-
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. §
RESPONSE, OBJECTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, AND
MOTION FOR RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO SHERMANS MOTION TO
BE GIVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF JEFF
BARONS MONEY [DOC 467]
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:
COMES NOW JEFF BARON, Appellant, and makes this response, and
jointly moves this Court to grant leave to file the included motion for relief to allow
Jeff access to his money to hire expert witnesses to offer evidence as to the
reasonableness and necessity of the claimed fees, to provide funding for the
employment of trial counsel and legal assistants to assist in investigating and
responding to Shermans motion, to provide funding for legal research on westlaw
and lexis, to allow discovery including for disclosures, document production and
depositions.
1. Jeff Baron moves for access to his money sufficient to hire experienced
and qualified federal trial counsel to defend Shermans motion [DOC 467], to hire
experts to offer testimony as to the reasonableness of the fees demanded by
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 18878
-
3
-
Sherman, and to pay expenses such as for legal research.
2. Shermans motion is lengthy, but lacks any statement of the legal grounds
for the relief requested by the movant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B); Intera Corp. v.
Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir. 2005). Jeff Baron accordingly moves to
strike the motion, and jointly and in the alternative to require a more definite
statement so that a more specific response can be made.
3. Notably, the district court has been divested of jurisdiction over the
receivership, and lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys fees with respect to work on
the matter on appeal. As a matter of established law, when Jeff appealed the
receivership order the District Court was divested of jurisdiction as to matters
relating to the receivership orders and subsequent orders and, for that reason, fees
cannot be recovered in the district court for work relating to those orders. Taylor v.
Sterrett, 640 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 1981).
4. In our country, absent statutory authority the "American Rule" applies
with respect to attorney's fees. Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West
Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001) ("a
general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory
authority."); KeyTronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 815 (1994) (attorney's
fees are not a recoverable cost of litigation "absent explicit congressional
authorization.").
5. No provision of the bankruptcy code, authorized the Trustee to seek a
receivership in order to reduce the amount of claims that might be made in the
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID 18879
-
4
-
bankruptcy court. The fees requested are also grossly excessive and unreasonable.
6. The trustee's admission that the receivership was intended to extend the
power and jurisdiction of the bankruptcy proceeding is new evidence which reveals
the clear unlawfulness of the original motion and order. Congress has expressly
prohibited a court from imposing receivership as an extension of a bankruptcy
proceeding. 11 U.S.C. §105(b).
7. The Trustees further admission is shocking he secretly collaborated ex-
parte with Peter Vogel who was employed as a Special Master to have Peter Vogel
appointed as receiver over Jeff Baron (by which Peter Vogel and his law firm have
been allowed to bill what is now around a million dollars in fees to administer the
receivership). Upon his appointment, Peter Vogel withdrew the fee objection Jeff
Baron had made to the Trustees grossly excessive attorneys fee application in the
bankruptcy court. Jeff Baron moves that an independent investigator be appointed
to investigate the apparent gross misconduct on the part of Peter Vogel as special
masterengaging in secret ex-parte communications with Sherman in collaboration
over the filing of a motion to appoint himself as receiver over Jeff Baron from which
he and his firm would be able to bill approximately a million dollars in fees. Jointly
and in the alternative Jeff moves for access to his funds to be allowed to retain
counsel to protect and prosecute Jeffs interests with respect to the conduct of Peter
Vogel and Mr. Sherman. Jeff Baron further moves that the Court enter an order for
Peter Vogel to disclose the full contents of all ex-parte communications he engaged
in while employed as special master. Jeff Baron further respectfully moves the
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18880
-
5
-
Court to disclose the contents of all ex-parte communications, if any, between Peter
Vogel and the Court or Court personnel. Jeff Baron jointly and respectfully moves
the Court to disclose the contents of all ex-parte communications regarding this case,
Peter Vogel, the trustee, or Jeff Baron, that was conducted between this Court and
the bankruptcy judge.
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
Email: legal@schepps.net
FOR JEFFREY BARON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this filing was served this day on all parties who receive
notification through the Courts electronic filing system.
CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
COURT ORDERED TRIAL COUNSEL
FOR JEFFREY BARON
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18881

Leave a Reply