The Jere Beasley Report May 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Governor Kay Ivey: A Lifelong Passion To Serve

On April 10, Kay Ellen Ivey marked her eighth year in office as Alabama’s 54^th Governor. When her second term ends in January 2027, she will have served nearly the longest of all her predecessors, second only to Governor George C. Wallace.  

I have known Governor Kay Ivey for almost 50 years. I have also known many other governors over the years. Without any reservation, Kay has been my favorite governor and the best of the lot. I will explain that observation in more detail below. 

At an early age, Kay Ivey discovered an inborn passion to serve and lead. In high school, she made a commitment to run for every elected position she could find. I believe she has met that goal. 

My wife, Sara, met and worked with Kay on several projects back in the 1970s. I was Lt. Governor at the time. Sara told me one night about a day she had spent with Kay. She had been greatly impressed. Sara observed, “I predict that Kay will get involved in politics and run for office. We need more like her. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kay is Governor of Alabama one of these days.”

Kay’s state government career began in 1979.  She served as Assistant Director of the Alabama Development Office, which is now the Alabama Department of Commerce.  Six years later, she was appointed to the Alabama Commission on Higher Education.  Economic development and education would go on to play a greater role in her future public service career.

In 2002, at the urging of her longtime friend Will Sellers, Kay ran for Alabama State Treasurer, was elected, and served two terms. She was the first Republican woman to serve as Treasurer. In 2010, she successfully ran for Lieutenant Governor. Kay was the first Republican woman to hold that office.  She was elected for a second term.

And finally, in 2017, after the resignation of Gov. Bentley, Kay was sworn in as Alabama’s first Republican female governor.  As she likes to put it, “Most governors have three months to plan their transition to office, I had three hours.”

Always a very hard worker, Kay quickly channeled her economic, education and legislative experience into a long-term strategy to elevate the state’s standing in job creation and advancement in the classroom.

Kay partnered with the Alabama Department of Commerce to double down on previous successful business recruitment efforts, renewing and increasing economic incentives for industrial expansion. The result is an impressive record of $55 billion in new capital investment and the creation of over 93,000 jobs during her eight years in office.

At the same time, Kay realized that Alabama could outcompete other states if it provided high-tech skills training for students from high school through community college.  Under her leadership, computer science education in Alabama’s classrooms has risen to among the top five in the nation. Today, in-demand job training is occurring within all 24 campuses of Alabama’s Community College System.

The determination of Kay Ivey to elevate the state’s perennially lagging elementary school reading and math scores and turn around underperforming schools has also shown promising results.  Under her leadership, Alabama has risen from 49^th in the country to 34^th in reading, and from 52^nd, the bottom in math, to 32^nd.  

Kay utilized her legislative skills honed from serving as Lt. Governor to set a plan in motion to fund long-needed generational improvements in our state’s aging road and bridge system. The legislation was passed and since enactment in 2019, Rebuild Alabama has generated over $1 billion in revenue, literally paving the way for 500 new road and bridge projects reaching all 67 counties. The positive impact is already being felt through new business ribbon cuttings and Alabama garnering high marks in national road quality reviews.

Similarly, Kay has championed major investment in broadband expansion making the state more competitive in education, healthcare delivery and job growth. Again, under her watch, Alabama has set records, rising from 47^th to 24^th in broadband readiness, and became a national model for broadband development according to an industry publication.

Kay has also pushed ahead a record $1 billion investment in upgrading the state’s water and sewer system, opening the spigots for nearly 500 different water and sewer projects benefitting residents and industry in every Alabama county.  

Kay’s greatest asset is her determination to get things done, no matter the odds or opposition.  The harder the task, the more she resolves to conquer it.  Kay Ivey is a “people person,” and the citizens of Alabama respond to her. Kay has been able to work with the legislature in a bi-partisan manner. She is extremely popular, well respected and well liked throughout the state. 

Kay Ivey will go down as one of Alabama’s greatest governors.  Actually, if job performance and project success are the criteria, there has been no greater Governor of our state. And she still has a year and a half left to serve! Stay tuned!

TALC LITIGATION

Talc Update

We will give a more complete account of the order in Johnson & Johnson’s third attempt to use Chapter 11 to settle thousands of claims that its products caused cancer. As we reported last month, a Texas bankruptcy dismissed J&J unit Red River Talc’s Chapter 11 case. The roughly $9 billion bankruptcy attempt was thrown out in the order. 

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Lopez ruled that voting irregularities before Red River’s bankruptcy filing justified dismissing the case. Judge Lopez found that Red River rushed into bankruptcy and misapplied its own vote-counting procedures. He emphasized that the voting problems were too significant to overlook, noting that some claimants were given an “unreasonably short time to vote,” and others had their votes switched from “no” to “yes” improperly. Judge Lopez found the voting problems “troubling,” and he stressed that J&J may have started the divisional merger before it reached 75% support among talc claimants, something it promised in its disclosure statement that it wouldn’t do. 

Adam Silverstein, a lead attorney representing the Coalition of Counsel for Justice for Talc Claimants, noted that this case has always been about fairness. He observed:

J&J tried to wear down victims through delay tactics, legal loopholes, and backroom deals. This ruling shuts down that abuse and ensures that real people – not corporate executives – will decide what justice looks like.

J&J’s efforts to use bankruptcy to settle these claims have now been rejected three times. The company initially filed for Chapter 11 in 2021, and after the Third Circuit dismissed it, J&J put the talc unit into bankruptcy again in New Jersey. Red River was created last year through a divisional merger that saddled it with liabilities tied to the talc litigation facing J&J.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, J&J still maintains that its talc products are safe. The ongoing litigation and court rulings highlight the importance of holding corporations accountable for their actions. Beasley Allen will continue to fight for justice for all those affected in the J&J talc litigation. Trials will commence very soon now that J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy efforts have failed.

The case is In re Red River Talc, LLC, case number 4:24-bk-90505, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

J&J And Co-Defendants Challenge Asbestos Trusts’ Record Destruction Plan

A group of asbestos litigation defendants, including Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and related bankruptcy debtors, have sued 10 asbestos claims trusts in Delaware’s Court of Chancery. The suit accuses the trusts of planning to destroy evidence linked to tens of thousands of potential cases.

The plaintiffs, including J&J and its talc liability spinoff Red River Talc LLC, asked the court to prevent Delaware Claims Processing Facility LLC and the trusts it serves from adopting new record retention policies. These policies would permanently destroy evidence relevant to numerous asbestos-related personal injury claims and legal proceedings.

The trusts argued the changes were to protect sensitive personal information, but the plaintiffs claimed the policies were designed to evade the obligation to produce relevant information in legal proceedings. They also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop any data deletion.

The plaintiffs recently learned the trusts planned to delete data for resolved claims, sometimes one year after resolution or 10 years after payment. They argued the new policies would compromise the ability of asbestos defendants to defend against current and future claims.

Courts have found claims data from settlement trusts discoverable, and the plaintiffs asserted that this data is crucial for estimating the value of asbestos claims. They contended that exposure to alternative sources of asbestos affects the value of a claim and that payouts from multiple trusts could reduce the amount received from any single trust.

Aside from Red River, plaintiffs include DBMP LLC, a spinoff of CertainTeed, which sought bankruptcy relief in 2020 due to asbestos liabilities.

The debtors are represented by Kelly E. Farnan, Blake Rohrbacher and Christine D. Haynes of Richards Layton & Finger PA, and Gregory M. Gordon and Daniel B. Prieto of Jones Day.

The case is DBMP LLC et al. v. Delaware Claims Processing Facility LLC et al., case number 2025-0404, in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

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

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

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J, and now it will be 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 Masters Report On Progress In Resolution Efforts

In September of last year, two court-appointed Settlement Masters began their work with the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group and the Department of Defense to bring about a global settlement for Camp Lejeune claimants.  Six months into this monumental challenge, the Settlement Masters filed a status report with the court detailing the strides they have made towards building a comprehensive settlement structure.

In their report, the Masters set out a three-component process for developing a global settlement matrix that defines compensation based on set factors.  They also set out a timetable for each step. Let’s take a look:

Step 1 – Spring: determine the ‘universe’ of injuries/conditions that will be part of this resolution effort.  Develop and administer a questionnaire to 2500 randomized claimants with those injuries.  The questionnaire/claimant response will be used to help inform the settlement matrix.

Step 2 – Summer:  begin bellwether mediations to help establish valuations and variances among the specific injuries and exposures. This will also include factoring in legal rulings that the court may issue in the course of the bellwether litigation. 

Step 3 – Fall:  Begin synthesizing the information from the claimant questionnaires, bellwether mediations, and interim court rulings into a settlement matrix that would assign values to claimants.  Negotiate both this matrix and settlement process.

The Settlement Masters advised the court that it is their goal to carry out these specific steps and have an agreed upon settlement and claims administration process ready by the end of the year. 

While this timeline should be encouraging, it is also very ambitious and highly dependent upon the government’s commitment to reaching a fair and comprehensive resolution for these claimants.   

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, reach out to our Camp LeJeune Litigation Team. The team is heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation, including bellwether trial work. Lawyers on the team are set out at the end of this section. 

Plaintiffs From Camp LeJeune Dispute Government Expert’s Site Visit

Veterans and their families are suing the federal government over injuries from toxic drinking water at Camp Lejeune. They have asked a North Carolina federal judge to exclude information from an expert’s February visit to the base, saying it was made after a court deadline.

The plaintiffs claim that geochemist Remy Hennet, who was evaluating water contamination, visited the base twice before, with his latest visit occurring two months after his report and a month after plaintiffs’ rebuttals. They say that this violates the court’s pretrial scheduling orders. The plaintiffs want the court to exclude all findings from this visit.

Hennet’s December 2024 report mentioned “volatilization,” where contaminants move from water to air during treatment or distribution. His February visit aimed to respond to the plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert. During this visit, Hennet met with treatment plant employees, reviewed data, and measured water treatment devices.

The plaintiffs point out that Hennet’s new findings were not in his December report and that the DOJ should have sought court approval for his visit. They offered to waive objections if their expert could revisit the base, but the DOJ rejected this prospect. 

In a joint status report, it was noted that 2,770 Camp Lejeune Justice Act complaints were filed between February 2023 and March 2025, with about 408,000 administrative claims on file. 

The veterans and families are represented by J. Edward Bell III of the Bell Legal Group PLLC, Zina Bash of Keller Postman LLC, Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, W. Michael Dowling of the Dowling Firm PLLC, Robin L. Greenwald of Weitz & Luxenberg PC, James A. Roberts III of Lewis & Roberts PLLC and Mona Lisa Wallace of Wallace & Graham PA, among others.

