its industrial fire, security, and commercial refrigeration businesses.

Source: Law360

$78 Million Verdict Against Monsanto In Roundup Trial

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $78 million to plaintiff William Melissen in a lawsuit against Bayer AG unit Monsanto, finding that the company’s Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer. The verdict on October 10 includes $3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. Melissen claimed he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from using Roundup, which contains glyphosate, from 1992 to 2020.

Melissen’s lawyers argued that Monsanto prioritized profits over safety, failing to warn users about the risks of glyphosate. They urged the jury to hold Monsanto accountable for the harm caused to people and the environment. Monsanto, however, maintained that glyphosate is safe and accused the plaintiffs of using emotional appeals rather than scientific evidence.

This case marks the fourth plaintiff victory in Philadelphia’s Roundup litigation, with previous verdicts including a $2.25 billion award (later reduced to $404 million). Monsanto plans to appeal, arguing that the verdict contradicts scientific evidence. It also cited a recent Third Circuit ruling that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims.

The case highlights ongoing legal battles over Roundup’s safety and the broader implications for product liability and consumer protection.

Melissen is represented by Thomas R. Kline, Christopher A. Gomez, Priscilla Jimenez, Eleanor O. Aldous, Timothy A. Burke, Melissa A. Merk, Charles L. Becker and Tobi L. Millrood of Kline & Specter PC, and Jason A. Itkin and Noah M. Wexler of Arnold & Itkin LLP.

The case is William Melissen et al. v. Monsanto et al., case no. 210602578, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. 

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Snowflake & AT&T Data Breach MDLs Combined

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has centralized numerous cases related to data breaches affecting Snowflake Inc.’s cloud platform customers in the District of Montana. This includes a major multidistrict litigation (MDL) against AT&T, a Snowflake customer.

The JPML decided to consolidate these cases, which involved data breaches from April to June that compromised the personal information of over 500 million consumers and employees. The breaches affected data stored on Snowflake’s cloud by various companies, including AT&T, Ticketmaster, and Advance Auto Parts.

The panel noted that centralizing these cases in Montana would be convenient for all parties and promote efficient litigation. Plaintiffs accuse Snowflake and its clients of failing to protect personal information and not providing timely breach notifications.

Jeff Ostrow, one of the lawyers representing plaintiffs against Snowflake, advocated for centralization in Montana, where Snowflake is headquartered. The panel agreed, assigning the cases to U.S. District Judge Brian Morris, who is experienced and capable of managing the litigation.

Despite some opposition regarding the venue, including preferences for California or North Carolina, the panel emphasized the efficiency of virtual hearings and document reviews, making Montana a suitable choice. AT&T supported consolidation, but preferred North Carolina, Snowflake opposed consolidation, arguing that each company’s security measures were individually responsible.

Jeff praised the panel’s decision, saying it highlights the modern approach to virtual legal proceedings and the suitability of Montana for handling the MDL.

The plaintiffs are variously represented by a number of firms. That includes Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Fegan Scott LLC, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, The Lanier Law Firm PC, Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello PC, Seeger Weiss LLP, Modjarrad Abusaad Said, Morgan & Morgan PA, Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Audet & Partners LLP, Foster Yarborough PLLC, George Feldman McDonald PLLC, Mathias Raphael PLLC, Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP, Keller Rohrback, Herman Jones LLP, Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC, Baron & Budd PC, Shindler Anderson Goplerud & Weese PC, Hausfeld LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, DiCello Levitt, Parsons Behle & Latimer PC, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, Rhine Law Firm PC, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Zimmerman Law Offices PC, Maginnis Howard, Rossbach Law PC, Shamis & Gentile PA, Carey Danis & Lowe, Lavely & Singer PC, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Federman & Sherwood, Lynch Carpenter LLP, Cohen & Malad LLP, Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC, Francis Mailman Soumilas PC, Morrison Sherwood Wilson Deola PLLP, Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, Heenan & Cook PLLC, Goldenberg Schneider LPA, Leeds Brown Law PC, Paoli Law Firm, Robinson Calcagnie Inc., Kazerouni Law Group APC, Kohn Swift & Graf PC and Laukaitis Law LLC.

The cases are In re: AT&T Inc. Cellular Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL number 3124 and In re: Snowflake Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL number 3126.

Source: Law360

E. Coli Outbreak Linked To McDonald’s Quarter Pounders

The CDC has linked an E. coli outbreak to McDonald’s Quarter Pounders, affecting nearly 50 people and resulting in one death. The contamination is suspected to come from slivered onions used in the burgers, though the beef patties are also under investigation. Most incidents are in Colorado and Nebraska, with others spread across several states. At press time for this issue, ten people had been hospitalized.

McDonald’s has removed slivered onions from affected locations and halted Quarter Pounder sales in those areas as a precaution. The CDC, FDA, and USDA are continuing their investigation. This incident follows a recent recall of listeria-infected Boar’s Head deli meats. There will be litigation arising out of this area of concern. 

In a related case, Beasley Allen lawyer Ben Locklar filed a lawsuit on behalf of families whose children were exposed to E. coli after consuming Chicken McNuggets Happy Meals at a McDonald’s in Ashland, Alabama. The Alabama Department of Public Health, in its investigation, found serious violations at the restaurant, including practices that increased the risk of cross-contamination.  Cross-contamination occurs when a food preparer or handler is exposed to the E. coli bacteria and transfers the bacteria to other foods.  The lawsuit names Deck Foods, Inc., McDonald’s, Golden State Foods, and Martin Brower as defendants.

Ben says that our clients, like many others, expected the food they purchased for their children from McDonald’s to be safe, but it wasn’t. Six children developed symptoms consistent with E. coli exposure, with five testing positive. Four of these children were hospitalized with severe conditions, including hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).

E-Cig Forum Shopping Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that allows out-of-circuit e-cigarette manufacturers to seek judicial review in the New Orleans-based court if their petition is joined by a local seller. The FDA argues this ruling encourages “blatant forum shopping” and wants the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court.

The case involves R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which challenged the FDA’s denial of its applications to market menthol vaping products. The Fifth Circuit allowed the challenge because local retailers in Mississippi and Texas joined the petition. The FDA contends that judicial review should only be sought in the manufacturer’s home circuit or the D.C. Circuit, as per the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

R.J. Reynolds argues that the Tobacco Control Act allows any adversely affected person, including local retailers, to join the petition. The FDA disagrees, stating that only those whose marketing applications were denied should be considered adversely affected.

The litigation stems from the FDA’s 2023 denial of R.J. Reynolds’ marketing applications for its menthol-flavored Vuse products. The Fifth Circuit stayed the FDA’s order, allowing the products to remain on the market during the legal proceedings.

The FDA is represented in-house by Samuel R. Bagenstos, Mark Raza, Wendy S. Vicente, William H. Rawson and Sarah E. Rosenberg and by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Brian M. Boynton, Edwin S. Kneedler, Vivek Suri, Lindsey Powell, Joshua M. Koppel and Catherine Padhi of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is Food and Drug Administration et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. et al., case number 23-1187, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

Hernia Mesh Claims Against Bard Get Individualized Settlements

Tens of thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from hernia mesh implants could resolve their claims against C.R. Bard Inc. through a newly unveiled settlement process. This process, announced on October 1, aims to address claims in both state and federal courts.

Plaintiffs will receive individualized settlement offers based on their specific injuries and treatments. However, the terms of the settlement remain confidential, and no specific dollar amount has been disclosed.
 
The settlement process is designed to ensure fair compensation, particularly for the most severely injured. Over 25,000 plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation in Ohio federal court and consolidated litigation in Rhode Island state court are eligible, covering more than 30 of Bard’s hernia mesh products.
 
Bard’s parent company, Becton Dickinson & Co., stated that the settlement could resolve most of its hernia litigation without admitting liability. It should be noted that plaintiffs can reject the settlement offer and continue with litigation if they so choose.
 
The agreement follows three bellwether trials, two of which resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs. This settlement marks a significant step forward after seven years of litigation, providing a structured path to resolution for many affected individuals.
 
The plaintiffs are represented by Tim O’Brien of Levin Papantonio, Kelsey Stokes of Fleming Nolen & Jez LLP, Don Migliori and Jonathan Orent of Motley Rice LLC and Michael A. London of Douglas & London PC.
 
The cases are In re: Davol Inc./C.R. Bard Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, case number 2:18-md-02846, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and In re: Davol/C.R. Bard Hernia Mesh Multi-Case Management, case number PC-2018-9999, in Rhode Island Superior Court.
 
