Kevin Ryan - All Claims against UL Dismissed - with prejudice

LashL · 30th August 2007, 06:31 PM

Well, well, well.

I popped in at PACER tonight to check on the status of the Ryan v. UL litigation, idly wondering whether UL had brought a new motion to dismiss. Imagine my surprise when I saw several new documents entered and the case listed as "terminated".

It appears that Kevin Ryan's lawyers ongoing struggles to get things right have done them in again.

As mentioned last week, Ryan filed his Second Amended Complaint (a day after the "without prejudice" period for filing had passed). At that time, the Second Amended Complaint was on the PACER site and subsequently posted here as the subject of this thread.

It appears that he had filed it without first filing a motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, and without first filing a motion for leave to extend the time for filing.

His motion for leave to extend time, and his motion for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint are now on PACER but the Second Amended Complaint is no longer listed.

Why, you ask?

The judge was not impressed by the reasons given by Ryan's lawyers for missing the deadline, and was not impressed with the proposed Second Amended Complaint. He felt that the Second Amended Complaint was not properly pleaded; he was not persuaded that the new claim was not being brought “in a desperate effort to protract the litigation and complicate the defense”; and he was not convinced that the request to amend the complaint was based on discovery of facts not known prior to the original dismissal.

In the result, the judge denied Ryan's motion to extend time, refused to accept the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the entirety of Ryan's action against UL with prejudice.

(There's also an interesting side story in the documents about how only one of Ryan's three lawyers was willing to sign the filings because of the judge's clear warnings about sanctions against them in the prior dismissal.)

Damn, that's gotta be embarrassing!

I'll get the docs to ~enigma~ once again and ask him to post them on the Aquaman site.

Unsecured Coins · 30th August 2007, 06:38 PM

Alareth · 30th August 2007, 06:38 PM

Yessir, things sure are happening in the "Truth" movement

defaultdotxbe · 30th August 2007, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Alareth

Yessir, things sure are happening in the "Truth" movement

of course, this proves the conspriacy extends to all the courts in the US, thus justifying the truthers decision to take the law into their own hands and begin executing those of use who would dare disagree with the truth

Orphia Nay · 30th August 2007, 06:54 PM

Thanks for the info, LashL!

I'm sort of laughing at the outcome, but I just keep picturing the sad little wheels spinning in his and other twoofers' heads trying to form a conspiracy out of this, and twisting their minds deeper into delusion.

Viper Daimao · 30th August 2007, 07:41 PM

so what was his excuse exactly?

ETA: Does this mean he has to pay the defendents' legal costs? or is he threw with this case?

Good Lt · 30th August 2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

In the result, the judge denied Ryan's motion to extend time, refused to accept the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the entirety of Ryan's action against UL with prejudice.

FAIL

Hans · 30th August 2007, 07:49 PM

With my brain set in fringe mode:

The NWO got to the attorney and made him mess up.

SpitfireIX · 30th August 2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

. . . the judge denied Ryan's motion to extend time, refused to accept the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the entirety of Ryan's action against UL with prejudice.

Digest · 30th August 2007, 07:56 PM

On a more important side note south park just signed on for 3 more years!

Gravy · 30th August 2007, 07:57 PM

Thanks for the good news, LashL. Perhaps the rest of the truth movement will get the message that lying fools shouldn't file lawsuits.

SpitfireIX · 30th August 2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

. . . Perhaps the rest of the truth movement will get the message that lying fools shouldn't file lawsuits.

Crungy · 30th August 2007, 08:04 PM

Much thanks for the info LashL! It made my day knowing that slandering momma's boy Kevin got a bucket full of ice cold justice poured on him.

Jonnyclueless · 30th August 2007, 08:22 PM

Gosh I guess a court of law is not quite as easy as a blog or chat forum...

Perhaps if Ryan had made a conspiracy video and posted it on YouTube the judge would have been more impressed?

PhantomWolf · 30th August 2007, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...lson_haha2.jpg

I second your Haha and add a

Sword_Of_Truth · 30th August 2007, 08:33 PM

Ahh... sweet shadenfruede.

Someone tell me that Ryan did this in a "loser pays" state?

LashL · 30th August 2007, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

so what was his excuse exactly?

The excuse was a combination of:

1. Counsel had to review the Court's August 9 order and this was "complicated" by the fact that counsel had other matters to deal with;

2. Mick didn't provide a draft of the pleadings to his co-counsel until the last day of the deadline;

3. Both co-counsel were not willing to sign the pleadings in order to file them because of the court's prior warnings about the sanctions that they could face personally;

4. Mick didn't know this until the night of the deadline (since he had not provided the draft to the other lawyers until the evening of the deadline);

5. Mick supposedly tried to file the pleading that night but couldn't manage to do so before midnight because he realized that he also forgot to attach his proposed order, and it would take him past midnight to do so, so he aborted his attempts;

6. Mick then belatedly filed a motion for an extension of time;

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

ETA: Does this mean he has to pay the defendents' legal costs? or is he threw with this case?

Having his entire action now dismissed with prejudice means that he cannot re-assert his claims, in the absence of a successful appeal to a higher court, as it is a final order.

"Costs follow the event" is a general rule here, and normally, the judgment on a motion like this would either assess costs explicitly and incorporate a costs order into the dismissal order or it would say something like "if the parties cannot agree as to costs, they may make written submissions to the court within X days."

Costs were not specifically addressed in the initial dismissal or in this dismissal, but I do not know how it works in Indiana, so I am not sure if they will have a costs hearing after the fact or what the procedure is. Perhaps Loss Leader can assist in this regard.

LashL · 30th August 2007, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Thanks for the good news, LashL. Perhaps the rest of the truth movement will get the message that lying fools shouldn't file lawsuits.

Unfortunately, lying fools appear to be universally oblivious to the message.

On the up side, at least they provide us with some "legaltainment".

LashL · 30th August 2007, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Hans

With my brain set in fringe mode:

The NWO got to the attorney and made him mess up.

And made two of his three attorneys smarten up.

SpitfireIX · 30th August 2007, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Ahh... sweet shadenfruede.

Someone tell me that Ryan did this in a "loser pays" state?

In Indiana, it's up to the judge to award costs to one side or the other, but this generally only happens if the lawsuit in question is particularly frivolous or outrageous. A friend of mine recently settled a lawsuit brought by the contractor who built my friend's new home, claiming that my friend owed about $80,000 more than agreed. The case had already been to arbitration, and the arbitrator had found for my friend and his wife, but the contractor sued anyway on various shaky legal theories. Despite having neither law nor facts on his side, the contractor pressed ahead. The judge eventually ruled that the arbitrator had been absolutely correct, but declined to award my friend legal fees, as had been requested.

LashL · 30th August 2007, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

In Indiana, it's up to the judge to award costs to one side or the other, but this generally only happens if the lawsuit in question is particularly frivolous or outrageous. A friend of mine recently settled a lawsuit brought by the contractor who built my friend's new home, claiming that my friend owed about $80,000 more than agreed. The case had already been to arbitration, and the arbitrator had found for my friend and his wife, but the contractor sued anyway on various shaky legal theories. Despite having neither law nor facts on his side, the contractor pressed ahead. The judge eventually ruled that the arbitrator had been absolutely correct, but declined to award my friend legal fees, as had been requested.

That seems grossly unfair.

Here, the standard is "costs follow the event" - in other words, "loser pays" (except in extraordinary circumstances).

JamesB · 30th August 2007, 10:11 PM

Terminate.... with extreme prejudice.

Hey, somebody had to say it.

ref · 30th August 2007, 11:18 PM

Brainster · 30th August 2007, 11:31 PM

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Trutherville—mighty Kevin has struck out.

Ah well, at least he has his peer-review job to fall back on!

SpitfireIX · 31st August 2007, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

That seems grossly unfair.

Here, the standard is "costs follow the event" - in other words, "loser pays" (except in extraordinary circumstances).

I'm sure my friend would agree with you. Something similar happened to my father several years ago. He invested heavily in a business venture proposed by the son (Tom) of some old friends (then deceased) of my parents; the former owner agreed to several concessions and guarantees in return for taking the then-failing business off his hands. The deal eventually went south due to Tom's mismanagement, but the former owner claimed not to remember having signed the contract with my father, and the only witness was Tom. The legal wrangling went on for years (egged on by the former owner's psychotic wife). Eventually the former owner agreed to settle, and my parents got about 60% of their money back, but a large chunk of that was eaten up by legal fees. My father's attorney had been asking for legal fees, but they were not included in the settlement. I felt really bad, because when this was first proposed, I was just starting my studies in accounting. I looked everything over, but I told my dad, "this looks reasonable to me, but you need to talk to a lawyer and a CPA." But my dad didn't, because Tom told him that everything was taken care of.

I'm not certain that "loser pays" would have applied in this case, but it might have discouraged the former owner from pressing his weak case, and my father might have been more inclined to press on.

