New Evidence Re Fees Doc 519

 
-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
 
NETSPHERE, INC.,       § 
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and   § 
MUNISH KRISHAN,       §  
Plaintiffs.                     § 
  § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F 
  v.   §   
  §  
JEFFREY BARON, and      §   
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,    § 
  Defendants.          § 
 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT 
RECORD WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE  
 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON: 
COMES  NOW  JEFF  BARON,  and  moves  this  Court  to  grant  leave  to  file 
the  following  motion  to  supplement  the  record  with  the  evidence  attached  as 
Exhibit A: 
A. WHAT THIS EVIDENCE PROVES 
EXHIBIT A - THE RECEIVER’S EMAIL 
This email: 
(1)  Establishes  that  the  receiver  is  not  an  impartial  and  indifferent  person. 
The email proves the receiver is clearly an advocate and not acting with 
impartiality,  and  has  therefore  breached  their  duty  as  receiver  and  their 
assessment  is  invalid  because  it  is  an  assessment  of  an  advocate.    See 
Texas  American  Bancshares,  Inc.  v.  Clarke,  740  F.Supp.  1243,  1253 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 519   Filed 05/05/11    Page 1 of 4   PageID 18668

 
-3-
(N.D.Tex.1990) (receiver “owes a duty of strict impartiality”). 
(2)  The  email  also  establishes  that  receiver’s  assessment  has  not  been 
reasonable, nor unbiased.  For example:  
a.  The email proves that to the receiver’s assessment, evidence 
that  Mr.  Lyon’s  billing  rate  was  $40.00  per  hour  is  “not 
evidence” and does change the receiver’s assessment nor (to 
the  receiver’s  mind)  controvert  Mr.  Lyon’s  claim  for 
payment at the rate of $300.00.  The fact that Mr. Lyon was 
paid  at  $40.00  per  hour,  and  the  evidence  proves  he  was 
billing at that rate, to the receiver is “no evidence”.   
Notably,  the  evidence  the  receiver  views  (and  argues)  as 
“no  evidence”  clearly  and  unambiguously  establishes  that 
even  after  September  2010,  Lyon  was  clearly  charging 
$40.00 per hour, not the $300.00 he is now claiming.  In this 
evidence  Mr.  Lyon,  in  his own words,  states  that his  rate is 
$40  per  hour.    He  notes  that  allows  ‘more  bang  for  the 
buck’.      Yet,  to  the  receiver’s  view,  this  is  not  evidence 
which  controverts  Mr.  Lyon’s  ‘claim’  that  his  rate  was 
$300.00 per hour, and is therefore due over $75,000.00. 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 519   Filed 05/05/11    Page 2 of 4   PageID 18669

 
-4-
b.  The receiver views the proof that after the global settlement 
was  reached  Taylor  made  no  claim  to  any  additional 
‘contingency’  fee  due,  and  instead  stated  expressly  “We'll 
probably  have  a  very  small  bill  that  will  go  out  at  the 
first  of  September,  but  that  should  be  the  last  one”  as 
“no  evidence”  to  controvert  Taylor’s  current  claim  that  he 
has a near $80,000.00 past due fee.  
 
B. WHY THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT RAISED EARLIER 
This material was in the exclusive possession of the receiver.   
C. RELIEF REQUESTED 
Jeff  Baron  requests  the  Court  to  consider  this  evidence  with  respect  to  the 
Court’s consideration of the receiver’s motions.   
Jointly  and  in  the  alternative  Jeff  Baron  requests  this  Court  to  remove  the 
receiver  as  biased,  and  if  a  receiver  is  to  be  appointed,  appoint  an  unbiased  and 
impartial receiver who is not an active advocate against Jeff.  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
Gary N. Schepps 
Texas State Bar No. 00791608 
Drawer 670804 
Dallas, Texas 75367 
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone 
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 519   Filed 05/05/11    Page 3 of 4   PageID 18670

