Appellant Baron’s Statement of Issues

1 
 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
 
 
In re:   § 
  §       Case No. 09-34784-SGJ 
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,   §      (Chapter 11) 
  §       
  § 
Debtor  § 
   
 
APPELLANTJEFFREY BARON’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL 
REGARDING ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK 
OF JURISDICTION AND PARIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER 
 
 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 
  NOW  COMES  Jeffrey  Baron,  Appellant,  in  accordance  with  Rule  8006  of  the 
Bankruptcy Rules and files this, the Appellant’s Statement of Issues on Appeal Regarding Court 
Order  Denying  Alleged  Debtors’  Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Lack  of  Subject  Matter  Jurisdiction 
[112] and Partial Summary Judgment Order. [118]  
As  to  both  the  Order  Denying  the  Alleged  Debtors’  Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Lack  of 
Jurisdiction  and  Partial  Summary  Judgment  Order,  Appellant  states  the  following  issues  for 
appeal: 
1.  Whether the bankruptcy court erred by failing to dismiss the involuntary bankruptcy 
and, instead, ruling that bankruptcy jurisdiction was established over Appellant as a 
matter of law by District Court Docket 575 (hereafter, the “Claimant Order”). 
          a. Whether the Claimant Order was a Final Order? 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 157    Filed 05/03/13    Entered 05/03/13 15:59:17    Desc Main
 Document      Page 1 of 4

2 
 
b.   Whether the Claimant Order established the personal liability of the 
Appellant to each of Petitioning Creditors and foreclosed any bona fide 
disputes as to the validity or amount of the alleged debts? 
c.  Whether District Court Docket 987 stayed, pending appeal, the Claimant 
Order and therefore renders the Petitioning Creditors’ claims subject to a bona 
fide dispute? 
e.   Whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the Claimant Order 
through findings set out and specifically articulated in its Opinion and Order 
of December 18, 2012 and therefore renders the Petitioning Creditors’ claims 
subject to a bona fide dispute? 
f.  Whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Order of November 9, 2012 
and/or December 31, 2012 stayed the Claimant Order and therefore renders 
the Petitioning Creditors’ claims subject to a bona fide dispute? 
g.  Whether res judicata bars Appellant’s bona fide disputes as to the 
Petitioning Creditors’ claims because no final determination was made of 
either the liability or amount of the claims against Appellant? 
h.  Whether collateral estoppel bar’s Appellants bona fide disputes as to the 
Petitioning Creditors’ claims because the “facts” determined were not 
essential to the order, and because the order was not fully and fairly litigated. 
2.    Whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that res judicata bars Appellant from 
establishing a bona fide dispute as to the claims of the Petitioning Creditors? 
3.    Whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that collateral estoppel bars 
Appellant from establishing a  bona fide dispute as to the claims of the Petitioning 
Creditors? 
4.       Whether the Fifth Circuit decision dated December 18, 2012 was res judicata and/or 
collaterally estopped re-litigation of Petitioning Creditors’ claim that Docket 575 had 
“not been reduced to judgment”, the current and former lawyers were “nonjudgment 
creditors” who sought to recover on “unsecured claims…that had not been reduced to  
judgment” and therefore not a final judgment on the merits?  
5.       Whether an order that was part of a vacated receivership proceeding can serve as a 
basis for collateral estoppel or res judicata in subsequent proceedings? 
6.  Whether Petitioning Creditors’ Petition was barred and should have been 
dismissed as a result of District Court’s Receivership Order? 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 157    Filed 05/03/13    Entered 05/03/13 15:59:17    Desc Main
 Document      Page 2 of 4

3 
 
As to the Order Denying the Alleged Debtors’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 
Jurisdiction, in addition to the issues raised above, Appellant raises the following issues for 
appeal: 
7.       Whether Petitioning Creditors acted in bad faith by filing an involuntary 
bankruptcy petition where, as here, they were fully aware that the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruled that there was no judgment on the merits as to the 
claims raised by the Petitioning Creditors.  
8.  Whether Petitioning Creditors’ filing of the Involuntary Bankruptcy 
Petition was an abuse of the bankruptcy Code and a waste of judicial resources? 
9.  Whether the Petitioning Creditors’ filing of the Involuntary Bankruptcy 
Petition Interfered with the jurisdiction of the District Court in Winding Down 
the Receivership, as ordered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals? 
As to the Partial Summary Judgment Order, in addition to the issues raised 
above in Issues 1-6, Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: 
10.  Whether the bankruptcy court erred in failing to grant Appellant’s 
Motion For Continuance to take discovery from Petitioning Creditors prior to 
ruling on its Motion for Summary Judgment. 
11.   Whether the bankruptcy court erred in failing to grant the alleged 
debtor’s motion to dismiss as the determination and adjudication of the 
substantive merits of the Petitioning Creditors’disputes before the bankruptcy 
court constituted the “prototypical exercise of judicial power” that must be 
heard by an Article III judge. 
12.  Whether the bankruptcy court should have dismissed the involuntary 
bankruptcy petition for insufficient service of process? 
13.  Whether the bankruptcy court should have dismissed the involuntary 
bankruptcy petition for denial of due process, including but not limited to the 
alleged debtor’s inability to hire counsel of choice to defend himself and his 
assets? 
14.  Whether an order entered in In re Ondova granting Pronske & Patel, 
P.C. substantial contribution constitutes res judicata or collaterally estops 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 157    Filed 05/03/13    Entered 05/03/13 15:59:17    Desc Main
 Document      Page 3 of 4

4 
 
Appellant from establishing a bona fide dispute as to validity or amount of 
Pronske & Patel, P.C.’s claims? 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
               /s/ Stephen R. Cochell  
Stephen R. Cochell  
The Cochell Law Firm, P.C.  
Texas Bar No. 24044255  
7026 Old Katy Rd., Ste 259  
Houston, Texas 77096  
(713)980-8796 (phone)  
(713)980-1179 (facsimile)  
srcochell@cochellfirm.com 
             
 
 
 
 
Certificate of Service 
 
On May 3, 2013, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court for 
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of 
the  court.  I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  served  all  counsel  and/or  pro  se  parties  of  record 
electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal rule of Civil Procedure 5 (b)(2).  
 
 
/s/Stephen R. Cochell 
Stephen R. Cochell 
 
 
 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 157    Filed 05/03/13    Entered 05/03/13 15:59:17    Desc Main
 Document      Page 4 of 4