Source: Law360

$52 Million Settlement In Data Breach Litigation

New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced a $52 million multistate settlement with Marriott International Inc. over a prolonged data breach affecting one of its guest reservation databases.

A multistate investigation revealed that intruders accessed Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide’s system, a Marriott subsidiary, undetected from July 2014 to September 2018. This breach impacted 131.5 million customers, exposing personal information such as contact details, birth dates, reservation information, and some unencrypted passport numbers and payment card data.

The settlement mandates Marriott to enhance its data security measures, including:

• Independent third-party assessments of its information security program every two years for 20 years;

• Data minimization and disposal requirements;

• Implementation of a comprehensive information security program with regular security reporting;

• Increased oversight of vendors and franchisees, focusing on critical IT vendors and cloud provider contracts; and

• Prompt assessment and integration of acquired entities’ information security programs.

Additionally, Marriott must allow customers to delete their stored data, offer multi-factor authentication for loyalty accounts, and review these accounts for suspicious activity.

The settlement includes attorneys general from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: Claims Journal

Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Industry Gets Closer Look

A case in the U.S. Supreme Court is being watched closely. The court will decide whether Mexico can proceed with its lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers. Billions in damages are being sought for gun violence by drug cartels. The court agreed to review a petition from gun companies like Smith & Wesson and Glock, which are appealing a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals that revived Mexico’s claims.

Mexico alleges that these companies have knowingly facilitated the illegal trafficking of firearms to cartels. Initially, a Massachusetts federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, citing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits. However, the First Circuit ruled that this law does not protect the companies from claims that they aided illegal sales.

The gunmakers contend that Mexico is trying to hold them accountable for lawful practices. They have received support from conservative groups and an expected number of politicians. Mexico’s lawyers argue that the First Circuit correctly applied the law in allowing the case to proceed. This case will be watched closely. At press time, the Supreme Court had not yet scheduled oral arguments. Observers say a decision is expected by July.

I suspect this case is making some politicians sort of nervous. The NRA will let them know that if this case is successful things won’t be good for them. The NRA bosses will figure out some way to make this a Second Amendment issue. It will be interesting to see how the NRA can do this. 

The case is Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141.

Source: The National Law Journal

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. 

Over the past 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 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, Dacthal, Paraquat and Firefighting Foam. 

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, 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, 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
• 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
• Aviation Accidents
• Camp Lejeune 
• Dacthal
• Defective Tires
• Firefighting Foam
• Hair Relaxers
• Kratom
• NEC Baby Formula
• Negligent Security 
• On-the-Job-Injuries
• Ozempic
• Paraquat
• Social Media 
• Talcum Powder
• Truck Accidents 

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. 
• 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.
• Dacthal
  Beasley Allen is currently handling cases involving the pesticide DCPA (Dacthal, or dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate) and its link to serious health risks for unborn babies.
• 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. 
• Firefighting Foam
  Beasley Allen investigates cases of Aqueous Film Forming Foam exposure. This firefighting foam contains highly toxic PFAS chemicals that can lead to cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility and other health risks.
• 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.

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, by choice, 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.

Webinars

Beasley Allen hosts a variety of webinars. These webinars feature lawyers in the firm and cover topics related to Beasley Allen cases. Continuing legal education (CLE) credits for Alabama or Georgia are often available for presentations. To register for upcoming events or access past webinars on-demand, visit the website and click on the Events and Webinar page.

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, both in print and digitally. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link.

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Will Sutton, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section, has some trial tips for our lawyer readers. Let’s see what Will has on a most important topic for trial lawyers.

Trial Tip: Using Focus Groups To Test Your Case

Testing your case through focus groups can provide invaluable insights into how jurors will likely respond to the evidence and the arguments you intend to present at trial. They are highly customizable to meet the needs of your case. They can be conducted during any stage of litigation to test evidence, theories, themes, and storylines in a timely and cost-effective manner. You can conduct focus groups online or in person. Depending on the size of the case and its complexity, you can control how much you want to dedicate in resources to a focus group. You can put together your focus groups yourself or use a jury consultant. Find what type of group works for your case and what gets you the desired results and information.

A concept focus group early on can quickly set out the strengths and weaknesses of a case. In a concept focus group, you present the facts in a neutral manner to a group of laypersons to learn how they intuitively understand the story. This format allows the group members to ask questions and discuss their issues with your case.  When you know what questions and facts will most likely be important or confusing to jurors early on, you have plenty of time to shore up any deficiencies and refine your trial theme.

