By failing to file a motion for a deadline extension, the other 3 reasons for dismissal could not be ammended, and his litigation was effectively ended, as both his claims were now dismissed with prejudice. His appeal(which was essentially moving the goal-posts) could only continue with the deadline extension.
(anyone with any type of legal background can chime in here, and if I've interchanged legal terms incorrectly, please forgive me)
You have misapprehended the terms and the process. A request for an extension of time is not an appeal.
On August 8, 2007, Ryan's first amended complaint was dismissed, but without prejudice on one point (the 'whistleblower' point) in that he was given 15 days to file a second amended complaint on that point, albeit with a very strongly worded caution from the court:
the Court said:
Given the possibility, however remote, that Mr. Ryan can allege facts showing, or at least from which it can be inferred, that UL violated laws or regulations, or misused public resources, in its execution of a public contract, and that he reported such facts to UL and NIST, the dismissal will be WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to the filing of an amended complaint within fifteen days. However, in considering whether to seek leave to amend the Amended Complaint, Mr. Ryan and his counsel should be mindful that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, assertions of wrongdoing by UL that are made without any evidentiary support could be a basis for monetary sanctions against Mr. Ryan, his counsel, or both.
The other part of his claim (i.e., that he was entitled to a public policy exception to the at-will employment law of Indiana) was also dismissed on August 8, 2007, but that portion was dismissed with prejudice. So, Ryan could have, if he wanted, filed a second amended complaint on the whistleblower point, but not on the public policy exception point.
He had 15 days to do so. He failed to file a second amended claim on time (by August 24) and on August 25, 2007, he filed a request for an extension of time because he had missed the deadline.
On August 28, 2007, the court refused to grant the extension of time because the reasons given for the request were insufficient, and the entirety of his first amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Then, on September 7, 2007, Ryan filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (as is required as a precursor to appealing the matter to an appellate court under Indiana law).
On September 18, 2007, UL filed its opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
Ryan had until October 2, 2007 to file his reply to UL's opposition, and did not do so.
Therefore, on October 9, 2007, UL filed a motion for summary ruling on Ryan's motion for reconsideration.
The court rendered its ruling on the motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2007, dismissing Ryan's motion and granting UL's motion.
At that point, Ryan had 30 days to appeal to a higher court, but he never did, despite saying at the time that was going to do so, and despite continuing to solicit donations to fund his litigation long after his lawsuit was tossed out.
As I pointed out previously, the documents are
all here if you wish to read them, along with some commentary.
Hope that clears things up for you.
