完整简历
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 in both state and federal courts, including matters involving claims asserted under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, Automatic Renewal Law, and 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.
As a compliment to her defense practice, Alison also serves as monitoring and consulting counsel for insurers in complex litigation. In this capacity, she provides an independent review and analysis of liability and damages exposure. She also leads mock trials and focus groups, participates in settlement efforts, assists in all aspects of pre-trial work, and serves as parachute trial counsel.
Admissions
- California
- US District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California
- US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Education
- J.D., Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 2002
- B.A., University of California at Irvine, 1999
Memberships
- American Bar Association, Litigation Section
- California Bar Association, Litigation Section
相关经验
- Howard v. Non-Profit Religious Entity. In this class action trial, Alison successfully defeated the class members’ claims for restitution (USD 80+Million), injunctive relief, and declaratory relief, arising from our client’s alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
- 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. Our client asserted that it acted reasonably, that the levels exposure were safe, and that plaintiffs’ conditions were not casually related to the alleged exposure. Plaintiffs demanded USD 1 million before trial. The jury returned a defense verdict.
- Morales, et al. v. Premises Owner. In this wrongful death jury trial, plaintiffs alleged that their decedent (the mother and wife of the plaintiffs) was exposed to asbestos through fibers brought home on the clothing of her son, who previously worked as a carpenter in a building owned by Alison’s client. The jury allocated minimal comparative fault against our client. The net judgment was far below our client’s statutory offer to compromise, resulting in costs being awarded to our client.
- John TDC Doe, et al. v. Public Entity. In this jury trial, plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually abused by their former teacher. Alison's client admitted liability, but challenged the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The jury awarded significantly less than plaintiffs’ pre-trial demands.
- Chappell v. National Home Improvement Retailer. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained serious injuries when she tripped and fell over a piece of heavy machinery on our client’s premises. Our client argued that the incident was caused by plaintiff’s own negligence. The jury returned a defense verdict.
- Settlements in Sexual Abuse Lawsuits. Over the years, Alison has litigated and favorably resolved dozens of high-profile sexual abuse lawsuits, collectively filed by more than 200 alleged minor victims.
- 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 California’s Tort Claims Act. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that “newly discovered evidence” triggered an exemption. 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.
- 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 the doctrine of qualified immunity protected her from liability arising from her decision to investigate and/or impose discipline upon the alleged perpetrator. Following oral argument, the court agreed, granting summary judgment in full.
Presentations
- "Limitations and Redress in Sexual Abuse Litigation,” Clyde & Co, March 2023
- “Limitations, Workers’ Compensation, and Civil Trials,” Clyde & Co, October 2022
- “Judicial Hellholes in the United States and How to Handle Them,” Clyde & Co, May 2022
- “AB 218 . . . What Now?” Southern California ReLiEF Annual Conference, January 2020
- “Best Defense Practices for Sexual Misconduct Cases,” Clyde & Co, July 2019
Sectors
- Education
- Insurance & Reinsurance
Services