Later in a case, after your trial theme, arguments, and evidence are selected, a structured focus group may be helpful in identifying potential juror biases and gaps of information.  Structured focus groups typically consist of a short presentation of each side’s evidence and can include things like opening or closing statements. The group members are given limited instructions akin to jury instructions to deliberate and ultimately reach a verdict. 

Focus groups have helped me spot holes in my arguments, evaluate the evidence I intend to present, and determine the strength of witnesses and clients. I use what we learn to strengthen our case, whether through written discovery, depositions, or revising the case theme. Testing your case to see the good, the bad, and the ugly is critical. And, a focus group is one of the best and most cost-effective ways to test your case.

Will does an excellent job. Focus groups have been used by Beasley Allen for a long time. We have found them to be extremely helpful in trial preparation.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Dr. David Thrasher Selected For 2024 Alabama Healthcare Hall Of Fame

Dr. David Thrasher has received a high honor and one that is certainly well-deserved. In a remarkable recognition of his contributions to the field of healthcare, Dr. Thrasher has been selected for induction into the 2024 Alabama Healthcare Hall of Fame. This prestigious honor highlights this man’s extensive career and his unwavering commitment to improving public health in Alabama.

Dr. Thrasher, a renowned pulmonary specialist, has been a pivotal figure in the medical community of Montgomery and surrounding areas. His dedication to patient care and his innovative approaches to pulmonary medicine have earned him widespread respect and admiration. David is only the fifth medical doctor from Montgomery to receive this honor, joining an elite group of healthcare professionals who have made significant impacts on the state’s healthcare system.

Throughout his career, David has been actively involved in various public health initiatives. He played a crucial role during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing essential care and guidance to patients and healthcare workers alike. His efforts were instrumental in managing the crisis and ensuring the well-being of the community.

In addition to his medical practice, David has been a dedicated advocate for healthcare education and community service. He was a founding board member of the Boys and Girls Club Foundation, demonstrating his commitment to nurturing the next generation and supporting community development.

David’s induction into the Alabama Healthcare Hall of Fame is a testament to his lifelong dedication to healthcare excellence. He joins other distinguished honorees, including Dr. Regina Benjamin, the 18th U.S. Surgeon General, and Dr. Mamix E. Heersink, for whom the UAB Medical Center is named.

The Alabama Healthcare Hall of Fame, established in 1997, aims to recognize individuals who have made outstanding contributions to healthcare in the state. David’s inclusion in the 2024 class underscores his significant impact on the medical field and his enduring legacy in Alabama. Inductees are selected based on their professional achievements, community involvement, and dedication to advancing healthcare.

David and I have been close friends for a very long time. I know firsthand how truly dedicated he is to the practice of medicine and to the people he serves. 

Key Lamberth Selected To The Georgia State Bar YLD Leadership Academy

Key Lamberth has been selected to join the prestigious State Bar of Georgia’s Young Lawyers Division (YLD) Leadership Academy. This recognition is a testament to Key’s dedication, hard work, and commitment to excellence in the legal profession!

The YLD Leadership Academy is a highly competitive program designed to cultivate leadership skills among young lawyers. It provides participants with invaluable opportunities for professional development, networking, and community service. Being chosen for this program is a significant honor and reflects Key’s potential to make a substantial impact in the legal community.

Key started clerking at Beasley Allen in 2021. She gained valuable experience working on cases involving trucking accidents, defective products, negligent security, and premises liability. She continues to focus in this area of litigation as a lawyer in our Atlanta Office.

 Key has a bright future as a trial lawyer. We also look forward to seeing all the great things Key accomplishes in the future as a member of the Georgia State Bar YLD Leadership Academy.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Brandi Dawkins

Brandi Dawkins is a staff assistant in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, focusing on non-filed suit claims related to the Talcum Powder Litigation. Her role involves assisting with interviews, investigations into claims, gathering evidence, and various projects under the direction of the section’s lawyers.  Her meticulous approach makes sure that every case is examined and built with the strongest foundation possible. Brandi first joined Beasley Allen in 2018, and after a short stent away, she returned to us in 2023. We’re glad to have Brandi as part of the team! 

