Download vCard

Beena M. McDonald

Beena Mallya McDonald is Senior Counsel in the Firm’s Haverford office. She is an experienced federal and state trial attorney, having first-chaired numerous civil and criminal jury trials, hundreds of bench trials, and innumerable arbitrations, motions, and depositions. She has also successfully argued before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralization of large-scale nationwide class actions.

Beena focuses her practice on complex litigation including consumer protection, ERISA, and securities fraud cases. She manages cases that demand significant motion practice, massive e-discovery, and numerous depositions of Fortune 500 corporate 30(b)(6) witnesses and fiduciaries, product design and development engineers, marketing heads, investment company executives, and liability and damages experts. She also serves as part of the firm’s Client Business Development group, responsible for overseeing client portfolio monitoring, evaluation, and litigation, and maintaining client relationships.

Prior to joining the firm Beena served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of California where she prosecuted major corruption, drug importation and immigration cases. Upon initially receiving her law degree, she rose through the ranks at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. She also served as lead counsel in cases throughout the Philadelphia area while in-house at Allstate Insurance Company.

Beena’s extensive trial experience is also bolstered by her business management experience working for a Fortune 200 company, allowing her to bring this business acumen to her current practice representing defrauded consumers and investors.

  • In re Phillips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3014) (W.D. Pa.) (successfully argued before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralization of more than 100 class action and personal injury cases to the Western District of Pennsylvania, arising out of Philips’ recall of certain Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (Bi-Level PAP), and mechanical ventilator devices, due to the potential that its polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam may degrade into particles or off-gas volatile organic compounds that may then be ingested or inhaled by the user, causing injury);
  • In re: MacBook Keyboard Litig., No: 5:18-cv-02813-EJD (N.D. Cal.) (class action lawsuit alleging that Apple sold MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air butterfly keyboard laptops from 2015 – 2020 with a known defect of allowing dust and debris to disrupt the keyboard use; after prevailing in two rounds of motions to dismiss, and having plaintiffs’ motion for class certification granted, this case has been settled for a $50 million common fund);
  • In re Chevy Bolt EV Battery Litigation, No. 2:21-cv-13256-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich.) (argued before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, that was ultimately centralized in the Eastern District of Michigan, in this class action against General Motors LLC and various LG entities alleging that the Chevy Bolt EV is defective, causing its electric battery to overheat when charged to full or nearly full capacity, which has resulted in devastating fires and created an unreasonable safety risk to these vehicle owners. The operative complaint covers all Model Year 2020 – 2022 Chevy Bolts EVs and asserts that the defendants, as claimed by both GM and LG, were “strategic partners” in researching, developing, and manufacturing the Bolt EV and its critical components, including the defective electric battery cells and pack);
  • In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 5:17-cv-02185-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (class action lawsuit alleging that smartphones manufactured by Google and Huawei contain defects that cause the phones to “bootloop” and experience sudden battery drain; after overcoming a motion to dismiss, a $9.75 million settlement was reached, which Judge Beth Labson Freeman described as “substantial” and an “excellent resolution of the case.”);
  • Weeks v. Google LLC, No. 5:18-cv-00801-NC (N.D. Cal.) (consumer class action against Google relating to Pixel smartphones, alleging that Google sold these phones with a known microphone defect; after defeating a motion to dismiss, a $7.25 million settlement was reached, which Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins described as being an “excellent result.”);
  • Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01415- CMA (D. Colo.) (class action relating to a data breach suffered by Chipotle that allegedly exposed consumers’ payment card data to hackers, in which case CSK&D has been appointed interim co-lead counsel);
  • Christofferson v. Creation Entertainment, Inc., No. 19STCV11000 (Sup. Ct. CA). (class action relating to a data breach suffered by Creation Entertainment that allegedly exposed consumers’ payment card data to hackers, in which case CSK&D is interim co-lead counsel);
  • Turner v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, No. 4:21-cv-02454-DMR (N.D. Cal.) (class action lawsuit alleging that Sony’s PlayStation 5 DualSense Controller suffers from a “drift defect” that results in character or gameplay moving on the screen without user command or manual operation of the controller thereby compromising its core functionality);
  • Davis v. Washington University, No. 4:17-cv-01641-RLW (E.D. Missouri) (ERISA class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties in managing the Washington University in St. Louis Retirement Plan – one of the largest university retirement plans in the country with $5.8 billion in assets and more than 27,000 participants – causing it to incur unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees);
  • Spitzley v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc., 7:21-cv-00074-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (ERISA class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties in managing the Mercedes-Benz International Retirement and Savings Plan – a $934 million plan with more than 4,400 participants – causing it to incur unreasonable and excessive fees for retirement plan services);
  • Mator v. Wesco Distribution, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00403-MJH (W.D. Pa.) (ERISA class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties by imprudently allowing the Wesco Distribution, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan – a $837 million plan with more than 8,200 participants – to pay unreasonable recordkeeping and administrative expenses and retain higher-cost share classes of funds when lower-cost funds were available);
  • Hummel v. East Penn Mfg. Co., Inc., No. 5:21-cv-01652 (E.D. Pa.) – (ERISA class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties in managing the East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. Profit Sharing & 401(k) Savings Plan – with $279 million in assets and over 10,000 participants – by imprudently failing to monitor recordkeeping fees and determine the reasonableness of those fees);
  • Cunningham v. USI Ins. Services LLC, No. 7:21-cv-01819-NSR (S.D.N.Y.) (ERISA class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties in managing the USI 401(k) Plan – a $848 million plan with over 9,800 participants – by paying unreasonable and excessive retirement plan services fees);
  • Westmoreland County v. Inventure Foods, No. CV2016-002718 (Super Ct. Ariz.) (state securities shareholder class action filed against Inventure Foods., Inc., after identifying that the company’s stock price had suffered a precipitous decline due to troubles at a manufacturing facility, including a major food recall. After mediation, a preliminary settlement was reached that recovers over 35% of damages for investors.); and
  • Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., et al., Securities Litig., No. 12-cv-00793 (USDC M.D. Pa.) (federal securities class action lawsuit by large transportation authority institutional investor client, named sole lead plaintiff, challenging false and misleading statements made by Orrstown to investors about its internal controls and financial condition).