The Jere Beasley Report August 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Juries Have A Key Role In Protecting The Rule Of Law

There have been numerous news stories in recent months focusing on the Rule of Law in America. The importance of the Rule of Law and its role in the history of our country can never be overstated. However, quite often, the role of juries in the judicial system is overlooked. We will take a look at the vital importance of juries and the role jurors have played over the years. 

It’s critically important to fully understand that jurors are a fundamental and essential part of the system of justice in America. The right to a jury trial is a key component of the Bill of Rights. Historically, juries have played a major role in much of the progress made economically and socially in our country. Juries are composed of people who represent a cross-section of the community. That being said, the make-up of juries must include persons from all walks of life. Diversity was totally lacking in the beginning, but over the years, it has been achieved, and that has been good for all Americans. 

Jurors have played a crucial role in upholding the Rule of Law by finding facts, making decisions under pressure, and contributing to civic engagement. Based on my trial experience, I know firsthand that jurors take their role seriously and have a positive view of their experience. I learned very early in my career that jurors are much smarter collectively than the lawyers in a case. 

Recognizing the importance of juries is essential for maintaining the Rule of Law and ensuring that ordinary citizens continue to play a vital role in the justice system. I have seen firsthand how juries have assured by their verdicts that justice is done. The lives of individuals have been changed in the process.  But just as important, juries have brought about needed changes in Corporate America relating to consumer protection, the safety of products, and safety in the workplace. 

We must maintain and protect the Rule of Law in America, and that includes the jury system. Let’s all do our part to make sure the jury system remains intact and strong. The future of our country depends in large part on that reality. 

TALC LITIGATION

Talc Litigation Update

There are now more than 65,000 cases consolidated in the federal court system MDL pending in New Jersey. The first bellwether trial has now been officially selected. The case is Judkins v. Johnson & Johnson, brought by a woman from New Hampshire who alleges she developed ovarian cancer after decades of using Johnson’s Baby Powder.  Our firm filed her complaint in 2019, and we look forward to representing Ms. Judkins in this trial.  

While not the first of its kind, this trial will be the first time that an MDL jury assesses the allegations that Johnson & Johnson marketed talc-based products—primarily Johnson’s Baby Powder—in such a way as to cause ovarian cancer.  

Ms. Judkins began using Johnson’s Baby Powder in 1971, at the age of 15, and continued using the product for over thirty years.  In December 2016, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.  Jurors will hear evidence about how Johnson & Johnson failed to act on knowledge about the risks associated with talc. Jurors will see company documents showing that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that their products contained asbestos. The plaintiff will show that the company was less concerned about the health of women and was more concerned about corporate image when they chose to mislead the public and regulators.

In addition to this trial, we are expecting other trials to take place soon, including one in Los Angeles state court before the end of 2025, one in New Jersey state court in January 2026, two in Philadelphia in the first half of 2026, and one in Georgia state court in 2026.

The MDL judge has now appointed Fouad Kurdi of Resolutions LLC as the official mediator in the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder MDL.  Similarly, he has been appointed in the Philadelphia and New Jersey state court litigations.  

The mediation order authorizes Mr. Kurdi to oversee the process. While defendants said that they are not in favor of mediation at this time, they did not oppose the appointment of a mediator. 

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has established a new mass tort program for lawsuits alleging that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.  The court also appointed Richard Golomb and Chris Seeger as co-liaison counsel for the plaintiffs.  The Philadelphia docket currently includes more than 150 cases. As mentioned, the court has already scheduled two trials for early 2026.  One of those will be the Emerson case that our firm had scheduled for trial at the time of the third bankruptcy filing.

J&J Loses Bid To Disqualify Beasley Allen

A New Jersey federal judge has denied Johnson & Johnson’s attempt to remove my Law Firm from the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the multidistrict talc litigation. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh sided with our firm to expedite the nearly decade-old case accusing J&J of selling carcinogenic talc-based baby powder. 

J&J claimed that our lawyers were unfit for the steering committee due to what they described as a “severe breach of trust” during its talc unit’s bankruptcy proceedings in Texas. That claim was totally false, and the tactic was typical of how J&J has performed in this litigation. They have played fast and loose with the truth. 

It should be noted that the Texas bankruptcy court found some irregularities with all parties involved, but did not find bad faith. J&J’s attempt to remove Beasley Allen lawyers was to eliminate what many observers believe to be J&J’s strongest adversary.

Judge Singh’s ruling is the latest development in J&J’s efforts to limit or remove Andy Birchfield and Leigh O’Dell from the litigation. J&J has previously sought to disqualify our firm over alleged unethical connections with a former J&J outside counsel, but we defeated that bid in state court. J&J has also lost its challenge to the pro hac vice admissions of Andy and Leigh in state court.

Judge Singh also appointed Chris Seegar of Seegar Weiss LLP to lead a negotiation team to guide plaintiffs through settlement talks with J&J. This was an excellent choice by the judge. 

Beasley Allen will continue fighting for fair compensation for those affected by J&J’s defective and dangerous talc products. We will also battle the efforts by J&J to abuse the judicial system. 

The federal multidistrict litigation is In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02738, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

J&J Ordered To Pay Over $42 Million In Mesothelioma Trial

A Massachusetts state court jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay over $42.6 million to Paul Lovell, a former talc user with mesothelioma, and his wife. The jury found J&J’s baby powder had design defects, failed to warn users, and was negligently designed, contributing to Lovell’s mesothelioma.

Lovell was awarded $15 million for past pain and suffering, $9 million for future pain and suffering, $608,300 for past medical expenses, and $2 million for future medical expenses. His wife received $5 million for past loss of consortium and $11 million for future loss of consortium.

Lovell is represented by Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP and attorney Danny Kraft.

The case is Lovell v. J&J, case number 2181CV02086, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

The ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson is now moving forward. Beasley Allen has battled J&J on every front. J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims. Beasley Allen has been a target of J&J because of our opposition to their wrongdoing. We will continue to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation is now in a position where justice will ultimately be served for the thousands of J&J victims. Cases against J&J will be set for trial in several locations.  

  

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, our litigation team has been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has been out front in all aspects of this litigation. Andy actually became J&J’s target. He has been attacked by this huge, powerful company constantly. J&J has tried very hard to intimidate Andy and the firm, but their efforts have not worked and will not work in the future.  

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

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

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Settlement Update: Progress Towards Global Resolution

Court-appointed Settlement Masters Thomas Perrelli and Christopher Oprison continue to support the court’s efforts to achieve a global resolution of claims filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA). In close coordination with the Court’s Settlement Liaison, Judge James Gates, as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group (PLG), the Settlement Masters are working to expedite the resolution of claims on a broad and efficient scale. In their June status report to the court, the Settlement Masters updated the court on their efforts.  

Claimant Questionnaire

It was reported that progress continues on the development and distribution of a detailed claimant questionnaire, which will play a key role in shaping a compensation matrix. The parties have reached agreement on the specific injuries and health conditions to be addressed, as well as the process for selecting a representative, random sample of claimants to receive the questionnaire.

Bellwether Mediations

A total of 25 Track 1 cases—representing six major conditions, including acute leukemia, chronic leukemia, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and Parkinson’s Disease—are scheduled for mediation between late July and August 2025. Each session will be led by one of the three mediators—either a Settlement Master or Judge Gates—and supported by the remaining two.

Matrix Development Of A Global Settlement

Following the completion of the mediations and analysis of questionnaire responses, the data will be used to develop a global settlement matrix. This matrix will provide a consistent and equitable framework for valuing claims.

The Settlement Masters have reaffirmed their commitment to finalizing a global settlement framework by the end of 2025, with implementation to follow shortly thereafter.  It is important to note that accomplishing this goal continues to be very ambitious and is highly dependent upon the government’s commitment to reaching a fair and comprehensive resolution for these claimants.   

Conclusion

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, you can reach out to our Camp LeJeune Litigation Team. Contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have one of the lawyers respond to you. Lawyers on the team are heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation, including bellwether trial work. The names of lawyers on the team are set out at the end of this section. 

Camp Lejeune Judge Limits Expert Opinions

A North Carolina federal judge, Robert B. Jones Jr., has issued an order limiting the scope of expert opinions in the consolidated litigation over water contamination at Camp Lejeune. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ specific causation experts can refer to prior general causation opinions, but they will not be allowed to introduce new general causation opinions.

The litigation involves around 1,500 lawsuits filed by veterans and families who allege that the water at the North Carolina military base contained excessive levels of chlorinated solvents and other contaminants, leading to various diseases such as bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and lymphoma. The contamination affected people living on the base between 1953 and 1987.

As previously reported, the court has ordered that expert discovery proceed in three phases:

• Phase I: Whether the water was contaminated

• Phase II: General causation

• Phase III: Specific causation and damages

Judge Jones partially granted the U.S. government’s request to exclude portions of the plaintiffs’ Phase III expert reports as untimely general causation opinions. However, he allowed Phase III experts to rely on and refer to Phase II reports, as defense experts have when allowed to do so. 

Judge Jones emphasized that each phase builds upon the previous one, and references to prior work are permissible so long as they do not introduce new opinions that should have been disclosed earlier. The judge also noted that sanctions were not warranted beyond ordering that Phase III experts not be allowed to introduce new general causation analyses.

The case is In re: Camp Lejeune Water Litigation, case number 7:23-cv-00897, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Source: Law360

Navigating the Camp Lejeune Claims Portal: Common Document Issues and Tips

While law firms continue pursuing justice for Veterans and their families, many encounter technical frustrations via the Department of Navy’s Camp Lejeune Claims Portal, especially when uploading supporting documents. Understanding common issues and applying a few best practices can help ensure your claim is submitted successfully and without delay.

Common Upload Challenges

One of the most frequent issues is upload failure or timeout, often caused by exceeding the Navy JAG’s 90MB file size limit. Uploads may also be disrupted during peak usage hours or scheduled maintenance. Another source of confusion is the difference between uploading files under the “Upload Files” tab and attaching documents to a direct JAG message. Each method behaves differently depending on file type, size, and recipient. Additionally, unsupported file formats or filenames with special characters (like %, &, or #) can trigger unintended errors.

Best Practices for a Smooth Upload

• File Size Limit: Keep individual files under 90MB. If the file is too large, try to either compress the file below the max file size or split the document into several smaller files.
• Upload Timing: Try uploading the documents during off-peak hours or work hours to avoid network congestion.
• Upload Method: If the “Upload Files” tab fails, try attaching the document to a JAG message.
• File Formats: Stick to standard formats like PDF, DOCX, or TXT.
• File Naming: Use clear & concise naming schemes without using special characters.

Tips for Reducing File Size

• Flatten & Compress PDFs: Use PDF compression tools such as Adobe Acrobat or Foxit.
• Optimize Images: Convert high-resolution images to lower-resolution JPEGs or PNGs.
• Split Large Documents: Break them into logical sections (e.g., “Smith_John_Service_Records_Part 1 of 4”).

Standing Strong for Those Who Served

Here at Beasley Allen, we understand that behind every claim is a life disrupted, families harmed, futures altered, and justice delayed. Even before the recent federal reduction in force, the Federal Government was already understaffed to handle the Camp Lejeune litigation. After the Department of Defense’s reduction in force, the backlog and issues that occur have only increased, with many claimants facing longer delays than initially expected. While these technical tips can help with navigating the Claim Portal, systemic staffing shortages remain a major barrier to timely resolution. The system may be slow and the challenges many, but we are unwavering in our mission. The Federal Government may be understaffed and overwhelmed, but we are not. We are here to fight relentlessly for you and without compromise for every individual affected by the Camp Lejeune water contamination. No matter how long it takes, we will stand by your side until every voice is heard and every claim is honored. This is more than a case: it’s a cause, and we’re here with you till the end. 

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Social Media Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation Update

The social media litigation continues to move forward in both the Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP 5255) out of the Los Angeles Superior Court, as well as the federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 3047) in the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. Beasley Allen is heavily involved in this litigation. 

The first personal injury Bellwether trial in the JCCP is set to begin in November of 2025, with eight other personal injury Bellwether trials scheduled consecutively thereafter. The MDL has not yet set the first Bellwether trial date. Until then, parties continue to undergo extensive discovery and expert review in preparation for trial.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over multidistrict litigation involving school districts and personal injury plaintiffs, plans to bifurcate bellwether trials into two phases if plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. The MDL involves claims against social media giants like YouTube LLC and Meta Platforms Inc., alleging their platforms are addictive and harm minors.

During a recent case management conference, the parties discussed the bellwether jury trial schedule and deadlines. Meta’s counsel expressed concerns about plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief at trial. Injunctive relief is typically crafted by a judge. Plaintiffs’ position was that certain state law claim remedies could be decided by a jury. Judge Gonzalez Rogers plans to hold bifurcated trials, with the second phase being a bench trial.

As discovery in the MDL is drawing to a close, the parties have selected cases for the first bellwether trials. Judge Gonzalez Rogers narrowed the pool to five personal injury bellwether plaintiffs and six bellwether school districts. She indicated that at least one school district bellwether case would likely be tried early next year. The judge emphasized the need to prepare all cases simultaneously to avoid trial delays if a case is settled.

During the hearing, the school district plaintiffs estimated it would take roughly four weeks to present their case. Meta’s counsel declined to estimate the defense case duration, but indicated they would likely call five to eight experts. Defense counsel requested to push back expert deadlines, which plaintiffs’ counsel disagreed with. The judge ordered the parties to take their scheduling disputes to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang.

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

Lawyers at Beasley Allen continue to pursue claims on behalf of individuals arising out of their addiction to the defendant Social Media Platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. Injuries include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation. Additionally, Beasley Allen is representing school districts for expenses they have incurred due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions. 

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

Source: Law360

$8 Billion Meta Privacy Suit Settled

A midtrial settlement agreement was reached by Meta stockholders to resolve the $8 billion-plus lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The suit accused Meta’s directors and officers of breaching privacy regulations and corporate fiduciary duties, with allegations dating back to the Cambridge Analytica scandal over a decade ago.

Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick was informed of the settlement as the second day of the scheduled eight-day trial began. The chancellor paused the case pending further details from the parties.

The lawsuit began with an April 2018 complaint that was amended twice. It alleged “intentional, recidivist violations of the law” by Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook and its successor Meta Platforms Inc., and others. The claims included failures to comply with a 2012 Federal Trade Commission consent order and insider trading violations.

Details of the settlement were not made public, but the parties said the teams and other details will be revealed later on. Meta spokesperson Christopher Sgro stated at the time that the company would have no additional comments about the settlement.

The Meta stockholder claims could have required Zuckerberg to disgorge over $5 billion in shares allegedly gained through insider trading. Other defendants faced $3 billion in damage claims, plus interest, related to breaches of privacy regulations.

The trial involved 11 current or former directors, including Zuckerberg and former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. The case stemmed from security failures that exposed the data of 87 million Facebook users, which was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

The case is In re: Facebook Inc. Derivative Litigation, case number 2018-0307, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Study Shows Need For A “Healthy Balance” With Gaming And Phones To Ensure Proper Development

A recent study published in Current Psychology highlights growing concerns of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) among Australian school-aged children. Conducted by Brad Marshall and others, the research surveyed almost 2000 school-aged children, revealing that almost 10% of the children demonstrated problematic smartphone use. Additionally, 4% met clinical or sub-clinical criteria for IGD.

The study is one of the first to assess post-COVID-19 screen time and usage in Australian children. Notably, the research found no significant differences in IGD prevalence by age, suggesting that younger children are just as vulnerable.

Somewhat predictably, children with increased screen time reported increased emotional issues and less physical activity. The study highlighted the importance of early intervention when children demonstrate problems associated with gaming and phone screen time. One of the more challenging issues is the increased prevalence of computer and phone usage in the classroom, making it difficult to strike a healthy balance with these devices in schools in order to ensure healthy mental and physical development. 

The Beasley Allen Social Media 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. Lawyers on the Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team are set out below.

Social Media Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Seth Harding and Slade Methvin. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team. He can be reached at 800-898-2034 or by email at [email protected].

MOTOR VEHICLE LITIGATION

$3 Million Settlement Obtained After Strategic Legal Battle

When Jose “Joe” Garcia, a North Carolina-based truck driver, was struck by a falling tree on I-85 in Banks County, Georgia, his life changed in an instant. The tree had been negligently dropped across the highway by Southern Clearing & Grinding, Inc., a company that would go on to fight accountability in the case at every turn. But due to the relentless work of Beasley Allen lawyer Warner Hornsby, the story ended with justice being served with a $3,006,622.33 settlement that will finally allow Joe to get the surgery he has needed for years.

Joe’s injuries were initially brushed off as minor. His occupational insurance sent him to a physician assistant who missed a serious labral tear in his hip. For over three years, Joe lived with debilitating pain, misdiagnosed and untreated—until a neurosurgeon finally ordered the correct imaging and discovered the true cause.

The defense had only $1 million in insurance and refused to settle Joe’s claim. The company even filed for bankruptcy twice in order to delay a trial. But Warner and his team used those delays to their advantage. When the second bankruptcy was filed, Warner contended that it nullified a prior agreement that limited recovery to the insurance policy. The bankruptcy judge agreed, opening the door to a bad-faith claim and the prospect of an excess verdict.

At trial, the defendant company’s owner didn’t even show up in person. Instead, Warner played a 2.5-hour video deposition where the owner was caught in repeated lies. The jury was captivated. Despite the defense hiring two doctors trying to dispute Joe’s injuries, the jury returned a $2.51 million verdict. After losing multiple appeals—including a denied petition to the Georgia Supreme Court—the defense finally agreed to pay the full judgment plus interest. That resulted in a total payout of $3,006,662.23. 

This case is a powerful example of what a trial lawyer, experienced in trucking litigation, can do—even when the odds seem stacked against the victim. Joe’s injuries were real. His pain was constant. The legal system, when navigated with skill and persistence, delivered the justice this man deserved. Joe’s teenage daughter testified that on some days her father’s pain was so bad she had to carry him into the house like an injured football player. Now, thanks to this settlement, Joe Garcia can finally afford the surgery he has needed for years –and he will have the peace of mind that comes with financial security. 

An Important Case Filed In Georgia State Court 

Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta Office, recently filed a lawsuit against Black Stallion Transportation, LLC and Raheem Adrian Salmon.  The lawsuit is pending in Rockdale County State Court and includes claims of negligence against the driver and negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims against the carrier. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought in the case. 

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff Kristi Buice was driving a 2018 Ford Explorer XLT on Carl Davis Road in Walton County, Georgia.  Ms. Buice was stopped at a stop sign and waiting in the left turning lane when a 2003 Kenworth Construction tractor trailer, which was attempting to make a right turn onto Carl Davis Road, encroached into the client’s lane and collided with her vehicle.  The striking vehicle was owned by Black Stallion Transportation LLC and was driven by Raheem Adrian Salmon.  Immediately after the collision, the driver fled the scene.  

As the driver of a commercial vehicle, Defendant Salmon had a duty to act reasonably and use care while operating his vehicle. That duty included paying attention to traffic, maintaining a proper lookout to manage space, turning safely, and obeying the laws and rules of the State of Georgia. The duty requested the driver to follow industry standards for the safe operation of a commercial vehicle.  Moreover, Defendant Salmon had a duty to stay on the scene of the accident, which he failed to do.

Ben, as the counsel for plaintiff, believes that what he knows today is just the tip of the iceberg relating to the negligent and wanton conduct that the driver and company were engaged in. Ben expects discovery to provide access to why this accident occurred and how it could have been prevented had the carrier engaged in safe hiring, and the driver had been properly trained and supervised by his employer. 

$329 Million Verdict In Tesla Trial

A Miami jury found Tesla’s Autopilot to be defective and awarded $329 million in damages for a 2019 fatal crash in the Florida Keys. The victims, Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo, received $59 million and $70 million in compensatory damages, respectively. Tesla was also hit with $200 million in punitive damages. The jury determined that the autopilot contributed to the crash, with driver George Brian McGee being 67% at fault and Tesla 33% at fault. McGee had engaged the autopilot but was speeding and distracted by his dropped phone.

The crash occurred on the night of April 25, 2019, in Key Largo. McGee, driving his 2019 Tesla Model S, was speeding down the road when he dropped his phone and took his eyes off the road to look for it. He sped past a stop sign and into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, killing Benavides, who was standing next to the Tahoe with Angulo. 

The testimony at trial indicated McGee had engaged the autopilot on the road, but shortly before the crash, he put his foot on the accelerator pedal to go over the speed limit. This triggered a message that the cruise control would not brake.

Throughout the three-week trial, Benavides’ family and Angulo contended that Tesla’s Autopilot is defective because it allows drivers to engage it on roads for which it was not designed and does not sufficiently monitor whether drivers are paying attention to the road. They claimed that Tesla, and in particular its CEO Elon Musk, overhyped the autopilot software’s capabilities despite knowing about vulnerabilities in the program. Tesla says it will appeal the verdict, maintaining that McGee was solely at fault for the crash.

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam T. Boumel of the Rousso Boumel Law Firm PLLC, Brett Schreiber, Satyasrinivas M. Hanumadass and Carmela S. Birnbaum of Singleton Schreiber LLP, Todd Poses of Poses Law Group PA and Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk PL.

We will write more on the Tesla litigation in the September issue. There have been other cases involving autopilot issues. 

The case is Benavides v. Tesla Inc., case number 1:21-cv-21940, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Source: Law360

Tesla Autopilot Crash Settled

Another case against Tesla Inc. has been settled. The lawsuit over the 2019 death of Jeremy Banner, who died when the autopilot system in his Model 3 failed to avoid a collision with a tractor-trailer in Florida. The confidential settlement was disclosed on July 7, coming just before Tesla was set to go to trial over the 2019 fatal crash involving its driver-assistance system mentioned above.

The National Transportation Safety Board cited “inattention due to over-reliance on automation” for Banner’s failure to react to the truck. Tesla’s technology was criticized for insufficiently monitoring driver engagement. Tesla declined to comment on the settlement, which is the latest in a series of out-of-court agreements.

Source: Claims Journal

TRUCKING LITIGATION

Trucking Accidents in Alabama and Georgia: A Growing Concern

Beasley lawyers are seeing more and more personal injury and death cases involving the trucking industry. Trucking accidents are among the most devastating collisions on our roads. In Alabama and Georgia, the numbers tell a sobering story—one of rising risks, preventable tragedies, and the urgent need for accountability.

The Numbers Behind the Crashes

According to recent data from the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), key contributors to trucking accidents include driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, distracted driving, and hazardous road conditions. These factors are especially dangerous when combined with the massive size and weight of commercial trucks, which often lead to catastrophic injuries or fatalities.

In Georgia, the situation is equally alarming. Updated 2025 statistics show that truck accidents frequently result in life-altering consequences for victims in smaller vehicles. The Peach State continues to see a high volume of collisions involving commercial carriers, many of which stem from negligent hiring practices, inadequate training, and overloaded cargo.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) also provides national crash data through its A&I Crash Statistics Visualization Tool, which allows users to drill down into state-specific trends and contributing factors.