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

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

If you need help with a claim, have questions about Rubris, 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

Bellwether Discovery Concludes In Social Media Litigation

April 4, 2025, was the deadline to conclude discovery in the personal injury bellwether pools in both the Social Media Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP 5255), based in Los Angeles Superior Court, and the federal MDL No. 3047, based in Oakland, CA. Plaintiffs and defendants have submitted their preferred cases for trial and now await Judge Kuhl to select the first trial plaintiffs at a hearing set for April 15, 2025. In the JCCP, the first case will be tried by a Los Angeles jury beginning in November 2025, with additional bellwether trials expected to be set soon thereafter. 

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

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

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is Co-Lead counsel for the JCCP and serves as State/Federal Liaison in the federal MDL. Beasley Allen lawyers Jennifer Emmel, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Seth Harding, Slade Methvin, and Suzanne Clark 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. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team in a supervisory manner. He is actively involved in the litigation. 

Statistics Show Significant Risk Of Video Game Addiction Among Children

A January 2025 post from AddictionHelp.com found that video game addiction affects between 1.7% and 10% of the entire American population, with the vast majority of addicted gamers being adolescents and young adults.  Sadly, the statistics also showed that 8.5% of all children and teenagers under 18 nationwide may be addicted to gaming.  

The most common mental health issues found to be associated with video game addiction include depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), ADHD, and impulse control disorders.  These mental health issues in adolescence can lead to a myriad of performance issues in school and social settings.  

Many of these games can be played on multiple platforms, and studies show that the prevalence of gaming disorders increased during the COVID-19 pandemic from 1.96% to between 2.3% and 29.4% post-pandemic.

Litigation against these major game manufacturers has increased over the last several months due to their addictive nature and purposeful targeting of children.  Lawsuits are being filed around the country, primarily revolving around poor performance in school, cognitive issues, developmental delays and self-harm in young people. 

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 & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Lawyer In Mobile Office Files Wrongful Death Trucking Case

Wyatt Montgomery, a lawyer in our Mobile office, recently filed a Wrongful Death lawsuit stemming from a catastrophic 18-wheeler wreck that occurred on an interstate highway during a snowstorm.

Trucking accidents, especially those involving large commercial vehicles like 18-wheelers, are inherently more complicated than standard car accidents. This complexity arises from the involvement of multiple parties, including the truck driver, the trucking company, freight brokers, and potentially the manufacturer of the truck or trailer. In Wyatt’s case, the wreck involved multiple vehicles and resulted in a fatality. This prompted the need for a thorough investigation early on to determine the underlying causes.

One of the critical aspects of trucking litigation is the adherence to federal regulations that govern the trucking industry. These regulations are designed to ensure safety on the roads, but violations can lead to devastating accidents like the one involved in this case. Trucking litigation requires a deep understanding of the specific circumstances of each accident. Factors such as weather conditions, driver fatigue and hours of operation, and vehicle maintenance play crucial roles in determining liability. In this case, the snowstorm was a significant factor, and it is likely that the 18-wheeler should not have attempted to drive through such hazardous conditions.

The Alabama CDL Manual emphasizes the importance of preparing for winter driving conditions. This includes ensuring that the vehicle is properly maintained, checking tire tread and pressure, and carrying essential supplies such as chains. The manual advises commercial drivers to reduce speed, avoid sudden movements, and increase following distance during adverse weather conditions. It also highlights the importance of being aware of black ice and other hidden hazards that can make driving treacherous. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in penalties and increased liability in the event of an accident.

Trucking litigation is a complex and demanding area of law that requires specialized knowledge and experience.

Telematics Can Often Provide A “Smoking Gun” In Trucking Cases

In 2022 alone, over 75,000 people were injured in trucking accidents.  Even worse, over 5,000 people were killed. Alabama experienced 143 of these fatal trucking accidents.  When a crash occurs involving a tractor-trailer and a passenger car, the truck driver typically walks away.  The occupants of the passenger car are usually not so fortunate. Approximately 72% of fatalities in these crashes are in the smaller passenger car category.  

Like the typical car accident, trucking accidents involve accident reconstruction, liability, and damages.  However, trucking accidents involve one crucial difference: the role of telematics in proving each of these areas.  Trucking companies with a large fleet now use one or more telematics systems to monitor their trucks and drivers.  Telematics is simply the technology and software that collects and analyzes information on the truck and driver. 

For instance, the truck typically has an electronic control module (ECM) that tracks important data like GPS location, speed, harsh braking, fuel levels, and idling time.  The truck may also have a dash cam system that records pictures and videos of harsh events and crashes.  All of this information is typically uploaded to a Cloud that the trucking company can access.  Some trucking companies may pay for a telematics service that analyzes this data to create safety scores, safety reports, speed alerts, and detailed vehicle activity reports to help managers coach unsafe driving habits.  

This information is crucial when a truck driver causes injuries or deaths on an Alabama highway.  The video of a crash can tell Beasley Allen lawyers how fast the driver was going, what the weather conditions were at the time, and what the surrounding vehicles were doing.  This can be evidence of negligent or wanton driving.  The driving trends can tell us what the trucking company knew or should have known about the driver’s driving habits.  This can help prove a claim of negligent or wanton training, supervision, and retention of a driver. 

Telematics can also tell us whether the driver was over the hours of service and whether fatigue played a role in the crash.  Hours of service are determined by the federal government and dictate that most truckers do not exceed a 14-hour workday and must be off duty for 10 consecutive hours before driving again.  In addition, truckers cannot drive for longer than 11 hours a day.  

The truck activity can be compared with driver logs to determine when, where, and how long the truck starts, idles, and stops.  When cross-matched, you can see when the driver was actually working versus when the driver reported working.  

Exceeding 14 hours in a day can lower the trucker’s perception/reaction time to a crash ahead, lower the trucker’s ability to concentrate, and affect safety decisions.  This information can show that the trucker involved in a crash never should have been on the road in the first place.  

The preservation, diligence, and thoroughness by the trial lawyer are key to telematics discovery. These are the necessary steps: 

First, send a preservation letter for the telematics immediately upon receiving your trucking case.  

Second, diligently research the telematics system the defendant trucking company is using and demand the telematics relevant to the subject truck and driver.  

Finally, thoroughly go through the data you receive and follow up on discrepancies.  

Be aware that even telematics data can be altered, filtered, or hidden by the trucking company.  Make sure you understand the ins and outs of what telematics data should be there and how it can be manipulated. 

Beasley Allen lawyers have been highly successful in obtaining and utilizing telematics data in trucking cases.  Quite often, our lawyers have found a “smoking gun” relating to either accident reconstruction, liability, or punitive damages, hiding in the telematics data.  It’s important to find and gain access to that evidence. 

A Perspective: Georgia Tort Reform And The Use Of Low Medical Bills

Georgia’s recent tort reform bill (Senate Bill 68) represents a significant overhaul of the state’s civil justice system. One aspect of that bill limits a plaintiff’s ability to recover for past medical damages to those expenses that were actually paid by the plaintiff or on the plaintiff’s behalf. Master charge figures are no longer recoverable.

Many plaintiff trial lawyers have expressed concern relating to the anchoring impact that this change may have on their ability to make sure that their clients receive the full value of their personal injury claims. The thought goes something like this: 

If I can only show the jury medical bills of $5,000 (when the master charge figure would have been something like $90,000), how can I help the jury see that this wreck had a life-changing impact on my client so that they render an appropriate verdict?

This view fails to appreciate the most important thing before a jury in any trial (all the more so in a soft tissue trial), the credibility of the client and his or her lawyers, and the fact witnesses who testify in support of the plaintiff. If truly credible testimony has been elicited from a respected lawyer who earned the jury’s trust, a lack of medical bills will not preclude a jury from returning a substantial verdict that is consistent with an incident that has changed a person’s life forever. 

So, I offer a rule of thumb at trial: bring all credible testimony but leave small medical bills at home. We will have more to say on the overall impact of the Georgia tort reform legislation in a later issue of the Report. 

Tesla Reaches Wrongful Death Settlement

Tesla Inc. has reached a settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Donna Leach, whose husband, Clyde Leach, tragically died when his Tesla Model Y, with autopilot enabled, suddenly accelerated and crashed into a gas station pump support column in Jeffersonville, Ohio, in 2021. The collision caused the car’s battery modules to rupture, leading to Clyde Leach’s incineration within seconds.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, encountered several mediation issues. Donna Leach argued that Tesla’s attorney, Ryan McCarthy, participated in the mediation without the required settlement authority, causing delays and unnecessary expenses. Tesla countered that the mediation discussions were confidential and accused Leach of using the news media to coerce a settlement.

In November, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled for Tesla, rejecting Leach’s sanctions bid due to California’s mediation privilege laws, which mandate confidentiality for all communications during mediation. This ruling made it impossible to consider Leach’s argument about the conduct of Tesla’s attorneys during settlement discussions.

The trial, initially set to begin in early April, was delayed due to disputes over a discovery order. Despite these challenges, Tesla and Donna Leach have now settled all claims in the matter, although the details of the settlement remain undisclosed. It will be interesting to see how much Tesla paid in this case. 

Donna Leach is represented by Todd A. Walburg and Scott B. Baez of McCune Law Group APC.

The case is Donna Leach et al. v. Tesla Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-03378, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

BOATING ACCIDENT LITIGATION

Fatal Fishing Collision: Justice For Smith Lake Victims 

Mike Andrews of Beasley Allen and Dan Mars of Mars, Mars & Mars, P.A. are representing the widow of Jeffrey Little, one of the victims of the recent tragic boating accident on Smith Lake.

The incident, which occurred during a Major League Fishing tournament, resulted in the deaths of three individuals, including Jeffrey Little, and serious injuries to two others.

Mike Andrews, emphasizing the importance of safety measures, says:

This tragedy underscores the need for stringent safety measures during such events. We will work tirelessly to ensure that the victims receive the compensation they deserve and to advocate for changes that will prevent similar incidents in the future. 

One area the litigation team will be looking at is whether tournament organizers and sponsors adopted and implemented an appropriate boating safety management plan in light of the number of participants and the speeds at which they apparently run. Were they aware of other boaters in the area yet failed to properly control their participants?

According to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA), a Nitro Bass boat struck a center console boat with five people on board, including Mr. Little, at 7:03 AM on April 16. As stated above, three people on the center console boat were killed.

Dan Mars expressed his condolences, stating, “Our hearts go out to the families affected by this devastating event. We are committed to seeking justice for all thoseaffected.”

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS

Motor Vehicle Recalls 2025

Thus far, in 2025, major motor vehicle recalls have affected vehicles from Ford, BMW, GM, Honda, Rivian, Land Rover, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz, with issues ranging from engine problems to software errors and faulty seatbelts. The following is a brief summary of some of the notable recalls: 

• Ford: Recalled certain 2024-2025 F-150, Expedition, and 2024 Lincoln Navigator vehicles for a potential misaligned engine cup plug. 

• BMW: Recalled certain 2025 vehicles due to a potential loose electrical connection between the starter-generator and battery. 

• General Motors: Recalled 10,643 2025 Cadillac LYRIQ vehicles. 

