JM Eagle, the Los Angeles maker of municipal water and sewer pipe, has taken a high-stakes swing in federal court, accusing one of the country’s busiest asbestos plaintiffs’ firms of running sham lawsuits that wrongly targeted its products. The complaint says a former attorney from that firm came forward with internal information that JM Eagle claims reveals a pattern of coached claims. The company is asking a judge to treat the filings as a coordinated scheme and to award damages under the federal RICO statute.
What JM Eagle Alleges In Court
According to the Los Angeles Times, J-M Manufacturing, which does business as JM Eagle, filed the RICO complaint in Illinois on Wednesday. The suit accuses the Gori Law Firm of coaching plaintiffs to identify JM Eagle pipe as their source of asbestos exposure, even when that was not supported by the record.
The complaint says some of those cases were filed in what JM Eagle describes as plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions and then used as bargaining chips in settlement negotiations. JM Eagle says it uncovered the alleged conduct after a former Gori attorney came forward with documents and testimony that the company argues show a broader pattern rather than one-off errors.
In a statement to the Los Angeles Times, the Gori firm fired back, saying, “we are outraged by these ridiculous claims.” Ratings agency A.M. Best estimates insurers have paid more than $100 billion for asbestos-related claims since the 1970s, and Gori’s own website touts more than $4 billion “recovered” for clients. JM Eagle points to those enormous numbers to explain why it has escalated the fight into a RICO case.
Who Is JM Eagle?
JM Eagle traces its modern plastics business to a 1982 purchase of Johns-Manville’s pipe operations. The company is privately held by Walter Wang, whom Forbes lists among JM Eagle’s owners and leadership. Forbes identifies Wang as chairman and CEO and places the company’s scale in the billions of dollars in annual revenue.
The company’s own site, JM Eagle, highlights its nationwide role supplying PVC and plastic pipe and emphasizes a long warranty on product performance. The older asbestos-cement pipe at the center of these disputes dates to earlier decades, and JM Eagle contends those products pose a risk only if handled improperly.
Prior RICO Salvos And Ongoing Legal Fights
This is not JM Eagle’s first attempt to use RICO against plaintiffs’ firms. The company sued Simmons Hanly Conroy in May 2024, but a judge dismissed parts of that case for failing to plead the conspiracy elements that RICO requires, according to a statement on Simmons Hanly Conroy. JM Eagle later sought to amend and expand its claims.
Legal reporters have noted that JM Eagle has added other firms to its allegations as the litigation evolved, with Bloomberg Law and other outlets tracking the rolling series of filings and amendments. The new complaint against Gori slots into that broader strategy of targeting how asbestos suits are built and filed.
Why RICO Makes This So Loaded
Civil RICO claims are powerful but notoriously hard to win. Successful plaintiffs can seek treble damages and attorneys’ fees, but they have to do more than show sloppy lawyering. Courts require proof of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity, not just isolated mistakes.
As the Cornell LII explains, Section 1964(c) allows private civil suits that can recover threefold damages if the statute’s elements are met. Courts scrutinize allegations about pattern and continuity closely, which is why RICO cases are frequently fought early through pleadings and motions to dismiss rather than racing straight to trial.
What Comes Next
The defendants now have time to respond. They are widely expected to move to dismiss or at least narrow the claims, while discovery proceeds only if the suit survives those early attacks.
The fallout could extend well beyond the named parties. The dispute has potential ripple effects for insurers and municipalities that bought JM Eagle pipe, and insurers’ historic asbestos payouts mean carriers are watching these cases closely, according to A.M. Best. For local governments and water agencies that installed the company’s products decades ago, the litigation revives difficult questions about liability, what evidence still exists, and how exposure histories get reconstructed years after the fact in court.
