Alison Beanum is a skilled trial attorney who routinely goes toe-to-toe against some of the most prominent sexual misconduct, employment, and personal injury lawyers in California. She also has substantial experience defending class action lawsuits, including matters involving claims asserted under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Americas with Disabilities Act/Unruh Act, and California’s habitability laws. Often retained before litigation commences, Alison is known for her in-depth investigations, her early case evaluation and negotiation, and her ability to successfully litigate those issues that remain. In these highly sensitive cases, clients turn to Alison for her deep experience, compassion, creativity, and her track record for securing the very best results for her clients – whether through settlement or trial.
Beyond her trial work, Alison actively counsels her clients on employment-related issues, including hiring practices, the development of workplace policies and training programs, implementation of alternative workweek schedules, workplace investigations, and litigation avoidance practices. Alison also assists her clients in preparing employment contracts and separation agreements.
Over the years, Alison has also developed a niche practice in real estate law. She represents landlords in office, retail, and residential leasing projects of all sizes. She has experience drafting a wide variety of real estate agreements, including leases, subleases, rent relief agreements, amendments, assignments and assumptions, option agreements, and property management agreements. Alison also provides her clients with a full range of litigation-related services, including the resolution of contract disputes and defense of claims brought under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- US District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California
- US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- J.D., Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 2002
- B.A., University of California at Irvine, 1999
- American Bar Association, Litigation Section
- California Bar Association, Litigation Section
- C.N. v. Public Entity and Principal. In this sexual abuse case, Alison moved for summary judgment on behalf of an individual defendant, the school principal, arguing that (1) she lacked final authority over the decision to hire/fire the alleged perpetrator; and (2) her decision to investigate and/or impose discipline in response to plaintiff's complaints was discretionary and, therefore, the doctrine of qualified immunity protected her from liability arising from those decisions. Following oral argument, the court agreed, granting summary judgment in full.
- A.D.M. v. Public Entity. In this sexual abuse case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Alison’s client on the ground that plaintiff failed to timely comply with the mandatory deadlines set forth in California’s Tort Claims Act. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that “newly discovered evidence” triggered an exemption from the Tort Claims Act. Following oral argument, the court adopted the arguments raised by Alison in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for new trial, and denied the motion in its entirety, resulting in a final judgment against the plaintiff.
- Settlements in Sexual Abuse Lawsuits. Alison played a key role in litigating and favorably resolving more than a dozen high-profile sexual abuse lawsuits, collectively filed by more than 150 alleged minor victims.
- John TDC Doe, et al. v. Public Entity. In this jury trial, plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually abused by their former teacher. Our client admitted liability, but challenged the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The jury awarded significantly less than plaintiffs’ pre-trial demands.
- Morales, et al. v. Premises Owner. In this wrongful death jury trial, plaintiffs alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos through fibers brought home on the clothing of her son, who previously worked as a carpenter in our client’s buildings. Plaintiffs demanded USD 900,000 before trial. The jury allocated minimal comparative fault against our client, resulting in a net judgment of only USD 15,000.
- Sanchez, et al. v. Apartment Owner and Management Company. The plaintiffs alleged that they developed respiratory problems as a result of exposure to mold and asbestos in their apartment. Plaintiffs demanded USD 1 million before trial. The jury returned a defense verdict.
- Chappell v. National Home Improvement Retailer. The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she tripped and fell over a piece of heavy machinery on our client’s premises. She sustained a torn rotator cuff requiring two surgeries. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel requested a verdict of USD 300,000. The jury returned a defense verdict.
- “An Overview of the Underlying Policy and Application of the Raw Material and Bulk Supplier Defenses,” DRI Toxic Torts newsletter
- “Reclassification of Two Industrial Chemicals in New Report on Carcinogens May Increase Toxic Tort Litigation,” Daily Journal
- “US Navy’s Fault Should Be Considered Despite Immunity,” Daily Journal