Spins · 31st August 2007, 05:31 AM

Sorry Kevin Ryan you are the weakest link ... claim dismissed, and don't forget to close the door on your way out...

Sabrina · 31st August 2007, 06:19 AM

Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

kookbreaker · 31st August 2007, 06:39 AM

Looks like the Troofer legal help is as effective as their 'engineers'.

~enigma~ · 31st August 2007, 10:45 AM

Saga finally ended or in the words of the Terminator...TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home

~enigma~ · 31st August 2007, 12:28 PM

Damn...PDOPE is trying his best to make sure this info isnT disseminated on LCF. Is he really Aquaboy?

Jonnyclueless · 31st August 2007, 01:20 PM

I never did trust those NWO judges...

Loss Leader · 31st August 2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Costs were not specifically addressed in the initial dismissal or in this dismissal, but I do not know how it works in Indiana, so I am not sure if they will have a costs hearing after the fact or what the procedure is. Perhaps Loss Leader can assist in this regard.

Yeah, maybe I could have assisted if someone had told me about the damned thread.

Seriously, though, I'd have to agree with Spitfire. When it comes to costs (and especially legal fees), there's the rule and then there's the reality. The rule is that the winner should be able to submit a bill of costs with statutorily defined prices for various actions it had to take (motion fees, process, etc.). And then in many actions, a motion for legal fees could be made and probably should be granted. In reality, the more quickly cases end, the more unwilling courts are even to grant statutorily allowable costs. And unless there has been egregious misconduct after multiple court orders, legal fees are usually out of the question.

If I were the lawyer for UL, even if there's a chance of getting any costs or fees, I would advise them just to let the whole thing go. They're big and rich and there's no need to seem petty or to give this guy one more minute of access to the judicial system.

Now, on a related note, this latest development appears to prove my prediction about this case wrong. But it ain't over yet. Ryan can submit a motion for reconsideration, appeal the current dismissal order, appeal the first order, sue somebody else in some other court and much, much more. There's still a world of opportunity for this moron to continue to make a jackass of himself.

Sabrina · 31st August 2007, 05:20 PM

And we'll be there to watch. With popcorn, no less!

Loss Leader · 31st August 2007, 05:22 PM

Incidentally, I sent an email to this guy to tell him his assertions about Ryan are entirely wrong (and that there are court documents to prove it).

LashL · 31st August 2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Yeah, maybe I could have assisted if someone had told me about the damned thread.

Sorry about that, LossLeader. I sent you an email last night but I received an "undeliverable" message earlier today. Upon closer inspection, I realize that I mistyped your email address, which resulted in the "undeliverable" status. Mea culpa.

Loss Leader · 31st August 2007, 06:04 PM

NP. Can't wait to see the documents, though. I'm kind of sorry Ryan ate it over a filing deadline.

Also, I'm a little surprised that the feds wanted a motion to ammend the complaint. The decision of the judge looked like he was already granting (practically ordering) that.

Fed practice is too formalistic for me.

LashL · 31st August 2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

NP. Can't wait to see the documents, though. I'm kind of sorry Ryan ate it over a filing deadline.

Also, I'm a little surprised that the feds wanted a motion to ammend the complaint. The decision of the judge looked like he was already granting (practically ordering) that.

Fed practice is too formalistic for me.

I don't know for sure if the federal rules required the motion to amend or if it was a result of Mick realizing he was going to miss the deadline, thus triggering the requirement for a motion to extend time and him just putting in the motion to amend out of an abundance of (belated) caution. However, in light of the existence of the previous motions to amend in this case, I would guess that it is a requirement under the rules.

The docs are posted here: http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home

Scroll down to the last three.

Or, if you prefer, I can email them to you.

ETA2: I also emailed them to you

Apollo20 · 31st August 2007, 06:16 PM

I can't understand why anyone would waste their time following this case if Mr. Ryan is such a looser. Lord Black's case is much more interesting...

~enigma~ · 31st August 2007, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

I can't understand why anyone would waste their time following this case if Mr. Ryan is such a looser. Lord Black's case is much more interesting...

We could follow your court case. Want to post the docs?

LashL · 31st August 2007, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

I can't understand why anyone would waste their time following this case if Mr. Ryan is such a looser. Lord Black's case is much more interesting...