Beasley Allen’s Proven Track Record

At Beasley Allen, we have seen firsthand how trucking accidents can shatter lives. Our lawyers have decades of experience handling complex trucking litigation in a number of states, including Alabama and Georgia. We have built a reputation for taking on powerful trucking companies and securing justice for victims. Beasley Allen lawyers don’t just represent clients—they advocate for change. Our litigation has led to improved safety protocols, corporate accountability, and public awareness of the dangers posed by reckless trucking operations.

For our firm, justice isn’t just a legal outcome—it’s a personal mission. We have heard from countless clients that the most meaningful part of their case wasn’t just the compensation, but the opportunity to hold wrongdoers accountable and reclaim their voice. We are always ready and willing to help people navigate the road to justice.

The Road to Justice: Holding Trucking Companies Accountable

At Beasley Allen, we understand that a single moment on the road can change a life forever. When that moment involves a collision with a commercial truck, the consequences are often devastating. These aren’t just accidents—they’re life-altering events that demand accountability, answers, and justice.

Why Trucking Accidents Are Different

Trucking accidents differ from typical car crashes in both scale and complexity. The sheer size and weight of 18-wheelers mean that even low-speed collisions can cause catastrophic injuries or fatalities. But beyond the physical damage lies a web of legal and regulatory issues that make these cases uniquely challenging.

Trucking companies and their insurers often act quickly to protect their interests. They may deploy rapid-response teams to the scene, obscure evidence, or start to shift blame onto victims. That is why it’s critically important to have a legal team involved that knows how to fight back—and win.

Beasley Allen’s Commitment

Our firm has a long history of standing up to powerful trucking corporations and their insurers. We have handled cases involving:

• Driver fatigue and hours-of-service violations;

• Improper vehicle maintenance;

• Overloaded or improperly secured cargo;

• Distracted or impaired driving; and

• Negligent hiring and training practices;

We don’t just take on cases—we take on causes. Our lawyers work with accident reconstruction experts, medical professionals, and industry insiders to build compelling cases that hold wrongdoers accountable.

Victims Deserve Justice

Victims of trucking accidents deserve more than sympathy—they deserve justice. That means full compensation for all damages suffered, including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and long-term care. It also means pushing for changes that make our roads safer for everyone. At Beasley Allen, we believe in using the law as a tool for good. Every case we take is an opportunity to make a difference—not just for our clients, but for the public at large.

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

 July 2025 Motor Vehicle Recalls

Several motor vehicle manufacturers issued recalls in July for various models due to safety concerns. The following is a comprehensive overview of the recalls announced in July, highlighting the affected models and the specific issues that prompted the recalls. When a person’s vehicle is listed, it is crucial to address the recall promptly to ensure the safety of both drivers and passengers in the recall vehicle as well as the safety of persons in other vehicles. 

• Ford Motor Company
  • Models Affected: Ford Bronco Sport (2021-2024), Ford Escape (2020-2022) – a total of 700 vehicles.
  • Issue: Cracked fuel injector may leak and cause a fire 

• Ford Motor Company (Additional Recall)
  • Models Affected: Ford Transit Connect (2018-2022), Lincoln MKZ (2019-2020), Ford Edge (2019-2020), Lincoln Continental (2019-2020), Ford F-150 (2019-2020), Lincoln Nautilus (2019-2020), Ford Fusion (2019-2020), Ford Ranger (2019-2023), Ford Mustang (2019-2023), Ford EcoSport (2020-2021), Ford Expedition (2020-2021), Lincoln Navigator (2020-2021), Ford Escape (2020-2022), Ford F-250 SD (2020-2022), Lincoln Corsair (2020-2022), Lincoln Aviator (2020-2023), Ford Transit (2020-2023), Ford Explorer (2020-2024), Ford Bronco Sport (2021-2024), Ford Maverick (2022-2024)
  • Issue: Faulty rearview camera software 

• Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
  • Models Affected: Jaguar E-Pace (2021-2024)
  • Issue: Passenger airbag may tear 

• Forest River, Inc.
  • Models Affected: Forest River Tracer (2026), Forest River Westbrook (2026)
  • Issue: Liquid propane hose incorrectly routed 

• Daimler Vans USA, LLC
  • Models Affected: Mercedes-Benz Metris (2020-2023)
  • Issue: Rearview camera image may not display 

• Prevost Car (US) Inc.
  • Models Affected: Prevost X3-45 Commuter (2018-2019), Prevost H3-45 (2025), Prevost X3-45 (2025)
  • Issue: Incorrect entrance door windows glaze material, loose passenger seat back, and seat belt fasteners

• Motor Coach Industries
  • Models Affected: MCI D4520 (2025), MCI D45CRT (2025), MCI D45CRTLE (2025), MCI J3500 (2025), MCI J4500 (2025-2026)
  • Issue: Incorrect location for emergency exit label 

• Shyft Group
  • Models Affected: Utilimaster Truck Body (2015-2025), Blue Arc BA4L-800 (2024-2025)
  • Issue: Turn signals and brake lights may fail, parking brake may not engage 

• Nissan
  • Models Affected: Nissan Rogue (2021-2024), Nissan Altima (2019-2020), Infiniti QX50 (2019-2022), Infiniti QX55 (2022)
  • Issue: Possible engine failure due to manufacturing defects in engine bearings 

• Honda
  • Models Affected: Honda Accord (2013)
  • Issue: Driveshaft corrosion 

• General Motors
  • Models Affected: Chevrolet Blazer EV (2024-2025)
  • Issue: Rear parking brake wiring harness may become damaged or corroded 2.

If a vehicle is listed in any of these recalls, it is crucial for the owner to address the issue promptly to ensure safety. Owners of vehicles under recall should receive a notification letter from the manufacturer with instructions on how to proceed with the necessary repairs.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Millions Of Pools Recalled After The Deaths of 9 Children

About five million above-ground swimming pools have been recalled due to a potential drowning risk after nine children died over a 15-year period. The affected models include 48-inch and taller pools sold under the brand names Bestway, Coleman, Intex, and Polygroup over the past two decades. 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) believes that between 2007 and 2022, nine children under 3 years old drowned after gaining access to the pools via compression straps that wrap around the outside of the product. These straps may create a foothold, allowing a child to access the pool and drown.

Bestway, Intex, and Polygroup have been actively engaged in updating product safety standards and began working with the CPSC and other safety advocates in 2023 to update the safety standard for above-ground pools. The updated standard was finalized in May 2025.

The recalled products range in price from $400 to over $1,000 and have been sold at various retailers, including Walmart, Target, Costco, and Amazon. Over 200,000 pools have also been recalled in Canada.

Customers who have a pool included in the recall should contact Bestway, Intex, and Polygroup to receive a free repair kit. In the meantime, ensure that children cannot access the pool unattended or drain the pool until the repair can be installed. The repair kit includes a rope to attach to each of the pool’s vertical support poles at the ground level, functioning as the compression strap did. After securing the rope, customers should cut and remove the original compression strap from the pool.

For more information, customers can contact the companies via the following:

• Bestway: Toll-free at 844-593-4003 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online at [https://BWrecallsupport.expertinquiry.com](https://BWrecallsupport.expertinquiry.com) or email at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).

• Intex: Toll-free at 800-549-8829 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or online at [www.Intexcorp.com/recall](http://www.Intexcorp.com/recall) or email [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).

• Polygroup: Toll-free at 888-621-4137 from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or online at [https://polygrouprecall.com](https://polygrouprecall.com) or email at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).

Source: USA Today

AVIATION LITIGATION

The Air India Crash That Killed 260 People

Beasley Allen, led by Mike Andrews, is heavily involved in the investigation and soon-to-be litigation arising from the recent Air India crash in Ahmedabad that occurred on June 12. Mike has led our investigation into this tragic crash and its causes. As we reported last month, the crash killed 260 people, 242 people on board and 19 people on the ground. The plane in the crash was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
 
Families of the victims of the Air India crash are demanding justice. Preliminary investigations began shortly after the crash. It was found that the fuel control switches were turned off, cutting fuel to both engines. The preliminary report noted that the switches shifted within one second of each other, and the investigation into this issue is ongoing.

The early report referenced a 2018 advisory from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration recommending inspections of the locking feature of fuel cutoff switches. Following the crash, Indian authorities ordered deeper checks of Air India’s entire Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet. Air India has 33 Dreamliners in its fleet.
 
It should be noted that just a few weeks before the crash of the Air India Boeing 787, the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued a safety notice. This notice raised concerns about the fuel control systems in several Boeing aircraft, including the 787 Dreamliner.

On May 15, the CAA advised operators of five Boeing aircraft types, including the 787, to check if their fleets were affected by a US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Directive (AD). This directive highlighted potential safety hazards related to fuel shutoff valve actuators. The UK regulator required daily checks to ensure safety.

The CAA emphasized the need for immediate precautionary measures, such as testing, inspecting, or replacing the fuel shutoff valve actuators on the affected aircraft models. This proactive approach was intended to prevent any potential issues and ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

Currently, Beasley Allen represents the families of 55 passengers who were killed. We won’t comment further on the overall investigation, including our investigation led by Mike Andrews, at this time. It’s much too early to draw any specific conclusions. There is much more to be done in the investigation of this tragic occurrence. We will keep you posted. Stay tuned!

Boeing Faces Litigation Involving The January 2024 Mid-flight Blowout 

Boeing and Alaska Airlines have settled one of the many lawsuits filed against them after the January 2024 mid-flight blowout. Three more claims are set to go to trial next year. A large number of passengers onboard Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 sued the airline and Boeing. Those lawsuits have largely been on hold as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated the incident. Now, after the NTSB issued its final report earlier this month, the discovery process in the cases can accelerate.

One lawsuit on behalf of 51 people, including passengers and their spouses, is scheduled to go to trial in January 2026. Another representing 35 passengers is slated for a trial in March, while a third trial for seven people, including three children, is set to begin in September 2026. A fourth lawsuit, representing three Oregon residents on board the flight, was settled in early July. This was the first case related to the blowout over Portland to be resolved. The details of that settlement are confidential.

On January 5, 2024, a panel flew off an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 shortly after takeoff from Portland. The NTSB determined that four bolts meant to hold the panel in place had not been reinstalled properly, leaving the panel to slowly move up and out over the course of several flights, until it flew off at 16,000 feet in the air during Alaska Airlines Flight 1282. The plane landed safely, with some passengers reporting minor injuries.

The incident resulted in more than a year of lawsuits, congressional hearings, and regulatory scrutiny as investigators worked to determine how the panel came to be reinstalled incorrectly, and why it wasn’t fixed before leaving Boeing’s Renton, Washington, factory. 

Lawsuits have been filed by passengers on board the flight. Defendants are Alaska, Boeing, and supplier Spirit AeroSystems. The theory of liability is that Boeing failed to ensure the aircraft was built properly and was safe to fly. The company is accused of prioritizing speed in manufacturing over safety. Alaska allegedly violated its contract as a “common carrier” to provide the highest duty of care to its passengers.

The NTSB has concluded that the blowout happened because of long-term shortcomings at Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). At a June hearing, the NTSB said Boeing failed to provide “adequate training, guidance, and oversight to ensure manufacturing personnel could consistently and correctly comply” with the company’s processes. The FAA’s “ineffective compliance enforcement surveillance” was said to have contributed to the accident.

The first legal conclusion in the panel blowout saga – the $1 billion settlement in Oregon – came shortly after the NTSB closed its investigation into the door plug incident.  The original complaint included five claims against Boeing and two against Alaska, as well as a request for compensatory and punitive damages. The amended complaint included just two claims, accusing Boeing and Alaska of negligence, and sought only compensatory damages. On July 7, a U.S. district court judge in Portland dismissed the case, which had been settled with prejudice.

