*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be

regarded as precedent or cited before any

court except for the purpose of

establishing the defense of res judicata,

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Kevin W. Betz Adam Arceneaux Sandra L. Blevins Derek R. Molter Benjamin C. Ellis Kaitlyn J. Marschke Betz + Blevins Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA December 19, 2017 Craig Vickery, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Defendant,

49A02-1702-PL-330 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Indiana Commercial Court Ardagh Glass Inc., The Honorable Heather A. Welch, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff

Trial Court Cause No. 49D01-1606-PL-23465 Baker, Judge. Page 1 of 2

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A02-1702-PL-330 | December 19, 2017 ^[1] *2 The appellant’s petition for rehearing contains a multitude of examples of the

following language:

• “This Opinion is grossly erroneous.”

• “This Opinion . . . provides sua sponte the most deficient and defective due process waiver analysis in the history of Indiana jurisprudence . . . .”

• “astonishing material inaccuracies and significant errors” • “in the entire history of Indi ana jurisprudence, no opinion . . . has been so cursory or deficient in its legal analysis”

Pet’n for Reh. p. 6 - 7. The appellant claims to be “mindful of the limitations of criticism for counsel[.]” Id. at p. 6 n.1. Apparently not. We encourage counsel to use more respectful and measured language in the future and by separate order deny the request for oral argument on rehearing.

[2] Our original decision stands, and in all other respects, we deny the petition for

rehearing.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur. Page 2 of 2

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A02-1702-PL-330 | December 19, 2017