Kevin Ryan v. Underwriters Laboratories Litigation

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   Having duly paid

for the documents below, it is open to me to reproduce them here for others.  


November 2006


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



December 2006


Ryan Original Complaint 


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   

January 2007


UL Motion to Dismiss Ryan Complaint 


UL Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss 


My comments:   Overview of UL's Motion to Dismiss 



February 2007


Ryan Response to UL Motion to Dismiss 


My comments:  Overview of Ryan's Response to UL's Motion to Dismiss


UL Reply in Support of UL Motion to Dismiss 


My comments:   Overview of UL's Reply to Ryan's Response



April 2007


A scheduling order was entered on April 5, 2007, setting an initial pretrial

conference for May 3, 2007.



May 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.


UL Supplemental Brief in Support of UL Motion to Dismiss 


Ryan Supplemental Brief in Opposition to UL Motion to Dismiss 


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



Order to Show Cause


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.



June 2007

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.



Ryan Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint


Ryan First Amended Complaint


My comments:  Overview of First Amended Complaint



UL Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint


UL Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Ryan First Amended



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. 

Corrected Supplemental Brief on UL Motion to Dismiss


UL Instanter Response to Ryan Corrected Supplemental Brief


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.

August 2007


Judgment - Reasons for Dismissal of Ryan First Amended Complaint


Order of Dismissal 


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



Ryan Motion to Extend Time for Filing Second Amended Complaint 


Ryan Proposed Second Amended Complaint 



Judgment - Reasons for Dismissal of Complaint in its Entirety With Prejudice 


Order of Dismissal 




September 2007


Ryan Motion to Amend and Alter Judgment Dismissing Ryan Complaint 


Ryan Brief in Support of Motion to Amend and Alter


Ryan Affidavit in Support of Motion to Amend and Alter


Exhibit A to Ryan Affidavit: Termination Letter from UL


Exhibit B to Ryan Affidavit: Ryan Letter to NIST


Exhibit C to Ryan Affidavit: Email Excerpts


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



UL Opposition to Ryan Motion to Amend and Alter 



October 2007


UL Motion for Summary Ruling


Judgment - Reasons for Denying Ryan Motion and Granting UL Motion

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.


December 2007


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.



June 2009


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.