 
-5-
E-mail: legal@schepps.net 
COURT ORDERED TRIAL 
COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This is to certify that this document 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 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 519   Filed 05/05/11    Page 4 of 4   PageID 18671

AFFIDAVIT OF GARY SCHEPPS - Page 1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
 
NETSPHERE, INC.,              ) 
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and      ) 
MUNISH KRISHAN,              ) 
  Plaintiffs,                   ) 
                          ) 
vs.                         )  Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F 
                          ) 
JEFFREY BARON, and            ) 
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,      ) 
  Defendants.                  ) 
 
DECLARATION OF GARY SCHEPPS 
 
  1.  My name  is Gary Schepps.  I am counsel for defendant Jeff Baron in 
the  above  entitled  and  numbered  cause.    I  am  competent  to  make  this 
declaration.    The  facts  stated  in  this  declaration  are  within  my  personal 
knowledge and are true and correct.  I have personal knowledge of the stated 
facts, which I learned of by experiencing them. 
 
  2.  The  attached  Exhibit  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  email  I  received 
from the receiver.  
   
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
 
Signed this 5rd day of May, 2011, in Dallas, Texas. 
 
 
/s/ Gary N. Scheps  
                   Gary N. Schepps 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 519-1   Filed 05/05/11    Page 1 of 2   PageID 18672

From: LOH, PETER <ploh@gardere.com> 
To: "'Furgeson_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov'" <Furgeson_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov> 
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 12:58:58 PM 
Subject: 3:09-cv-0988 re document 514 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on Assessment and 
Disbursement of Former Attorney Claims [Corrected Version]" filed by the Receiver 
 
Dear Judge Furgeson:   
  
I  am  attaching  a  Word  version  of  the  Receiver’s 
Findings  of  Fact,  Conclusions  of  Law,  and  Order  on 
Assessment  and  Disbursement  of  Former  Attorney  Claims  [Corrected  Version]
.   
This  version  supplants  and 
replaces two previous versions of the same document found at Docket Nos. 509 and 513.   
  
In the version found at Docket No. 509, there is an inadvertent error in Paragraph 27 (an incorrect statement 
that no declaration was attached to Jeff Baron’s 
Motion for Leave to File: Motion to Supplement Record with 
Newly Discovery Evidence
).  The correction eliminates the highlighted language below in paragraph 27.   
  
27.       Five days after the Hearing, on May 3, 2011, Baron filed a document entitled 
Mot
ion for Leave to Supplement Record with Newly Discovered Evidence. (“Supplement to the 
Record”) Docket No. 507.] The Court grants the motion for leave and permits the record to be 
includes no evidence to controvert the Admitted Evidence since it, too, lacks any declarations or 
any other type of evidence. 
 
In the version found at Docket No. 513, the Receiver corrected the inadvertent error in Paragraph 27 described 
above  but  failed  to  change  the  title  to  note  “CORRECTED VERSION” 
and  did  not  provide  an  explanatory 
footnote like the one found at footnote 1 in the present (corrected) version attached.   
The Receiver apologizes for this inconvenience. 
  
Thank you.   
 
Peter L. Loh | Partner  
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP 
1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 | Dallas, TX 75201 
214.999.4391 direct 
214.729.9058 cell 
214.999.3391 fax 
Gardere  |  Bio  |  vCard  
 
 
 
******************************************************** 
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: 
This communication has not been prepared as a formal legal opinion within the procedures described in Treasury Department Circular 230.  As a result, we 
are required by Treasury Regulations to advise you that for any significant Federal tax issue addressed herein, the advice in this communication (including 
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on 
the taxpayer. 
******************************************************** 
NOTICE BY GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP 
This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the law firm of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP that is confidential and/or privileged, 
or may contain attorney work product.  The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you 
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly 
prohibited, and may be unlawful.  If you have received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, 
destroy any hard copies you may have created, without disclosing the contents, and notify the sender immediately.  Unintended transmission does not 
constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. 
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an 
intention to make an agreement by electronic means. 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 519-1   Filed 05/05/11    Page 2 of 2   PageID 18673