• Rivian: Recalled certain 2025 R1S and R1T vehicles due to potential headlight failure in cold weather. 

• Land Rover: Recalled certain 2025 Range Rover and Range Rover Sport vehicles for a potentially faulty seat belt. 

• Volkswagen: Recalled over 175,000 Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport vehicles (2024- 2025) for a loose engine cover. 

• Mercedes-Benz: Recalled vehicles with a software error that may cause the high- voltage starter alternator control unit to fail, including 2023-2024 AMG GT 63 S E Performance 4-door coupe, 2025 AMG GLC 63 S E Performance, and other models.

• Nissan: Recalled 37,003 2025 Kicks vehicles. 

• Tesla: Recalled Cybertrucks due to a risk of trim detaching from the vehicles. 

• Toyota: Recalled 2021-2025 Sienna, 2024-2025 Tacoma, and other models. 

• Cadillac, over 100,000 vehicles recalled.

Certain 2025 Range Rover and Range Rover Sport vehicles were recalled. 

AVIATION LITIGATION

Two Wrongful Death Cases Settled By Boeing On Eve Of Trial

Boeing has settled two wrongful death cases related to the March 2019 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash that killed 157 people. The settlements, involving the families of Antoine Lewis and Darcy Belanger, were reached just before a damages trial was set to begin in Chicago. The details of the settlements are confidential.

Lewis, a U.S. Army captain, and Belanger, who was en route to a United Nations Environment Assembly, were among the crash victims. The settlements will provide some closure to the families. However, the battle against Boeing continues with more trials scheduled.

Boeing, as previously reported, has acknowledged its responsibility for the crash and has committed to compensating the families. The crash was linked to issues with the 737 Max’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which has since been updated. There has been extensive litigation against Boeing over the incident and the earlier Lion Air Flight 610 crash.

The families of Lewis and Belanger are represented by Robert A. Clifford, Kevin P. Durkin, Tracy A. Brammeier and John V. Kalantzis of Clifford Law Offices PC, Antonio M. Romanucci of Romanucci & Blandin, Mark Lindquist of Mark Lindquist Law and Austin Bartlett of BartlettChen LLC.

The consolidated case is In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash, case number 1:19-cv-02170, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Source: Law360

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Settlement Reached In Baby Lounger Death Case

A Texas couple and the distributor of an infant lounger have reached a confidential settlement in a lawsuit alleging the couple’s 7-month-old daughter died after falling out of the device. The suit was filed by Lacey and Chase Hopper in 2024. Their daughter fell out of the Snuggle Me baby lounger on November 6, 2023, and became wedged between pillows and a headboard, leading to her death the following day.

The parents had purchased the lounger from Target five months earlier. The claims against Target remain active. Revel Hopper, born on April 26, 2023, was seven months old at the time of her death.

Simply Mommy LLC, previously owned by Peak 21 Holdings, and Heroes Technology LLC were also named as defendants, but they were dismissed from the case in September due to jurisdictional issues. Peak 21 Holdings continues to challenge the court’s jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 

The Hoppers are represented by Mark A. Weycer and Elana R. Bueno of The Weycer Law Firm PC.

The case is Lacy Hopper et al. vs. Peak 21 Holdings Inc. et al., case number 4:24-cv-02661, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Source: Law360

INSURANCE LITIGATION

The Applicability Of Consumer Protection Statutes To Insurance Practices

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws are vital consumer protection statutes that are enacted in every state.  UDAP statutes provide a right of action for state attorneys general, state agencies, and/or consumers directly to sue for unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, which deter such practices and regulate the marketplace.  

UDAP laws often serve as the foundational legal claim for class action lawsuits involving false advertising, deceptive marketing, material misrepresentations and omissions, unconscionable contract terms, and excessive fees (to name some practices that often are subject to UDAP laws).  

This can be because unfair or deceptive conduct does not always fall within the elements of a common law claim. Also, proof of an element can create an individualized issue precluding class treatment, such as reliance for a fraud claim.  

One would think UDAP laws would be a proper vehicle to punish and deter unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the insurance industry. But, unfortunately, many states exempt insurance companies from the enforcement of UDAP statutes.  

According to the most recent survey of UDAP laws by the National Consumer Law Center, insurance companies are immune from enforcement in the following twenty-one (21) states: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Also, seven (7) states give insurers partial immunity namely, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, New York, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  

The rationale for the exclusion of insurers from UDAP statutes is often that the conduct of insurers is regulated by states’ insurance codes. But most insurance codes fail to provide consumers with a private right of action. Additionally, many insurance departments lack the resources and personnel to monitor and prosecute violations. All of this results in a gap in consumer protection laws whereby insurers are free to engage in conduct that would otherwise be violations of UDAP laws and subject to penalties, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. 

            While UDAP laws may not help with insurance claims, fortunately, the laws in most states provide causes of action known as the “Bad Faith” failure to pay benefits or even to properly investigate claims under life, health and property insurance policies. Insurance companies owe a duty to their policyholders to act in good faith to handle and pay legitimate claims under their policies. When they fail to do so, the law provides a remedy and punitive damages in the appropriate cases. 

Consumers should not just take “no” from an insurance company as an answer to an insurance claim. Instead, they should seek legal advice to find out if there is a legal basis for pursuing their claims. There is no cost for Beasley Allen lawyers to review a claim. 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to monitor laws affecting insurers and policyholders and to litigate insurance claims, including class actions and bad faith cases.  Paul Evans and Rebecca Gilliland are two of the lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section who handle the insurance claims for our firm.  

Source: National Consumer Law Center

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

EEOC Sexual Harassment Cases Continue To Rise

Each year since 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has shown an increase in the reporting of sexual harassment charges related to workplace conduct. Additionally, in 2024, the monetary benefit received by those filing EEOC charges for sexual harassment charges increased over $17 million from 2023 charges. 

In late 2024, the EEOC filed three lawsuits against employers who failed to protect employees from a hostile work environment and/or incidents of retaliation against people who complained about hostile working conditions. Andrea G. Baran, a regional attorney for the EEOC in St. Louis, Missouri, stated: 

…some employers fail to adequately protect their employees from harassment or retaliate against workers who report unwelcome sexual conduct. In some cases, business owners themselves engage in unlawful behavior. These cases demonstrate that work remains to be done to ensure all workers are free to do their jobs without fear of being harassed.

One case, against a fast-food franchise, alleged that numerous employees were sexually harassed in restaurants. These female employees also include teenagers. The level of harassment included sexual comments, inappropriate touching and one case of rape. The EEOC determined that corporate management failed to address the harassment allegations, but did not take any action. 

In another case, a company manufacturing paper products fired a woman who filed for and obtained a protective order against a coworker for inappropriate comments, including sexual innuendos and for trying to “kiss her.” The woman notified Human Resources of the protective order that she obtained, and the company not only failed to protect her from the unwanted advances, but they also fired her.

In another case filed recently, a female employee complained that she was harassed almost daily by one of the owners of a home design company. Included in the allegation was that the owner would routinely make sexually charged comments to her and touch females without their consent. At least one female reported the unwanted conduct to another owner. However, that owner took no action to stop the harassment, and the company withheld that employee’s bonus, leading to what has been characterized as a “constructive discharge.” 

Source:  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Effect Of The Cornell Ruling In ERISA Litigation 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to revive Cornell University workers’ class action lawsuit over excessive retirement plan fees is expected to result in more lawsuits targeting employers’ arrangements with recordkeepers and service providers. This decision overturned a district court’s dismissal from 2017, which had been upheld by the Second Circuit in 2023. The court rejected Cornell’s argument that workers needed to plead both elements of a prohibited transaction and that their employer did not meet exemption conditions under ERISA.

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion, supported by ERISA’s text and court precedent, suggests that this ruling could increase complaints against employers’ service provider relationships. This decision clarifies that workers don’t need to plead around exemptions to prohibited transactions, which could streamline court proceedings. That is a needed change, according to Beasley Allen lawyers who handle employment-related litigation. 

Additionally, the ruling outlined alternative means to discourage meritless litigation, such as Rule 11 sanctions and cost shifting. The court also suggested using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) to handle allegations of prohibited transactions, requiring plaintiffs to plead that exemptions do not apply in response to defendants’ answers.

U.S. Supreme Court Broadens RICO Scope In Civil Actions

The U.S. Supreme Court has broadened the scope of civil actions under the federal racketeering statute (RICO), allowing claims for economic harm resulting from personal injuries. In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that plaintiff Douglas J. Horn could bring claims against CBD companies, including Medical Marijuana Inc., for selling products with detectable THC levels. Plaintiff Horn argued that his positive drug test led to his job loss and caused him economic harm.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that economic harms resulting from personal injuries are recoverable under RICO. The decision resolves a circuit split, with the Second and Ninth Circuits allowing such claims, while the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits excluded them.

The dissent, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, argued that this interpretation circumvents RICO’s exclusion of personal injury suits. Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, questioning the use of the Horn case to resolve the issue.

This is an important decision and will greatly benefit persons who are damaged as a result of RICO violations. 

Pro-business groups and legal organizations supported the CBD companies, while advocacy groups backed Horn, emphasizing the economic nature of his claim.

Plaintiff Horn is represented by Easha Anand and Pamela S. Karlan of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and by Jeffrey Benjamin of the Linden Law Group PC.

The case is Medical Marijuana Inc. et al. v. Horn, case number 23-365, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

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

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

Whistleblower Litigation

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Qui Tam Whistleblower In E-Rate Case

On February 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that essentially expands the types of legal matters that might result in a violation of the False Claims Act (FCA). In Wisconsin Bell Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Heath, the Supreme Court ruled that a whistleblower’s qui tam lawsuit alleging that Wisconsin Bell defrauded the Federal Communications Commission’s E-rate program can proceed finding false claims to be at issue.

The E-rate program, a congressionally mandated program, helps certain schools and libraries afford internet and telecommunications. The program is funded by contributions made by private telecommunications carriers to a Universal Service Fund. 

The Universal Service Fund (USF), a private not-for-profit corporation, administers the fund and distributes the money to beneficiaries under regulations prescribed by the FCC. 

In Wisconsin Bell, the whistleblower – known as a “relator” – alleged that Wisconsin Bell, Inc., defrauded the E-Rate program (and, by so doing, the federal government) by overcharging schools for internet and telecommunications services.

Wisconsin Bell responded by saying there was no FCA liability in the case because the E-rate program is the USF and thus, no “claim” was made to the government.  In deciding the legal dispute, the Supreme Court settled a split between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concerning whether a request for reimbursement under the E-Rate Subsidies program meets the FCA’s definition of a “claim.”

In the case before the Supreme Court, the justices clarified that a request for reimbursement from the E-Rate program is a “claim” under the FCA because the government directly contributed some funds to the program. Specifically, the High Court held that because the U.S. Treasury had in fact provided $100 million to the USF, the federal government did “provide” a portion of the funds at issue, and the whistleblower’s allegations are thus covered under the FCA.