For the cases that are still pending, the discovery process should shed more light on what went wrong. More information is needed about cabin depressurization warnings that went off on three earlier flights involving the Alaska Airlines plane. The NTSB said early on that the warnings were likely not related to the panel blowout and reiterated in its final report that there was “no evidence” that the two events were associated. That makes it necessary for the plaintiffs’ lawyers to complete all of the work necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion. Still, the lawyers hope to dig deeper into Alaska’s maintenance and inspection decisions, as well as Boeing’s safety culture and history.

Source: The Spokesman-Review

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Federal Ban On Arbitration In Sexual Assault Suits Upheld

We will take a look this month at some increasing litigation involving several assaults in the workplace. The 2022 federal law, “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment” (EFAA), which renders arbitration agreements unenforceable for claims involving sexual assault or harassment, recently gained attention in a case where a defendant sought to use arbitration to limit a plaintiff’s recourse. 

In Van Meurs-Bradley v. AutoNation, Inc., et al., case number C100938, before the Court of Appeals for the State of California, Third Appellate District, a unanimous three-judge panel affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration. 

The lawsuit, filed by former sales associate Sharece Van Meurs-Bradley, alleged discrimination based on race, sex, age, and disability, claiming she was treated differently due to being an older Black woman and was subjected to inappropriate sexual remarks in the workplace.

Van Meurs-Bradley filed a lawsuit against AutoNation, several affiliated companies, and three sales managers in October 2023. She alleges that despite her extensive experience, she was hired as an internet sales associate at minimum wage. Van Meurs-Bradley claims she faced age and race discrimination compared to a younger white colleague, including unequal enforcement of dress codes, fewer sales leads, and derogatory remarks. 

She also reported discomfort due to supervisors’ inappropriate comments and sharing of suggestive photos about the coworker. After injuring her knee at work, she alleges AutoNation denied her accommodation, worsening her condition and forcing her to take leave. In October 2023, after a disputed sick leave issue, she resigned.

AutoNation argued for a narrow interpretation of the EFAA based on a 2023 New York case, Mera v. SA Hospitality Group LLC, which split sexual harassment claims from wage and hour claims for arbitration. The company maintained that Van Meurs-Bradley’s harassment claims should proceed in court, but the rest should go to arbitration. The California appeals panel disagreed, stating the statute’s language does not back AutoNation’s or Mera’s view and noting that several courts have criticized Mera’s analysis. 

The EFAA made the arbitration agreement she signed unenforceable, as determined by the panel, who went on to note that both federal and California state courts have ruled in recent years that the EFAA’s language, which says the law applies to a “case” rather than a claim, suggests that Congress meant for the law to cover an entire dispute. 

The workplace is filled with terrible examples that resemble what Van Meurs-Bradley had to endure, but unlike this situation, they are ignored, and bad actors are held unaccountable. It’s also incredibly significant that at a federal level, the unfairness of arbitration is being recognized and negated on behalf of American citizens. 

Our firm is proud to pursue cases like these because making the workplace safer and enforcing equality is a right of every American and benefits every employee to be treated fairly and with respect. 

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

   Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team continue to handle a number of employment-related litigation around the country. They also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower cases). Whistleblowers can 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 tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country. We will write more on the whistleblower litigation below in the Whistleblower Section. In the meantime, if you have questions or need help with an employment case, contact a lawyer on our Employment Litigation Team.

Whistleblower Litigation

Ninth Circuit Upholds $26 Million False Claims

On June 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) confirmed that the False Claims Act (FCA) could be used as an enforcement tool by private parties to combat customs fraud, alongside the government’s historically relied-upon penalty provisions of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (Tariff Act). In its decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld a nearly $26 million verdict against an importer for submitting false customs declarations in order to avoid paying antidumping duties.

In this case, Sigma Corporation (Sigma) imported welded outlets from China between 2010 and 2018. The outlets were subject to antidumping duties. On the entry documents submitted to United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), however, Sigma declared its products as steel couplings, widgets that are not subject to antidumping duties. A competitor, Island Industries, Inc. (Island Industries), filed a qui tam complaint under the FCA, alleging that Sigma falsely claimed (1) its products were not subject to antidumping duties and (2) misclassified the products as steel couplings rather than welded outlets.

The United States Department of Justice declined to intervene in the case, but the qui tam plaintiff’s lawyers continued to handle the case and took the matter to trial. 

At the conclusion of the trial, a jury found Sigma liable under the FCA and imposed an $8 million verdict for unpaid duties. Because the FCA imposes treble damages and statutory penalties for each false claim, a judgment of nearly $26 million was entered against Sigma.

Sigma appealed the verdict, arguing that (1) the Tariff Act, not the FCA, should govern such disputes; (2) it had no “obligation” to pay antidumping duties on its products; and (3) it lacked the scienter requirement under the FCA because it would have been objectively reasonable to believe that the welded outlets were not subject to antidumping duties.

Before addressing the substantive appeals, the Ninth Circuit first considered whether it had jurisdiction over this case at all. The Ninth Circuit examined whether federal courts retain jurisdiction over FCA qui tam lawsuits seeking to recover money owed to the government for false representations involving customs duties, or whether such actions must be brought in the Court of International Trade (CIT).

The Ninth Circuit settled this dispute, finding that a relator (whistleblower) is not barred from filing an FCA customs action in federal court. While the CIT retains exclusive jurisdiction over actions commenced by the United States to recover customs duties, a relator is not considered “the United States” for jurisdictional purposes.

In addressing the first of Sigma’s substantive arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the Tariff Act’s penalty provision, which authorizes the government to recover duties and impose penalties for materially false statements or omissions in connection with import transactions, is not the sole enforcement tool to recover fraudulently avoided customs duties.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the Tariff Act of 1930 and FCA may operate concurrently. Although the Tariff Act may only be enforced by the government, the FCA allows private parties to file qui tam lawsuits when the government fails to act. Simply put, the Tariff Act does not preclude relators from bringing qui tam suits to remedy reverse false claims.

Additionally, Sigma argued that the jury committed an error when it found that Sigma committed a “reverse false claims” violation.  There was no such obligation here because the amount owed on the welded outlets had not yet been fixed. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Sigma’s argument that it did not have an “obligation” upon the defendant to pay money to the government.  

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that Sigma’s duty to properly declare and pay antidumping duties arose at the moment its imports entered the United States. Sigma’s failure to do so deprived the government of money, in violation of the FCA. Lastly, the Ninth Circuit rejected Sigma’s “objective reasonableness” defense and held that Sigma could be liable if it acted with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth when it declared on customs forms that it did not owe antidumping duties on its welded outlets. 

Beasley Allen lawyers have been successful in many False Claims Act cases. They have successfully tried these cases, obtaining favorable verdicts. You can visit our website at www.beasleyallen.com to read more about the successful results we have achieved on behalf of whistleblowers as well as for federal and state governments.

11th Circuit Revives Whistleblower Lawsuit

The Eleventh Circuit recently revived a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Sedona Partners LLC against several moving companies. The lawsuit alleges that these companies conspired to defraud the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) by using foreign ships to move cargo, despite winning bids that required the use of U.S.-flagged vessels.

The lower court had dismissed the case, finding that Sedona’s allegations, which were based on discovery material, did not meet the Rule 9(b) particularity pleading standard for fraud. However, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, stating that there is no restriction on the source of information used to satisfy the rule.

Sedona’s lawsuit, filed in Florida federal court in 2020, claims that the moving companies improperly obtained foreign flag waivers after winning contracts under the GSA’s Centralized Household Goods Traffic Management Program. This program requires transportation service providers to use U.S.-flagged vessels or American shipping carriers for contract shipments.

Sedona alleges that the companies submitted fraudulent low-ball bids and falsely certified that only foreign vessels were available, thereby profiting from competitive government contracts.

The defendants had argued that allowing Sedona to use discovery material to amend its complaint would undermine Rule 9(b). However, the Eleventh Circuit found this argument unconvincing, noting that Rule 9(b) does not restrict allegations based on discovery information. The court also highlighted that the Supreme Court has admonished against imposing additional pleading requirements on a case-by-case basis.

The case has been sent back to the lower court to address the issues raised by the defendants, including the particularity of the fraud allegations and whether the defendants knew the claims were false. Sedona’s counsel, Nazy Fahimi, stated that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision is significant for whistleblowers, as it prevents courts from adding extra hurdles at the motion to dismiss stage.

U.S. Circuit Judges Bill Pryor, Kevin Newsom and Barbara Lagoa sat on the panel for the Eleventh Circuit.

Sedona Partners is represented by Nazy Fahimi and Kevin Boutin of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Adam Rabin and Havana Clark of Rabin Kammerer Johnson. The case is U.S. ex rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., case number22-13340, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team  

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

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

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

Workplace Litigation

A Look At Lockout/Tagout Procedures In The Workplace

Lockout/tagout is a common practice used in industrial settings and is intended to reduce the risk of injury due to machinery or equipment starting unexpectedly or the release of hazardous energy. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is very specific regarding lockout/tagout procedures.  The specific requirements of the Control of Hazardous Energy can be found in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1910.147.  

The lockout/tagout procedures set forth establish the employer’s responsibility to protect workers from hazardous energy.  Employers are also required to train each worker to ensure that they know, understand, and are able to follow the applicable provisions of the hazardous energy control procedures. Failure to enact or enforce lockout/tagout procedures are some of the most commonly cited OSHA violations in the industrial setting.  

More importantly, failure to properly enact and enforce lockout/tagout procedures can lead to serious injury or death.  Failure to control hazardous energy accounts for nearly 10 percent of the serious accidents in the industry, according to OSHA.  

OSHA defines lockout/tagout as a specific practice and procedure to safeguard employees from the unexpected energization or startup of machinery and equipment, or the release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance activities.  

The first step in setting lockout/tagout procedures is identifying hazardous energy sources.  The most common are electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, and thermal.  Once the hazardous energy source has been identified, it is imperative to set a plan of action to de-energize and mitigate that hazard.  

All employers requiring employees to work around energized equipment should follow OSHA guidelines for lockout/tagout to ensure the safety of their employees.  

If that is not enough incentive, OSHA citations and fines are another motivating force.  OSHA fines for failing to follow lockout/tagout can range from minor warnings, all the way to criminal charges and major fines.  

Employers have an obligation to understand the OSHA regulations regarding hazardous energy control and lockout/tagout.  If they fail to follow these standards, they can be subject to serious fines and criminal penalties. Violations can result in serious injuries and even the loss of human life.   

Unfortunately, lockout/tagout is not always properly implemented.  Beasley Allen lawyers in the Mobile office are currently litigating a case where a young man was tragically injured when hazardous electrical energy was not properly locked out.  The worker was seriously burned and forever damaged as a result.  

Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

The Importance of Knowledge in Premises Liability Cases

Beasley Allen lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section have successfully handled a large number of premises liability cases. When litigating these premises cases, the parties’ respective knowledge of the safety hazard is key. For example, if the defendant possessed superior knowledge of the hazard and the plaintiff lacked this knowledge despite exercising ordinary care, liability on the defendant attaches. However, if the plaintiff possessed knowledge equal or superior to the defendant concerning the hazard and the risks associated with it, then the plaintiff should not prevail. 

Importantly, it is the plaintiff’s knowledge of the specific hazard—as opposed to knowledge of generally hazardous conditions—which governs the analysis. Because the parties’ respective level of knowledge about a given hazard is fact intensive, summary judgment is generally inappropriate. In such cases, a jury must decide the issue.