There are many good reasons to follow frivolous lawsuits. It is always a good thing to examine the workings of the judicial system. Frivolous lawsuits cost taxpayers money - lots of money, and should be discouraged, and even openly ridiculed. Frivolous lawsuits cost innocent defendants money - lots of money, and should be discouraged, and even openly ridiculed. There are many, many good reasons to follow such lawsuits. I suspect that if you put your thinking cap on, even you can think of a few good reasons. Go ahead, give it a shot.

And then, like I said above, the lame attempts of troofers to try to make the legal system bend to their woo also amounts to legaltainment^TM. If the legal gymnastics of twoofers don't interest you, feel free not to indulge yourself in threads about their antics.

I agree that Conrad Black's case is fascinating, and I have followed it closely since the beginning. There is no conspiracy theory involved in it, though, so it outside the scope of this sub-forum. Now, if you'd like to start a thread about it in an appropriate sub-forum, I'll be happy to discuss it with you there.

ETA: Alternatively, as ~enigma~ said above, we could discuss your court cases if you care to post the documents for discussion.

30th August 2007, 06:31 PM	#1
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Kevin Ryan - All Claims against UL Dismissed - with prejudice Well, well, well. I popped in at PACER tonight to check on the status of the Ryan v. UL litigation, idly wondering whether UL had brought a new motion to dismiss. Imagine my surprise when I saw several new documents entered and the case listed as "terminated". It appears that Kevin Ryan's lawyers ongoing struggles to get things right have done them in again. As mentioned last week, Ryan filed his Second Amended Complaint (a day after the "without prejudice" period for filing had passed). At that time, the Second Amended Complaint was on the PACER site and subsequently posted here as the subject of this thread. It appears that he had filed it without first filing a motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, and without first filing a motion for leave to extend the time for filing. His motion for leave to extend time, and his motion for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint are now on PACER but the Second Amended Complaint is no longer listed. Why, you ask? The judge was not impressed by the reasons given by Ryan's lawyers for missing the deadline, and was not impressed with the proposed Second Amended Complaint. He felt that the Second Amended Complaint was not properly pleaded; he was not persuaded that the new claim was not being brought “in a desperate effort to protract the litigation and complicate the defense”; and he was not convinced that the request to amend the complaint was based on discovery of facts not known prior to the original dismissal. In the result, the judge denied Ryan's motion to extend time, refused to accept the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the entirety of Ryan's action against UL with prejudice. (There's also an interesting side story in the documents about how only one of Ryan's three lawyers was willing to sign the filings because of the judge's clear warnings about sanctions against them in the prior dismissal.) Damn, that's gotta be embarrassing! I'll get the docs to ~enigma~ once again and ask him to post them on the Aquaman site.

30th August 2007, 06:38 PM	#2
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,905
	__________________ "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

30th August 2007, 06:51 PM	#4
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,474	Originally Posted by Alareth Yessir, things sure are happening in the "Truth" movement of course, this proves the conspriacy extends to all the courts in the US, thus justifying the truthers decision to take the law into their own hands and begin executing those of use who would dare disagree with the truth
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

30th August 2007, 06:54 PM	#5
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Photo Contest Winner Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 40,326	Thanks for the info, LashL! I'm sort of laughing at the outcome, but I just keep picturing the sad little wheels spinning in his and other twoofers' heads trying to form a conspiracy out of this, and twisting their minds deeper into delusion.
	__________________ "We stigmatize and send to the margins people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid" - Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".

30th August 2007, 07:47 PM	#7
Good Lt Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,498	Quote: In the result, the judge denied Ryan's motion to extend time, refused to accept the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the entirety of Ryan's action against UL with prejudice. FAIL
Good Lt Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,498

30th August 2007, 06:38 PM	#3
Alareth Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,682	Yessir, things sure are happening in the "Truth" movement

30th August 2007, 07:41 PM	#6
Viper Daimao Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 496	so what was his excuse exactly? ETA: Does this mean he has to pay the defendents' legal costs? or is he threw with this case?

30th August 2007, 07:49 PM	#8
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,910	With my brain set in fringe mode: The NWO got to the attorney and made him mess up.
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,910

30th August 2007, 07:54 PM	#9
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,239	Originally Posted by LashL . . . the judge denied Ryan's motion to extend time, refused to accept the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the entirety of Ryan's action against UL with prejudice.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz Last edited by SpitfireIX; 30th August 2007 at 07:57 PM. Reason: spacing

30th August 2007, 07:56 PM	#10
Digest Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 203	On a more important side note south park just signed on for 3 more years!
Digest Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 203	__________________ Getting Re-Deployed September 19th The key to immortality is to first live a life worth remembering.

30th August 2007, 07:57 PM	#11
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Thanks for the good news, LashL. Perhaps the rest of the truth movement will get the message that lying fools shouldn't file lawsuits.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

30th August 2007, 08:01 PM	#12
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,239	Originally Posted by Gravy . . . Perhaps the rest of the truth movement will get the message that lying fools shouldn't file lawsuits.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

30th August 2007, 08:04 PM	#13
Crungy Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 449	Much thanks for the info LashL! It made my day knowing that slandering momma's boy Kevin got a bucket full of ice cold justice poured on him.
Crungy Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 449

30th August 2007, 08:22 PM	#14
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546	Gosh I guess a court of law is not quite as easy as a blog or chat forum... Perhaps if Ryan had made a conspiracy video and posted it on YouTube the judge would have been more impressed?

30th August 2007, 08:23 PM	#15
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 21,203	Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...lson_haha2.jpg I second your Haha and add a
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

30th August 2007, 08:33 PM	#16
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Ahh... sweet shadenfruede. Someone tell me that Ryan did this in a "loser pays" state?

30th August 2007, 08:57 PM	#17
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by Viper Daimao so what was his excuse exactly? The excuse was a combination of: 1. Counsel had to review the Court's August 9 order and this was "complicated" by the fact that counsel had other matters to deal with; 2. Mick didn't provide a draft of the pleadings to his co-counsel until the last day of the deadline; 3. Both co-counsel were not willing to sign the pleadings in order to file them because of the court's prior warnings about the sanctions that they could face personally; 4. Mick didn't know this until the night of the deadline (since he had not provided the draft to the other lawyers until the evening of the deadline); 5. Mick supposedly tried to file the pleading that night but couldn't manage to do so before midnight because he realized that he also forgot to attach his proposed order, and it would take him past midnight to do so, so he aborted his attempts; 6. Mick then belatedly filed a motion for an extension of time; Originally Posted by Viper Daimao ETA: Does this mean he has to pay the defendents' legal costs? or is he threw with this case? Having his entire action now dismissed with prejudice means that he cannot re-assert his claims, in the absence of a successful appeal to a higher court, as it is a final order. "Costs follow the event" is a general rule here, and normally, the judgment on a motion like this would either assess costs explicitly and incorporate a costs order into the dismissal order or it would say something like "if the parties cannot agree as to costs, they may make written submissions to the court within X days." Costs were not specifically addressed in the initial dismissal or in this dismissal, but I do not know how it works in Indiana, so I am not sure if they will have a costs hearing after the fact or what the procedure is. Perhaps Loss Leader can assist in this regard.
	Last edited by LashL; 30th August 2007 at 09:00 PM.

30th August 2007, 09:04 PM	#18
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by Gravy Thanks for the good news, LashL. Perhaps the rest of the truth movement will get the message that lying fools shouldn't file lawsuits. Unfortunately, lying fools appear to be universally oblivious to the message. On the up side, at least they provide us with some "legaltainment".

30th August 2007, 09:06 PM	#19
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by Hans With my brain set in fringe mode: The NWO got to the attorney and made him mess up. And made two of his three attorneys smarten up.

30th August 2007, 09:20 PM	#20
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,239	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Ahh... sweet shadenfruede. Someone tell me that Ryan did this in a "loser pays" state? In Indiana, it's up to the judge to award costs to one side or the other, but this generally only happens if the lawsuit in question is particularly frivolous or outrageous. A friend of mine recently settled a lawsuit brought by the contractor who built my friend's new home, claiming that my friend owed about $80,000 more than agreed. The case had already been to arbitration, and the arbitrator had found for my friend and his wife, but the contractor sued anyway on various shaky legal theories. Despite having neither law nor facts on his side, the contractor pressed ahead. The judge eventually ruled that the arbitrator had been absolutely correct, but declined to award my friend legal fees, as had been requested.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

30th August 2007, 09:26 PM	#21
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX In Indiana, it's up to the judge to award costs to one side or the other, but this generally only happens if the lawsuit in question is particularly frivolous or outrageous. A friend of mine recently settled a lawsuit brought by the contractor who built my friend's new home, claiming that my friend owed about $80,000 more than agreed. The case had already been to arbitration, and the arbitrator had found for my friend and his wife, but the contractor sued anyway on various shaky legal theories. Despite having neither law nor facts on his side, the contractor pressed ahead. The judge eventually ruled that the arbitrator had been absolutely correct, but declined to award my friend legal fees, as had been requested. That seems grossly unfair. Here, the standard is "costs follow the event" - in other words, "loser pays" (except in extraordinary circumstances).

