Latest / The Jon and Marc Podcast / Beasley Allen Disqualified??

Transcript

Beasley Allen Disqualified?? · The Jon and Marc Podcast

• 0:00
  Maybe we should use this as an opportunity to kick him out like
• 0:02
  a boy band behind closed doors and say you're out of here.
• 0:05
  We've had a meeting. Welcome back to Tor TALK.
• 0:10
  I'm Mark Ryu, and if you thought the Mass Torah world was taking
• 0:13
  a breather in 2026, think again. We are hitting the ground
• 0:17
  running today with a massive $8.5 million verdict against
• 0:22
  Uber, a brand new MDL for Lyft, the social media trial
• 0:25
  everyone's been waiting for, plus a shocking disqualification
• 0:30
  location. The talk litigation.
• 0:31
  Joe, let's dive into the headlines shaking up this week.
• 0:36
  Yeah, Mark, like you said, really busy week.
• 0:38
  Everybody's talking mostly about that huge verdict from Uber, so.
• 0:42
  What happened $8.5 million? Yeah, good result, right.
• 0:47
  The plaintiffs, we were seeking a lot more, but a whole.
• 0:50
  Lot more. Anytime you can hold a company
• 0:52
  like Uber libel, it's a victory. So in this case, it went to
• 0:56
  trial in the MDL. The court had the case, it was
• 1:00
  actually held in Arizona and the jury came back after about a
• 1:04
  three-week trial with his $8.5 million verdict.
• 1:08
  But what's really important about this is that the jury
• 1:11
  found that the driver was an agent of Uber.
• 1:15
  So they're no longer believing that independent contractor
• 1:18
  argument that Uber's been making for years and years.
• 1:21
  Not just in this case, but you also see those other car
• 1:24
  accident Uber cases where they always allege the driver was an
• 1:28
  independent contractor. So that was a huge precedent.
• 1:31
  But I will be honest and have to share with everybody, the jury
• 1:35
  didn't find that Uber was negligent in its, you know,
• 1:39
  safety reviews or basically the design of the platform, but
• 1:43
  instead found that somebody could believe that the driver
• 1:46
  was one of their agents. And because of that, Uber's
• 1:49
  responsible for this verdict. So we still really haven't
• 1:53
  gotten to the point after two trials where they're finding a
• 1:57
  connection between Uber's negligence and the injuries to
• 1:59
  the plaintiffs. So there's still work to do, but
• 2:02
  this is a huge victory. The next trials in the MDLS teed
• 2:05
  up to start in April, in a couple months.
• 2:08
  So we'll learn from this trial, keep the momentum going, and
• 2:11
  hopefully have another good result in April.
• 2:14
  Yeah. And for the verdict for 8.5,
• 2:16
  were there any punitive damages in there or none?
• 2:19
  Right. So this verdict, no punitive
• 2:21
  damages. So right, punitive damages are
• 2:24
  used to kind of punish the defendant for their will for
• 2:27
  reckless conduct. No punitives awarded in this
• 2:29
  specific case. If you've been sitting on the
• 2:32
  sidelines of mass tours because you just don't know where to
• 2:34
  start, the cost, the lead quality, the complexity, we need
• 2:38
  to talk. And if you're already in the
• 2:40
  game and you just want a partner you can trust, we really need to
• 2:43
  talk. At R Digital, we're engineer for
• 2:45
  performance and built to scale your docket.
• 2:48
  Go to rdigitalmedia.com to get started, stop guessing and start
• 2:52
  growing. Moving on to something very
• 2:55
  close to Uber, Lyft sex abuse. We talked last week about the
• 2:58
  motion pending before the JPML for consolidation.
• 3:02
  The panel granted A plaintiff's motion and these cases are
• 3:05
  headed to the Northern District of California, which what should
• 3:08
  we expect to see over the next few months?
• 3:10
  Like you mentioned, Mark, this was one of the two mass court
• 3:14
  cases we were waiting to hear from the panel.
• 3:16
  It's good news, first panel of the year, we already have two
• 3:19
  new MDLS form and this Lyft case, it's going to a great
• 3:23
  venue, the Northern District of California.
• 3:26
  That's where the Uber MDL is also pending in California.
• 3:30
  So we have an experience court. We kind of have the playbook
• 3:34
  already laid out from Uber in this litigation.
• 3:37
  So I expect to move much quicker.
• 3:39
  We'll see a lot of the same players from the plaintiff side.
• 3:42
  I think that these cases will move a lot quicker towards
• 3:45
  trial. So I'm hoping before 27, we'll
• 3:47
  end up having our first trial in the Lyft litigation.
• 3:50
  And so two years from inception to trial in an MDL in a mass
• 3:54
  tort, unheard of. But with this road map already
• 3:57
  laid by Uber, hopefully we'll be able to get there and then more
• 4:00
  importantly, enact some changes with Uber and Lyft and how
• 4:03
  they're vetting their drivers. Yeah, I bet you Lyft is watching
• 4:06
  this Uber MDL. Very closely now.
• 4:08
  I'm sure they are just like the rest of us.
• 4:11
  Moving on social media addiction, the trial of the year
• 4:14
  is underway with opening statements concluded.
• 4:17
  What are some of the main arguments the plaintiffs and
• 4:20
  defendants are making in this trial?
• 4:22
  Fun fact before you answer, our Co host John Robinson is
• 4:25
  actually in LA at the trial as we speak.
• 4:28
  As you mentioned, this is the trial of the year.
• 4:30
  Everybody's excited to see what happens here.
• 4:33
  We have one of the best plaintiff trial lawyers, Mark
• 4:35
  Lanier. He's leading the charge and we
• 4:37
  got to hear his opening statement and basically what
• 4:40
  he's saying is that these huge tech companies we have met in
• 4:44
  Google left standing. They knew their products were
• 4:47
  dangerous and they didn't do anything about it.
• 4:49
  Not only that, they specifically designed the products and the
• 4:53
  algorithm so people could become addicted, specifically targeting
• 4:57
  the children. What's going on in this case is
• 4:59
  the defendants, they're following the big pharma
• 5:02
  playbook exactly as we expect. Blame the plaintiff, Say it was
• 5:06
  the plaintiff's problems. The parents didn't do enough and
• 5:09
  then also dispute the science. So they're saying the science is
• 5:12
  unsettled really, whether or not these platforms can cause
• 5:15
  addictions. And they're also highlighting in
• 5:17
  this specific case, although the plaintiff did treat with a
• 5:20
  number of providers, none of them have diagnosed the
• 5:24
  plaintiff with social media addiction.
• 5:26
  So even though the providers acknowledge that it can cause
• 5:30
  addiction, none of them have specifically diagnosed her,
• 5:33
  according to the defendants. We'll see how that all shakes
• 5:36
  out over the next couple weeks. Really excited to hear from John
• 5:40
  live from California with an update.
• 5:42
  We should have a verdict, the judge is hoping, by the end of
• 5:45
  the month. I can't wait to see what happens
• 5:46
  to this one. It's like the big tobacco
• 5:48
  litigation of my generation. It's going to be huge.
• 5:51
  There's a lot more cases pending like, you know, but if we get a
• 5:54
  good verdict in this case, which everybody's optimistic for, this
• 5:57
  case is going to take off. Moving on, we got some shocking
• 6:00
  news in the talcum powder litigation.
• 6:02
  There's a decision that came down for the New Jersey Apple
• 6:05
  division granting J&J's request to have the law firm of Beasley
• 6:09
  Allen disqualified from this litigation.
• 6:12
  You got some inside scoop on this?
• 6:13
  What's everyone saying on the streets here, Joe?
• 6:15
  Yeah, this was stunning. We rarely ever see this.
• 6:18
  There's been bad blood obviously brewing between J&J and Beasley
• 6:22
  Allen that's been leading or one of the main firms in both New
• 6:26
  Jersey State court action and in them DL.
• 6:29
  But briefly, what happened was J&J moved to disqualify Beasley
• 6:33
  Allen because an attorney who used to represent J&J during the
• 6:38
  bankruptcy, structuring and going over the strategy for
• 6:41
  that, retired from the practice of law, started a new company
• 6:45
  called Legacy, and basically ended up, according to the
• 6:48
  defendants, working with Beasley Allen to try to come up with a
• 6:52
  settlement matrix and a way to resolve these cases outside of
• 6:56
  the bankruptcy. And so they said, J&J alleged
• 7:00
  that this prior attorney violated ethical rules even
• 7:04
  though he had retired. Beasley Allen should have known
• 7:07
  and shouldn't have worked with them together to get this
• 7:09
  information on insight, on evaluation of the cases, the
• 7:13
  settlement matrix, things of that nature.
• 7:15
  So originally their request to disqualify Beasley Allen was
• 7:19
  denied. They appealed it up to the
• 7:20
  higher court in New Jersey and that ruling just came down,
• 7:24
  disqualified Beasley Allen from about 3600 cases in New Jersey
• 7:28
  State court. We're going to see how it pays
• 7:31
  out in the MDL where there's a similar motion ongoing.
• 7:35
  Not a good day at BZ Allen. No, not a good day at BZ Allen
• 7:39
  and not a good day for the plaintiff are either.
• 7:41
  I mean, this bad blood between J&J and the attorneys, you know,
• 7:45
  representing them, they've invested so much in this case,
• 7:48
  so much time, so much effort for these plaintiffs who again were
• 7:51
  hurt by this product that they knew for decades could cause
• 7:55
  cancer. So it seems a little bit
• 7:58
  misguided from J&J to be focusing on Beasley Allen
• 8:01
  instead of trying to get these cases resolved.
• 8:03
  So I'm sure Beasley Allen's going to peel this decision up.
• 8:07
  We'll see what happens, but we, just like Beasley Allen, wants
• 8:10
  to keep the focus on the injured plaintiffs and get all of these
• 8:13
  cases resolved. Are you putting your name into
• 8:15
  the hat there for leadership? Joe Fantini as the new
• 8:19
  replacement. No, they already have, you know,
• 8:21
  good bracket of leadership there.
• 8:23
  There's a lot of people on the bench that can help out.
• 8:25
  But we have a trial going on right now in Philadelphia Court
• 8:29
  of Common Pleas. So that's another talc powder.
• 8:32
  We're not quite on verdict watch.
• 8:34
  I think we could be last week. I checked the docket earlier
• 8:37
  this week. They're going over some
• 8:39
  potential jury instructions. So could be a huge number coming
• 8:42
  out of Philly next week and talc putting more pressures on J&J to
• 8:46
  do the right thing and resolve this litigation.
• 8:49
  Oh. Wow Joe, these are incredible
• 8:50
  updates compared to 2025. I feel like 2026 is just
• 8:54
  starting off with a bang. Every week there's new updates.
• 8:57
  Yeah, it's really exciting time in mass torts, a lot of
• 9:00
  momentum, hoping to keep the positive vibes going.
• 9:02
  Getting some good news for our clients out of these next two
• 9:05
  trials we're watching here. Should be some big numbers for
• 9:08
  the some very deserving clients. Everyone, thanks for watching.
• 9:12
  Make sure that you like and subscribe if you don't miss any
• 9:14
  episodes. We release this every week
• 9:16
  giving the updates and mass torts.
• 9:18
  And then in the comments below, let me know what you think about
• 9:20
  the Beasley Allen decision. Was it justified?
• 9:23
  Was it not justified? Looking forward to hearing from
• 9:25
  you Joe. Thank you again for another
• 9:27
  incredible week of Tor talk.