By recognizing E-rate reimbursement requests as claims under the FCA, the Wisconsin Bell case expands the government’s ability to litigate fraud, waste, and abuse to include funds managed by private entities when those funds originate from the U.S. Treasury. This opinion by the Supreme Court has far-reaching implications for other programs with similar funding structures.

Beasley Allen lawyers have been successful in many False Claims Act cases. If you are aware of fraud, abuse or waste being committed against the federal government or a state government, and you are interested in pursuing a whistleblower lawsuit, 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 federal and state governments. 

Source: Whistleblower Network News

Judge Increases J&J Penalty To $1.64 Billion In HIV Marketing Case

Nearly a year after a jury fined Johnson & Johnson (J&J) $150 million for misleading marketing of its HIV medications, a federal judge has increased the penalty to over $1.64 billion.

U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi upheld the jury’s decision that J&J’s Janssen, now J&J Innovative Medicine, violated the False Claims Act. The initial complaint accused J&J of falsely promoting Prezista as “lipid-neutral” between 2006 and 2014, despite FDA labels indicating a significant negative effect on lipids. 

Additionally, J&J claimed Intelence was safe for once-daily dosing and treatment-naive patients, although it was approved only for twice-daily use in treatment-experienced patients. The jury found Janssen liable for 159,574 false claims, resulting in $120 million in federal damages and $30 million to states.

Judge Quraishi dismissed the state damages, but upheld the federal penalty, tripling it to $360 million. He also imposed a civil penalty of $8,000 per false claim, totaling $1.276 billion. The judge cited Janssen’s deliberate misconduct, the egregiousness of their actions, and their refusal to accept responsibility as reasons for the high penalty. Despite the jury’s verdict, J&J maintained that their marketing was consistent with FDA labels.

In his decision, Judge Quraishi considered factors such as the damages caused by Janssen’s actions and the need for deterrence. He noted that while Janssen’s pattern of misconduct and refusal to accept responsibility warranted a higher penalty, the lack of evidence regarding patient harm led him to impose a fee in the middle of the statutory range.

J&J was ordered to pay just over $1.64 billion, including federal damages and civil penalties. The company plans to appeal, arguing that their promotion of the medications was consistent with FDA-approved labels and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims. We will continue to monitor this matter. 

Source: Fierce Pharma

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

An On-The-Job Injury Case In Georgia

Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, is investigating an on-the-job injury case arising from a third party’s failure to comply with their duty. Ben’s client suffered serious injuries as a result. The client’s job responsibilities included taking trash to an industrial compactor that is owned and maintained by a third-party trash collector. 

On the morning of the incident, the client took the trash to the compactor, rolled the trash bin across a bridge gap that connects the loading dock to the trash compactor, and disposed of the trash. Later that day, he engaged in the same process while carrying items to be disposed of. This time, however, the bridge gap was not placed in the proper location as the third party’s duty requires. 

As a result, the client fell between the loading dock and the trash compactor, resulting in serious injury. The third party has a duty when removing and emptying the industrial trash compactor to replace it properly and affix the bridge gap in the designated place to prevent such injury from occurring. Georgia case law supports this duty, and for good cause. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Securities Litigation Team At Beasley Allen

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

We had intended to provide an update on pending securities litigation in this issue, however, we have elected to have the update in the June issue. In the meantime, you can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning any securities cases or issues relating to securities. The team includes the following lawyers 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

Update On The Attorney General Coalition’s Generic Drug Litigation

For almost a decade, a coalition of attorneys general has been litigating a sprawling antitrust suit against multiple generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing allegations of price fixing and unlawful market division. Actually, there are three cases with different filed complaints grouped together because of overlapping generic pharmaceuticals. The cases were recently remanded from the MDL, making similar allegations.  Now, back in the Connecticut Federal District Court, the attorneys general are in the middle of summary judgment briefing and have sought settlement approval with one pharmaceutical company, Apotex Corp. 

According to a preliminary approval filing, consumers will receive around 45% of the overall total of $39.1 million. Of that total, 70% is earmarked for a restitution fund and 30% for consumer notices and attorney fees. The document indicates that the states, territories, and the District of Columbia will receive 30%, and state entities that either directly purchased drugs or reimbursed drug purchases will receive about 25%. The coalition said it has not developed a final allocation and distribution plan for some of the cash but will divide the money “based on relative harm and claims asserted in the litigation.”

The coalition alleges that Apotex’s role in the anticompetitive scheme resulted in overcharges of around $202 million for generic drugs, but that the settlement is fair because it includes a cooperation agreement in the ongoing litigation against other drugmakers.

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to handle cases in this massive litigation. They are handling these important cases both for recovering money for consumers and the states, and because of its overall impact on the pharmaceutical litigation. 

Sources: Law360, Case Dockets

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Premises Liability – Legislative Update In Georgia

Georgia’s tort reform bill (S.B. 68) passed both chambers of the General Assembly and has been signed by Gov. Brian Kemp. The legislation contains many changes—both procedural and substantive—to existing law in the state. For example, the legislation alters the voluntary dismissal rule, bifurcates trial into liability and damages phases, and essentially eliminates the collateral source rule. 

A core component of the legislation also takes aim at premises liability actions, overhauling how these cases are litigated. New requirements are imposed on plaintiffs to prove their case. A judicial veto was also included if the judge disagrees with the jury’s allocation of fault. Some of these new requirements—like “particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person”—are defined in the legislation. But others—like “exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises”—are not.

The legislation’s lack of clarity on what constitutes a “physical condition” will be problematic.  For example, take a situation where the absence of a physical object—say a gate, lock, or security camera—allows a third party to harm an individual on a corporation’s premises. Does that amount to a physical condition, one sufficient to trigger liability? Common sense tells us yes, but the new law fails to provide an answer.

The above is just one ambiguity in the new law that prudent premises liability practitioners will have to litigate on behalf of their clients to ensure accountability and for justice to be done.

Class Action Litigation

FCA/Chrysler/Dodge Sliding Door Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved

Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin, along with co-counsel, McCune Wright Law Group, APC, DiCello Levitt LLP and the Miller Law Firm, P.C., represent the plaintiff and class members in a class action lawsuit against FCA US, LLC (FCA). The case was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. On March 17, 2025, our lawyers reached another major settlement—securing preliminary approval of a class action settlement in this case that will provide significant relief to class members.

On July 21, 2021, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against FCA alleging its model year 2010-2020 Dodge Grand Caravan and 2010-2016 Chrysler Town & Country vehicles (the class vehicles), contained a defect in the rear sliding passenger doors’ latch assemblies that failed to lock or unlock the door, froze the door in its’ failed position, and posed serious safety and security issues for operators and occupants of the class vehicles (Sliding Door Latch Defect). 

Beginning in 2008, FCA launched its fifth-generation minivans, featuring the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country equipped with automatic rear sliding doors, which used the same defectively designed rear sliding doors as the class vehicles. 

The plaintiff alleged that FCA began receiving owner complaints of door latch system failures as early as 2008, but continued to manufacture and sell the class vehicles without disclosing or repairing the defect. Despite having knowledge of this defect for many years, FCA refused to provide every class member with upgraded door latch assemblies free of charge. Instead, FCA quietly issued technical service bulletins to its dealerships to address the Sliding Door Latch Defect for a small subset of model year 2016-2017 class vehicles.  

On March 17, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Shalina D. Kumar, finding the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 satisfied, granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement covering current and former drivers of nearly 150,000 Dodge Grand Caravan minivans built between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. 

Pursuant to the settlement, FCA will provide a warranty extension that covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair the Sliding Door Latch Defect, for the earlier of ten years from the in-service date or 100,000 miles. FCA will also reimburse class members who incurred out-of-pocket expenses for previous repairs to the defective rear sliding doors.  

A final approval hearing for this settlement is scheduled for September 16, 2025, before Judge Kumar in the Eastern District of Michigan. The FCA Sliding Door Latch case is Lisa White v. FCA US, LLC, and is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 

The plaintiffs are represented by Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen, along with lawyers with McCune Wright Law Group, APC, DiCello Levitt LLP and the Miller Law Firm, P.C. 

Honda Sliding Door Defect Class Action Proceeds

Beasley Allen lawyers, along with co-counsel, represent plaintiffs and proposed class members in a class action lawsuit against Honda Motor Co., Ltd, and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) for manufacturing, marketing, and selling 2018-2025 Honda Odyssey minivans (the class vehicles) equipped with defective rear power sliding doors. 

Plaintiffs seek to represent proposed statewide classes of consumers who purchased or leased the class vehicles in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina. Honda sought to have this class action dismissed, but the California Federal Court ruled that the case would proceed to the discovery phase of the litigation. This is a big win for consumers. 

The lawsuit alleges that the rear sliding doors’ pinch sensors fail to detect obstructions in the door’s path as it closes, placing occupants at an increased risk for severe injuries, such as broken bones or amputations. Because these vehicles are promoted as family vehicles, the door defect poses a particular risk to young children seated in the back seats where the defect occurs.

In November of 2024, Honda filed a motion to dismiss the entire case, and plaintiffs filed their opposition to Honda’s motion on December 18, 2024. On March 3, 2025, U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera granted in part and denied in part Honda’s motion to dismiss. 

In denying Honda’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims, Judge Vera noted that Honda “made safety one of the central features of its advertising campaign and did so specifically with the Odyssey.” The court further held that plaintiffs’ allegations of Honda’s pre-sale knowledge through design and pre-release testing, as well as plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the door defect’s risk to passenger safety, were sufficient to support their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission.   

The court also denied Honda’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ express warranty claims. The court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Honda was provided an opportunity to cure their class vehicles, but that it was “unwilling or unable to do so.” 

The court also found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts demonstrating that any repair would have been futile because Honda would only be replacing one defective component with an equally defective component. Accordingly, the court held that each plaintiffs’ express warranty claims were sufficiently pled. 

The Beasley Allen lawyers working on this case are Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann, along with these lawyers from Blood Hurst & O’Reardon: Tim Blood, Thomas O’Reardon, Paula Brown, and Adam Bucci. 

We will keep you informed and up to date on this important case. Things were moving at a fast pace in the case at press time. 

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

Objections To NCAA’s $2.8 Billion NIL Settlement

A California federal judge has delayed the approval of the NCAA’s $2.78 billion name, image, and likeness (NIL) settlement. Counsel was given a week to address objections raised by athletes, including ex-Seattle Seahawks linebacker Benjamin Burr-Kirven and gymnast Olivia Dunne. U.S. District Judge Claudia Ann Wilken’s comments came after a daylong hearing in Oakland, California, regarding the motion for final approval of the revised settlement. The settlement aims to resolve antitrust litigation brought by college athletes against the NCAA and its conferences.

The proposed settlement includes a $2.78 billion 10-year agreement to resolve a class action filed in 2020 led by former swimmer Grant House and a $200 million agreement to resolve litigation filed in 2023 led by former Oklahoma State University football player Chuba Hubbard. Class counsel seeks over $500 million in fees, but the judge declined to hear arguments on fees.

