CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) - The major asbestos law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy is hoping to SLAPP down a lawsuit that accused it of cheating its way to billions of dollars.
The Simmons firm is hoping to use what's known as the anti-SLAPP statute to rid itself of at least three claims made by J-M Manufacturing Company, a pipemaker targeted with more than 6,000 asbestos suits who turned to Chicago federal court to accuse Simmons, which has sued it 430 times, of fraud.
SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation. The anti-SLAPP law is used by defendants early in litigation to have a judge determine the alleged conduct is protected.
Simmons' July 16 motion focuses on claims against it for fraud, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. The firm says those allegations are based entirely on protected conduct in representing clients in asbestos litigation.
"The breadth of J-MM's requested relief makes clear that J-MM's lawsuit is an effort to silence its litigation adversaries," the motion says, noting requests for relief like disgorgement of fees paid by clients and an injunction against the firm.
"Paradoxically, J-MM expressly disclaims any desire to unwind any settlements or rulings in any of the cases it claims were the product of fraud. J-MM's complaint is based entirely on Defendants' litigation activities, which it claims are wrongful."
The company sued Simmons Hanly and several of its employees on May 10 in Chicago federal court. The firm boasts that it has recovered more than $10 billion for asbestos clients over the years, but J-M's lawsuit alleges it has done this by crossing "all objective legal and ethical boundaries."
J-M started its investigation after a former asbestos lawyer at Simmons sued the firm for retaliation for reporting alleged wrongdoing. Scott Peebles ultimately settled his case, but J-M got involved with an effort to unseal certain portions of his allegations.
J-M is claiming in its lawsuit that its probe has discovered clients were coached on what to say about exposure to an asbestos-containing pipe the company produced, or they outright lied.
"The Simmons Hanly Defendants, including lawyers, non-legal professionals, consultants, and clients working with the firm’s Asbestos Department, are a quintessential RICO enterprise," the suit says.
"The enterprise is highly structured. Everyone has a role to play, and they all work toward the same goal of extracting settlements and obtaining jury verdicts through a pattern of unlawful conduct, including racketeering activity."
Key to asbestos claims is product identification. Plaintiffs are asked to recall products used decades ago on jobsites so their lawyers can sue the companies associated with them, though it is tough to determine the accuracy of the testimony.
The complaint cites a group of cases resolved within the last five years, including Sebastian Bretado's. He claimed he contracted mesothelioma while doing "line drainage" for landscapers in the 1980s.
During a deposition, Bretado was shown products and labels and asked if he remembered working with them. He answered that he had used a power saw and power drill on J-M's pipe, though the company says he couldn't remember any specific location he ever worked, the full name of any co-workers or the names of any customers.
He provided the name of three employers, including Oak Ridge Landscaping. The two individual employers have passed, but their family members testified that they never ran any landscaping businesses, while the principal of Oak Ridge said the company never used the J-M pipe and that he didn't remember Bretado.
The complaint tells several similar stories. Also alleged is the somewhat familiar pattern of hiding exposure claims against companies that went to the bankruptcy system (where payouts are limited) to first pursue maximum recoveries in the tort system, where a jury verdict could be eight-figures.
One of those big verdicts had J-M on the hook for more than $22 million of a $30 million verdict in California. That location could be key to the suit against Simmons.
The firm is using California's anti-SLAPP law to defend itself, even though the case was filed in Illinois. Simmons says it is likely J-M chose Illinois as its venue in an attempt to avoid facing the anti-SLAPP defense.
Simmons wants Judge Robert William Gettleman to acknowledge California law is appropriate in his court because California is the state with the most relevant contacts. J-M is based in California, and the majority of asbestos litigation against it has been brought there, the motion says.
"Having been repeatedly on the losing end of jury verdicts, J-MM is trying a new tactic: retaliate against attorneys who represent asbestos victims by saddling them with frivolous and costly litigation in an attempt to deter further asbestos lawsuits," the motion says.