All of the court documents below are as obtained from PACER (Public Access to
Court Electronic Records) and the U.S. Party/Case Index. They are in PDF
PACER is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and
docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and
from the U.S. Party/Case Index. With a PACER account, one can purchase
access to these documents at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov. Having duly paid
for the documents below, it is open to me to reproduce them here for others.
The initial Complaint was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff Kevin Ryan ("Ryan") by
Mick G. Harrison, Rudolph William Savich, and Kara L. Reagan, all of whom
signed the complaint as counsel of record, against the Defendant Underwriters
Laboratories ("UL") in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Indiana on
November 16, 2006. In this venue, it was docketed as case number
Note: The original complaint appears as "Exhibit A" because the complaint was
initially filed in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, as noted above, and UL
brought a successful motion to have it transferred to the appropriate venue.
Thus, it was appended as an Exhibit to another document (an Order of Removal)
when it was removed from Monroe County and filed in the U.S. District Court in
the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) on December 13, 2006 and
docketed as Case 1:06-cv-01770.
My comments: Overview of Ryan Complaint
My comments: Overview of UL's Motion to Dismiss
My comments: Overview of UL's Reply to Ryan's Response
A scheduling order was entered on April 5, 2007, setting an initial pretrial
conference for May 3, 2007.
An initial pretrial conference was held on May 3, 2007 in this matter. Among
other things dealt with at the pretrial, the judge invited the parties to file
supplemental briefs on UL's Motion to Dismiss, in light of a recent Indiana
Supreme Court decision (Meyers v. Meyers) on the issue of public policy
exceptions to the common law at-will employment doctine, which
had been decided subsequent to the filing ofthe initial briefs on UL's Motion to
Dismiss. This gave rise to the next two documents below.
My comments: Meyers v. Meyers
On May 14, 2007, Ryan purported to file an Amended Complaint and a Motion to
Amend/Correct that Amended Complaint, but had not followed proper procedure
in doing so. This seems to have twigged someone at the courthouse to report to
the Judge that the lawyer who was doing the filing (Mick Harrison) had never
sought the necessary judicial authority to act for Ryan in this case in Indiana, was
not licensed to practice in Indiana, and had inappropriately used codes obtained
from a prior case in which he had been authorized to act on a case in Indiana, and
had potentially misled the Court by leading it to believe that he was, in fact,
licensed to practice in Indiana.
So, the Judge, of his own volition, investigated and issued an Order to Show
Cause, requiring Mr. Harrison to show cause why he had failed to comply with
the Court's rules and why a disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated as a
My comments: This is very, very sloppy on Mr. Harrison's part. Quite
inexcusable for an experienced trial lawyer, especially one who had previously
been authorized to act in the same out of state court on another matter, and who,
therefore, knew the proper procedure that he was required to follow. Note: I
impute no malicious intent to Mr. Harrison; indeed, I cannot see how it could
possibly be of benefit to him to contravene the rules in this fashion; rather, I am
just surprised at his sloppiness.
Harrison subsequently brought a motion to appear pro hac vice, drafted a
Response to The Order to Show Cause , did a minor mea culpa, and the
Court authorized him to act pro hac vice on the Ryan matter.
After several filings for leave to withdraw wrongly filed documents, and leave to
file in accordance with the rules, Ryan eventually got it right and the court
granted his motion to file his First Amended Complaint on June 4, 2007.
My comments: Overview of First Amended Complaint
My comments: Not surprisingly, there is some necessary overlap/repetition in
UL's new brief (as compared to the initial brief in respect of the initial motion to
dismiss the initial complaint) but there are also some excellent additions and
unique updates that make this latest brief very interesting reading, indeed.
June 5, 2007:
After filing his Supplemental Response to UL's Motion to Dismiss on May 11,
2007 (following the pretrial in which the judge invited supplemental briefs
regarding the Meyers v. Meyers case, Ryan filed Motion to File a Corrected
Supplemental Response to UL's Motion to Dismiss. This motion was granted on
June 5, 2007.
My comments: In my view, Ryan's arguments completely miss the mark, as he
is attempting to argue the applicability of a prior precedent that was explicitly
curtailed in the Meyers v. Meyers decision (not to mention invoking a dissenting
opinion in another case in an attempt to re-interpret Meyers). It shows a poor
grasp of the law on behalf of Ryan's lawyers, and it demonstrates that they were
not really paying attention when they filed their first supplemental brief because,
in essence, what they are saying in their corrected supplemental brief is that they
just didn't put their minds to it the first time around and they thought up some
further arguments after the deadline had passed.
In contrast, UL's instanter response is well written, well argued, and on the
money once again as far as the legal issues go.
My comments: Dismissal of First Amended Complaint
As noted in the Reasons for Dismissal above, Ryan had 15 days to amend the
portion of his Complaint that was dismissed without prejudice for that period of
time. Ryan missed the deadline, and made a motion to extend time for filing his
Second Amended Complaint, but filed that motion after the deadline as well.
Interestingly, one of the reasons given by Ryan for the late filing is that two of his
three lawyers would not sign on to the Second Amended Complaint. Only Mr.
Harrison was willing to put his name to the proposed Second Amended
Note: the two pages of Exhibit C are out of order but that is how they were filed
with the court. To make any sense of them, you have to read the second page
first and the first page last. Even then, they are obviously incomplete and do not
provide appropriate context, thus their evidentiary value is virtually nil.
My comments: Overview of Ryan Motion to Amend or Alter
My comments: I am not at all surprised that the court denied Ryan's motion and
granted UL's. In my view, it was irresponsible of Ryan's lawyer not to put in any
reply to UL's Opposition since it was clear that Ryan's motion materials failed to
even address the legal test that he had to meet. I wonder if this indicates that
Ryan has thrown in the towel or whether he hopes to have better luck on appeal.
It appears that he has 30 days in which to appeal.
Tick tock, tick tock.
There has been no notice of appeal filed with the court, so it appears that Ryan
has given up on his "wrongful termination" claim. This is not surprising, given
that his pleadings were appalling, his arguments specious, and his lawyers'
handling of the case rather poor.
As a matter of housekeeping, no appeal was ever filed, despite the assurances of
Ryan and other 9/11 conspiracy believers that it would happen, and despite the
fact that Ryan continued to advertise on the Internet for donations to his "legal
fund" long after his claims were dismissed by the court.