Judge Wilken noted that some objections are significant, challenging key aspects of the deal, while others are minor and could be adjusted without major changes. She encouraged counsel to address these issues, stating that the settlement is worth pursuing and could be improved.

During the nearly six-hour hearing, multiple lawyers representing objecting athletes criticized the deal’s structure, damages payout calculations, and technical issues with submitting claims. They argued that the deal unfairly limits compensation, prevents collective bargaining, opens the door to an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, and violates Title IX gender discrimination laws.

Four athletes, including Burr-Kirven and Dunne, spoke against the settlement, highlighting flaws in the damages formula and inequities in payouts. Burr-Kirven described the formula as “illogical” and “cryptic,” while Dunne criticized it as unclear and based on incomplete data.

Despite objections, class counsel defended the settlement, noting that 88,104 claims have been submitted, representing over 30% of the class. They argued that the settlement is fair given the risk of litigation and potential congressional action to make the NCAA immune to antitrust claims.

Judge Wilken appeared skeptical of many objections and suggested that athletes reach out to plaintiffs’ counsel for help if the settlement is approved. She also doubted Title IX arguments, noting that the settlement amount is based on past antitrust violations when male sports were the primary revenue-generating NCAA games.

In response, counsel proposed that the court retain jurisdiction and review objections annually over the next 10 years. Judge Wilken suggested she may approve the Hubbard settlement, but not the House deal. But counsel for the NCAA stated they wouldn’t agree to one settlement without the other.

The plaintiff athletes were represented during the hearing by Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Jeffrey L. Kessler of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, case number 4:20-cv-03919, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Supreme Court Overturns Fifth Circuit Decision On Flavored Vape Marketing

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously overturned a Fifth Circuit decision that found the FDA acted arbitrarily in rejecting Triton Distribution’s applications to market flavored vape products. The FDA had warned in 2020 that it would strictly review flavored e-cigarettes to prevent their appeal to minors. Justice Samuel Alito stated that the FDA’s denial was consistent with this guidance.

The ruling is a victory for the FDA, affirming its authority to regulate e-cigarette products that could attract minors. However, the Fifth Circuit may still consider whether the FDA made a prejudicial error by not evaluating Triton’s marketing plans.

Triton Distribution expressed disappointment but remains hopeful for further proceedings. The FDA’s stance was supported by various health advocates and opposed by some Republican lawmakers who argued that Congress should regulate flavored e-cigarettes.

Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the FDA’s transparency about its concerns, noting that flavored vapes are more appealing to minors. The FDA has prioritized regulating flavored e-cigarettes since the Trump administration, aiming to balance harm reduction for adults with preventing youth usage.

The FDA is represented by Curtis E. Gannon of the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General.

The case is Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments LLC et al., case number 23-1038, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

Whole Foods Settles Class Action Over 401(k)

Whole Foods has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that its failure to manage 401(k) plan administrative fees cost around 97,000 workers millions in retirement savings. The Amazon-owned grocer has informed a Texas federal court of the settlement agreement.

In a joint status report filed last month, Whole Foods and seven former employees announced they had reached a settlement in principle during mediation and plan to seek preliminary approval from the court by June 17.

The lawsuit, filed in November 2023 by Shauna Winkelman, Michael Lenon, Scott Cenna, Kalea Nixon, Robert Goldorazena, Chad Diehl, and Ross Nanfeldt, claimed Whole Foods failed to leverage its large 401(k) plan to negotiate lower fees. The complaint highlighted that Whole Foods paid $31 per participant in recordkeeping fees from 2020 to 2022, while similar plans from companies like Apple and Costco paid between $8 and $23.

The workers contended that Whole Foods should have negotiated lower fees or chosen a less costly option since it received routine services from Fidelity. The lawsuit took the position that plan fiduciaries were not acting in the best interests of participants.

In November, the workers requested class certification for everyone who invested in Whole Foods’ 401(k) plan since November 2017, estimated to be over 97,000 people. Whole Foods agreed to class certification in December.

The workers are represented by Mark K. Gyandoh and James A. Wells of Capozzi Adler PC, Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC and by Kell A. Simon of the Law Offices of Kell Simon.

The case is Winkelman et al. v. Whole Foods Market Inc. et al., case number 1:23-cv-01352, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Source: Law360

Seven Firefighters’ Unions Join PFAS Lawsuit

Seven firefighters’ unions have joined a class action lawsuit against 3M Co., DuPont, and other safety gear companies, alleging that they knowingly exposed first responders to cancer-causing “forever chemicals” in their protective equipment. The amended complaint, filed in Connecticut federal court, now includes unions from Hartford, New Canaan, Torrington, Westport, Wilton, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Norwalk. This brings the total number of plaintiffs to about 700 firefighters.

The lawsuit, filed in April 2024 by unions from Stamford, Fairfield, and four other Connecticut municipalities, accuses over 20 companies of manufacturing or supplying toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in gear such as turnout coats, pants, and aircraft rescue suits. The complaint alleges that companies like 3M, DuPont, and others designed and sold gear containing PFAS while concealing health risks for decades, despite knowing since the 1960s that PFAS accumulated in blood and organs.

The plaintiffs claim that firefighters have absorbed these toxic chemicals through their skin, ingestion, and inhalation, particularly when they sweat. This prolonged exposure to PFAS is suggested to have made cancer the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths among firefighters, surpassing cardiac events.

The amendment filed adds unions from both large cities like Hartford and smaller towns like New Canaan, significantly expanding the scope of the litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jennifer Sclar, Ian W. Sloss, Kate Sayed and Samantha Blend of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP and Kyle J. McGee, Viola Vetter, Jason H. Wilson and Suzanne Sangree of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

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

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Lawyer Appointed To Leadership In Depo-Provera MDL

Beasley Allen’s Roger Smith was recently appointed to plaintiff leadership in the Depo-Provera MDL.  In an Order issued on March 16, Roger was appointed to the Data Administration Subcommittee, where he will work with other appointed leaders to ensure proper submission of critical plaintiff information that will be used to substantiate all cases.  There were around 75 total applicants for leadership positions. We are pleased that Roger was selected for this highly-sought after position.

The MDL was formed in February 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, with Judge M. Casey Rogers presiding.  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 cases involving Depo-Provera use for at least one (1) year where the injured later suffered a cerebral or spinal meningioma.

Ultra-Processed Foods – A Serious Health Concern

Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are receiving increased recognition as a serious health concern associated with a range of chronic diseases, especially in children. Ultra-processed foods are mere imitations of food with little to no nutritional value that are designed to be convenient, cheap and addictive. Despite indications about the dangers that ultra-processed foods pose to the public, UPF manufacturers have continued to prioritize their profit over public health. 

Research shows that ultra-processed foods disrupt natural hunger cues, spike blood sugar levels, and cause fat buildup in the liver, even in people with no previous family history of similar conditions. 

Of special concern is the UPF industry’s focused marketing efforts to target American children. Aggressive marketing tactics, like designing packaging to depict cartoon mascots, are used by various UPF companies to increase product appeal with the American youth population at an early age. 

Notably, a National Institute of Health study from 2021 found that ultra-processed foods account for nearly two-thirds of U.S. youths’ diets. The addictive nature of these products makes them hyper-palatable with strong potential to cause dependency that can shape lifelong eating habits. 

With the increased presence of the UPF industry, diseases that were once not common in children, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and type 2 diabetes, have become increasingly prevalent in the American youth population.

Kratom – A Highly Dangerous & Addictive Herbal Product

Kratom is a plant material from Southeast Asia that produces opioid- and stimulant-like effects. Here in the United States, the distribution and sale of Kratom has grown dramatically in recent years, spurring a lucrative industry and a national lobbying effort by the American Kratom Association. Kratom can be consumed in many ways, including pills, capsules, powders, crushed and smoked, brewed as tea, or by chewing the raw leaves. 

Health experts, however, have become increasingly concerned about Kratom’s addictive effects and the associated hospitalizations and deaths it has caused throughout the country. Kratom contains a chemical compound called mitragynine, which can stimulate the same brain receptors as opioids. Kratom affects these brain receptors in the same manner as morphine, which creates a tremendous risk of addiction, abuse, and dependence. 

According to the FDA’s recent public health advisories, there are no drug products containing Kratom that are legally on the market in the U.S., and the FDA has not approved any prescription or over-the-counter drug products containing Kratom or its two main chemical components, mitragynine or 7-OH-mitragynine.  

Additionally, the FDA has warned consumers not to use Kratom because of the risk of serious adverse events, including liver toxicity, seizures, substance use disorders, and in some cases, death. To make matters worse, many products sold as Kratom have been found to contain other harmful contaminants, like heavy metals and bacteria.

Although the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration calls Kratom a “drug of concern”, it is not currently regulated as a controlled substance. On the state level, Alabama and several other states have banned the sale and possession of Kratom outright. Sadly, though, many states still allow the sale of Kratom at vape shops and convenience stores – a fact that has led many people to refer to it as “Gas Station Heroin”.

Beasley Allen lawyers are working diligently to combat the spread of this highly dangerous product, which is typically sold without any warnings or information concerning health risks, dosing instructions, serving sizes, the concentration of mitragynine in each serving, or the other active ingredients that manufacturers add to their Kratom products. 

Hair Relaxer Litigation Update

Beasley Allen’s Hair Relaxer Team has been very active recently, both in the federal MDL in the Northern District of Illinois and in state court venues in Illinois and Georgia. We will take a brief look at this litigation. 

In the Dekalb County, Georgia, cases, the team has worked with defendants to finalize short-form and long-form complaints that will streamline the filing and service process. 

As for the Cook County, Illinois cases, the judge overseeing the litigation has been moved to another court, and at press time, a new judge had not yet been appointed. The plaintiffs have worked with the defendants to file a joint letter requesting a new scheduling order from the current presiding judge over the Cook County law division. 

In the MDL, bellwether cohort selections are being carefully reviewed by various teams nationwide after a comprehensive evaluation process was created and submitted to the court for consideration at the end of April. In the meantime, discovery against other defendants continues.

GLP1/Ozempic Litigation Update

The GLP1/Ozempic MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania continues to evolve. The number of filed cases in the GLP1/Ozempic MDL has now surpassed 1,600, reflecting the growing concern over the alleged health risks associated with GLP1 medications. The litigation, which involves personal injury cases linked to severe stomach and intestinal complications, has seen several key rulings and procedural advancements. 

The MDL judge has recently considered preliminary rulings on several issues, including the admissibility of expert testimony on the diagnosis of gastroparesis and the preemption-type issue raised by the defendants. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2025, where both sides will present their expert reports and evidence on the initial issues. 

This hearing will be pivotal in determining the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ expert opinions and will likely influence the trajectory of the litigation. A new scheduling order has been issued, outlining the deadlines for discovery and other pre-trial milestones. 