30th August 2007, 10:11 PM	#22
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	Terminate.... with extreme prejudice. Hey, somebody had to say it.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

30th August 2007, 11:18 PM	#23
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,685
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,685	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

30th August 2007, 11:31 PM	#24
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,745	Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light, And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout; But there is no joy in Trutherville—mighty Kevin has struck out. Ah well, at least he has his peer-review job to fall back on!
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

31st August 2007, 04:37 AM	#25
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,239	Originally Posted by LashL That seems grossly unfair. Here, the standard is "costs follow the event" - in other words, "loser pays" (except in extraordinary circumstances). I'm sure my friend would agree with you. Something similar happened to my father several years ago. He invested heavily in a business venture proposed by the son (Tom) of some old friends (then deceased) of my parents; the former owner agreed to several concessions and guarantees in return for taking the then-failing business off his hands. The deal eventually went south due to Tom's mismanagement, but the former owner claimed not to remember having signed the contract with my father, and the only witness was Tom. The legal wrangling went on for years (egged on by the former owner's psychotic wife). Eventually the former owner agreed to settle, and my parents got about 60% of their money back, but a large chunk of that was eaten up by legal fees. My father's attorney had been asking for legal fees, but they were not included in the settlement. I felt really bad, because when this was first proposed, I was just starting my studies in accounting. I looked everything over, but I told my dad, "this looks reasonable to me, but you need to talk to a lawyer and a CPA." But my dad didn't, because Tom told him that everything was taken care of. I'm not certain that "loser pays" would have applied in this case, but it might have discouraged the former owner from pressing his weak case, and my father might have been more inclined to press on.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz Last edited by SpitfireIX; 31st August 2007 at 04:40 AM.

31st August 2007, 05:31 AM	#26
Spins Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 702	Sorry Kevin Ryan you are the weakest link ... claim dismissed, and don't forget to close the door on your way out...
Spins Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 702	__________________ "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality." - M. Magnan

31st August 2007, 06:19 AM	#27
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

31st August 2007, 06:39 AM	#28
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,913	Looks like the Troofer legal help is as effective as their 'engineers'.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

31st August 2007, 10:45 AM	#29
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923	Saga finally ended or in the words of the Terminator...TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923

31st August 2007, 12:28 PM	#30
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923	Damn...PDOPE is trying his best to make sure this info isnT disseminated on LCF. Is he really Aquaboy?
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923

31st August 2007, 01:20 PM	#31
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546	I never did trust those NWO judges...

31st August 2007, 05:10 PM	#32
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 27,909	Originally Posted by LashL Costs were not specifically addressed in the initial dismissal or in this dismissal, but I do not know how it works in Indiana, so I am not sure if they will have a costs hearing after the fact or what the procedure is. Perhaps Loss Leader can assist in this regard. Yeah, maybe I could have assisted if someone had told me about the damned thread. Seriously, though, I'd have to agree with Spitfire. When it comes to costs (and especially legal fees), there's the rule and then there's the reality. The rule is that the winner should be able to submit a bill of costs with statutorily defined prices for various actions it had to take (motion fees, process, etc.). And then in many actions, a motion for legal fees could be made and probably should be granted. In reality, the more quickly cases end, the more unwilling courts are even to grant statutorily allowable costs. And unless there has been egregious misconduct after multiple court orders, legal fees are usually out of the question. If I were the lawyer for UL, even if there's a chance of getting any costs or fees, I would advise them just to let the whole thing go. They're big and rich and there's no need to seem petty or to give this guy one more minute of access to the judicial system. Now, on a related note, this latest development appears to prove my prediction about this case wrong. But it ain't over yet. Ryan can submit a motion for reconsideration, appeal the current dismissal order, appeal the first order, sue somebody else in some other court and much, much more. There's still a world of opportunity for this moron to continue to make a jackass of himself.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

31st August 2007, 05:20 PM	#33
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	And we'll be there to watch. With popcorn, no less!
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

31st August 2007, 05:22 PM	#34
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 27,909	Incidentally, I sent an email to this guy to tell him his assertions about Ryan are entirely wrong (and that there are court documents to prove it).
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

31st August 2007, 05:54 PM	#35
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by Loss Leader Yeah, maybe I could have assisted if someone had told me about the damned thread. Sorry about that, LossLeader. I sent you an email last night but I received an "undeliverable" message earlier today. Upon closer inspection, I realize that I mistyped your email address, which resulted in the "undeliverable" status. Mea culpa.