Brandi shares that she comes from a wonderfully diverse family. Her father, Joe Dawkins, hails from Montgomery, AL, while her mother, Chieko, was born and raised in Nagano, Japan. Brandi says her parents’ unique love story began in Yokohama, where they met at Shakey’s Pizza while her father served in the U.S. Marine Corps. In her spare time, Brandi enjoys a range of activities. She cherishes moments spent with family and friends, whether cuddling up with a good book or binge-watching her favorite movies indoors. Above all, Brandi says that her most meaningful hobby is her relationship with God.

Brandi loves being part of the “Talc Team,” which she describes as a dedicated team.  She adds, “The emotional journey we share—celebrating victories, navigating frustrations, and mourning losses—binds us closer together each and every day.” 

We are blessed to have Brandi, a multi-talented, hard-working employee, at Beasley Allen. Brandi cares about the clients and works hard for those she helps to represent. 

Tony Harris

Tony Harris has dedicated an impressive 17 years to Beasley Allen, where he works as a legal secretary in the Toxic Torts Section, working remotely from home.  Tony oversees the back-office intake process, ensuring that files are opened, docketing events are handled appropriately, and clients are contacted accordingly. He plays a pivotal role in managing initial responses to referral emails from referring attorneys and coordinating communications regarding fee splitting – a task that demands high proficiency in organization and accuracy.

Tony says family is a central part of his life outside of work. He enjoys his close-knit relationship with his mom, dad, sister, niece, and nephew and loves spending quality time with them.  He shares that his niece and nephew are at exciting stages in their lives—his niece is a freshman in high school, and his nephew is in seventh grade. Tony strives to make them comfortable approaching him about anything and cherishes all the fun activities they share, such as watching plays, shopping, dining out, or swimming.  Tony also shares that he is an avid reader, favoring educational non-fiction and mystery fiction. 

Tony’s favorite aspect of working at Beasley Allen is the strong sense of teamwork. He appreciates colleagues’ trust in one another, fostering an environment where everyone supports and helps one another. He adds, “The firm’s streamlined and efficient operations and family-like atmosphere contribute to a truly enjoyable workplace!”

Tony is another talented employee who works very hard and is dedicated to the clients the firm represents. We are most fortunate to have Tony with the firm. 

Shelley Thomas

Shelley Thomas has been an integral part of the Beasley Allen team in the accounting department for 19 impressive years. As an Accountant, Shelley plays a crucial role in ensuring that financial matters run smoothly, supporting the firm’s work to provide justice for those facing challenging circumstances. 

Shelley shares that family is a central part of her life, first and foremost. She and her husband, Darren, have been married for four years, and they have five children and five grandchildren residing in Prattville. In her free time, Shelley enjoys various activities that bring her joy. Whether she’s spending quality time with family and friends, catching a show at the theater, indulging in a little shopping, or enjoying trips to the beach, Shelley makes the most of her leisure moments. In addition to being an avid golf enthusiast, she has also dived into the world of baseball, inspired by her husband’s passion for the sport. 

What Shelley cherishes most about her work at Beasley Allen is the opportunity to make a meaningful impact. “I like helping others find justice in unfortunate situations that have surfaced in their lives,” she says. “Working for a firm that cares about their employees and treats you like family has been invaluable. I’m grateful for the friendships I’ve forged and the special people I’ve had the chance to meet during my time here. It has truly been a great experience!”  

Shelley is a valuable part of the team at Beasley Allen. She has an important job and does it extremely well. She is a hard-working, dedicated employee. We are fortunate to have Shelley at Beasley Allen. 

Dylan Martin

Dylan Martin, a lawyer in the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, has made a significant mark in consumer protection, particularly focusing on vehicle defect class action litigation. His journey with Beasley Allen began during his undergraduate studies when he joined as a clerical assistant in 2015. He further honed his skills as a law clerk while attending Cumberland School of Law. Dylan is now an associate in the firm and is an invaluable part of our team!

Dylan’s passion for the law is deeply rooted in his desire to enact positive change. He attributes his legal aspirations to early experiences that fostered his interest in helping others and understanding the law’s impact on daily life. His educational background, including a B.A. in political science from Huntingdon College and recognition for excellence in negotiation at Cumberland, underscores his commitment to his craft. 

Outside of work, Dylan says he cherishes family time with his wife, Mary Frances, and their two daughters, Elizabeth and Beatrice, as well as their pets—two dogs and a ragdoll cat. Together, they enjoy beach trips, Auburn Football games, and community engagement at Holy Spirit Catholic Church. 

Dylan says our firm’s unwavering dedication to clients and staff sets Beasley Allen apart. He describes the culture as familial, emphasizing support and resources that empower lawyers and staff personnel to grow personally and professionally. We are blessed to have Dylan at Beasley Allen. He is a dedicated, hard-working lawyer. 

Navan Ward

Navan Ward, a principal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, is located in our Atlanta office.  Before joining Beasley Allen, Navan honed his skills at an insurance defense firm and an employment law practice, tackling various cases from medical malpractice to sexual harassment. This diverse background laid a solid foundation for Navan’s current role at Beasley Allen, where he has made significant strides in helping victims of defective medical devices. This is an important specialty in product liability practice. 

Navan’s leadership is not just confined to the legal arena. He is the Immediate Past President of the American Association for Justice and a founding Executive Board Member of “Shades of Mass,” a testament to his commitment to diversity in legal leadership. 

Beyond his professional roles, Navan is a family man, married to Bridget L. Maynor, and a proud father to twin sons, Roman and Jaxon. His active involvement in the community, including his regular attendance at Northview Christian Church – Communion City, reflects his dedication to his faith and family. He values quality time with his family, especially during football season and at swim meets. 

With a profound sense of duty and passion for helping others, Navan exemplifies Beasley Allen’s values, where faith, family, and justice converge. His dedication sets a benchmark in the legal community, inspiring his colleagues and the countless clients he has represented. We are thankful to have Navan, a talented lawyer who is dedicated to his clients, with us! 

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Navan Ward and Brandi Dawkins, who are featured in this issue, share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Navan Ward

Navan offers three of his favorite verses.

If you cry out to know right from wrong, and lift your voice for understanding; if you look for her as silver, and look for her as hidden riches. Proverbs 2:3-4

Then the King will say, ‘For sure, I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of My brothers, you have done it to Me.’ Matthew 25:40

Does this mean that we do away with the Law when we put our trust in Christ? No, not at all. It means we know the Law is important. Romans 3:31

Brandi Dawkins

Brandi shares several of her favorite verses. She says she likes to think of the verse below as God’s phone number and that although she knows she cannot call God literally by phone, she has access to Him 24/7. 

Call to Me, and I will answer you. And I will show you great and wonderful things which you do not know. Jeremiah 33:3

She adds that it’s a reminder that not always talking to people is going to help, but talking to God guarantees peace, mercy, and grace in any time of need. Call unto Him always.

Brandi’s second verse is God’s heartbeat. She says God’s word carries hope for her when she is unable to acknowledge her own weaknesses and trust in His unfailing strength. 

The Lord is loving and right. Yes, our God is full of loving-kindness.The Lord takes care of the child-like. I was brought down, and He saved me. Psalms 116: 5-6

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

The Battle To Control Global Warming

The battle against global warming has been in the spotlight recently because of two massive storms that caused tremendous destruction and loss of life in several southeastern states. Nobody can deny that we are experiencing the tragic results of climate change. All too many politicians have virtually ignored the cause of climate change. Some misguided political leaders have even called it a “hoax.” Obviously, we must do a better job of educating the public and the politicians.  

As this issue was being written, the huge Hurricane Milton had just hit the State of Florida. It was the second destructive hurricane to hit that state. Other states were also greatly affected by these two major hurricanes, especially the first one. Florida took the brunt of the blow in the first storm Helene. 

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, demanding immediate and sustained action to mitigate its impacts. The primary strategy for controlling climate change involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which are the main drivers of global warming. This can be achieved through a combination of renewable energy adoption, energy efficiency improvements, and the transition away from fossil fuels. 

Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power offer sustainable alternatives that can significantly cut down carbon emissions. Additionally, enhancing energy efficiency in industries, buildings, and transportation can reduce overall energy consumption, further lowering emissions.

Another critical aspect of climate change control is the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems. Forests, wetlands, and oceans act as carbon sinks, absorbing more carbon dioxide than they emit. Protecting these areas from deforestation, pollution, and other forms of degradation is essential for maintaining their ability to sequester carbon. Reforestation and afforestation projects can also help increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere.

The recent major storms mentioned above have not only caused widespread destruction and deaths, but they have also reignited the conversation about the role of climate change in relating to the surge of stronger and more violent storms. The following is a brief summary of the situation. 