Beasley Allen is fully committed to the Ozempic/GLP-1 Litigation, and our lawyers are continuously available to help those who have been harmed by these drugs. 

Paraquat Litigation Update: A Pivotal Month For Hopeful Developments

Last month showcased heightened activity in the Paraquat MDL litigation.  The current number of litigated claims stands at 5,859. A number of claims face the prospect of dismissal, underscoring the dynamic nature of the litigation process. Cases with merit and legally served will proceed. 

The latest special master’s report has identified roughly 100 cases that are on the verge of dismissal due to deadline noncompliance with the Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ). In multi-district litigations, where filed claims may not necessarily progress to a courtroom trial, the PAQ serves as a critical tool. It functions as sworn testimony, offering evidence that defendants can review and cross-examine, akin to live testimony or a deposition. Failure to adhere to court deadlines with the PAQ can result in the removal of weak or inactive claims from the docket, highlighting the importance of timely submissions to keep claims viable.

Recent developments have given plaintiffs renewed confidence in this litigation, following a series of litigation setbacks. On April 14, 2025, just days after the cancellation of the MDL case management conference, a joint statement was filed by the parties that could pave the way for settling the majority of Paraquat cases. 

The parties requested the court to hold the seventh circuit appeal in abeyance, as the parties reportedly are in the framework of signed settlement negotiations. MDL Judge, Nancy Rosenstengel did not object to this request, which suggests a cooperative approach towards resolution and maintains her goal of judicial economy. In the upcoming 60 days, we can anticipate the announcement of criteria that will determine settlement qualification and factors influencing claim value.

Beasley Allen lawyers are optimistic about these developments. The efforts in April showed clear progress, and there is now an encouraging outlook for plaintiffs seeking resolution of their Paraquat claims.

Walgreens Agrees To $300 Million Settlement After Illegally Filed Opioid Prescriptions

Walgreens Boots Alliance has agreed to pay $300 million to settle claims that it unlawfully filled millions of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances. Since 1999, over 700,000 people in the U.S. have died from opioid overdoses, according to the CDC. 

The Justice Department alleges that for over a decade, Walgreens pharmacists knowingly filled illegitimate prescriptions and were pressured to do so quickly, ignoring legal protocols. This led to millions of opioid pills and other controlled substances being distributed illegally.

The government claims Walgreens dispensed excessive quantities of opioids and “trinity” prescriptions, a combination of opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants. Walgreens was accused of violating the Controlled Substances Act and the False Claims Act by seeking reimbursement for these prescriptions from Medicare and other federal health care programs.

Walgreens, which has over 8,000 pharmacies in the U.S., denies liability but agreed to the settlement. If found liable, Walgreens could have faced fines up to $80,850 per unlawful prescription. Following the settlement, the government dismissed its complaint. Walgreens also dropped a related legal action.

Source: CBS News

CONSUMER CORNER

Federal Judge Orders Bank Of America To Pay Over $540 Million

A federal judge has ordered Bank of America to pay over $540.3 million to settle a long-standing lawsuit with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC had accused the bank of underpaying mandatory deposit insurance assessments, initially claiming over $500 million, which later increased to $1.12 billion. U.S. District Judge Loren Alikhan’s decision, issued on March 31 and later made public, concludes a legal battle that began in 2017.

The FDIC sued Bank of America for $1.12 billion in 2017, claiming the bank failed to comply with a 2011 rule on reporting risk exposure. 

The court determined that Bank of America’s payment would cover underpaid assessments from mid-2013 to the end of 2014, plus interest. However, the court dismissed earlier claims due to the statute of limitations.

Judge Alikhan rejected Bank of America’s arguments against the rule and said the FDIC did not need a perfect measure for predicting losses. Bank of America denied any intent to evade payments.

The FDIC, established in 1933, insures deposits up to $250,000. Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, recently reported strong first-quarter earnings, with a profit of $7.4 billion and $27.37 billion in revenue.

Sources: Associated Press and Reuters

Uber Faces FTC Suit Over Deceptive Subscription

Uber Technologies Inc. faces a lawsuit from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which accuses the company of harming consumers through deceptive billing and cancellation practices tied to its Uber One subscription service. Filed on Monday, the FTC’s complaint alleges that Uber charged customers without their consent, misrepresented the savings of the program, and made the cancellation process excessively difficult, requiring up to 32 actions across 23 screens. Following the announcement, Uber’s shares fell by up to 5.3% in New York, settling at a 4.5% decline to $71.84 by 2:15 p.m.

Uber has refuted the FTC’s claims, stating that it does not enroll or charge customers without their consent and that cancellations typically take less than 20 seconds. A spokesperson expressed disappointment over the FTC’s decision to proceed with the lawsuit but expressed confidence that the courts would uphold Uber’s practices as clear and lawful.

The FTC’s commissioners voted 2-0 to pursue the case, with Commissioner Mark Meador recused. This lawsuit corroborates a Bloomberg News report from last year about the FTC’s investigation into Uber One’s enrollment and cancellation procedures. Additionally, the FTC has begun investigating whether Uber and Lyft coordinated to limit driver pay in New York City. The agency has recently taken similar actions against companies like Amazon and Adobe for making subscription cancellations overly difficult.

Source: Claims Journal

More Litigation Against Pharmacies Involving Weight Loss Drugs

Eli Lilly and Co. has filed lawsuits against Strive Compounding Pharmacy and Empower Pharmacy, accusing them of selling unapproved versions of its diabetes and weight loss drugs, Mounjaro and Zepbound. The lawsuits were filed in Delaware and New Jersey federal courts. It’s alleged these pharmacies are misleading consumers by marketing their products as safe and effective without FDA approval.

Eli Lilly argues that these pharmacies are exploiting its extensive safety and efficacy testing, with Empower’s oral tirzepatide formulation being particularly concerning. The company also highlights that Strive’s and Empower’s products, combined with other substances, lack clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness.

The lawsuits allege deceptive marketing practices under state laws, with Eli Lilly emphasizing the importance of FDA-approved medications for consumer safety. Both Strive and Empower defend their practices, asserting the value of providing affordable, personalized medication options.

Eli Lilly is represented by Oderah C. Nwaeze, Angela Lam and Renée M. Dudek of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and James F. Hurst, Diana M. Watral, Robin McCue, Ryan Moorman, James Hileman, Joshua L. Simmons and David I. Horowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The cases are Eli Lilly and Co. v. Strive Pharmacy LLC, and Eli Lilly and Co. v. Empower Clinic Services LLC et al., case numbers 1:25-cv-00401 and 2:25-cv-02183, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S. District for the District of Delaware.

Source: Law360

A REVIEW AND LOOK AHEAD ON PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS

There have been several important developments recently in the ongoing battle involving Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). Beasley Allen has been involved in the PBM litigation and is monitoring current legislative activity very closely. Our firm has previously represented several states in the early stages of the PBM litigation. Beasley Allen is preparing a PBM class action, which will be filed very soon. We are also in discussions with several states relating to potential PBM litigation. I predict this litigation will increase dramatically over the next few months. 

Unfortunately, PBMs were able to operate under the radar for a very long time. Few people even knew what a PBM was, and certainly did not know how they actually operated. There are several areas that Beasley Allen lawyers are currently looking into. Stay tuned.

We wrote about PBMs in the September 2024 issue of this Report. We set out how PBMs have been operating. I believe it will be helpful to repeat the information we provided at that time.  For that reason, we are including the full rendition as found in the Report. 

A Scathing Report By FCA On PBMs

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released a blistering report on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) that has surely put them in the “hot seat”—if they were not already there. If the American people were asked if they know what a PBM is, very few would say yes. 

PBMs are corporate middlemen in the pharmacy supply chain that play a big role with respect to how much patients and health plans pay for prescription drugs.  PBMs have been greatly criticized for the practices they claim allegedly lower costs, but in actuality, they have a detrimental impact on access to medications while also driving up drug costs.

After a two-year investigation into the extreme market control of CVS Health Corporation, the Cigna Group, UnitedHealth Group, Humana Inc, MedImpact Holdings, and 19 BlueCross BlueShields, the FTC has issued an interim report detailing its findings with respect to PBM practices. 

The report outlines how vertical integration and concentration have given considerable power to the country’s six largest PBMs, allowing them to control almost 95% of all prescription drugs filled in the United States with little transparency. 

Just the top three PBMs, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx, account for almost 80% of the market. The largest PBMs also integrate with the largest insurers and retail pharmacies, causing even more issues within our healthcare system. Increased concentration and vertical integration allow PBMs to control drug costs and patients’ access to medication.      

The report discusses how PBMs are inflating drug prices and overcharging patients, which is highly disturbing considering that PBMs were originally created to help control the rising costs of prescription drugs.   The report raises issues with PBMs driving patients away from less-expensive medications, which results in further increases in drug prices for patients.  

The FTC found that the PBMs controlling the market can set higher drug prices without any consequence to their business because they can just require patients to use the pharmacy that offers the PBM the best deal, as opposed to the patient. For patients on Medicare, their out-of-pocket expenses are increased because their cost-sharing is based on a percentage of the drug price.        

The report also addresses the impact PBMs have on independent pharmacies, suggesting that they may be contributing to the collapse of our nation’s independent pharmacies. PBMs have become so integrated with health plans and other entities that they have come at a great expense to the independent pharmacies whose patients are being steered away. 

The FTC’s findings include that PBMs often impose harmful contract terms on independent pharmacies that impede their ability to stay in business. Many independent pharmacies provide medication to rural and underserved areas; therefore, these patients’ access to medication in these areas may be seriously at risk. 

According to the FTC, approximately 10% of independent retail pharmacies in rural America closed between 2013 and 2022.

Chair of the FTC, Lina M. Khan, JD, commented that “The report also details how PBMs can squeeze independent pharmacies that many Americans—especially those in rural communities—depend on for essential care.”  She further stated:

The FTC will continue to use all our tools and authorities to scrutinize dominant players across health care markets and ensure that Americans can access affordable health care.

These revenue-driving PBMs are working to increase profits by manipulating drug prices at the expense of patients and the independent pharmacies that are looking to fill their prescriptions. Douglas Hoey, PharmD, CEO of the National Community Pharmacists Association, stated the issues very succinctly:

In recent years, the pharmacy benefits space has undergone massive transformation. It’s no longer 2005. Without question—and as the interim report makes clear—the marketplace has exploded because of countless mergers and acquisitions as well as tactics like patient steering and take-it-or-leave-it contracting. It’s a system that may work for massive PBM middlemen, but it’s anti-consumer and anti-competitive. It has been abundantly clear for years that policymakers must level the playing field. Congress must swiftly enact reforms to rein them in, and states should continue doing so as well. Regulators at all levels must keep a close eye on these entities and enforce the laws that are on the books. And the FTC must continue its investigation and pursue the information that the PBMs have so far defiantly withheld. Patients and community pharmacies need this fight to be finished, and need it urgently.

