Alison Beanum

Profil complet

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, 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
 

Expérience

Alison obtained favorable verdicts in the following notable trials:

• In a class action bench trial, Alison successfully represented a non-profit religious entity and defeated the class members’ claims for restitution (USD 80M+), injunctive relief, and declaratory relief, arising from our client’s alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
• Following a 6-week jury trial arising from a contentious neighbor dispute involving claims and cross-claims for breach of the governing documents, invasion of privacy, defamation, trespass, and nuisance, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of more than USD 10M in favor of Alison’s clients.
• The plaintiff alleged that she was exposed to mold and asbestos in her apartment. Following a 3-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Alison’s client, the apartment management company, on the issue of causation. 
• In a sensitive case arising from two minor plaintiffs’ allegations of sexual abuse by a former teacher, Alison’s educational institution client admitted liability, but challenged the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. Following a 3-week trial, the jury awarded millions less than plaintiffs’ pre-trial demands. 
• The plaintiff alleged that she sustained serious injuries when she tripped and fell over a piece of heavy machinery located on the premises owned by Alison’s client. Following a 2-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict.

Alison obtained summary judgment rulings on the following key issues:

• In a premises liability case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Alison’s client on the grounds that the allegedly dangerous condition – rainwater on the ground – was open and obvious. Plaintiff appealed the ruling, arguing that, while standing water may be open and obvious, the “lateral force” of moving water is not. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
• In a 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 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.
• In a sexual abuse case, Alison’s client 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

• Commercial Disputes