Against this backdrop, the Georgia Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in SMG Construction Services, LLC v. Cook. The court granted review on a narrow question: 

Does a genuine issue of material fact concerning a premise owner’s superior knowledge of a specific hazard exist where an invitee admits that he had actual knowledge of the specific hazard but claims that certain conditions affected his ability to perceive that known hazard?”

In Cook, the plaintiff—an individual performing cabinetry work on a house under construction—fell from an unguarded balcony on the second floor and suffered severe injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant. 

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that while there was some evidence showing that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the unguarded balcony, there was also evidence that the conditions at the time of his fall (i.e., poor lighting, airborne debris, and a lack of visual cues) combined to create “an optical illusion that camouflaged the closeness of the balcony edge to his work area and prevented him from perceiving the risk it posed to him.” 

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that “jury questions exist[ed] as to whether [the plaintiff’s] knowledge of the specific hazard, namely the proximity of the balcony’s edge to the area of the second floor where he was working, was equal to or greater than [the defendant’s], and whether he exercised ordinary care for his own safety under the circumstances.”

Prudent premises liability practitioners should be on the lookout for the Supreme Court’s forthcoming opinion in the Cook case. The decision will provide guidance on how to address the parties’ relative knowledge about specific hazards at the summary judgment stage. We believe the court will reaffirm the basic principle that summary adjudication of a premises claim is inappropriate when there are disputed facts regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the specific hazard. That appears to be the situation in the case before the court. Stay Tuned!

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 SEC Files $112 Million Stock Fraud Case

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed suit against a disbarred California lawyer and several CEOs of penny stock companies, claiming that they helped an outside party facilitate a $112 million pump-and-dump fraud scheme. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Keith Rosenbaum, William Justice, Randell Torno and Brian Shibley.

The complaint alleges that from August 2017 through September 2022, these men helped non-party Philip Verges artificially inflate stock prices and trading volume in various penny stock companies so that he could enrich himself and so that other participants in the scheme could sell their shares, which were valued at more than $112 million at the time they were issued.

According to the complaint, Verges controlled three penny stock issuers — Alternet Systems Inc., Puration Inc. and Vaycaychella Inc. — all of which had no actual or substantial business operations, employees or revenue.

The SEC says that to hide his control of the issuers, Verges installed Justice, Shibley and Torno as CEOs of the companies, but they continued to function as his employees, not executives. The complaint states that at Verges’ direction, the CEOs caused the penny stock companies to issue free-trading shares of stock to nominees, such as Blue Citi LLC.

The nominees, at Verges’ direction, then sold the shares into the market or to other purchasers and kicked back a portion of the trading proceeds to Verges, according to the SEC in the complaint. The complaint states:

The Verges companies obtained debt instruments issued by the penny stock companies as: purported compensation on sham consulting agreements between certain penny stock companies and the Verges companies; and/or reimbursements to the Verges companies for purportedly fronting some of the penny stock companies’ expenses. Verges then had his nominees … purchase interests in these debt instruments.

The nominees also obtained these convertible debt instruments by purchasing them from third parties, exchanging them for consulting work, and exchanging them for purported investments in the penny stock companies. Verges then allowed the nominees to convert their interests in the convertible debt instruments to stock in the penny stock companies at prices far below market value.

According to the SEC, Verges “surreptitiously executed” the debt instruments by hiding his control of the penny stock companies while also manipulating the market to increase the trading volume of the penny stock companies’ stocks. It’s alleged that: 

Verges also concealed his control of the penny stock companies by using the aliases ‘Mike Murphy’ and ‘Tim Faye’ in communications with transfer agents to facilitate the transfer of penny stock company stock to the nominees.

As a result of the CEOs’ actions, Verges’ nominees received more than 4.89 billion shares of stock that were discounted between 77% and 94% of the prevailing market prices.

The SEC said Rosenbaum facilitated Verges’ fraud by authoring several attorney opinion letters for the nominees, including Blue Citi, even after being disbarred in California in 2020. The complaint states:

Rosenbaum … authored at least 73 more opinion letters for Verges’ nominees following his disbarment. These 90 opinion letters were issued to various transfer agents and facilitated the issuance or transfer of billions of discounted, unrestricted shares to Verges’ nominees.

The suit seeks disgorgement and civil penalties from the defendants.

Our securities team is monitoring this case and other security cases to make sure we are aware of any market misconduct that might affect our clients and potential clients. James Eubank and Paul Evans, along with our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section Head Dee Miles, are actively engaged in protecting consumers from unscrupulous securities agents and brokers seeking to steal your life savings.

The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenbaum et al., case number 3:25-cv-01716, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Source: Law360

Securities Litigation At Beasley Allen

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

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 from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: James Eubank, who heads the team, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team.  

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

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

BCBS Requests Judge To Approve $2.8 Billion Antitrust Settlement

Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) has requested an Alabama federal judge to approve a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with hospitals and other healthcare providers. The settlement addresses BCBS’s territorial policies, which have been under scrutiny. BCBS argues that recent objections to the settlement’s release provision are unfounded, and that the settlement maintains essential competitive features of the insurance system.

In a detailed brief, BCBS affiliates countered objections to the release provision, stating that the objections are based on a misinterpretation of the release’s text. They also highlighted that the release is similar to one in a previous settlement affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.

The antitrust litigation against BCBS began in 2012, accusing the association and its 33 independent insurers of dividing the country into exclusive territories to limit competition and increase profits. This arrangement allegedly harmed both subscribers and healthcare providers.

In 2020, commercial and individual subscribers reached a $2.7 billion settlement with BCBS, which was upheld after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge. Providers continued to litigate until a separate $2.8 billion settlement was reached in October, receiving preliminary approval in December. These settlements are among the largest in antitrust history. However, some hospitals opted out, choosing to pursue individual lawsuits for potentially larger payouts.

Emergency medical provider groups and the HCA Health North Texas Division have objected to the $2.8 billion settlement, citing concerns over the release provision and the settlement’s terms. They argue that the deal is flawed due to burdensome opt-out procedures and insufficient relief for emergency room providers.

BCBS defended the settlement, describing it as a hard-fought compromise after over 12 years of litigation. They emphasized the significant monetary recovery and structural injunctive relief included in the settlement. BCBS also argued that the release provision is reasonable and enforceable, with exceptions for unrelated claims arising in the ordinary course of business.

Beasley Allen was part of the leadership, and Dee Miles was on the settlement committee. Our firm played an important role in the development of the case. Beasley Allen’s lawyers who worked on this were Dee Miles, Rebecca Gilliland, and Jessi Haynes. 

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

Source: Law360

The Department Of Justice’s Monopolization Suit Against Apple Advances

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), joined by 16 states and the District of Columbia, launched a landmark antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc. in March of 2024, accusing the tech giant of monopolizing the U.S. smartphone market through exclusionary practices that stifle competition and innovation. This lawsuit marks one of the most aggressive antitrust actions against a major tech company in recent years, following similar cases against Google, Meta, and Amazon. If successful, it could reshape how Apple operates its App Store, device interoperability, and developer policies.

The suit alleges Apple violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining dominance not through superior products, but by erecting barriers that lock consumers into its ecosystem. These include restrictions on third-party app developers, degraded cross-platform messaging, and limitations on non-Apple smartwatches, digital wallets, and cloud gaming services. The DOJ claims these tactics make it harder for users to switch to rival platforms and suppress technologies that could challenge Apple’s market position. Apple maintains that the lawsuit is “wrong on the facts and the law” and has vowed to fight it vigorously. Meanwhile, the DOJ emphasizes that no company—regardless of size or popularity—is above the law, and that restoring competition is essential for consumer choice and innovation.

Apple moved to dismiss the case, arguing its practices were reasonable and that the DOJ’s market definitions were flawed. However, in June 2025, U.S. District Judge Julien Neals rejected Apple’s motion, allowing the case to proceed. The court found sufficient evidence that Apple holds monopoly power in both the general smartphone market and a narrower “performance smartphone” segment, where Apple’s market share exceeds 65%.

The case is expected to unfold over several years, with wide-reaching implications for the future of mobile technology and digital markets.  Beasley Allen is involved in several cases currently pending, as well as in other antitrust litigation against the bad actors. 

Investment Litigation

Third Circuit Upholds New Jersey Decision In J&J Talc Suit

The Third Circuit has upheld a New Jersey federal judge’s class certification order in a Johnson & Johnson (J&J) investor action. The investors allege that J&J artificially inflated its stock price by failing to disclose cancer risks associated with its talcum powder products. The majority of the three-judge panel found that common issues predominate in the suit, supporting U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi’s decision to grant class certification in 2023.

The district court examined six disclosures that investors claimed partially corrected J&J’s alleged misrepresentation. The court concluded that these disclosures could have communicated new, value-relevant information to investors, leading to a stock price decline. Therefore, the court found that J&J failed to rebut the presumption of price impact.

U.S. Circuit Judge Cindy K. Chung dissented, arguing that the district court did not properly determine whether J&J met its burden of proving a lack of price impact. She would vacate and remand the case for further consideration.

Judge Quraishi certified a class including all individuals who purchased or acquired J&J securities from February 22, 2013, to December 13, 2018. J&J appealed, arguing that the judge misapplied the standards for certification in securities class actions, particularly regarding the presumption of reliance by an investor class.

U.S. Circuit Judges Patty Shwartz, L. Felipe Restrepo, and Cindy K. Chung sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.

The investors are represented by James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello and Joseph D. Daley and Harini Raghupathi of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The case is San Diego County Employees Retirement Association et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 24-1409, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Source: Law360

Forescout Agrees To $45 Million Investors Settlement

Forescout, a cybersecurity company, has agreed to a $45 million settlement with investors over claims that it misled them about a failed merger. The settlement came about after two unsuccessful mediation sessions. Additional negotiations brought about the resolution. Plaintiffs and their counsel believe the settlement terms are fair and in the best interests of the class.

The lawsuit, revived by the Ninth Circuit in 2023, alleges that Forescout’s stock price dropped nearly 24% when Advent International Corp. refused to proceed with a merger agreement. Former CEO Michael DeCesare and former CFO Christopher Harms are also defendants in the case.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston certified a class of investors last year, stating that the lead plaintiffs, Meitav Tachlit Mutual Funds Ltd. and Glazer Funds, met the requirements for class certification. The suit was consolidated with a similar one in July 2020 and faced multiple dismissals before certain claims were affirmed and others remanded by the Ninth Circuit in March 2023.

The investors are represented by Omar Jafri, Patrick Dahlstrom, Brian P. O’Connell, Genc Arifi, Diego Martinez-Krippner, Jianan Jiang, Jeremy A. Lieberman and J. Alexander Hood II of Pomerantz LLP and Jeffrey S. Abraham, Michael Jason Klein and Patrice L. Bishop of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP.

The case is Sayce v. Forescout Technologies Inc. et al., case number 3:20-cv-00076, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

$500 Million Preliminary Approval For Alphabet Inc.’s Investor Settlement

A California federal judge has given preliminary approval to Alphabet Inc.’s settlement with investors in a case alleging anticompetitive practices. U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin wants to hear shareholders’ reactions to Alphabet’s agreement to spend $500 million over the next decade on a global regulatory compliance program before granting final approval.

Retirement system investors (plaintiffs) accuse Alphabet of systematic anticompetitive behavior across core business operations, including advertising, searching, and Google Play services, which exposed the company to antitrust investigations and litigation. Judge Lin expressed difficulty in determining if the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate based on the information produced about the $500 million expenditure.

Alphabet informed the judge that it has spent $129 million on its “Regulatory Readiness Compliance” and board and management oversight program over the last three years. Alphabet emphasizes to the court that the $500 million commitment ensures sufficient funding to fully implement the program. The company highlighted to the court that the new board committees are the centerpiece of the settlement.

The institutional investors filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, stating that the deal requires Alphabet to revamp and rebuild its global compliance structure at both the board and executive levels. The company agreed to implement advanced internal compliance mechanisms and corporate reforms covering risk assessment, legal advising, third-party contracts, and compliance program management.

The most recent version of the complaint includes counts of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. The investors sought unspecified damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, restitution, disgorgement, and reforms to Alphabet’s corporate governance practices and internal control systems.

The retirement systems are represented by Patrick Coughlin, Maxwell R. Huffman, Geoffrey M. Johnson, Donald A. Broggi and Jing-Li Yu of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.

The Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System is also represented by Michael J. Boni and Joshua D. Snyder of Boni Zack & Snyder LLC.

The case is In re: Alphabet Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, case number 3:21-cv-09388, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

INSURANCE LITIGATION AT BEASLEY ALLEN

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving insurance matters. The Beasley Allen Insurance Litigation Team includes the following lawyers from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: Rebecca Gilliland, Paul Evans, Lauren Miles and Jessi Haynes. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team.  

Class Action Litigation

Federal Courts Preliminarily Approve GM 5.3L Engine Class Action Settlements

Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin represent plaintiffs and Class members in class action lawsuits against General Motors, LLC (GM), filed in the Northern District of California (Siqueiros) and Eastern District of Oklahoma. In April 2025, our lawyers secured a major settlement that will provide significant cash payments to the Class members of both actions.

On December 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against GM alleging its model year 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, and Tahoe, and 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL trucks and SUVs manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 (the Class Vehicles), contained a defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 LC9 engine (Gen IV) piston ring assembly that caused engine misfires and shutdown events, excessive oil consumption resulting in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage (Oil Consumption Defect). 

Plaintiffs alleged that GM began receiving owner complaints of excessive oil consumption as early as 2007 but continued to manufacture and sell the Class Vehicles without disclosing or repairing the defect. Despite having knowledge of this defect for many years, GM refused to provide every Class member with upgraded piston ring assemblies free of charge. Instead, GM quietly issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) to its dealerships to implement design changes to the engines’ positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system and active fuel management (AFM) pressure relief valve. 

Plaintiffs alleged these changes did not address the root cause of the defect and did not resolve excessive oil consumption in Class Vehicles. Rather, as GM stated in its TSBs, the ultimate fix for the oil consumption problem was the replacement of the piston assemblies. 

In September 2022, plaintiffs went to trial on three Class claims and, on October 4, 2022, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and Classes, awarding the full amount of the plaintiffs’ requested damages—$2,700 per Class Member. Following trial, plaintiffs defeated GM’s motions for decertification and judgment as a matter of law and moved for final judgment, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 

On April 14, 2025, while plaintiffs’ motions were pending, the parties reached a settlement that will provide significant cash payments to over 40,000 Class members. On June 10, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen, finding the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 satisfied, granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement covering all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that, as of May 23, 2022, was purchased or leased in new condition in the State of California, from a GM-authorized dealer in the State of Idaho, or in the State of North Carolina. 

Pursuant to the settlement, GM will provide a settlement fund of One Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($150,000,000.00), which will be proportionally distributed to Class members after payment of administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and service awards to the Class Plaintiffs. 

The final approval hearing will be held on October 2, 2025, before Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California

On April 29, 2025, plaintiffs reached a settlement in a similar class action lawsuit, Hampton v. General Motors LLC, filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Hampton settlement will provide a fund of nearly Twenty-Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000) for settlement payments to Oklahoma Class members. The final approval hearing for the Hampton settlement is scheduled for September 15, 2025, before U.S. District Judge Gerald Jackson in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Gen IV 5.3 Engine cases are Siqueiros, et al. v. General Motors LLC, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and Hampton v. General Motors, LLC, filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs are represented by Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen, along with lawyers from DiCello Levitt LLP, Andrus Anderson LLP, and AG Law, P.A.

$41.5 Million Equinix Settlement Approved

Equinix, a data center developer, has agreed to a $41.5 million settlement with the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association Compensation Accrual Fund. The pension fund accused Equinix of misclassifying maintenance expenses as nonrecurring capital costs over five years to secure $150 million in executive bonuses. This settlement covers those who bought Equinix stock between May 2019 and March 2024. The settlement has received approval from U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2024, claimed that Equinix’s misclassification of expenses allowed former CEO Charles Meyers and current CFO Keith Taylor to receive substantial bonus stock awards. The settlement would enable the pension fund to recover 18% of the stock damages after Barclays downgraded Equinix in September 2022, citing overstated adjusted funds from operations (AFFO) figures by 15%.

The settlement followed a court-ordered mediation. The lawsuit was prompted by a March 2024 Hindenburg Research report alleging that Equinix inflated AFFO figures, leading to a significant drop in the company’s stock price. The U.S. Department of Justice later issued a subpoena to investigate these claims.

Judge Chhabria found that the Hindenburg report’s findings caused Equinix’s stock price to drop, but he dismissed another claim regarding the inflation of the power capacity of its data centers.

The Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association Compensation Accrual Fund is represented by Alaina L. Gilchrist, Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Danielle S. Myers, Hailey S. Zanutto, Jennifer N. Caringal, Kenneth P. Dolitsky, Michael Albert and Shawn A. Williams of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The case is Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association Compensation Accrual Fund v. Equinix Inc. et al., case number 3:24-cv-02656, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Source: Law360 

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Infant Formula Litigation Update

The necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) infant formula state court cases are moving along in Madison County, IL.  In June 2025, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the County is an appropriate venue for cases against these two defendants under Illinois law, but remanded the matter back to the state court for further consideration of the defendants’ forum non conveniens argument.  The matter is expected to be determined this month, at which time the plaintiffs hope to get a scheduling order and trial date. 

The NEC cases focus on two infant formula manufacturers: Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products).  There are 744 federal lawsuits centralized in an MDL established in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the MDL recently defeated the defendants’ Daubert challenges to its two main general causation experts, thereby also defeating the defendants’ summary judgment motions. 

These cases are filed on behalf of infants who have suffered from NEC as a result of being fed infant formula derived from cow’s milk.  Giving cow’s milk formula to premature, underweight newborns dramatically increases their risk of this life-threatening intestinal condition. Virtually every pediatric health organization in the world encourages mothers to breastfeed their premature newborn or use human donor milk when breastfeeding is not feasible. Non-cow’s milk formulas are the third best option. 

Despite the well-established risk of necrotizing enterocolitis to premature, underweight infants from cow’s milk formulas, the manufacturers of these products have no warning on their products whatsoever.  In fact, they aggressively market these products to unsuspecting parents, clearly putting profits over children’s safety.

Hair Relaxers

There has been an important update regarding Science Day in the Hair Relaxer MDL. Judge Mary Rowland has set Science Day for January 8, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with procedures outlined in Case Management Order No. 21 (CMO 21).

Science Day is supposed to serve as an educational, non-adversarial proceeding for the MDL Court and possibly other state court judges to learn about the scientific and medical issues in the hair relaxer litigation. The PSC will present from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m., and the defendants will present from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m., with time reserved afterward for judicial questions.

Presentations will focus on scientific evidence, literature, and medical concepts relevant to the claims and defenses. The presentations should not include advocacy, arguments on admissibility, or discussion of company conduct. Presenters, who may be experts not previously disclosed, will not be under oath, subject to cross-examination, or discovery based on their participation.

Science Day will not be recorded or transcribed for party use, and any materials or statements presented are protected from use in future proceedings. Confidentiality orders remain in effect for any documents shown.

Beasley Allen is still actively investigating potential hair relaxer cases for individuals diagnosed with uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.  We are taking new cases that have merit.

GLP-1 Litigation Update

A new population-based cohort study suggests that the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro, may significantly increase the risk of developing neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in patients with diabetes. nAMD is a type of advanced eye disease that is caused by the growth of abnormal blood vessels behind the retina. 

The study followed over 139,000 adults with diabetes and compared patients who had used GLP-1 RAs for six months or longer to patients with no use. Researchers found that the individuals exposed to the GLP-1 RAs were more than twice as likely to develop nAMD, even after adjusting for outside factors.

While GLP-1 RAs have become widely used for managing diabetes and assisting with weight loss, this study raises concerns about their long-term ocular safety. The authors call for further research to better understand the biological mechanisms involved and to weigh the benefits of using GLP-1 RAs against emerging risks. 

As legal scrutiny increases around side effects of GLP-1 RA medications, this study highlights another potential complication worth monitoring – especially for patients with existing visual health risks. 

Lawyers at Beasley Allen continue to investigate cases for people suffering from injuries caused by GLP-1 RA medications. 

Preemption Hearing Set for September 2025 in Depo-Provera MDL

On June 19, 2025, parties in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) proposed a revised case scheduling order that positions preemption briefing, with resolution by late September 2025. Preemption discovery closed July 25^th, with summary judgment motions on the issues due August 22^nd.  Oral arguments on preemption are currently scheduled for September 29, 2025.

This hearing will address defendant Pfizer’s main defense that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims.  Pfizer’s reasoning is that the FDA previously declined to approve a brain tumor warning for Depo-Provera, but Pfizer had an independent duty to act in light of new safety information, including emerging studies on the drug’s tumor risk.  Beasley Allen is a leader in the litigation and our lawyers are optimistic that MDL plaintiffs will succeed on this front.

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

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

Ultra-Processed Food Update

In a major policy shift aimed at reducing diet-related chronic illnesses, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services have approved new waivers restricting the purchase of ultra-processed foods through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) in Indiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Iowa, and Nebraska. The changes, set to begin in 2026, mark a shift from the federal nutrition program as a public health tool rather than a food subsidy. 

The waivers will prohibit the use of SNAP benefits to buy soda, candy, and other sugary or artificially sweetened drinks. Arkansas’ waiver is the most comprehensive, also banning fruit drinks with less than 50% juice. Utah and Idaho’s waivers will primarily exclude soft drinks and candy.

The initiative is part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, which aims to reduce the burden of chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), conditions increasingly linked to excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods. Notably, cases of early onset diabetes and NAFLD are rising in children and adolescents, some of whom rely on SNAP for their daily nutrition. 

The move signals growing recognition of the role ultra-processed foods play in America’s chronic health crisis. As public health and legal scrutiny intensify, these waivers may lead to more federal nutrition reforms. 

Beasley Allen lawyers are actively investigating cases involving minors who regularly consumed ultra-processed foods and were later diagnosed with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and/or Type 2 diabetes.

Delaware Court Sides With Drugmakers Over Cancer Evidence

The Delaware Supreme Court ruled last month that nearly 75,000 patients suing four major drugmakers cannot use expert reports to support their claim that the heartburn drug Zantac caused their cancer. The court unanimously sided with GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, excluding testimony from 10 doctors and scientists, eight of whom believed the active ingredient in Zantac causes 10 types of cancer.

Justice Abigail LeGrow stated that the trial judge wrongly assumed expert testimony was admissible and did not require the patients’ experts to use reliable scientific methods. This case has been closely watched by business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which feared an adverse outcome could harm Delaware’s reputation as a business-friendly state.

Zantac was approved by U.S. regulators in 1983 and became the world’s best-selling medicine within five years. Lawsuits against Zantac manufacturers increased after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested in April 2020 that the drug be pulled from the market due to concerns that ranitidine, the active ingredient, could degrade into the carcinogen NDMA over time and when exposed to heat. All manufacturers complied with the voluntary recall.