Supercharged Storms

Scientists have long warned that a warming planet would lead to more intense and frequent storms. Recent data supports this, showing that hurricanes and typhoons are becoming more powerful due to rising global temperatures. For instance, Hurricane Helene, which recently battered the Southeast United States, brought with it high winds, heavy rainfall, and dangerous storm surges. This storm, like many others, was fueled by unusually warm ocean waters, a direct consequence of climate change.

Rising Sea Levels

One of the most significant impacts of climate change is the rise in sea levels. Over the past century, sea levels have risen by about a foot, providing storms with a higher baseline from which to operate. This means that storm surges are now more destructive, leading to greater flooding and damage to coastal communities.

Changing Storm Patterns

Climate change is also altering the behavior of storms. Warmer ocean temperatures are extending the hurricane season and changing the paths that storms take. This unpredictability makes it harder for communities to prepare and respond effectively. For example, Typhoon Yagi took an unusual path, causing unexpected devastation in regions that were not typically in its trajectory.

The Human Cost

The human cost of these supercharged storms is immense. Lives are lost, homes are destroyed, and economies are disrupted. The recent devastation caused by Hurricane Helene has brought climate change to the forefront of political discussions, highlighting the urgent need for action.

As the planet continues to warm, the frequency and intensity of storms are expected to increase. It is crucial for global leaders to take decisive action to mitigate climate change and protect vulnerable communities. The recent storms serve as a stark reminder of the power of nature and the pressing need to address the root causes of climate change.

It can’t be stressed enough that international cooperation is vital in the fight against climate change. Agreements such as the Paris Agreement aim to unite countries in their efforts to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Countries must commit to ambitious targets and regularly update their plans to reflect the latest scientific findings and technological advancements.

The battle to control climate change is one that Americans can’t afford to lose. That means the battle must become a top priority for government at every level, especially in our nation’s capital. The future of all countries around the world depends on winning this battle. The United States must take the lead, but other nations must get actively involved. 

Individual citizens must demand that our political leaders get involved. All persons in leadership roles must be held accountable. If they refuse to get involved in a positive way, we need to elect to office people who recognize the problem, admit it exists and then work collectively to solve the problem for the good of all mankind. 

MONTHLY REMINDERS

The following are reminders this month for all of us at Beasley Allen. As I have said previously, these reminders are put in the Report for a purpose. They are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. While the reminders are for all at Beasley Allen, we send them to all who get the Report. Any person in a leadership role, including those persons in government, 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

America’s Courtroom

I was honored to be on the program in Montgomery on October 24, which honored two federal judges. The event was held in the courtroom labeled “America’s Courtroom.” The judges honored were the late Frank M. Johnson Jr. and U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson. The invitees were judges from the New England states. Over 100 judges, mostly federal judges, were in attendance. 

The New Englanders were introduced at lunch to country fried chicken and pecan pie from Dirks. In the afternoon session, I was on a panel that included Peter Canfield, a former law clerk for Judge Johnson, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Rusty Johnson, a former law clerk for Judge Thompson. Chief U.S. District Judge Emily Marks presided over the impressive program. 

When we consider how many important decisions were made by Judge Johnson in “American’s Courtroom” that affected civil rights and voting rights, it makes us realize what a great and courageous judge he was and how important all that he did for America really was.  Judge Johnson’s decisions in many areas of national concern gave freedom and liberty true and lasting meanings. 

The three of us on the panel responded to questions from Bill Brewbaker, Dean of the University of Alabama School of Law. We were asked about our respective relationships with Judge Johnson and Judge Thompson and our observations on the effect of their service on the bench. My relationship with Judge Johnson was a personal one, and that relationship with the Judge started at an early age. It was further developed while I was in the political arena during the 1970s. 

Judge Thompson gave the keynote address at the conclusion of the program. He gave one of the best talks that I have ever heard. He touched the hearts and souls of all in attendance. I wish every American could have heard it. 

I was impressed with how much the judges from New England knew about Beasley Allen and what our firm had accomplished over the years. They recognized our “Brand” and what we stand for as a litigation law firm. It made me realize that when we set our priorities and then live them out in our lives and as a firm, it makes a real difference. 

I left the event with a good feeling about my law firm and the people who contribute to its reputation for doing things the right way and for the right reasons. I also left that day with a deeper understanding of what liberty and justice are really all about and with a more profound respect for the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution.