Rebecca A. Young

Thomas v. Little Rock Housing Auth., No. 4:22-CV-01032 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 3, 2025)
Obtained complete dismissal of all claims against a housing authority client alleging various Title VII claims, including sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliatory discharge.

Phillips v. Megalodon Pools, LLC, No. 04-cv-24-2818  (Ark. Cir. Ct. June 27, 2025)
All claims dismissed in construction defect case based on statute of repose and arguments that covering up a pool's structural defects with concrete does not amount to fraudulent concealment under Arkansas law to invoke a statutory exception. After extensive briefing and oral arguments, the court dismissed all claims.

Roberts v. Reebok International, LTD.  No. 63-cv-25-900227 (Ala. Cir. Ct. June 25, 2025)
Obtained dismissal of all claims through motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged she suffered catastrophic crush injuries and $3.7 million in damages resulting from use of a defective work safety shoe. The summary judgment argued Reebok did not have the requisite connection to the safety design and sale of the shoe to create liability under Alabama law. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

L. Moseley v. AmerisourceBergen, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:23-CV-683 (M.D. Ala. April 23, 2025)
Secured a third summary judgment win for a global pharmaceutical distributor client arising out of a pile-up accident caused by a tractor trailer. The summary judgment win found that all claims were preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

Kruglyak vs. Chevron, No. 63-CV-2024-000070 (Ala. Cir. Ct. February 21, 2025)
Dismissal of all claims for multinational energy corporation accused of negligently and wantonly allowing the plaintiff to be assaulted at two of its fuel-branded gas stations. Rebecca argued that all of the claims were time-barred and that the plaintiff had failed to prosecute the claims by failing to properly serve the complaint on the appropriate legally recognized agent. The plaintiff argued that his service on an individual owner for one of the fuel stations was sufficient service. In response, we maintained that there was insufficient evidence to show the level of control necessary to establish agency and that an alleged parent-subsidiary relationship alone was insufficient to establish agency for purposes of effectuating service of process.

Walter v. Staples, No. 47-CV-2022-900526 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Feb. 20, 2025)
Summary judgment granted for national retailer client that faced various premises liability claims following an injury caused during construction to the entryway of the retail store. The plaintiffs’ claims included negligence and wantonness, invoking punitive damages. We argued the plaintiff failed to properly establish that her injury was caused by the allegedly dangerous conditions at the entrance, that the defendant had fulfilled its duty to warn of the construction conditions, and that the plaintiff could have avoided injury by exercising reasonable care.

Johnson v. Little Rock Housing Auth., No. 4:22-CV-01032 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 19, 2024)
Summary judgment granted on all claims, which included FMLA and ADA discrimination, failure to accommodate and constructive discharge. The claims were made by an employee who was in treatment for cancer and claimed that when she returned from medical leave her pay was wrongfully reduced, that the employer failed to accommodate her and engaged in bullying and unfair treatment that created unbearable working conditions that led to her constructive discharge. Rebecca defended the claims by presenting overwhelming evidence in favor of the defense and arguing that the plaintiff could not satisfy her burden under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for the FMLA claims and the modified burden-shifting analysis for the ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate claims as followed by the Eighth Circuit. For the constructive discharge claim, Rebecca relied on admissions she elicited during the plaintiff's deposition, which demonstrated that the work environment did not amount to conditions necessary to support constructive discharge. The U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas agreed and granted summary judgment.

Bradley, et al. v. AmerisourceBergen, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:23-CV-122 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 4, 2024)
Moseley, et al v. AmerisourceBergen, et al, Civil Action No.: 2:23-CV-00262(M.D. Ala. Sept. 4, 2024)
Summary judgment on all claims for leading global pharmaceutical distributor in two cases arising out of a pile-up accident caused by a tractor trailer that collided with several vehicles stopped for traffic, which resulted in the death of an 11-year-old girl and catastrophic physical injuries to nearly a dozen other people. The plaintiffs sued for negligent & wanton selection and supervision, alleged failure to comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations, and failure to provide and verify insurance. Rebecca argued that all claims against the client were preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama agreed and entered summary judgment in both cases covering all 11 plaintiffs’ claims and the wrongful death action.

Jackson v. T-Mobile, No. 5:23-cv-00109-KS-BWR (S.D. Miss. May 20, 2024)
Dismissal of all claims against T-Mobile arising out of a truck accident involving one of its drivers. Rebecca first successfully removed the case to federal court to avoid a highly unfavorable venue. Even though the complaint did not provide an exact amount of damages, Rebecca argued that the amount in controversy was satisfied because the plaintiffs alleged an unspecified amount of punitive damages, which the Fifth Circuit has deemed to exceed the federal jurisdictional minimum. Once in federal court, Rebecca argued that the plaintiffs’ claims failed to satisfy the plausibility standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly; the court agreed and dismissed all claims against the company. 

Wils of Faith v. Big Tex, No. 2:22-cv-01547-NAD (N.D. Ala. April 25, 2024)
Summary judgment for product manufacturer in a case involving an allegedly defective trailer that caused an interstate breakdown and the plaintiff company to suffer significant consequential damages including loss of business. The plaintiff made claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer Liability Doctrine as well as claims for negligence, wantonness and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and made a demand for nearly $1 million to resolve the claims. Rebecca argued that the tort claims, implied warranty claims, business injury damages and all other consequential damages were barred by the economic loss rule and limited remedies in the express warranty. The court agreed and granted summary judgment disposing of those claims and damages.

Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Servs., LLC, et al., No.23-12449 (11th Cir. 2024)
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing all the claims against Rebecca’s client, which included Fair Housing Act violations, breach of contract, fraud, harassment, retaliatory eviction, bad faith, and malicious prosecution. In addition to winning at the district court level and Eleventh Circuit, Rebecca previously obtained favorable determinations for the real estate group in response to a 2020 HUD complaint and 2021 HUD complaint both brought by the appellant plaintiff. The plaintiff’s lease was not renewed after the 2020 and 2021 HUD complaints, which led to new claims of retaliation. In arguing for dismissal of the claims, and in seeking affirmation on appeal, Rebecca pointed out that the complaint and multiple amendments were shotgun pleadings that warranted dismissal under Eleventh Circuit precedent; the Eleventh Circuit agreed.

Jarmon v. Little Rock Housing Auth., No. 60-cv- 21-6938 (Ark. Cir. Ct. March 11, 2024)
Second summary judgment on behalf of a housing authority client accused of wrongfully terminating the employment of its former executive director in retaliation for making a whistleblower complaint to HUD and the city’s mayor. Rebecca first obtained summary judgment on the federal whistleblower claim pending in the U.S. District Court based on jurisdictional arguments regarding failure to exhaust specific administrative remedies. Following the disposition of the federal claim on the jurisdictional grounds, the federal court remanded the related state claim of wrongful termination. Rebecca then filed another motion for summary judgment to dispose of the remaining state claim arguing that the plaintiff could not satisfy her burden under the McDonnel Douglas burden-shifting framework adopted by the state court from the Eighth Circuit. The state court agreed and granted summary judgment on the wrongful termination claim.

Calhoun v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., No. 2:21-cv-1417-AMM (N.D. Ala. March 12,2024)
Obtained summary judgment for a multinational financial services company in a case alleging significant bodily injuries suffered by a real estate agent during a property inspection and a claim by the agent’s wife for loss of consortium after the agent fell at the client-owned property. The plaintiff agent fell when dilapidated brick stairs collapsed, which flung the agent forward where he landed on a hidden iron stake that ripped through his kneecap. The plaintiffs made a policy limits demand of $1 million and alleged that the defendant was aware of the dangerous condition, but failed to take action to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition.

The case was filed in one of the most notoriously difficult venues in Alabama state court, but Rebecca was able to remove the case to federal court, which then required the plaintiffs to pass the more strenuous hurdles of a heightened pleading standard and summary judgment sufficiency standards. The court’s decision was largely based on the federal standard for evidence sufficient to submit a case to a jury on the issue of “notice” and determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet this standard and entered a judgment as a matter of law for the defense because they could not demonstrate that the defendants had knowledge of the dangerous condition.    

Alabama Power v. R & L Transport, No. 40-SM-2023-900073.00 (Ala. Dist. Ct. Oct. 17, 2023)
Defense verdict for national transportation company following bench trial in a claim for property damage caused after one of the company’s trucks hit cable lines that resulted in the destruction of multiple power lines. Alabama Power argued that it was entitled to reimbursement because the truck caused the damage. In response, we argued that there was no evidence that our company did anything wrong and pointed out that the damage resulted from the cable lines hanging too low over the roadway. In response, the power company argued that the cable lines were the contracted responsibility of a third party. We defended with arguments that under AL law, a party cannot contract its common law duty to prevent harm and that the power company had a responsibility to ensure its power poles were not used in a way that caused harm. The court agreed and a defense verdict was entered. 

Wood v. North American ATK, Advance Auto Parts, No. 27-CV-20210000105) (Ala. Cir. Ct. August 16, 2023)
In entering trial verdict, the court agreed to enforce limiting terms of the defendant’s warranty limiting plaintiff’s recovery to less than $600.   

Jarmon v. Little Rock Hous. Auth., No. 4:21-CV001237 JM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22, 2023)
Summary judgment granted on a whistleblower retaliation claim arising out of the termination of the employment of a former executive employee that was fired after making complaints to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and city mayor alleging that the defendant employer misappropriated government funds.

Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Servs., LLC, No. 2:21-CV-493-WKW (M.D. Ala. July 11, 2023)
Obtained dismissal of multiple claims against defendant real estate group including Fair Housing Act violations, breach of contract, fraud, harassment, retaliatory eviction, bad faith and malicious prosecution. Rebecca previously obtained favorable determinations for the real estate group in response to a 2020 HUD complaint and 2021 HUD complaint both brought by the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff’s lease was not renewed in 2021, which led to the filing of the federal lawsuit. In arguing for dismissal of the claims, Rebecca pointed out that the plaintiff repeatedly failed to state a claim for relief. (aff’ed by 11th Cir.). 

Ricky Woods v. Samsung, et al., No. 48-CV-2022-0900041 (Ala. Cir. Ct. July 2023)
Obtained voluntary dismissals of products liability claims on behalf of cell phone manufacturer (Samsung) and a nationwide cell phone service provider (Verizon). We were able to convince the plaintiffs’ firm to drop its claims against the clients after piecing together detailed purchasing records and servicing and account information that refuted plaintiff’s allegations. By taking an aggressive and proactive approach, we were able to get both of the clients out of the case early and without the burden of going through the time and expense of discovery.  

Jefferson v. T-Mobile, et al., No. 47-cv-20230900279 (Ala. Cir. Ct. June 23, 2023)
Obtained a dismissal in an action arising out of a catastrophic automobile crash that resulted from the use of a smartphone while driving. The plaintiff passenger attempted to impose liability beyond the distracted driver by alleging that it was foreseeable to the carrier/retailer that its services and products caused distracted driving and that the carrier/retailer had a duty to ensure lock-out technology was implemented to prevent distracted driving. As to the general negligence and wantonness claims, Rebecca argued that there was no recognized legal duty on a wireless carrier or cell phone provider to prevent a driver from acting dangerously. Further, as pled, the driver’s reckless driving was a superseding and intervening cause that, under Alabama law, breaks the causal chain. In response to plaintiff’s products liability claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), Rebecca pointed out that the allegations establish the plaintiff was not the “user” of the allegedly defective product as contemplated by the AEMLD. Similarly in response to breach of contract claims, Rebecca argued that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary to the services and equipment contracts, that the carrier/retailer had specifically disclaimed liability arising out of the user’s actions, and that there was no conceivable connection between the terms of the contracts and the car accident that could create liability. Following extensive briefing and oral arguments, the court agreed with the defense and dismissed all claims against T-Mobile with prejudice.

Hubbard v. Champion Windows and Doors, No. 4-2100-22-064 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, May 15, 2023)
Obtained favorable ruling and complete dismissal of claims alleging retaliation for reporting hazardous working conditions.

Ammons v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al., No. 04-cv-2021-900192 (Ala. Cir. Ct. March 6, 2023)
Won dismissal in a case alleging negligence and wantonness against defendant hospital and facilities management company. The plaintiff alleged he was severely injured from a fall while a patient at the hospital.

Schmitz v. Target Corp. et al., No. 2:21-cv-435-WKW (M.D. Ala. Dec. 12. 2022)
Summary judgment victory in a premises liability action arising out of injuries sustained when the plaintiff tripped and fell on a concrete wheel stop in the parking lot managed and owned by the defendants. It was undisputed that the plaintiff suffered significant injuries as a result of her fall, which required surgery and months of expensive medical treatment, and resulted in permanent injury and restrictions. Plaintiff’s liability theories included ADA and building code violations, premises liability, negligence per se and wantonness, for which the plaintiff sought punitive damages. Rebecca argued that the wheel stop that caused the plaintiff’s fall was objectively “open and obvious,” which eliminated our clients’ duty and foreclosed all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment, disposing the plaintiff’s case in its entirety.

Moore v. Coach Lines of Atlanta, et al., No. 43-cv-2020-900296 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Sept. 20, 2022)
Summary judgment granted to commercial bus company in a case arising out of an interstate accident that injured several passengers. At the time this summary judgment was argued, Rebecca had already obtained a summary judgment ruling in a related case involving a different set of passengers by demonstrating that there was no evidence showing the cause of the tire blowout that resulted in the accident. To avoid a similar ruling, the plaintiffs in this case conceded there was no evidence showing the tire blowout was caused by the bus company or its driver. Rather, these passengers argued that their injuries were caused by the bus company’s failure to maintain the interior of the bus and argued that the bus had defective seats with "exposed metal" and no seat belts. Rebecca responded by pointing out that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the seats caused their injuries; the court agreed, granting the judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on all claims. 

Nash v. Little Rock Housing Auth., No. 60-cv-20-5741 (Ark. Cir. Ct. June 27, 2022)
Successfully defended client against a $40 million demand in a defamation case brought by a former executive level employee claiming the defendant employer published harmful and untrue information about the plaintiff’s employment and departure from his position, which was later published by multiple news outlets. Rebeca obtained an order of dismissal of all claims and an order sanctioning plaintiffs’ counsel for improperly contacting her client’s employees.

Adams v. Labor Ready, et al, No. 63-cv-2021-900452 (Ala. Cir. Ct. May 17, 2022)
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims after Rebecca filed a dispositive motion outlining the lack of evidence and entitlement to judgment for the defense.

J.S. Management v. Pierce, et al., No. 3:21-cv-97-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala. Oct.  2021)
Voluntary dismissal of all claims against insurance investigator accused of defamation, harassment, outrage and wrongful intrusion into privacy. The plaintiffs suffered a fire loss because of arson, to which the insurance investigator was assigned. The plaintiffs’ complaint included extreme allegations that the investigator harassed and threatened them. These claims were especially damaging to the client because he regularly serves as an expert witness and his name is run through court databases for background searches on reliability and credibility. Rebecca moved to dismiss the claims of slander and harassment as unsupported under Alabama law, the court agreed during oral argument and the plaintiff counsel agreed to remove those claims in an amended complaint. Following this, Rebecca pushed for voluntary dismissal of the remaining claims of outrage and wrongful intrusion by confronting plaintiffs’ counsel with evidence demonstrating the claims were completely unfounded. Rebecca explained that pursuing those claims in light of the evidence, which included voice recordings, would be grounds for Rule 11 sanctions if not dismissed. In response, the plaintiffs dismissed the claims.  

Dorsey v. Piper, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-02042-CLM (N.D. Ala. September 1, 2021)
Obtained dismissal with prejudice of ADA claim alleging hearing-impaired employee’s employment was wrongfully terminated. Rebecca argued that the pleading demonstrated there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination and used the termination letter referenced by the complaint to support dismissal.

Charles v. Megabus Southeast, et al., No. 43-cv-2020-900302 (Ala. Cir. Ct. July 19, 2020)
Summary judgment for commercial bus company after a tire blowout caused an accident and injuries to several passengers.

Reeves v. Allied Universal, No. 08-cv-2019-900202 (Ala. Cir. Ct. July 2020)
Secured dismissal of wrongful death claims against client accused of negligently and wantonly causing the death of an employee by failing to provide a safe environment and alleging the client forced the decedent to work in violation of doctor’s orders.

Wood v. ADT, LLC (Ala. Civ. App. May 29, 2020)
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals upheld summary judgment on claims of fraud and wantonness.

Davis v. Scott Technologies, No. 27-CV-2016-900073, (Ala. Cir. Ct. Aug. 5, 2018)
Summary judgment for manufacturer of a chemical detection system in a multi-party toxic exposure action involving allegations of personal injuries related to overexposure.

Carson v. Eagle Express Lines, et al., No. 01-cv-2017-901482, (Ala. Cir. Ct. March 5, 2018)
Dismissal granted on co-employee suit alleging injuries related to fall from tractor-trailer loading dock.

Bell Carr v. Nonferrous Products, et al., No. 32-CV- 2003-000142 (Ala. Cir. Ct. April 17, 2017)
Summary judgment win in a highly unfavorable venue after an intense litigation battle lasting more than a decade. The case was a mass action involving hundreds of plaintiffs and hundreds of millions claimed in damages. The mass group of plaintiffs were former manufacturing assembly line workers who alleged that the workplace products they used, including welding products manufactured by Rebecca’s client, released dangerous levels of hexavalent chromium which led to an increased risk of cancer and death, and caused physical injuries. Rebecca’s perseverance through the hard-fought litigation paid off and ended up saving her client from paying a multimillion-dollar settlement.