Brent Wisner, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients would continue to pursue a trial, citing a robust scientific record that NDMA in ranitidine causes cancer. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the trial judge failed to act as the “gatekeeper” of expert testimony and should not have overlooked significant methodological flaws in the plaintiffs’ expert reports. These flaws were also identified in December 2022 when a federal judge in Florida ruled that another 50,000 Zantac cases could not proceed due to unreliable science.

Drugmakers have consistently maintained that Zantac does not cause cancer and that no reliable evidence shows it exposes patients to harmful NDMA levels. However, most U.S. litigation over the drug has been resolved. A new version of the drug, Zantac 360, is said to contain no ranitidine and uses a different active ingredient.

The case is In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation, Delaware Supreme Court, No. 255, 2024.

Source: Reuters

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

The Toxic Effects Of Diquat: A Review Of Recent Research

Recent research reveals that diquat, the herbicide ingredient replacing glyphosate in Roundup, can kill gut bacteria and damage organs. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 and faced nearly 175,000 lawsuits over Roundup, reformulated the product after glyphosate was classified as a possible carcinogen. Beasley Allen lawyers have handled Roundup cases from the outset. We have written a great deal in prior issues on the Roundup litigation. 

The review highlights diquat’s harmful effects on organs and gut bacteria, including reducing essential gut lining proteins, allowing toxins and pathogens to enter the bloodstream, and causing inflammation. Diquat also inhibits beneficial bacteria, affecting nutrient absorption and energy metabolism.

The research further examines diquat’s damage to the kidneys, lungs, and liver. It causes irreversible kidney damage, similar effects on the liver, and lung inflammation. This inflammation can lead to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

Most studies are on rodents, and more research on long-term exposure is needed. Bayer has not commented on the findings. It’s rather interesting that, despite the risks, the EPA thus far is not reviewing diquat. Also, advocacy groups are more focused on other pesticides like glyphosate and paraquat. Beasley Allen lawyers continue to be concerned over the risks being caused and the harm being done. We will continue to pursue this litigation. 

Nathan Donley from the Center For Biological Diversity notes that diquat is more toxic than glyphosate and is banned in many countries. However, the EPA has resisted calls for a ban, and Roundup with diquat is still on the market and being sold. Diquat is also linked to neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and Parkinson’s disease, being about 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in chronic exposure. 

Source: The Guardian

Paraquat Litigation Update: Key Developments In Federal And State Cases

As we continue to await a final resolution in the Paraquat settlement negotiations, efforts to streamline the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) docket remain ongoing. On July 17, 2025, the Special Master issued a significant recommendation to dismiss several cases without prejudice due to plaintiffs’ repeated failure to submit the required Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaires (PAQs). Despite multiple opportunities to comply, defendants identified 17 cases to review where no PAQ had been served pursuant to Case Management Order No. 10 (CMO 10).

In contrast, the Paraquat state court litigation is showing more visible movement—particularly in Philadelphia, where 1,190 lawsuits are currently pending in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Also on July 17, 2025, defendants—most notably Syngenta and Chevron—sought to dismiss or remove these cases from the MDL docket. The presiding judge rejected the defendants’ argument that non-Pennsylvania plaintiffs should refile in other jurisdictions, ultimately reaffirming the court’s ability to manage both state and MDL proceedings concurrently. 

Bellwether trials remain scheduled to begin in August 2025, with outcomes that are expected to significantly shape the direction of the broader litigation.

Separately, on July 11, 2025, Syngenta reached a confidential settlement in a case filed outside the MDL. In addition, state court proceedings remain active in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Collectively, these developments reflect continued momentum in the litigation and offer cautious optimism for plaintiffs still awaiting resolution.

FDA Approves JUUL Marketing Of Five Products

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Juul to market five e-cigarette products, including the Juul device, Virginia Tobacco flavor pods, and Menthol flavor pods. It should be noted that this authorization, via the “premarket tobacco product application pathway,” does not mean these products are safe or FDA-approved.

Juul provided evidence showing that these products meet the legal standards set by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This includes evaluating the risks and benefits to the U.S. population, particularly adults who switch from cigarettes to a potentially less harmful product.

The FDA emphasized that there is no safe tobacco product and advised non-users and youth to avoid tobacco products. The FDA will monitor Juul’s compliance with restrictions to limit youth exposure to marketing.

It’s no surprise that Juul welcomed the FDA’s authorization. However, there has been criticism of the agency’s actions. For example, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin criticized the FDA’s decision, accusing Juul of contributing to the youth vaping epidemic with kid-friendly flavors and deceptive promotion. Lawyers at Beasley Allen, including this writer, agree with Sen. Durbin. This observation is based on our active involvement in the JUUL litigation. 

Juul has faced regulatory challenges since the first Trump administration, with former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb prioritizing youth vaping. The FDA has been concerned about the appeal of candy-like or fruity flavors to young people since it expanded its regulatory authority in May 2016. In response to FDA pressure, Juul removed several flavors from the market and scrubbed its social media campaigns in November 2018.

In 2021, the FDA ordered thousands of e-cigarettes off the market and delayed a decision on Juul, citing insufficient evidence in premarket applications. In June 2022, the FDA ordered Juul’s products off the market due to insufficient toxicology evidence, but this ban was stayed by the D.C. Circuit.

Juul filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FDA in September 2022 to obtain documents related to the agency’s order. The lawsuit was dropped after a federal judge dismissed most of Juul’s claims.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Alabama Joins Nationwide Opioid Settlement

On July 11, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced that Alabama joined the nationwide settlement with eight drug manufacturers (Mylan, Hikma, Amneal, Apotex, Indivior, Sun, Alvogen, and Zydus) who made opioid pills that worsened the opioid crisis. If local governments, public hospitals, and other agencies fully participate, Alabama will receive about $11.725 million from these companies. 

This comes on the heels of an even larger settlement with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family.  This settlement is expected to net the State of Alabama $75 million.  Purdue was named in the State’s initial complaint in the opioid litigation but quickly filed for bankruptcy.  

Attorney General Marshall highlighted that this settlement is a big win for Alabama’s efforts to hold opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable for the widespread misuse of opioids. He emphasized the state’s strong legal actions in response to the crisis. 

 Seven of the companies (excluding Indivior) are banned from promoting or marketing opioids, making pills with more than 40 mg of oxycodone, and must monitor and report suspicious orders. Indivior has agreed not to make or sell opioid products for the next ten years, but can continue selling medications to treat opioid use disorder.  If the Purdue settlement is finalized in bankruptcy, the Sacklers will turn over control of Purdue and be barred from selling opioids in the U.S. 

Alabama is among the states that have been most heavily impacted by the opioid crisis, with one of the highest opioid prescription rates in the country. According to the Alabama Department of Mental Health, 6,307 Alabamians died from overdoses between 2015 and 2021, with the majority of overdoses attributed to opioids. In 2021 alone, opioids caused 981 overdose deaths in Alabama, accounting for 70 percent of all overdose deaths in the state.

Beasley Allen is honored to represent the State of Alabama in litigation against the opioid industry.  The litigation team consists of Rhon Jones, Jeff Price, Matt Griffith, Elliot Bienenfeld, Gavin King, David Diab, and Elizabeth Walden at Beasley Allen, along with Josh Hayes at Prince Glover Hayes. The team, in conjunction with the Attorney General’s office, has brought $728 million in settlement funds from this litigation to the state.

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 extremely well. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and has also allowed our lawyers to bring about needed national changes in product and workplace safety.  

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

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

The Mass Torts Section 

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

The Toxic Torts Section 

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

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section 

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

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section 

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

The Administrative Section 

The Administrative Section consists of several departments: Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT), and Marketing. Michelle Parks serves as the Director of Accounting, while Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations. Kimberly Youngblood holds the position of Executive Director, overseeing HR, IT, and Marketing. 

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The revised structure – without any doubt – 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 have been able to focus on cases within their sections. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. There are major differences in each section, both as to the law and industry requirements.  

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 the website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Litigation Sections. 

Practices

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

Cases 

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

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

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

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

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

The firm only represents individuals, companies, and governmental entities that have been wronged and 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 Corporate America is when a company is the victim of wrongdoing and is a plaintiff 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 this litigation is complex, complicated and difficult. Being trial lawyers representing only victims of wrongdoing is a privilege for us. Our firm has been truly blessed. 

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

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter

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

Recalls Update

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

The Jere Beasley Report

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

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Discovery Diligence In Auto Product Liability Litigation: Why You Must Stay Aggressive

Chris Glover, who heads up our Atlanta office, has some helpful thoughts about discovery in product liability litigation. He has had extensive trial court experience over the years in this area of law. So, let’s see what Chris has to say:

In auto product liability cases, the defendant, often a major manufacturer, will always fight hard to avoid producing the documents you need to prove your client’s case. They will both fight to conceal and delay key documents. Often, these defendants will provide lengthy objections and then provide long lists of mostly useless documents that seemingly appear to be giving you lots of responsive materials. 

Don’t be deceived, you must remember that you only get one chance at discovery. You can never accept that objection and must be assured that you have a statement that all responsive documents are being produced, or it’s critical that the objection be overruled by the court in a motion to compel.

My strategy is to quickly follow up with a 10-day letter outlining the deficiencies in their discovery. The defense has just spent a great deal of time putting their objections together and working hard to make sure they haven’t produced what you need. I don’t want to let time pass before responding, and a quick response keeps them on their heels.

Car company lawyers almost always ask for more time than the 10 days you gave them. You should resist giving them much more time and promptly set the discovery call where these issues will be discussed. Keep in mind that they want you to compromise. One reason they objected to start with was to avoid producing everything responsive.

The compromise they are seeking may allow them to avoid producing the one great piece of evidence you need to maximize your case. Don’t back down on what you are seeking. The discovery call is important. If they don’t agree, and often they don’t, take the issue to the court. Just make sure that you are on sound ground in what you are seeking.

In auto defect cases, discovery is often the only way to level the playing field. Corporate defendants know how to stall – your job is to make a record, stay on top of deficiencies, and continue pushing until you get the discovery you need. Press with specificity in what you are seeking. The key document that wins your case might be one follow-up letter away.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Ashley Pugh

This November, Ashley Pugh will celebrate 26 years at Beasley Allen—a milestone that reflects her dedication, experience, and heart for service. As secretary to Dee Miles, who heads our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, Ashley is pivotal in handling the section’s day-to-day operational needs. She also manages the eDiscovery platform, handling everything from imports and productions to file maintenance, and supports litigation technology during hearings and trials. Additionally, Ashley manages time and expenses for 14 firms involved with Beasley Allen in one of the section’s largest motor vehicle class action cases.

Beyond the office, Ashley says she leads a life just as vibrant and demanding as her professional one. She and her husband, Patrick, have been married for 23 years and have a 21-year-old son, JP. Their home is bustling with three dogs, a cat, and two bottle-fed calves. When she’s not helping run the family’s beef cattle farm across three counties, Ashley says she finds joy in tending to her flower beds – that is, when “she can find a spare moment!”

What is Ashley’s favorite part of working at Beasley Allen? She says, “It’s the relationships you develop with your co-workers.” She shares: “Our department is small and close-knit—we’re always helping each other.” That strong sense of camaraderie and shared purpose fuels Ashley’s passion for the work they all do on behalf of their clients. Ashley is a talented, hard-working, and dedicated employee. We are truly fortunate to have Ashley in the Beasley Allen family!

