1 | P a g e
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-03461-O
Dallas Division
Comes now Appellant Jeffrey Baron (“Baron”) and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), files this Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Baron’s Motion for Stay
Pending Appeal of the Order of Relief in Involuntary Case and Brief in Support. In support
hereof, Baron would respectfully show as follows:
1. Even though the attorney fee order (the Fee Order”), which serves the sole basis
for the Petitioning Creditors’ standing and the determination that Baron is insolvent, has never
been enforced and was permanently stayed by the issuing court (Judge Ferguson), the
Bankruptcy Court has decided to essentially unstay the Fee Order and enforce it in an
involuntary bankruptcy case. Indeed, the Fee Order was entered over 2 years ago, and no
Petitioning Creditor has ever been paid a nickel under such Order in any court or in any
Case 3:13-cv-03461-O Document 39 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 7349
2 | P a g e
2. Why not? Because the Fifth Circuit unequivocally ruled that the Petitioning
Creditors held merely unresolved claims against Baron and therefore could not seek the
imposition of an extreme equitable remedy, like the freezing of assets or the imposition of
receivership, and the Fee Order arose from an illegal receivership. The Petitioning Creditors
have taken the illogical position that the Fifth Circuit never considered the Fee Order in
reversing the receivership, but they know full and well that the appeal of the Fee Order was
consolidated with the appeal of the receivership order and both sides spent over 50 pages fully
briefing the Fifth Circuit on the merits of the fee award. Thus, the Fifth Circuit necessarily
considered the merits of the Fee Order and still found that the Petitioning Creditors held
unresolved claims.
3. The fact that the Fifth Circuit did not specifically vacate the Fee Orderalong
with 60+ other interlocutory orders that were involved in the consolidated appealis of no
event, because the reversal of the receivership had the effect of vacating the Fee Order and any
other interlocutory order entered pursuant to the illegal receivership (unless otherwise directed
by the Fifth Circuit). That is precisely why, after the Fifth Circuit mandate issued, Judge
Furgeson denied the renewed request by the Petitioning Creditors to enforce the Fee Order. As a
result of losing before the Fifth Circuit and Judge Furgeson on their fee requests, the Petitioning
creditors forum shopped the Fee Order in a more friendly forum, the Bankruptcy Court.
4. Ignoring entirely that the Petitioning Creditors had previously lost, the
Bankruptcy Court took the position that a clarification order entered by the Fifth Circuit thirteen
days after it entered its opinion reversing the receivership (the Reversal Opinion”) somehow
proved that the Fifth Circuit wanted the Fee Order to remain effective and in place. Contrary to
the Bankruptcy Courts misunderstanding, the clarification order was only entered to remind the
Case 3:13-cv-03461-O Document 39 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 7350
3 | P a g e
parties of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 and prevent the irreparable harm caused by the
Petitioning Creditors’ commencement of the involuntary case. If anything the clarification order
enforced the original receivership order by Judge Furgeson, which clearly enjoined the
Petitioning Creditors from filing the involuntary case.
5. The stay pending appeal is certainly warranted in this case, as Baron has already
suffered an enormous injury at the request of the Petitioning Creditors. He has already incurred
over $5 million in damages paying for the costs of an illegal receivership and paying a trustee in
Ondova Limited Companys bankruptcy case (the Ondova Trustee”) to satisfy creditor claims.
His assets have dwindled to virtually nothing. But that is not the full extent of his loss, as the
Receiver and current chapter 7 trustee in his Involuntary Case (the Involuntary Case”) have,
and continue, to use Baron’s remaining assets and, more importantly, waive Baron’s valuable
constitutional rights in connection with challenging the Petitioning Creditors’ claims. In fact,
while this appeal is pending and no stay is in effect, the Receiver has recently requested to be
paid approximately $1.3 million from Baron’s remaining assets.
6. On the other hand, the Petitioning Creditorswho have already been paid over $3
million in fees by Baron, who seek to satisfy their claims in Ondova Limited Companys
bankruptcy, who have never posted a bond for anything and who have relied on trustees and
receivers to make their arguments for themhave suffered little or no harm in fighting against
Baron. Indeed, the Petitioning Creditors have never gone to trial on their claims and have
manipulated the civil process to ensure that Baron has no rights or assets to dispute their claims.
7. Even though Baron has already lost way more than any other party, he
understands the real danger of exhausting his remaining assets by the litigation tactics employed
by the Petitioning Creditors, with the aid of others. Baron therefore requests a modified stay
Case 3:13-cv-03461-O Document 39 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 7351
4 | P a g e
pending appeal, where he will agree to deposit most of his assets with this Court, provided he be
allowed access to, sufficient funds to properly prosecute this Appeal and address other
proceedings affecting his substantive rights.
8. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows the Court to reconsider prior
interlocutory orders that it has entered. This Court previously based its denial of Barons motion
for stay pending appeal on (a) technical noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 8005 and (b)
many of the factual and legal findings previously made by the Bankruptcy Court in issuing her
order for relief. In the Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of
Appellant’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Order of Relief and Brief in Support (Brief in
Support), Baron corrected the technical non-compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 8005 and
demonstrated how the Bankruptcy Courts prior findings resulted in manifest errors of law and
facts and therefore should not be relied on by this Court. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule
54(b), this Court has sufficient cause to reconsider its prior denial of Barons request for a stay
pending appeal. The irreparable harm that Baron stands to suffer in the near future certainly
warrants such reconsideration.
9. For all the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in his Brief in
Support, Appellant Jeffrey Baron requests this Court reconsider its Stay Order and grant a stay of
the Order of Relief pending an appeal.
Case 3:13-cv-03461-O Document 39 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 7352
5 | P a g e
Dated: November 22, 2013 Very respectfully,
Tayari Law PLLC
By: /s/ M. Tayari Garrett ______
Mpatanishi S. Tayari Garrett
100 Crescent Court, Ste. 700
Dallas, Texas 75201
Tel: (214) 459.8266
Fax: (214) 764.7289
Acosta & Associates P.C.
/s/ H. Joseph Acosta______
H. Joseph Acosta
619 E. 2
Irving, Texas 75060
Tel: (214) 614.8939
Fax: (214) 614.8992
The Cochell Law Firm, P.C.
/s/ Stephen R. Cochell___________
Stephen R. Cochell
Texas Bar No. 24044255
7026 Old Katy Rd., Ste 259
Houston, Texas 77096
(713)980-8796 (phone)
(713)980-1179 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Appellant Jeffrey Baron
On this date, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby
certify that I have served all parties who receive notification through the electronic filing system.
/s/ H. Joseph Acosta
H. Joseph Acosta
Case 3:13-cv-03461-O Document 39 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 7353

Leave a Reply