This FTC report is anticipated to be just the initial result of a nationwide crackdown on PBMs and how they take advantage of and harm patients and independent pharmacists. 

Sources: Federal Trade Commission, Drug Topics, National Community Pharmacists Association

We hoped at that time that this information would get the attention of elected officials, as well as help inform the public. It may well have achieved that goal. Let’s take a look at what has happened since September of last year relating to PBMs. 

Governor Ivey Signs PBM Regulation Into Law

Alabama took needed action that will curb PFM abuses of the system. Governor Kay Ivey has signed the Community Pharmacy Relief Act (Senate Bill 252) into law. This legislation introduced new regulations for Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) that will support small pharmacies in Alabama and protect consumers. This is a major victory for both independent pharmacies and consumers. 

PBMs were created by Congress to act as intermediaries between drug stores and insurance companies, determining patient out-of-pocket costs and pharmacy reimbursements. Mike Vinson, president of Adams Drugs in Montgomery, highlighted that reimbursements to independent drug stores quite often fall short of their costs. The legislative reform aims to ensure fair reimbursements, enhance transparency, and safeguard patient access. As Mike Vinson says, there are times when an independent pharmacy will actually sell a drug for less than its cost. 

The Alabama Pharmacy Association (APA) reported that community pharmacies are closing rapidly, with 10 closures since early 2025 due to PBM practices. Over 120 Alabama pharmacies participated in a walkout in February, which definitely got the attention of Alabama lawmakers. I believe this involvement helped in the bill’s success.

As stated above, very few people, including many Alabama legislators, had any idea what a PBM is or what they were actually doing. Members of the Alabama Senate and House of Representatives became informed and took action. Once the PBMs questionable activities were exposed, legislative support grew rapidly. 

The legislation passed unanimously in both the Senate and House, getting final approval on April 8. My brother, Sen. Billy Beasley, was the bill’s sponsor. He and Rep. Philip Rigsby, who carried the bill in the House, both emphasized the positive impact on community pharmacists and patients in Alabama.

Billy has been working on the PBM problems for several years. He certainly got my attention. I was shocked to learn what all the PBMs had been doing and that they were getting away with it. Billy made known how independent pharmacies and prescription drug purchasers were being overcharged and abused by the PBMs. 

I am told by observers that Billy’s leadership was the primary factor in this legislation becoming law. Billy is a retired pharmacist, and he has been battling PBMs for several years. He never gave up, and the people of Alabama are the real winners in this battle. 

Now Congress Has An Opportunity To Get Involved

A bipartisan group of state attorneys general has urged Congress to pass legislation banning pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), their parent companies, and affiliates from owning and operating pharmacies. This move aims to boost competition and fairness in the pharmaceutical market. It’s badly needed and hopefully will pass and become law.

PBMs, in their intended role, act as intermediaries between insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and have caused a huge increase in costs due to their market monopolies. The attorneys general contended that prohibiting PBMs from owning pharmacies would foster competition, provide consumers with more choices, and lower prices. There is no doubt that the conduct of PBMs has hurt independent pharmacies and consumers. 

The letter, signed by attorneys general from 40 states and territories, highlights that the three largest PBMs—CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, and Express Scripts—process 80% of the country’s prescriptions and earn 60% of specialty drug revenue. PBMs’ ownership of large pharmacies leads to manipulated prices and limited availability of medications. The recent action in Alabama made this abundantly clear. 

From 2013 to 2022, about 10% of independent rural pharmacies closed, according to a Federal Trade Commission report. The attorneys general emphasized the need for legislation to prevent PBMs from using their affiliated pharmacies to gain unfair advantages and force competitors out of business.

Alabama legislators learned lots about how the PBMs have abused a system that was set up originally for a good purpose, but wound up being used improperly. Alabama took action. Now Congress has a duty to do the same. 

Conclusion

I am honored that Beasley Allen has played a key role in the PBM matter. I am also proud of my brother Billy, who paved the way in Alabama for the legislative changes that were made. The members of the Senate and House did their job. I commend Gov. Ivey for her important role in this matter. 

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. 

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

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

The Mass Torts Section

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

The Toxic Torts Section

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

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section

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

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section

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

The Administrative Section

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 our 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
• Social Media 
• Talcum Powder
• Truck Accidents 
• Ultra-Processed Foods
• Video Game Addiction

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

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

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

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

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

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

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter

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

Recalls Update

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

The Jere Beasley Report

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

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

The Art Of Witness Management: Direct And Cross-Examination Tips

Ali Hawthorne, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, has prepared some recommendations relating to witnesses and their use at trial. Ali, a tremendously talented trial lawyer, will discuss witness testimony at trial. 

Effective witness management is crucial for trial lawyers aiming to present a compelling case before a jury. Both direct and cross-examination require distinct strategies to ensure the witness’s testimony supports your case and strengthens your position. Here are some essential tips for mastering the art of witness management during direct and cross-examination.

Direct Examination

Direct examination is your opportunity to tell a compelling story through the witness’s testimony. As trial lawyers, we all know that a well-told story through the witness’s testimony can make complex facts more relatable and memorable. However, we often underestimate the amount of time and effort we should be putting into preparing our direct examinations, frequently prioritizing more challenging aspects of the trial, like cross-examination.  However, direct examination is time and again the most important part of the trial, and we should not be assuming our witnesses can easily answer open-ended questions or tell their story exactly the way we want the jury to hear it, at least without putting in the work before trial.  

One of the biggest mistakes lawyers make is not adequately and thoroughly preparing their witnesses for direct examination.  Not only should you prepare their questions in advance, but you should mock up the witness’s direct examination before trial in order to allow the witness to get used to answering your open-ended questions so they can become comfortable and articulate on the stand.  Lack of preparation can lead to confusion and inconsistent testimony. 

Lawyers must ensure their witnesses understand the questions and know exactly what to expect before putting them on the stand.  Doing a mock-direct examination will also allow the witness to know how far into the story to go when answering each question, and in what order you want the jury to hear their facts.  

Ensuring your witness’s testimony has a logical flow that builds a coherent narrative allows the jury to easily follow the story and understand how each piece of testimony fits into the larger picture. 

A common problem on direct examination, often with nervous and unprepared witnesses, is that they answer open-ended questions with too long of a narrative, going too far into the story before we can ask the next question.  

A good way to prevent the witness from overloading the jury with too much narrative at one time is to prepare clear and concise questions to limit the witness’s ability to provide lengthy or off-topic answers. This keeps their testimony focused and relevant, and ensures they are sticking to the timeline you practiced.  

And when the witness eventually does accidentally stray from the topic, politely but firmly redirect them back to the question at hand, which, if you have practiced their direct examination, will serve as a reminder as to where in the examination you want them to be. 

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination is often a lawyer’s favorite part of the trial because it allows us to challenge the witness’s credibility and highlight weaknesses, inconsistencies, and biases in their testimony. Cross-examination is a lawyer’s playground.  However, while it is fun and exciting, being in complete control of the witness’s testimony on cross is just as, if not more important, than direct examination. 

The first way to control the cross-examination is to control the pace.  Controlling the pace of the cross-examination keeps the witness on their toes and prevents them from thinking too long about their answers. Additionally, in order to attack the weaknesses in the witness’s testimony and undermine their credibility, you must know every bit of the prior testimony as it relates to your case-in-chief.  

There is nothing more effective when trying to show the jury the adverse witness lacks credibility than catching them giving inconsistent testimony, and that type of witness control only comes with being prepared.  

The best way to prepare for this is to have a cross-examination outline.  At this point in the litigation, you have already taken a great deposition in this case where you were able to get the witness to commit to testimony that is favorable to your case.  You now know which portions of that favorable testimony you want to elicit in your cross-examination for the jury. 

However, the witness will now have been prepped to alter their testimony in a way that provides some damage control for their side.  The best way to prepare for this is for every strong point in your examination outline add a page and line citation to their deposition transcript where they gave the exact testimony you want the jury to hear.  This will allow you to have immediate recall to their prior testimony, where you can either control the witness and have them correct their testimony on the stand or impeach them if you have to.  

In both scenarios, you have shown the jury that they changed their answers for trial, and the jury will no longer trust or believe them. In addition to having the citation to the transcript ready and available, go ahead and have the testimony pulled either in hard copy form or on an electronic demonstrative that can be quickly used for impeachment.   

The worst thing a lawyer can do is assume they know the case so well that they can remember every inconsistent statement without preparing their outline with page and line citations, then wasting the jury’s time trying to find the testimony in the transcript.  The jury will now be annoyed with the lawyer as opposed to the untrustworthy witness.   

Just like with direct examination, thorough preparation and knowing the witness’s prior statements inside out are crucial. Lack of preparation during cross-examination can lead to missed opportunities and a failure to challenge the witness’s credibility.

Conclusion

Whether it is direct examination or cross-examination, controlling the witness is key.  No matter whether your witness is friendly or adverse, you should always focus on maintaining complete control.  Overall, you should be prepared, ask concise questions, avoid overloading the jury with too much information that can cause the examination to go astray, avoid debating with the witness and allowing them to regain control, and be flexible and ready to adapt your questioning based on the witness’s responses as opposed to sticking rigidly to a pre-planned script.  Direct and cross-examination can be very powerful for your case, but they can also be very destructive without the appropriate preparation and control.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Kimberly Youngblood: Executive Director

Kimberly Youngblood is the Executive Director at Beasley Allen. This is a vitally important position in the firm. She oversees and manages the daily operations of three key departments within the Administrative Section.

• Human Resources Department – The HR Department ensures adherence to employment laws, secures benefits at competitive pricing, supports employees with issue resolution and life events, maintains employment records, and organizes employee appreciation events and giveaways. Additionally, HR manages firm notaries, bar licenses, and attorney group memberships.

• Information Technology Department – The IT Department secures our network, configures new technology, manages firm equipment, and provides technical support. It also oversees building security and fire alarm systems.

• Marketing Department – The Marketing Department is responsible for overseeing the firm’s website, managing social media platforms, coordinating awards and recognition for our attorneys and firm, and obtaining media coverage for our projects and accomplishments.

Kimberly’s tenure has been marked by numerous notable accomplishments that have significantly contributed to the success of our firm. Kimberly says she appreciates her experience at Beasley Allen due to the firm’s commitment to “helping those who need it most.” Kimberly expresses gratitude for Tom Methvin’s exemplary leadership, as well as the collaboration of skilled Section Directors and her dedicated team. Kimberly considers herself fortunate to work alongside outstanding individuals who perform exceptional work for the firm. She values the supportive and collaborative environment that exists at Beasley Allen.

Kimberly is married to Steve Youngblood. They have two sons who are first responders: Sgt. Christopher Youngblood with the Montgomery Fire Department and Capt. Stephen Youngblood Jr., a police officer for the City of Millbrook. Kimberly and Steve are proud of their sons’ professional achievements and their families. They also have five grandchildren.

In her spare time, Kimberly enjoys drawing, practicing the art of calligraphy, reading, and spending time with family and friends. Kimberly is a dedicated, effective leader at Beasley Allen, and we are blessed to have her in a key leadership role. 

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Clay Barnett

Clay Barnett, a principal in the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, has been an integral part of Beasley Allen since 2007, focusing primarily on product defect class actions, particularly in the automotive sector. He describes his enduring fascination with mechanical systems as a driving force behind his legal career. As a teenager, Clay worked on repairing outdoor power equipment and marine engines, acquiring practical skills that have proven vital in his legal practice. This distinctive background in vehicle repair equips him with valuable insights that enhance his ability to identify and prosecute product defects effectively.

Clay’s academic journey began with a Bachelor of Arts in 1997, followed by a law degree from the University of Alabama in 2001. He is deeply committed to integrity and transparency, which form the cornerstone of Beasley Allen’s values. Clay is a devoted family man outside the courtroom, sharing life with his wife, Dr. Elise Plauche Barnett, and their two children. He actively coaches their sports teams, emphasizing the importance of good sportsmanship and teamwork. An avid outdoorsman, Clay enjoys hunting, fishing, and participating in motorsport endurance races throughout the Southeast. 

For Clay, what makes Beasley Allen truly unique as a firm is our steadfast commitment to integrity and transparency. He remarks:

We maintain honesty in our interactions with opposing counsel and the courts, and our reputation is a testament to our litigation style: we engage vigorously, fairly, and prioritize clear communication. 

We are fortunate to have Clay, an exceptional lawyer who consistently puts clients first, on our team!

Erin Beaty

Erin Beaty has been a valued member of the Beasley Allen team for nearly five years. She is a legal secretary in the Toxic Torts Section, specializing in medical record management. In her role, Erin provides essential clerical support to Matt Griffith, a lawyer in the Section, coordinating the requests and retrieval of medical records. Her ability to collaborate effectively with her team and vendors helps ensure that the process runs smoothly, enabling the firm to maintain its high standards of client service. 

Outside of work, Erin is dedicated to her family. She has been happily married for 12 years and has two wonderful children, Rylie and Rowan, and a golden doodle named Remy. The family resides in Millbrook and enjoys spending time together, often visiting the zoo whenever possible. Erin enjoys various activities in her spare time, including baking, reading, walking, and organizing or cleaning around the house. 

One of the aspects Erin enjoys most about her work at Beasley Allen is the opportunity to help clients. She takes pride in being part of a knowledgeable and supportive team dedicated to making a positive difference in the lives of those they serve.

We are fortunate to have Erin at Beasley Allen.

Alicia Hubler

Alicia Hubler has been an invaluable member of the Beasley Allen team for 23 years, with her 24th anniversary approaching this September. As a legal secretary in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, Alicia provides vital administrative support to several attorneys, which is crucial in helping the section run smoothly daily. Her responsibilities include managing legal documents, scheduling appointments, and assisting with various tasks, from organizing meetings and teleconferences to coordinating travel arrangements. Additionally, Alicia plays a key role in the summer law clerk program, helping to plan events and activities for aspiring legal professionals. 

Outside of work, Alicia cherishes her family life with her husband, Allen Hubler, and their lively 8-year-old daughter, Ava. Together, they enjoy various activities that keep them active and engaged. In her spare time, Alicia embraces her love for pickleball and swimming, relishes cookouts with family and friends, and enjoys curling up with a good book. A devoted Alabama football fan, Alicia eagerly supports her team during the season. 

One of Alicia’s favorite aspects of her job is the close-knit atmosphere she experiences at Beasley Allen. She appreciates the sense of family that permeates the firm and finds fulfillment in working alongside colleagues who support one another. 

We are fortunate to have Alica at Beasley Allen.

Stephanie Monplaisir

Stephanie Monplaisir, a principal in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability section, embarked on her journey at Beasley Allen in 2011, focusing on complex litigation and appellate proceedings. From a young age, her desire to become a lawyer was ignited by her love for debate and a keen interest in historical justice. Her studies in Political Science and Psychology deepened her passion for research and writing, which she brought into law school with the intention of helping others. 

Acknowledging the vital lessons learned from failure, Stephanie has received multiple accolades, including being named a Midsouth Super Lawyers Rising Star since 2018 and the Beasley Allen Lawyer of the Year for Products Liability that same year. 

A summa cum laude graduate of both Troy University and Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Stephanie embodies the dedication that characterizes Beasley Allen. She balances her professional commitment with a strong family life, alongside her husband, David, a Captain with the Montgomery Fire Department. Active members of Frazer Methodist Church, the couple enjoys spending quality time with their two children and engaging in community activities. Stephanie also loves brunching with friends, playing guitar, and listening to podcasts. 

Describing her legal practice, Stephanie likens it to piecing together a puzzle, challenging herself to find the necessary pieces during discovery. She expresses, “My favorite part of practicing law is uncovering that elusive puzzle piece that others might overlook and then presenting the complete picture for a judge.” 

Stephanie believes that mentorship is what sets Beasley Allen apart. She reflects, “I started as a law clerk just before graduating from law school, and over the past 14 years, I’ve had the privilege of working with some of America’s top trial lawyers. The insights I’ve gained here—from Greg Allen’s meticulous deposition preparation to Labarron Boone’s trial expertise and Cole Portis’s negotiation skills—extend far beyond what any law school can teach. These experiences highlight the firm’s dedication to mentorship and professional growth.” 

We are extremely fortunate to have Stephanie, a talented and dedicated lawyer, with us! She is a tremendous asset to Beasley Allen!

Amy Ross

Amy Ross, a paralegal in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section at Beasley Allen, recently celebrated five years since returning to the firm in January 2020. Amy joined Beasley Allen initially in August 2007, working in the Toxic Torts and Mass Torts Sections until July 2011. Her journey brought her back to the firm when her family relocated to the area, and she quickly found her place in the Section, working on various cases, including qui tam claims, wrongful termination, and business fraud. In her role, Amy collaborates closely with Larry Golston, Leon Hampton, and Jessi Haynes, lawyers in the Section, advocating for clients facing injustices in the workplace and beyond. 

Amy has been married to Caleb Ross for 16 years, and together they have a vibrant household that includes their two children, a 10-year-old daughter and an 8-year-old son, along with a playful Goldendoodle named Winnie. The family has navigated nine moves due to Caleb’s career as a football coach, but recent changes have brought them back home. 

Caleb has transitioned to a role as the Assistant Director at the Alabama High School Athletic Association, allowing the family to settle into a new chapter. Amy stays busy with her children’s activities in her spare time, but she finds joy in reading, watching true crime documentaries, traveling, and spending quality time with her family. 

Amy says her favorite aspect of working at Beasley Allen is the sense of community. She cherishes the relationships she has formed with her colleagues and is passionate about supporting clients in their time of need. We are most fortunate to have Amy at Beasley Allen.

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Several of our staff employees being featured in this issue offer their favorite Bible verses.

Amy Ross

Amy Ross shares several of her favorite verses with us. The first scripture brings her such comfort and peace, knowing that we will never be alone and in the darkness if we follow Jesus.

Jesus spoke to all the people, saying, “I am the Light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will not walk in darkness. He will have the Light of Life.” John 8:12

The second verse reminds Amy that words are powerful and to choose them wisely. She can use her words to help and to build people up or to hurt and destroy.  

Pleasing words are like honey. They are sweet to the soul and healing to the bones. Proverbs 16:24

Amy says a close friend reminded her of this promise when she needed it most. Amy repeated it during that difficult time and still repeats it to herself when things do not seem to be going her way, or the way she thinks they should go.  

We know that God makes all things work together for the good of those who love Him and are chosen to be a part of His plan. Romans 8:28

Erin Beaty

Erin Beaty offers one of her favorite verses below. She says this is a verse that will help all of us do God’s will in our lives. 

Everything you do should be done in love.  1 Corinthians 16:14

MONTHLY REMINDERS

As I have said consistently, this section will always be included in the Report each month. There is always a need for a person to be reminded of ways to improve all areas of their life. That includes family, work, and social. Statements from respected persons of note can be most helpful in that regard to those who read them. The Holy Bible should actually be the foundation in each area. The following comprises wise counsel from a number of individuals. 

These reminders are for all of us at Beasley Allen. They are put in the Report for a purpose. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. In addition to all of us at Beasley Allen, we send these reminders to those 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 from them in their daily lives. 

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

2 Chronicles 7:14

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

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

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

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

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

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

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

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

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

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

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

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

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

PARTING WORDS

Andy Birchfield Inducted Into Mass Torts Made Perfect 2025 Trial Lawyer Hall Of Fame – An Honor Well Deserved

In a remarkable recognition of his contributions to the field of mass torts and product liability litigation, Andy Birchfield has been inducted into the Mass Torts Made Perfect 2025 Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame. This national honor celebrates Andy’s unwavering commitment to justice and his exceptional skills in representing victims of corporate wrongdoing.

Andy has dedicated his career to championing the rights of individuals and families affected by reckless and wrongdoing corporations. As the head of Beasley Allen’s Mass Torts Section, Andy has led numerous high-profile cases, securing significant settlements and verdicts for his clients. His work has spanned major litigations involving pharmaceuticals like Vioxx and Xarelto, as well as product liability cases against companies such as Johnson & Johnson (J&J). He is currently spearheading the ongoing talcum powder litigation against J&J.

Raised in Pell City, Alabama, Andy’s journey in law began with his graduation cum laude from Samford University in 1988, followed by a Magna Cum Laude degree from Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in 1992. Joining Beasley Allen in 1996, Andy quickly made his mark by focusing on consumer fraud and commercial litigation. The firm’s Mass Torts Section had been established by 2000. Andy had gained national recognition for his leadership in pharmaceutical litigation.

One of Andy’s most notable achievements was his role in the federal Vioxx Multidistrict Litigation, where he co-led the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee and served as lead or co-lead counsel in five trials, including a landmark $51 million verdict against Merck. His relentless pursuit of justice continues as he leads the ongoing battle against Johnson & Johnson’s attempts to avoid responsibility for all the harm done by its talcum powder products. The company’s talc products have caused thousands of women to develop ovarian cancer, and thousands have died. 

Beyond his legal practice, Andy is deeply committed to his community. In 2010, he and his wife founded Children’s Hope, an orphan ministry in Jacmel, Haiti. His dedication to both his clients and his community exemplifies the qualities celebrated by the Mass Torts Made Perfect Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame.

Andy Birchfield’s induction into the Hall of Fame is a testament to his extraordinary career and his unwavering dedication to justice. His work has not only brought significant victories for his clients but also a number of important safety and health changes nationwide. Andy has also set a high standard for trial lawyers nationwide.

Beasley Allen is blessed to have Andy in the firm in an important leadership position. Andy exemplifies the firm’s core doctrine and that is by doing things the right way and for the right reason.