Chris Roberson

Chris Roberson joined Beasley Allen in June 2021 and serves as an HR Specialist III in the firm’s Human Resources department. With over 13 years of experience in human resources across the retail, financial, and healthcare sectors, Chris brings a well-rounded background and strong professional insight to his role. 

Chris reports to the firm’s Executive Director, Kimberly Youngblood, and works closely with Kimberly and fellow HR Specialist Kristen Hillyard to support various HR initiatives, including new hire orientation, employee recognition, compensation, benefits, leave administration, and other firm-wide HR initiatives. 

Chris also assists in maintaining compliance with federal and state employment laws and regulations, stays current on HR trends and best practices, and helps with data analysis and benefits reconciliation to continuously enhance the firm’s HR service delivery.

Originally from South Georgia, Chris earned his B.S. in Education from Valdosta State University in 2014. He is a member of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and holds the SHRM Certified Professional (SHRM-CP) credential. He and his spouse, David, live in Wetumpka, Alabama, with their fur-child, “Rudy” — an energetic but very special standard poodle, as Chris describes him. Outside of work, Chris enjoys camping, traveling, and discovering unique dining spots—but most of all, he values time with family.

Chris says what he values most about working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s mission and the strong sense of community. He sees supporting the firm and its employees not just as a job, but as a meaningful calling—one he feels truly honored to fulfill. We are fortunate to have Chris at Beasley Allen. He is a talented, dedicated employee who works hard in an important part of the firm. 

Roger Smith 

Roger Smith is a principal in Beasley Allen’s Mass Torts Section, leading litigation involving dangerous drugs and medical devices. Since joining the firm in 2001, he has focused on high-impact cases including Kratom, Acetaminophen, and Depo-Provera.

Roger’s passion for the law began in high school, inspired by his mock trial coach. Though he initially pursued urban planning, law school revealed his true calling—tort law. Roger has since built a nationally recognized career, earning honors from Best Lawyers annually since 2012 and Mid-South Super Lawyers since 2018. In 2015, he was named Beasley Allen’s Lawyer of the Year for Mass Torts.

Roger also gives back through service on the Friends of the Freedom Rides Museum board and Auburn University Montgomery’s Paralegal Studies Advisory Committee. Roger enjoys traveling with his wife, Claudia, and visiting their three college-aged daughters, Sophia, Caroline, and Sarah, across the country outside of work. He also finds joy on the pickleball court with friends.

Roger values Beasley Allen’s mission-driven culture, saying: “We fight for what’s right and we do it together. Many of us have worked side by side for over two decades.” 

Roger, a talented lawyer, is totally committed to justice and public safety. He is a hard-working lawyer, dedicated to his clients and to their receiving justice. We are fortunate to have Roger with us at Beasley Allen.

Angela Talley

With 23 years of service at Beasley Allen, Angela Talley has made a meaningful and lasting impact through her dedication, compassion, and experience. As a paralegal in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, she works closely with lawyers Mike Crow and Stephanie Monplaisir. Angela supports them through nearly every phase of a case, from intake to disbursement. Under their direction, her responsibilities include drafting legal documents, managing case files, filing, analyzing documents, client communication, scheduling, and assisting with trial preparation. 

Angela’s journey at Beasley Allen began at the front desk as a receptionist. She later transitioned into clerical work, advanced to legal assistant, and became Mike’s paralegal. Over the past seven years, she has supported Stephanie in a role that evolved to include broader responsibilities and meaningful involvement in the section’s day-to-day work.

Outside of work, Angela’s heart belongs to her family, especially her five grandchildren, who are the loves of her life. When she finds time to unwind, you’ll likely find her in the yard, gardening or “touching grass,” as she calls it. Watching things grow from seed to bloom is her way of staying grounded and connected.

Angela especially values the teamwork and camaraderie at Beasley Allen, saying, “Teamwork makes the dream work. I love working on cases that help people through tough situations.”

Angela is a dedicated employee who deeply cares about the clients she works with. She does excellent work, and we are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen.

 Mitch Williams

Mitch Williams is a principal in the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, focusing on product liability class actions and business litigation. He is known for tackling complex cases involving major auto manufacturers and original equipment suppliers. Mitch’s journey into law was driven by a desire to help those who can’t always help themselves. “I like to fight for the underdog,” he says. That passion led him from a law clerk role to becoming a lawyer in 2019. Mitch thrives in the discovery phase, uncovers the whole story, and crafts compelling strategies. 

Mitch earned his political science and public policy degree from the University of Alabama in 2016, followed by a law degree from Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in 2019, graduating with honors as a Walter J. Knabe Scholar. He also served as a judicial intern for the Alabama Supreme Court and as a senior editor of the Faulkner Law Review. 

Mitch enjoys life with his wife, Katlyn, and their 2.5-year-old daughter, Lillian, outside work. They love beach trips, trying new foods, and golfing together, always making time for family, fun, and faith.

Mitch says what he values most about Beasley Allen is its culture: “God, family, work. We work hard, have fun, and do it for the right reasons.” Mitch is a talented lawyer who is committed to the pursuit of justice for his clients. We are fortunate to have him with us!

Special Recognitions

Navan Ward Receives The Harry Philo Award At AAJ Annual Convention

At the 2025 American Association for Justice (AAJ) Annual Convention, Beasley Allen’s Navan Ward was honored with the Harry Philo Award. This award is one of the most distinguished recognitions in the field of civil justice advocacy. It’s a high honor to be a recipient. 

The Harry Philo Award is presented annually to an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the civil justice system and whose work has advanced the safety and protection of American consumers. Named after legendary trial lawyer Harry Philo—whose guiding philosophy was that “the law is never settled until it is right, it is never right until it is just, and it is never just until it serves society to the fullest,” the award celebrates those who champion justice, not just in the courtroom, but across our entire society.

Navan’s acceptance speech reflected the values of the award and the mission of Beasley Allen. Navan, without question, is most deserving of this honor. He is a tremendous trial lawyer and a true champion of justice.

All of us at Beasley Allen are proud of Navan’s leadership, his accomplishments, and the values he continues to uphold. He is a tremendous asset to the firm.  

Rebecca Gilliland Sworn IN As President

Rebecca Gilliland, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, was sworn in last month as President of the combined Escambia/Santa Rosa County Bar Association. This came about in Rebecca’s hometown of Pensacola. She will serve in this capacity during the 2025 term. I am confident Rebecca will do an outstanding job in this leadership role. She is a tremendously talented trial lawyer and a proven leader.

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Several of our staff employees, who are being featured in this issue, share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Chris Roberson

Chris offers one of his favorite verses. He says it presents a message that he regards as one of the most important in the Bible. It illustrates the profound depth of God’s love, demonstrated by His willingness to sacrifice His Son for our salvation. Love is a fundamental theme throughout Scripture, evident in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. Jesus’ promise that those who believe in Him will not perish but have everlasting life offers him great comfort and assurance. Furthermore, it reminds him that our love and compassion for others should be shown daily, reflecting the same love that God has for us.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Whoever puts his trust in God’s Son will not be lost but will have life that lasts forever. John 3:16

Mitch Williams

Mitch shares three of his favorite verses with us below:

Those who know Your name will put their trust in You. For You, O Lord, have never left alone those who look for You. Psalm 9:10 

For I know the plans I have for you,’ says the Lord, ‘plans for well-being and not for trouble, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not trust in your own understanding. 6 Agree with Him in all your ways, and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

Ashley Pugh

Ashley provides one of her favorite verses for us.

See, I am with you. I will care for you everywhere you go. And I will bring you again to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done all the things I promised you. Genesis 28:15

Angela Talley

Angela offers three of her favorite verses. The first serves as a reminder of how we should all view the people around us and in our country.

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.  Jeremiah 29:11

The second verse is a reminder to always care for those who do not have.

For I was hungry and you gave Me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave Me water to drink. I was a stranger and you gave Me a room. Matthew 25:35

The last verse comes from Hebrews.

Keep on loving each other as Christian brothers. 2 Do not forget to be kind to strangers and let them stay in your home. Some people have had angels in their homes without knowing it. 3 Remember those in prison. Think of them as if you were in prison with them. Remember those who are suffering because of what others have done to them. You may suffer in the same way. Hebrews 13:1-3

Closing Observations

No More Tears: Pulling Back The Curtain On Johnson & Johnson

I recommend a book that every American needs to read. It relates to how Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has operated. The contents will come as a shock to the uninformed. In his searing exposé No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson, investigative journalist Gardiner Harris dismantles the carefully cultivated image of one of America’s most iconic brands that has been exposed by litigation. Now this book lets the public know how J&J has operated. Published in 2025, the book chronicles decades of corporate misconduct, from the asbestos-laced talcum powder scandal to the mishandling of prescription drugs and medical devices.

Harris’s work has been described as “a meticulous, four-part investigation into nine of Johnson & Johnson’s most controversial products, including Tylenol, Risperdal, Procrit, and the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.” But said further that “it is the story of Johnson’s Baby Powder—once a symbol of purity and care—that anchors the book’s most damning revelations.” Harris documents how internal company records show J&J knew for decades that its talc-based powder was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, and yet continued to market it to women and children.

Beasley Allen lawyers handling the Talc litigation have known for over a decade what “No More Tears” has now brought to the public’s attention: Johnson & Johnson prioritized profits over people. Our firm has been at the forefront of the Talc litigation, representing thousands of women who developed ovarian cancer after using J&J’s Baby Powder. That battle is still ongoing. 

No More Tears is more than a book—it’s a call to action. It affirms what we at Beasley Allen have always believed: that corporations must be held accountable when their conduct endangers public health-whether in the courtroom or in the court of public opinion. Beasley Allen will continue to fight for those harmed by Johnson & Johnson’s wrongdoing.

MONTHLY REMINDERS

I have been asked why this section is included in every issue. My consistent response is that they are profoundly important. So, the following reminders from key individuals are for all of us at Beasley Allen. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. In addition to all of us at Beasley Allen, we send these reminders to all who get the Report each month. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned 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

Remembering Annette Nevin Shelby

Dr. Annette Nevin Shelby, the wife of my longtime friend Richard Shelby, passed away peacefully at her home in Tuscaloosa on July 23. Annette and Richard had been happily married for over 60 years. Annette left quite an impressive legacy. 

The native of Kinston, Alabama, was a distinguished professor and philanthropist. It has been widely recognized that Annette dedicated her life to education, public service, and the pursuit of excellence. 

Annette was tremendously talented and worked diligently to improve our state and nation. She was an influential voice in communications and management, teaching at the University of Alabama and later at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, where she was the first woman to earn tenure and promotion to full professor.

Annette’s contributions extended beyond academia. She served on numerous civic boards, was a dedicated member of the First Presbyterian Church of Tuscaloosa, and was a founding board member of the Shelby Institute for Policy and Leadership at the University of Alabama. Her work was recognized with several awards, including the Henry and Julia Tutwiler Award and the Frances S. Summersell Award. A public park in Tuscaloosa bears her name, honoring her legacy. That legacy lives on through the countless lives Annette touched and her unwavering belief in the power of public service. 

On a personal note, Richard and I were young lawyers in Tuscaloosa in the early 1960s. Sara and I became friends with the Shelby’s during that time. Annette and my wife Sara had lots in common. They both loved the Lord and were smarter than their husbands. 

Annette was a tremendous asset in the climb up the political ladder by her husband. She was a devoted wife and supported Richard in every respect. It should be noted that Annette’s personal record of accomplishments had nothing to do with politics or any political influence of her husband. 

Annette Nevin Shelby was a good person in every respect, both in her personal and professional life. She leaves a tremendous legacy. 

To access this publication online, update an address, 
or to contact us about this publication, please
visit BeasleyAllen.com.

This is an advertisement.