No. 10-11202
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
NETSPHERE, INC. Et Al,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant-Appellant
v.
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Appointing Receiver in Settled Lawsuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cons. w/ No. 11-10113
NETSPHERE INC., Et Al, Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, Et Al, Defendants
v.
QUANTEC L.L.C.; NOVO POINT L.L.C.,
Appellants
v.
PETER S. VOGEL,
Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Adding Non-Parties Novo Point, LLC
and Quantec, LLC as Receivership Parties
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
From the United States District Court
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
RESPONSE TO VOGEL SEALED FIFTH MOTION TO PLACE
ANOTHER ENTITY INTO RECEIVERSHIP EX PARTE AND
WITHOUT SERVICE OF PROCESS, NOTICE OR HEARING
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00511598228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2011
-
1
-
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellants, and subject to the preliminary Fifth Amendment
objection and motion previously filed in this cause, Appellants make this response
with respect to Vogel’s 7-06-11 Motion to clarify receiver order to place yet
another entity into receivership ex parte and without service of process, notice, or
hearing.
I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
Vogel’s factual assertions are not supported by the record or affidavits
offered by Vogel. Most notably, Jeff Baron does not own nor manage the entity
Vogel seeks to be appointed receiver over. Further, Vogel has a fundamental
misunderstanding of the law, and offers no authority for the relief he has requested.
As a fundamental principle of well-established law, a court rendering a
ruling against a party must first acquire jurisdiction over that party by personal
service or voluntary appearance. St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 353 (1882).
Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the
procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. Omni Capital
Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). Orders issued without
personal jurisdiction are void. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 728 (1878).
Accordingly, as a fundamental and preliminary step, service of process and notice
should be served on the entity Vogel desires to be appointed receiver over, and
hearing held on the grounds by which Vogel asserts he is entitled to such remedy.
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00511598228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2011
-
2
-
Vogel’s Wild-West view of the law where fundamental Due Process is ignored
should be rejected out of hand by this Honorable Court.
Similarly, since there was no claim or controversy concerning the non-party
Vogel seeks to be made the receiver over, the District Court below and this
Honorable Court lack subject matter jurisdiction to place the company into
receivership. Cochrane v. WF Potts Son & Co., 47 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.
1931); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); and
see Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); Middle
South Energy, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 800 F.2d 488, 490 (5th Cir. 1986)
(without an actual case or controversy between the parties within the meaning of
Article III of the Constitution there is no subject matter jurisdiction). Accordingly,
Vogel’s request should be denied.
WHEREFORE, Vogel’s motion should be in all things denied and overruled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Texas State Bar No. 00791608
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75240
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile
Email: legal@schepps.net
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00511598228 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2011
-
3
-
AUTHORITY CITED
FEDERAL CASES
Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986).................... 2
Cochrane v. WF Potts Son & Co., 47 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 1931) .................. 2
Middle South Energy, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 800 F.2d 488, 490 (5th Cir.
1986).................................................................................................................. 2
Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).............. 1
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 728 (1878) ............................................................ 1
St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 353 (1882)............................................................. 1
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).................... 2
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00511598228 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/09/2011
-
4
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this motion was served this day on all parties who receive
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.
CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00511598228 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/09/2011
