David M. Hammer
How Judge Hammer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When a defendant judicially admits (in its own briefing) that a valid, enforceable contract governs the parties' relationship, he holds that admission against the defendant to foreclose the plaintiff's quasi-contract fallback theories -- but treats that as narrowly binding only the admitting party, not a reason to dismiss claims sounding in fraud or tort against the same defendant.
“Plaintiff did not know at the time it filed its Complaint that AEPSC / AEP would unequivocally admit '[i]t is undisputed that the parties had an express contract for the work that Early performed in furtherance of the Project.' ... Now, having made this admission, AEPSC / AEP is hereby bound that all work performed by Early in furtherance of the Project is governed by the Contract and Defendants are hereby stopped from subsequently asserting any claim inconsistent therewith.”
Procedural preferences
On a motion to strike an entire complaint as unduly complex or inconsistent, he reads Rule 8 and Rule 12(f) generously toward the plaintiff -- pleading multiple, even legally inconsistent, alternative theories against a defendant is expressly permitted, and a defendant should expect this argument to fail unless answering the complaint would impose a genuinely undue burden.
“That various theories of recovery are asserted, some being inconsistent in fact or law, is not at issue in an RCP, Rule 12 motion and in any event, is expressly permitted. See RCP, Rule 8(e)(2) ('A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds or both.')”
On a Rule 12(b)(6)/Rule 9(b) motion to dismiss, he works through each challenged count separately rather than ruling on the complaint as a whole, and takes the plaintiff's pleaded facts as true even where he is skeptical some may ultimately prove untrue -- his role at the pleading stage is to test sufficiency, not to weigh the merits.
“Some or all of which facts may be true or untrue, but sufficient facts having been plead, it's not the Court role on a Rule 12(b) motion to decide what is true.”
Cautions
A defendant seeking to dismiss a fraud or tortious-interference claim at the pleading stage should expect an uphill fight if the complaint pleads specific facts of concealment or inducement -- he will let those claims proceed to discovery and summary judgment rather than resolve factual disputes about intent on a Rule 12 motion.
“The Court has no doubt that beyond denying any tortious interference in the first instance, AEP and/or Mr. Sigler may seek to negate tortious interference claims by proof of justification or privilege ... But the parties' evidence must await, at a minimum, summary judgment as the Court cannot, as a matter of law, say it is beyond doubt that there is no set of facts upon which there is a claim for relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court disagrees with the Defendants' Rule 8 and Rule 12(f) arguments. ... the Court does not find that answering the Complaint places an undue burden upon the Defendants as may necessitate a dismissal without prejudice with leave to re-file and denies their motion to strike the Complaint in whole or in part per Rule 12(f).”
“Thus and in reliance upon this admission, the Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's alternative theories of recovery asserted against AEPSC / AEP set forth in Counts II, III, and VIII. ... this quasi-contract theory of recovery is dismissed with prejudice against AEPTC, AEPC and the Doe Defendants.”
Put Judge Hammer's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hammer actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hammer's own signed orders and cites them.