David M. Hammer
How Judge Hammer rules, drawn from 1 signed order. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hammer
David M. Hammer has served as a West Virginia circuit judge since 2018 and joined the state’s Business Court Division in 2023. He became chief judge of the newly created Twenty-Eighth Judicial Circuit in Jefferson County in 2025. Before joining the bench, he practiced law in Martinsburg after graduating from Temple University and William & Mary Law School.
Judge Hammer's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hammer's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
How Judge Hammer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In The Early Construction Co. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., Hammer relied on the defendants' admission that an express contract governed the project work. He dismissed the plaintiff's alternative quasi-contract claims against the admitting defendants while allowing other pleaded fraud and tort claims to proceed.
“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
In The Early Construction Co. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., Hammer denied a request to strike the complaint for pleading inconsistent alternative theories, holding that Rule 8(e)(2) permitted them and that answering the complaint would not unduly burden the defendants.
“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.')”
In The Early Construction Co. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., Hammer granted a dismissal motion in part after reviewing the challenged claims. He held that the pleaded facts were sufficient for some claims and that deciding which disputed facts were true was not the court's role on a Rule 12(b) motion.
“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
In The Early Construction Co. v. American Electric Power Service Corporation, he declined to dismiss a tortious-interference claim at the pleading stage because the defendants' justification or privilege arguments required evidence that could be considered on summary judgment.
“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.”
Draft for Judge Hammer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hammer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hammer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace