PIKEVILLE, Ky. — A Pikeville attorney is asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed against him by the 3M Corporation, arguing the company is trying to use racketeering laws to punish lawyers who filed black lung-related claims on behalf of coal miners.
Attorney Glenn Martin Hammond filed the motion Friday in U.S. District Court in Pikeville, calling 3M’s case “improper and baseless.”
The company accuses Hammond and two out-of-state lawyers of fraud, conspiracy and violating the federal RICO Act by filing hundreds of what it calls “fraudulent” dust mask lawsuits against 3M over a three-year period.
In his motion, Hammond’s attorneys argue that 3M is simply unhappy about having to defend itself in state courts, and that disputes over the validity of those miners’ claims should be resolved in those individual cases. They say 3M’s allegations — including claims that some lawsuits were time-barred or involved miners without formal black lung diagnoses — do not amount to fraud or racketeering.
The filing further argues that 3M’s lawsuit violates the First Amendment right to petition the courts, and that litigation activity, even if flawed, cannot be treated as criminal racketeering.
Hammond’s motion also points out that Kentucky courts already have tools, such as sanctions, to deal with frivolous claims if needed.
The motion also addresses claims made by 3M that Hammond attempted to hide evidence by storing case files in a rented storage locker, saying there is no evidence any files were destroyed and nothing improper about storing files off-site.
“There is nothing, of course, wrong with the practice of a law firm using off-site storage for files,” Hammond wrote. “3M’s allegation, then, is that Hammond — after being told to preserve files — preserved those files off-site.”
Hammond joined attorneys Michael Martin and John Givens in filing more than 850 respirator-related lawsuits on behalf of coal miners beginning in 2020. Martin and Givens also filed motions on Friday seeking to have the case dismissed, arguing many of the same points.
3M will have an opportunity to respond to each attorney’s motion before the judge rules.
A copy of Hammond’s motion to dismiss follows:
