Page 1 of 8
CAUSE NO. 10-11915
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO STRIKE SUGGESTION OF STAY BY
VIRTUE OF FEDERAL COURT INJUNCTION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
REGARDING ABTEMENT AND DISTRICT COUT INJUNCTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Jeffrey Baron (“Baron
"
)
,
and files Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Response and Motion to Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal Court Injunction
and for Clarification Regarding Abatement and District Court Injunction
and Request for
Payment of Attorneys’ Fees
, and for cause would represent.
INTRODUCTION
1.
PG&K’s Response to and Motion to Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal
Court Injunction and Request for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees filed on June 5, 2014, should be
denied in all respects. Pronske and PG&K’s continued attempts to paint Mr. Baron as a “crazed
vexatious litigant” is belied by record. Rather than stoop to alleging hyperbolic rhetoric that
Pronske and PG&K have continually presented to court after court, losing on each of their
attempts, Baron would advise this Court of the truth, as follows:
a.
Pronske and PG&K made representations to Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan in early
September 2010, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found to be false.
JEFF BARON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GERRIT M. PRONSKE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND PRONSKE & PATEL, P.C.
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
193
rd
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
7/1/2014 12:47:11 AM
GARY FITZSIMMONS
DISTRICT CLERK
Page 2 of 8
b.
By engaging in such conduct, Pronske and PG&K participated in and aided and
abetted the appointment of a receiver over Baron’s person and his assets that was
reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but not before causing millions of
dollars of damages to be incurred by Baron.
c.
On September 15, 2010, Baron filed the captioned cause against Gerrit M. Pronske
(“Pronske”) and Pronske and Patel, PC, n/k/a Pronske, Goolsby & Kathman, PC
(“PG&K”) seeking declaratory judgment relief, damages and injunctive relief
including a Temporary Restraining Order. Pronske and PG&K removed the captioned
case to the Bankruptcy Court and Judge Jernigan ultimately remanded it back to this
Court on Mr. Baron’s motion finding that there was no jurisdiction over the matter.
d.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the receivership and remanded the case to
the Federal District Court with instructions to wind down the receivership and then
vacate the Receivership Order.
e.
Two hours after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the receivership, Pronske
and PG&K caused an involuntary bankruptcy to be filed against Baron, and an order
for relief was granted ,which the Federal District Court, Judge Sam Lindsay presiding,
reversed a year after it was filed, causing millions of dollars of damages to Baron.
f.
Pronske and PG&K then filed an application for prejudgment writ of garnishment
against Baron and asked for the abatement that had been ordered by Judge Jernigan be
lifted while this case was pending before Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan, and Judge
Jernigan refused to grant Pronske’s requested relief.
g.
Pronske then instituted a new action in the 68
th
Judicial District Court in and for Dallas
County, Texas, and was able to obtain a prejudgment garnishment on an ex parte basis,
failing to advise the District Judge that the very same emergency relief was requested
before Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan and was denied.
2.
Indeed, if there is anyone in this case that is a crazed, vexatious litigant, it is
Pronske and his law firm, PG&K. The detailed facts supporting the above allegations appear in
Plaintiff’s Response to PG&K’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on June 30, 2014.
FACTS
3.
The captioned case was filed by Baron on September 15, 2010. On the same date,
while Baron was waiting the requisite 2 hour notice period prior to seeking the TRO relief,
Pronske and PG&K removed the lawsuit to the Bankruptcy Court, where it was pending as
Page 3 of 8
Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03281 before Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan, related to the Ondova
Chapter 11 Case. A true and correct copy of the Adversary Proceeding Docket Sheets are
attached hereto as
Exhibit “1”
and incorporated herein for all purposes.
4.
On September 29, 2010, PG&K filed an answer and counterclaim against Baron.
See
Exhibit “1”
at Docket Entry 5.
5.
Baron filed a Motion to Remand this case.
See
Exhibit “1”
, at docket entries 9
and 10.
6.
Thereafter, beginning on November 3, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series
of orders abating the Adversary Proceeding and continuing such abatement.
See
Exhibit “1”
,
Orders at docket entries 13 and 26. Ultimately, by docket entry on January 9, 2012, the
Bankruptcy Court continued the abatement indefinitely.
See
Exhibit “1”
, at p 9, docket entry for
January 9, 2012.
7.
On March 13, 2014, Pronske filed an Emergency Motion before Bankruptcy Judge
Jernigan in the Adversary Proceeding to Lift the Abatement of the case, and a Motion for
Emergency Hearing thereon. Judge Jernigan denied PG&K and Pronske’s Emergency Motion for
Hearing the following day, March 14, 2014.
See
Exhibits “2”, “3” and “4”
attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, and
Exhibit “1”
hereto as p10, docket
entries 36, 37 and 39. Pronske also filed an Application for Prejudgment Garnishment.
8.
Three days later, having failed to obtain relief before Judge Jernigan, Pronske then
filed a new state court lawsuit in the 68
th
Judicial District Court in and for Dallas County, Texas,
Cause Nos. DC14-02619 and DC14-02622, where Pronske made identical allegations as were
made in this cause. Pronske then arranged for an
ex parte
hearing before Judge Hoffman of the
68
th
Judicial District Court, without notice to Baron. In his pleadings before Judge Hoffman,
Page 4 of 8
Pronske failed to disclose to Judge Hoffman that PG&K had attempted to have Judge Jernigan
enter an emergency hearing on PG&K’s prejudgment garnishment application filed in the
Bankruptcy Court on March 13, 2014, and that Judge Jernigan refused to grant PG&K’s
Emergency Motion for Hearing the following day. Baron believes that Pronske did not advise
Judge Hoffman of these events, before Judge Hoffman entered an
ex parte
prejudgment
garnishment order against Baron on the 17
th
of March 2014.
9.
On March 27, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan set for hearing PG&K’s Motion to
Lift Abatement and Application for Prejudgment Garnishment. The Court also set Baron’s
Motion for Remand,
sua sponte
, for hearing. The hearing date was April 28, 2014. A true and
correct copy of Judge Jernigan’s Order setting hearing is attached hereto as
Exhibit “5”
.
10.
Before the hearing occurred, on April 8, 2014, PG&K filed a Notice of Withdrawal
of its Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement. On the same date PG&K also filed a Notice of
Withdrawal of PG&K’s Application for Writ of Garnishment.
See
Exhibit “1”
hereto at p11,
docket entries 44 and 45.
11.
Judge Jernigan conducted a hearing on the only remaining motion on the docket,
Baron’s Motion to Remand, on April 28, 2014. Judge Jernigan granted the Motion to Remand
finding and concluding that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
Adversary Proceeding. Judge Jernigan entered an Order Remanding Case on May 5, 2014, a true
and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “6”
.
See also
Exhibit “1”
hereto at p11,
docket entry for April 28, 2014, and Docket Entries 47 and 49.
12.
The Adversary Proceeding was remanded on or about May 21, 2014, but the
abatement was never lifted.
13.
On June 3, 2014, Baron filed with this Court a Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of
Page 5 of 8
Federal Court Injunction. In said Suggestion, Baron alerted the Court to the fact that on
November 24, 2010, in the case styled
Netsphere Inc., et al, v. Jeffrey Baron, et al
, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil Action No. 3-09-cv-
0988-F, the District Court entered an Order Appointing Receiver as to Jeff Baron, Defendant in
this cause. A true and correct copy of the Order Appointing Receiver is attached hereto as
Exhibit "7"
and incorporated herein by reference. The pertinent part of the Order Appointing
Receiver states as follows:
"A Except by leave of this Court, during the pendency of the receivership ordered
herein, all other persons and entities aside from the Receiver are hereby stayed from
taking any action to establish or enforce any claim, right, or interest for, against, on
behalf of, in, or in the name of, the Receivership Party (Defendant Baron), any of
their partnerships, assets, documents, or the Receiver or the Receiver's duly
authorized agents actin in the capacities as such, including by not limited to, the
following actions: 1. Commencing, prosecuting, continuing, entering, or enforcing
any suit or proceeding, except that such actions may be filed to toll any applicable
statute of limitations;"
See
Exhibit “7”
, Page 12.
14.
On December 28, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
receivership and remanded the case to the District Court for the purpose of winding up the
receivership and entering an order vacating the receivership.
Netspherre v Baron
, 703 F3d 296,
315 (5th Cir 2012) (“The judgment appointing the receiver is reversed with directions to [on
remand] vacate the receivership and discharge the receiver, his attorneys and employees, and to
charge against the cash in the receivership fund the remaining receivership fees in accordance
with this opinion.”).
1
In a subsequent order entered by the Fifth Circuit on December 31, 2012, a
true and correct copy of which is attached as
Exhibit “9”
, the Court stated:
“We point out that our opinion did not dissolve the receivership immediately. We
1
For convenience, the Fifth Circuit Opinion is attached as Exhibit “9”.
Page 6 of 8
ordered a remand for an expeditious winding up of the receivership. No assets that
were brought under the control of the receiver will be released immediately from
that control even when the mandate is issued. The district court will thereafter have
the authority to manage the process for ending the receivership as quickly as
possible.”
Id.,
at page 7.
15.
The wind down has not has not been completed as of this date, and the
Receivership Order has not been vacated.
See
email exchange with the Receiver’s attorney
attached hereto as
Exhibit “10”.
16.
Finally, attached hereto as
Exhibit “11”
is a true and correct copy of the docket
sheets for the Receivership Action from December 18, 2012, the date of the Fifth Circuit decision
reversing the receivership, to present. As the Court can see, there is no entry where the
Receivership Order has been vacated. Furthermore, Pronske and PG&K have participated in and
have filed pleadings regarding the wind down of the receivership.
See Id.,
Docket Entry 1403, at
p__. In this pleading, a true and copy of which is attached as
Exhibit “12”
.
RELIEF REQUESTED
17.
It appears that this case still remains abated pursuant to the orders of Judge
Jernigan. It also appears that this case is stayed by the Receivership Order, which has not been
vacated as of this date.
18.
Therefore, Pronske’s and PG&K’s various motions that are set on July 7, 2014,
should be taken off the calendar so that this Court does not need to spend any unnecessary time
preparing to consider such motions and considering such motions at the hearing on July 7, 2014.
Specifically, the Motions that are set for July 7, 10`4 are as follows:
PG&K’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on May 16, 2014; and
Page 7 of 8
PG&K’s Response to and Motion to Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal Court
Injunction and Request for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees filed on June 5, 2014.
19.
In addition, Pronske and PG&K have served Baron with paper discovery in this
case which is also in violation of the abatement, in violation of the District Court injunction and in
violation of
Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5)
.
20.
The relief requested in Pronske and PG&K’s PG&K’s Response to and Motion to
Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal Court Injunction and Request for Payment of
Attorneys’ Fees filed on June 5, 2014, should be denied in all respects and the hearing set for July
7, 2014, on PG&K’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on May 16, 2014, should be
continued.
WHEREFORE, Baron prays for clarification as to whether this case remains abated and/or
whether the case is enjoined from proceeding forward by virtue of the Federal Court Injunction. If
the case is abated and/or stayed from proceeding, Baron would ask that the Court remove the
motions referenced above from the hearing docket for June 7, 2014, and that the Court order that
all discovery is abated until both the abatement of this case is lifted and the Receivership Order is
vacated. Baron prays for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Baron is justly
entitled.
Page 8 of 8
Respectfully submitted on July 1, 2014.
Pendergraft & Simon, LLP
/s/
Leonard H. Simon
Leonard H. Simon
Texas Bar No. 18387400
S.D.Tex. Adm. No. 8200
William P. Haddock
Texas Bar No. 00793875
S.D.Tex. Adm. No. 19637
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
Tel. (713) 528-8555
Fax. (713) 868-1267
Counsel for Jeffrey Baron
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 1, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the Court’s electronic filing system, which will send notification of
such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Leonard H. Simon
U.S. Bankruptcy Cour
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
Adversary Proceeding #: 10-03281-sgj
Assigned to: Stacey G. Jernigan
Lead BK Case: 09-34784
Lead BK Title: Ondova Limited Company
Lead BK Chapter: 11
Demand:
Date Filed: 09/15/10
Date Removed From State: 09/15/10
Nature[s] of Suit: 01 Determination of removed claim or cause
Plaintiff
-----------------------
Jeff Baron represented by Stanley D. Broome
The Broome Law Firm, PLLC
105 Decker Court
Suite 850
Irving, TX 75062
(214)574-7500
Fax : (214)574-7501
Email: sbroome@broomelegal.com
TERMINATED: 07/11/2011
Leonard H. Simon
Pendergraft & Simon L.L.P.
The Riviana Building, Suite 800
2777 Allen Parkway
Houston, TX 77019
713-528-8555
Fax : 832-202-2810
Email: lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
V.
Defendant
-----------------------
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C. represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
214-658-6500
Fax : 214-658-6509
Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com
Rakhee V. Patel
Page 1 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
Shackelford, Melton & McKinley LLP
3333 Lee Parkway
Tenth Floor
Dallas, TX 75219
214-780-1400
Fax : 214-780-1401
Email: rpatel@shacklaw.net
Gerrit M. Pronske
Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 658-6500
Fax : 214-658-6509
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
Christina Walton Stephenson
Shackelford, Melton & McKinley, LLP
3333 Lee Parkway
10th Floor
Dallas, TX 75219
2147801400
Fax : 2147801401
Email: cstephenson@shacklaw.net
Defendant
-----------------------
Pronske & Patel, P.C.
2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 658-6500
represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
Rakhee V. Patel
(See above for address)
Gerrit M. Pronske
(See above for address)
Christina Walton Stephenson
(See above for address)
Counter-Defendant
-----------------------
Jeff Baron represented by Jeff Baron
PRO SE
Stanley D. Broome
The Broome Law Firm, PLLC
Page 2 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
105 Decker Court
Suite 850
Irving, TX 75062
(214)574-7500
Fax : (214)574-7501
Email: sbroome@broomelegal.com
TERMINATED: 07/11/2011
3rd Party Plaintiff
-----------------------
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C. represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
Gerrit M. Pronske
(See above for address)
Christina Walton Stephenson
(See above for address)
3rd Party Plaintiff
-----------------------
Pronske & Patel, P.C.
2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 658-6500
represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
Gerrit M. Pronske
(See above for address)
Christina Walton Stephenson
(See above for address)
V.
3rd Pty Defendant
-----------------------
The Village Trust
c/0 Adrian Taylor
Asiaciti Trust Pacific, Ltd.
Level 2, BCI House
Rarotonga
Cook Islands
Filing Date Docket Text
09/15/2010
Page 3 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
1 (4 pgs) Adversary case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature(s) of suit: 01
(Determination of removed claim or cause). (Patel, Rakhee)
09/15/2010
Receipt of filing fee for Complaint(10-03281-sgj) [cmp,cmp] ( 250.00). Receipt
number 12462138, amount $ 250.00. (U.S. Treasury)
09/15/2010
2 (2 pgs) Adversary proceeding cover sheet without signature filed by
Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. (RE: related document
(s)1 Complaint). (Patel, Rakhee) Modified text on 9/16/2010 (Jones, A.).
09/15/2010
3 (23 pgs) State court pleading: Original petition filed by Defendants Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. (Patel, Rakhee)
09/16/2010
4 (2 pgs) Adversary proceeding cover sheet filed by Defendants Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint).
(Patel, Rakhee)
09/27/2010
5 (15 pgs) Answer to complaint , Counterclaim by Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C.,
Pronske & Patel, P.C. against Jeff Baron , Third-Party complaint by Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. against The Village Trust . filed by Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. (Pronske, Gerrit)
09/30/2010
6 (2 pgs) Notice of Status Conference filed by Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske
& Patel, P.C., Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. (Patel,
Rakhee)
09/30/2010
7 (2 pgs) Notice of hearing filed by Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,
P.C., Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Status
Conference to be held on 10/27/2010 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm
for #1 complaint. (Patel, Rakhee) Modified on 10/1/2010 to create link to related
document (Ward, J).
10/05/2010
8 (3 pgs) Certificate of service re: Notice of Status Conference filed by Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske
& Patel, P.C. (RE: related document(s)7 Notice of hearing). (Pronske, Gerrit)
10/15/2010
9 (3 pgs) Motion for remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron (Broome, Stanley)
10/15/2010
10 (31 pgs) Brief in support filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff
Baron (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and Motion to Strike).
(Broome, Stanley)
10/15/2010 11 (12 pgs; 4 docs) Support/supplemental documentAppendix filed by Counter-
Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for
Page 4 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
reman
and Motion to Strik
). (Attachments: 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Appendix2
Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Appendix3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Appendix) (Broome, Stanley)
10/15/2010
Proposed order regarding Motion to Remand and Motion to Strike (RE: related
document(s)9 Motion for remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Document uploaded on 10/15/2010 (Ref-ID:
1286311015373_2840). (Broome, Stanley)
10/21/2010
12 (2 pgs) Notice of hearing filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron, Counter-Defendant Jeff
Baron (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 10 Brief filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron,
Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 11 Support/supplemental document filed by Counter-
Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Hearing to be held on 12/1/2010 at
09:30 AM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 11 and for 10 and for 9, (Broome,
Stanley)
10/27/2010
Status conference held on 10/27/2010. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary
case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske
& Patel, P.C.) Appearances: G. Pronske for himself and his firm; S. Broome for J.
Baron. Nonevidentiary hearing. Announcement that parties are discussing
mediation (before global mediation of attorneys fees issues). Court ruled it will
enter order: (a) abating adversary proceeding until at least middle of December; (b)
set another status conference in or shortly after the middle of December; (c)
continue the 11/29/10 hearing on Mr. Pronskes Section 503(b) application in the
Ondova case (and objection the deadline relating thereto) and also continue the
12/1/10 hearing on the motion for remand of J. Baron in this Adv. Proc., with these
matters to be rescheduled as necessary at the next status conference. Court to issue
order reflecting this ruling. (Harden, D.) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
11/03/2010
13 (2 pgs) Order Abating Adversary Proceeding and Setting Status Conference.
Entered on 11/3/2010 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint ). Status Conference
to be held on 12/16/2010 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Moroles,
D.)
11/05/2010
14 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
13 Order Abating Adversary Proceeding and Setting Status Conference. Entered
on 11/3/2010 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint ). Status Conference to be held
on 12/16/2010 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 1.
Service Date 11/05/2010. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/06/2010)
11/23/2010
15 (4 pgs) Motion to withdraw as attorney (Stan Broome) filed by Plaintiff Jeff
Baron, Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron (Broome, Stanley)
11/23/2010
Proposed order regarding Motion to Withdraw (RE: related document(s)15
Motion to withdraw as attorney). Document uploaded on 11/23/2010 (Ref-ID:
1288986969630_4132). (Broome, Stanley)
11/24/2010
Page 5 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
1
(4 pgs) Motion for leave Agreed Motion to Mediat
Filed by Defendants
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske
& Patel, P.C. (Stephenson, Christina)
11/24/2010
Proposed order regarding Agreed Order to Mediate (RE: related document(s)16
Motion for leave Agreed Motion to Mediate Filed by Defendants Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,
P.C.). Document uploaded on 11/24/2010 (Ref-ID: 1288986969630_4294).
(Stephenson, Christina)
12/16/2010
Hearing held on 12/16/2010. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 10-
03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,
P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature(s) of suit: 01 (Determination of removed claim or
cause).) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee; B. Golden for Receiver; G. Pronske
for himself; S. Broome (telephonically), for himself and with a pending motion to
withdraw for J. Baron. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard reports, particularly
with regard to Receiver developments. Court will continue with abatement of this
matter and the Section 503 substantial contribution claims in the underlying case
until at least lefting of the stay under the Receivership Order. Court to hold a status
conference on 1/25/11. Mr. Urbanik to upload order. (Harden, D.) (Entered:
12/17/2010)
12/16/2010
17 Status conference continued (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 10-
03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,
P.C.) Status Conference to be held on 1/25/2011 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge
Jernigan Ctrm. (Harden, D.) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
12/20/2010
Proposed order regarding Scheduling Order (RE: related document(s)1
Adversary case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske,
P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature). Document uploaded on
12/20/2010 (Ref-ID: 1291646361376_4241). (Urbanik, Raymond)
12/23/2010
18 (3 pgs) Order setting a status conference hearing Entered on 12/23/2010 (RE:
related document(s)1 Complaint filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff
Jeff Baron, 9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 1/25/2011 at
09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Simpson, B)
12/25/2010
19 (4 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
18 Order setting a status conference hearing Entered on 12/23/2010 (RE: related
document(s)1 Complaint filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff
Baron, 9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff
Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 1/25/2011 at 09:30
AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 12/25/2010.
(Admin.)
01/06/2011 20 (2 pgs) Order resetting status conference hearing Entered on 1/6/2011 (RE:
related document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-
Page 6 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on
1/31/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Simpson, B)
01/08/2011
21 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
20 Order resetting status conference hearing Entered on 1/6/2011 (RE: related
document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 1/31/2011 at
09:30 AM.) No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 01/08/2011. (Admin.)
01/31/2011
23 Status Conference held on 1/31/2011., Status Conference continued (RE:
related document(s)1 Adversary case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Nature(s) of suit: 01
(Determination of removed claim or cause). filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff
Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee Sherman;
Trustee Sherman; B. Golden for Receiver Vogel; Receiver Vogel; J. MacPete for
Manilla/NetSphere; M. Goolsby for Pronske Patel; S. Broome, for J. Baron in AP
# 10-3281 (subject to a motion to withdraw); E. Taube (telephonically) for his firm
and Shurig and West firms; R. Puri for Manilla. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court
heard status report from various parties. Matter continued to 4/4/11 at 11:30 am.
Status Conference to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan
Ctrm. (Womack, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
01/31/2011
24 Status Conference held on 1/31/2011., Status Conference continued (RE:
related document(s)9 Motion for remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-
Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron,
Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee Sherman; Trustee
Sherman; B. Golden for Receiver Vogel; Receiver Vogel; J. MacPete for
Manilla/NetSphere; M. Goolsby for Pronske Patel; S. Broome, for J. Baron in AP
# 10-3281 (subject to a motion to withdraw); E. Taube (telephonically) for his firm
and Shurig and West firms; R. Puri for Manilla. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court
heard status report from various parties. Matter continued to 4/4/11 at 11:30 am.
Status Conference to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan
Ctrm. (Womack, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
02/07/2011
22 (1 pg) Order Continuing Hearings. Entered on 2/7/2011 (RE: related
document(s)1 Complaint , 9 Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of
Removal). Status Conference reset and to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at
Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Moroles, D.)
02/09/2011
25 (2 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
22 Order Continuing Hearings. Entered on 2/7/2011 (RE: related document(s)1
Complaint , 9 Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of Removal). Status
Conference reset and to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan
Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 02/09/2011. (Admin.)
04/04/2011 Status Conference held on 4/4/2011. (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for
remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff
Baron) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee D. Sherman; Trustee D. Sherman
Page 7 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
(Ondova estate); B. Golden for Receiver P. Vogel; Receiver P. Vogel (over J.
Baron); M. Keen for Powers Taylor; R. Patel for Pronske Patel; E. Taube
(telephonically) for Hohmann, Taube & Summers, L.L.P.; M. Thomas for J.
Baron; S. Broome for J. Baron in AP # 10-3281), subject to pending motion to
withdraw; G. Lyons, another counsel for J. Baron, subject to pending motion to
withdraw. Court heard reports regarding receivership action, attorneys fees issues,
and pending matters in Ondova case. Court will continue with abatement of
adversary proceeding for another 90 days. Court to issue order. (Womack,
Jennifer) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
04/06/2011
26 (2 pgs) Order Abating Adversary and Setting Status Conference hearing
Entered on 4/6/2011 (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to
strike filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 7/11/2011 at
02:30 PM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Simpson, B)
04/08/2011
27 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
26 Order Abating Adversary and Setting Status Conference hearing Entered on
4/6/2011 (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed
by Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 7/11/2011 at 02:30 PM at
Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 0. Service Date 04/08/2011.
(Admin.)
07/11/2011
28 (2 pgs) Order granting motion of Stanley D. Broome to withdraw as attorney
(related document # 15). Entered on 7/11/2011. (Moroles, D.)
07/11/2011
29 (2 pgs) Notice to service order (RE: related document(s)28 Order granting
motion of Stanley D. Broome to withdraw as attorney (related document # 15).
Entered on 7/11/2011.) (Moroles, D.)
07/11/2011
Status conference held on 7/11/2011. (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for
remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff
Baron filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances:
R. Urbanik for Trustee; B. Golden for Receiver Vogel; Receiver Vogel; S. Broome
for himself and subject to a motion to withdraw as counsel to Jeff Baron; G.
Pronske for himself; E. Taube (telephonically) for his law firm and Shurig law
firm. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard status reports. Court will set another
status conference in approximately 90 days, in light of delays in receivership and
overlapping issues it has in Ondova case. Mr. Urbanik should coordinate next
setting with CRD. (Harden, D.) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
07/12/2011
30 (2 pgs) Notice of hearing Notice of Continued Hearing filed by Interested
Party Daniel J. Sherman, Trustee (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand
filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Hearing to be held on
10/13/2011 at 09:30 AM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 9 and for 9, (Urbanik,
Raymond)
07/13/2011 31 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
28 Order granting motion of Stanley D. Broome to withdraw as attorney (related
Page 8 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
document # 1
). Entered on 7/11/2011.) No. of Notices: 0. Service Date
07/13/2011. (Admin.)
07/13/2011
32 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing. (RE: related document(s)29 Notice to
service order (RE: related document(s)28 Order granting motion of Stanley D.
Broome to withdraw as attorney (related document # 15). Entered on 7/11/2011.))
No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 07/13/2011. (Admin.)
10/13/2011
Hearing held on 10/13/2011. (RE: related document(s)9 Status conference re:
Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of Removal filed byCounter-
Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron ) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Chapter
11 Trustee; P. Loh for Baron Receiver; G. Pronske for Pronske Patel firm; M.
Taylor for Powers Taylor firm; E. Taube for West firm and Hohmann Taube firm.
Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard reports about continued pendency of Fifth
Circuit appeals and inactivity in District Court Receivership Action in light of
Fifth Circuit appeals. Court to set another status conference in approximately 90
days (Mr. Urbanik to contact CRD for setting). Mr. Pronske announced he may file
a motion for scheduling order and seek to move to dismiss claims in this action
(court announced it would consider such a motion on NNL). (Garrison, Krystyl)
11/08/2011
33 (8 pgs; 2 docs) Motion for leave Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed by
Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske,
P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. Objections due by 12/2/2011. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A) (Pronske, Gerrit)
11/30/2011
34 (143 pgs; 7 docs) Response opposed to (related document(s): 33 Motion for
leave Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M.
Pronske, P.C., Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske &
Patel, P.C., Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C.) filed by Other Professional Peter S.
Vogel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5
Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F) (Ruckman, Deirdre)
12/02/2011
35 (3 pgs) Notice of hearing & Status Conference filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C. (RE: related document
(s)33 Motion for leave Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed by Defendants
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske
& Patel, P.C. Objections due by 12/2/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)). Hearing
to be held on 1/9/2012 at 02:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 33, (Pronske,
Gerrit)
01/09/2012 Hearing held on 1/9/2012. (RE: related document(s)33 Motion to Enter
Scheduling Order filed by Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &
Patel,P.C.) Appearances: G. Pronske for Defendant; P. Loh for Receiver P. Vogel
(w/ P. Vogel); R. Urbanik for Trustee D. Sherman. Nonevidentiary hearing.
Motion denied. Court will continue with abatement of this adversary proceeding
indefinitely, in light of District Court Stay Order, but this is without prejudice to
any partys motion to move forward in adversary proceeding if District Court lifts
Page 9 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
stay. Court will set another statu conference in approximately 90 days if there is no
activity sooner. (Garrison, Krystyl)
01/09/2012
Hearing held on 1/9/2012. (RE: related document(s)1 Status conference )
Appearances: G. Pronske for Defendant; P. Loh for Receiver P. Vogel (w/ P.
Vogel); R. Urbanik for Trustee D. Sherman. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard
status reports. Court will continue with abatement of this adversary proceeding
indefinitely, in light of District Court Stay Order, but this is without prejudice to
any partys motion to move forward in adversary proceeding if District Court lifts
stay. Court will set another statu conference in approximately 90 days if there is no
activity sooner. (Garrison, Krystyl)
03/13/2014
36 (7 pgs) Motion for leave (Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement)
filed by Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Gerrit Pronske Objections due by
4/7/2014. (Pronske, Gerrit)
03/13/2014
37 (5 pgs) Motion for expedited hearing(related documents 36 Motion for leave)
Motion for Emergency Hearing filed by Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C.,
Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (Pronske, Gerrit)
03/13/2014
38 (19 pgs; 2 docs) Application for writ of garnishment filed by Defendants
Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske
& Patel, P.C., Gerrit Pronske, Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A) (Pronske, Gerrit)
03/14/2014
39 (2 pgs) Order denying motion for expedited hearing (Related Doc# 37
Expedited hearing and #36 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement)
Entered on 3/14/2014. (Mathews, M.)
03/16/2014
40 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
39 Order denying motion for expedited hearing (Related Doc37 Expedited hearing
and #36 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement) Entered on 3/14/2014.
(Mathews, M.)) No. of Notices: 0. Notice Date 03/16/2014. (Admin.)
03/27/2014
41 (3 pgs) Order Setting hearing on motions and setting general status
conference. Entered on 3/27/2014 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint filed by
Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 9 Motion for remand filed by
Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 36 Motion for leave filed by
Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Creditor Gerrit Pronske, 38
Application for writ of garnishment filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M. Pronske,
P.C., Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske & Patel, P.C.,
Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.,
Creditor Gerrit Pronske). Hearing to be held on 4/28/2014 at 01:30 PM Dallas
Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 38 and for 1 and for 36 and for 9, (Blanco, J.) Modified
TEXT on 3/27/2014 (Blanco, J.).
03/29/2014 42 (4 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
41 Order Setting hearing on motions and setting general status conference. Entered
Page 10 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
on 3/27/2014 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 9 Motion for remand filed by Counter-Defendant
Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 36 Motion for leave filed by Creditor Pronske
Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Creditor Gerrit Pronske, 38 Application for writ of
garnishment filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Defendant Gerrit
M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske & Patel, P.C., Defendant Pronske &
Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Creditor Gerrit Pronske).
Hearing to be held on 4/28/2014 at 01:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 38
and for 1 and for 36 and for 9, (Blanco, J.) Modified TEXT on 3/27/2014 (Blanco,
J.).) No. of Notices: 0. Notice Date 03/29/2014. (Admin.)
04/07/2014
43 (2 pgs) Plaintiff's Verified Objection to (related document(s): 38 Application
for writ of garnishment filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C.,
Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske & Patel, P.C.,
Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.,
Creditor Gerrit Pronske) filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron . (Brown, D.)
04/08/2014
44 (2 pgs) Withdrawal filed by Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &
Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske
Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (RE: related document(s)36 Motion for leave
(Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement)). (Goolsby, Melanie)
04/08/2014
45 (2 pgs) Withdrawal filed by Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &
Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske
Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (RE: related document(s)38 Application for writ of
garnishment ). (Goolsby, Melanie)
04/28/2014
46 (2 pgs) Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice on Behalf of Jeffrey
Baron by Leonard H. Simon filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron. (Simon, Leonard)
04/28/2014
Hearing held on 4/28/2014. (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and
Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron filed
by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances: G. Pronske
and M. Goolsby for Defendants; L. Simon for Plaintiff (pursuant to a Notice of
Appearance filed approximately 1:00 am on 4/28/14; it was represented that Mr.
Baron was ill and would not attend hearing). Motion granted, for reasons stated on
the record. Mr. Simon instructed to submit Order remanding action to state court.
(Harden, D.)
04/28/2014
Status conference held on 4/28/2014. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case
10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &
Patel, P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature(s) of suit: 01 (Determination of removed
claim or cause). filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron)
Appearances: G. Pronske and M. Goolsby for Defendants; L. Simon for Plaintiff
(pursuant to a Notice of Appearance filed approximately 1:00 am on 4/28/14; it
was represented that Mr. Baron was ill and would not attend hearing). Court will
remand action, for reasons stated on the record. Mr. Simon instructed to submit
Order remanding action to state court. (Harden, D.)
Page 11 of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
05/05/201
4
(2 pgs) Order granting motion for remand case back to the 193rd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas (related document # 9) Entered on 5/5/2014.
(Moroles, D.)
05/07/2014
48 (4 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)
47 Order granting motion for remand case back to the 193rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas (related document 9) Entered on 5/5/2014. (Moroles,
D.)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 05/07/2014. (Admin.)
05/21/2014 49 (1 pg) Notice of remand (Bibbs, P.)
06/18/2014
50 Request for transcript (ruling only) regarding a hearing held on 4/28/2014. The
requested turn-around time is 7-day expedited (Baird, Dennis)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/19/2014 10:20:51
PACER
Login:
ls1001
Client
Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
10-03281-sgj Fil or Ent: filed From:
6/5/2010 To: 6/19/2014 Doc From: 0
Doc To: 99999999 Term: included
Headers: included Format: html Page
counts for documents: included
Billable
Pages:
9 Cost: 0.90
Page 1
of 1
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas
6
19
201
https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 1 of 7
Gerrit M. Pronske
State Bar No. 16351640
Melanie P. Goolsby
State Bar No. 24059841
PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 658-6500 - Telephone
(214) 658-6509 – Telecopier
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com
COUNSEL FOR GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND
PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC,
F/K/A PRONSKE & PATEL, PC
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
In re:
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,
Debtor.
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11
CHAPTER 11
JEFF BARON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GERRIT M. PRONSKE,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND PRONSKE &
PATEL, P.C.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ADVERSARY NO. 10-03281-SGJ
GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND
PRONSKE & PATEL, P.C.,
Counter-Plaintiffs and Third-
Party Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFF BARON,
Counter-Defendant, and
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 1 of 7
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 2 of 7
THE VILLAGE TRUST,
Third-Party Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT
TO THE HONORABLE STACEY G.C. JERNIGAN,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Gerrit M. Pronske (“Pronske”) and Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske
& Patel, PC (“PGK” and, together with Pronske, the “Defendants”), defendants, cross-
plaintiffs, and third party plaintiffs in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, hereby
file this Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement (the “Motion”), and in support of this
Motion, state as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Involuntary Case
1. On December 18, 2012 (the “Petition Date”), PGK and other petitioning
creditors (together, the “Petitioning Creditors”) filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition
against Jeffrey Baron (“Baron” or the “Debtor”) under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code
[Docket No. 1, later amended at Docket No. 45].
2. On June 26, 2013, after conducting an involuntary trial over two days, the
Court entered an Order for Relief in an Involuntary Case (the “Order for Relief”) [Docket
No. 240].
3. On January 2, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the “District Court”) entered an Amended Memorandum Opinion and
Order reversing this Court’s Order for Relief and remanding the matter to this Court the
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 2 of 7
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 3 of 7
limited purpose of considering potential claims for attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i)
and dismissal of the case.
4. PGK and the other Petitioning Creditors have appealed the District Court’s
reversal of the Order for Relief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
They also requested stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal, which was denied by
the Fifth Circuit on March 6, 2014.
5. The District Court has recently entered an order requiring the Baron
Receiver to return receivership assets to Baron, Novo Point LLC, and Quantec LLC on or
before March 14, 2014. See Order entered February 28, 2014 at Document No. 1368 in
Netsphere, Inc., et al v. Baron, et al, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0988-L.
B. The Ondova Adversary Proceeding
6. Prior to the Petition Date, on September 15, 2010, Baron filed his Original
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Original Petition, Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Request for Disclosure (the “Complaint”) against Gerrit M.
Pronske, individually, and Pronske & Patel, PC (together, the “Defendants”) in the 193rd
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the “State Court”).
7. On that same date, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal of the
Complaint to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas in the
bankruptcy case styled In re Ondova Limited Company, Case. No. 09-34784-SGJ-11 (the
“Ondova Case”).
8. On September 27, 2010, the Defendants filed their Original Answer and
Counter-Claim and Third Party Complaint (the “Answer”). The Answer states claims
against Baron and The Village Trust for theft of services, breach of contract, quantum
meruit, attorney’s fees, fraud, and alter ego.
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 3 of 7
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 4 of 7
9. On November 3, 2010, this Court entered its Order Abating Adversary
Proceeding and Setting Status Conference temporarily abating the adversary proceeding to
December 16, 2010.
10. The adversary proceeding has continued to be abated and/or stayed by the
intervening involuntary bankruptcy case against Baron since November 3, 2010, and the
Court has not conducted a hearing or entered an order on Baron’s Motion to Remand and
Motion to Strike Notice of Removal.
II. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
11. There is no longer cause to abate the adversary proceeding because of
intervening proceedings that address the subject matter of the parties’ dispute. The
adversary proceeding was first abated after the appointment of the Receiver by the District
Court, and the abatement continued throughout the duration of the Baron Receivership.
Yet the circumstances have changed substantially since November 2010. The Fifth Circuit
has reversed and vacated the appointment of the Receiver, and the District Court is taking
steps to expeditiously wind-down the Receivership, including the return of Baron’s assets
on or before March 14, 2014. As a result, Baron is soon to be in possession of his assets,
and the Receiver will soon be discharged from his duties under the Receivership Order.
These significant changes in circumstances support lifting the abatement of the removed
State Court lawsuit so that the parties may be free to pursue their claims against each other.
12. Although never expressly articulated by the Court, the abatement of the
adversary proceeding continued past the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of the Receivership Order
because of the intervening involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Baron immediately
after the Fifth Circuit’s opinion reversing the Receivership Order was released. As before,
the circumstances of the involuntary bankruptcy against Baron have also materially
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 4 of 7
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 5 of 7
changed. The District Court reversed the Order for Relief on appeal entered against Baron
in the involuntary matter, and although that reversal has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit,
the Fifth Circuit has declined to stay the reversal pending resolution of the appeal.
Although the involuntary case is still open, all that remains to be resolved prior to
dismissal of the case is the potential assessment of attorneys’ fees against the Petitioning
Creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i). The Defendants have filed a motion for relief from the
bankruptcy automatic stay in Baron’s individual bankruptcy case contemporaneously with
the filing of this Motion, although the Defendants believe Baron is judicially estopped
from opposing relief from the automatic stay given his prior positions and arguments
during the course of the appeal of the Order for Relief. For these reasons, the intervening
involuntary bankruptcy case against Baron no longer supports abatement of the adversary
proceeding.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully request that
the Court grant this Motion, lift the abatement of the above-captioned adversary
proceeding, and grant Defendants such other, further relief to which they may be entitled.
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 5 of 7
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 6 of 7
Dated: March 13, 2014. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske
Gerrit M. Pronske
State Bar No. 16351640
Melanie P. Goolsby
State Bar No. 24059841
PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 658-6500 - Telephone
(214) 658-6509 – Telecopier
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com
COUNSEL FOR GERRIT M. PRONSKE
AND PRONSKE GOOLSBY &
KATHMAN, PC, F/K/A PRONSKE &
PATEL, PC
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that, on March 11, 2014, I conferred with Leonard
Simon, proposed counsel for Baron, regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who
indicated that Baron is opposed to the relief requested herein.
/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske
Gerrit M. Pronske
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 6 of 7
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that, on March 13, 2014, a true and correct
copy of the above and foregoing Motion was served upon the Debtor via email as
identified below, and also via ECF email on all parties accepting such service. Any party
may request a copy of the attached exhibits to the undersigned counsel.
Stephen Cochell
The Cochell Law Firm
7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259
Houston, Texas 77024
srcochell@cochellfirm.com
COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR
Leonard H. Simon
Pendergraft & Simon, LLP
The Riviana Building, Suite 800
2777 Allen Parkway
Houston, Texas 77019
lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
PROPOSED COUNSEL FOR THE
DEBTOR
/s/ Melanie P. Goolsby
Melanie P. Goolsby
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 7 of 7
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 1 OF 5
Gerrit M. Pronske
State Bar No. 16351640
Melanie P. Goolsby
State Bar No. 24059841
PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 658-6500 - Telephone
(214) 658-6509 – Telecopier
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
In re:
JEFFREY BARON,
Debtor.
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 12-37921-7
INVOLUNTARY CHAPTER 7
PROCEEDING
In re:
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,
Debtor.
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11
CHAPTER 11
GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND PRONSKE
& PATEL, P.C.,
Counter-Plaintiffs and Third-Party
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFF BARON,
Counter-Defendant, and
THE VILLAGE TRUST,
Third-Party Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 1 of 5
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 2 OF 5
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Gerrit Pronske and Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske & Patel, P.C.
(“PGK” and, together with Gerrit Pronske, the “Movants”) file this Motion for Emergency
Hearing (the “Motion for Emergency Hearing”) on their: (i) Emergency Motion for Relief from
stay filed in In re Jeffrey Baron, Case No. 12-37921-7, and (ii) Emergency Motion to Lift
Abatement filed in Baron v. Pronske, et al, Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03281-SGJ. In support
of the Motion for Emergency Hearing, Movants respectfully show the Court as follows:
1. On December 18, 2012 (the “Petition Date”), PGK and other petitioning creditors
(together, the “Petitioning Creditors”) filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Jeffrey
Baron (“Baron” or the “Debtor”) under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code [Baron Docket No. 1,
later amended at Docket No. 45].
2. On June 26, 2013, after conducting an involuntary trial over two days, the Court
entered an Order for Relief in an Involuntary Case (the “Order for Relief”) [Baron Docket No.
240].
3. On January 2, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (the “District Court”) entered an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing
this Court’s Order for Relief and remanding the matter to this Court the limited purpose of
considering potential claims for attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) and dismissal of the
case.
4. PGK and the other Petitioning Creditors have appealed the District Court’s
reversal of the Order for Relief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They
also requested stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal, which was denied by the Fifth
Circuit on March 6, 2014.
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 2 of 5
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 3 OF 5
5. The District Court has recently entered an order requiring the Baron Receiver to
return receivership assets to Baron, Novo Point LLC, and Quantec LLC on or before March 14,
2014. See Order entered February 28, 2014 at Document No. 1368 in Netsphere, Inc., et al v.
Baron, et al, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0988-L. Upon information and belief, this includes
possession, custody, and control over certain investment accounts Baron, some of which
accounts Baron alleges to be qualified IRA accounts.
6. The Movants are gravely concerned that, immediately upon the imminent return
of Baron’s personal assets from the Receivership, Baron intends to remove those assets beyond
the reach of his creditors, possibly to off-shore trusts in The Cook Islands. Movants therefore
seek emergency relief in the Baron bankruptcy case for relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay
and emergency relief in the Baron v. Pronske adversary case to lift the abatement of that
proceeding and move forward with any and all rights and remedies available to Movants under
applicable law to protect their interests vis-à-vis Baron and his personal assets.
7. Movants respectfully request that the Court set emergency hearings on these
matters on Friday, March 14, 2014, the date Movants expect Baron to regain possession of his
personal assets from the Receiver, or otherwise at the earliest convenience of the Court. Movants
are seeking emergency relief at the earliest possible moment after learning of the District Court’s
orders concerning objections to the March 14, 2014 distribution date and confirming the
Receiver’s intent to return possession of Receivership assets to Baron by tomorrow.
8. Notice of the Motion is being given to counsel for Baron and the Chapter 7
Trustee by email, as set forth in the Certificate of Service below.
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 3 of 5
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 4 OF 5
WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully request that the Court: (i) grant this Motion for
Emergency Hearing; (ii) set an emergency hearing to consider the Motions; and (iv) grant the
Movants such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled.
Dated: March 13, 2014. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske
Gerrit M. Pronske
Texas Bar No. 16351640
Melanie P. Goolsby
State Bar No. 24059841
PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214.658.6500
Facsimile: 214.658.6509
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that, on March 11, 2014, I conferred with Leonard
Simon, proposed counsel for Baron, regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who indicated
that Baron is opposed to the relief requested herein.
/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske
Gerrit M. Pronske
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 4 of 5
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 5 OF 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that, on March 13, 2014, a true and correct copy of
the above and foregoing Motion was served upon the Debtor and counsel for the Trustee via
email as identified below, and also via ECF email on all parties accepting such service. Any
party may request a copy of the attached exhibits to the undersigned counsel.
Stephen Cochell
The Cochell Law Firm
7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259
Houston, Texas 77024
srcochell@cochellfirm.com
COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR
Kevin McCullough
Kathryn Reid
Rochelle McCullough, LLP
325 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 4500
Dallas, Texas 75201
kdm@romclawyers.com
kreid@romclawyers.com
ATTORNEYS FOR JOHN LITZLER, CH.
7 TRUSTEE
Leonard H. Simon
Pendergraft & Simon, LLP
The Riviana Building, Suite 800
2777 Allen Parkway
Houston, Texas 77019
lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
PROPOSED COUNSEL FOR THE
DEBTOR
/s/ Melanie P. Goolsby
Melanie P. Goolsby
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 5 of 5
1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
IN RE: §
§
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, § CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11
§
Debtor. § (Chapter 11)
_____________________________________________________________________________
JEFF BARON, §
§
Plaintiff, § Adversary No. 10-03281
§
v. §
§
GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND PRONSKE §
& PATEL, P.C., §
§
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, and §
Third-Party Plaintiffs, §
ENTERED
ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
Signed March 14, 2014
______________________________________________________________________
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
THE DATE OF ENTRY IS
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.
TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 39 Filed 03/14/14 Entered 03/14/14 11:47:13 Page 1 of 2
2
§
v. §
§
JEFF BARON, §
§
Counter-Defendant, and §
§
THE VILLAGE TRUST, §
§
Third-Party Defendant. §
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING [DE # 37]
Came on for consideration the Motion for Emergency Hearing (the “Motion”) [DE # 37]
filed March 13, 2014, by Gerrit Pronske and Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske &
Patel, P.C. in the above-referenced adversary proceeding. After a review of the Motion, the
court does not find good cause to grant the relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
### END OF ORDER ###
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 39 Filed 03/14/14 Entered 03/14/14 11:47:13 Page 2 of 2
1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
IN RE: §
§
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, § CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11
§
Debtor. § (Chapter 11)
_____________________________________________________________________________
JEFF BARON, §
§
Plaintiff, § Adversary No. 10-03281
§
v. §
§
GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND PRONSKE §
& PATEL, P.C., §
§
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, and §
Third-Party Plaintiffs, §
ENTERED
ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
Signed March 27, 2014
______________________________________________________________________
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
THE DATE OF ENTRY IS
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.
TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 41 Filed 03/27/14 Entered 03/27/14 12:10:49 Page 1 of 3
2
§
v. §
§
JEFF BARON, §
§
Counter-Defendant, and §
§
THE VILLAGE TRUST, §
§
Third-Party Defendant. §
ORDER: (1) SETTING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT [DE # 36]; (2) SETTING HEARING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND AND MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF
REMOVAL [DE # 9]; (3) SETTING HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR PRE-
JUDGMENT WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS [DE # 38]; AND
(4) SETTING GENERAL STATUS CONFERENCE
On September 15, 2010, Jeff Baron (the “Plaintiff”) filed Plaintiff’s Original Petition for
Declaratory Judgment, Original Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order and
Request for Disclosure in the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Cause No.
10-11915 (the “State Court Case”). On September 15, 2010, Gerrit M. Pronske, Individually and
Pronske & Patel, P.C., filed a Notice of Removal [DE # 1] of the State Court Case thereby
initiating the above-referenced adversary proceeding (the “Adversary Proceeding”). On October
15, 2010, Jeff Baron filed a Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of Removal and
Brief in Support in the Adversary Proceeding (the “Motion for Remand”) [DE ## 9, 10, and 11].
On November 3, 2010, this court entered an Order Abating Adversary Proceeding and Setting
Status Conference [DE # 13] which abated the Adversary Proceeding until December 16, 2010
and also set a status conference in the Adversary Proceeding for December 16, 2010. After
several continued status conferences, the court abated the Adversary Proceeding indefinitely at a
hearing held on January 9, 2012 without prejudice to any party’s motion to move forward in the
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 41 Filed 03/27/14 Entered 03/27/14 12:10:49 Page 2 of 3
3
Adversary Proceeding. On March 13, 2014, Gerrit M. Pronske and Pronske Goolsby &
Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske & Patel, P.C. (collectively, the “Pronske Firm”) filed Defendants’
Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement (the “Motion to Lift Abatement”) [DE # 36].
1
Additionally, the Pronske Firm filed an Application for Pre-Judgment Writ of Garnishment
Against Defendant (the “Writ of Garnishment”) [DE # 38]. Having reviewed the relief requested
in the Motion for Remand, the Motion to Lift Abatement, and the Writ of Garnishment, it is
ORDERED that a hearing will be held on the Motion to Lift Abatement on April 28,
2014 at 1:30 p.m.; it is further
ORDERED that a hearing will be held on the Writ of Garnishment on April 28, 2014 at
1:30 p.m.; it is further
ORDERED that a hearing will be held on the Motion for Remand on April 28, 2014 at
1:30 p.m.; and it is further
ORDERED that a general status conference will be held on the Adversary Proceeding on
April 28, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.
### END OF ORDER ###
1
The court denied the Defendants’ request for an expedited hearing on the Motion to Lift Abatement. See
DE # 39.
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 41 Filed 03/27/14 Entered 03/27/14 12:10:49 Page 3 of 3
______________________________________________________
ORDER REMANDING CASE - Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
In re:
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,
Debtor.
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11
CHAPTER 11
JEFF BARON,
Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant,
v.
GERRIT M. PRONSKE,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND PRONSKE &
PATEL, P.C.,
Defendants and
Counter-Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ADVERSARY NO. 10-03281-SGJ
ORDER REMANDING CASE
[Referring to ECF Doc 9]
Came on for consideration and hearing Jeffrey Baron’s Motion to Remand and Motion to
Strike Notice of Removal. ECF Doc 9. The Court set the matter for hearing, sua sponte, and
ENTERED
ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
Signed May 5, 2014
______________________________________________________________________
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
THE DATE OF ENTRY IS
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.
TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 47 Filed 05/05/14 Entered 05/05/14 12:19:47 Page 1 of 2
______________________________________________________
ORDER REMANDING CASE - Page 2 of 2
conducted a hearing on April 28, 2014, at 1:30 pm. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Baron, appeared through
his counsel, Leonard H. Simon, who made an appearance earlier that day, and Defendants
appeared through their counsel, Gerrit Pronske. The Court Considered the arguments of counsel
and the pleadings on file, and recited certain findings of fact and conclusions of law into the
record, which are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. The Court determined that
the captioned adversary proceeding should be remanded. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the captioned adversary proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded back
to the 193
rd
Judicial District Court in and for Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. 10-11915, where
the case was pending before it was removed.
###END OF ORDER###
ORDER PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
/s/ Leonard H. Simon
Leonard H. Simon, Esq.
TBN: 18387400; SDOT: 8200
PENDERGRAFT & SIMON, L.L.P.
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 727-8207 (Direct Line)
(832) 202-2810 (Direct Telecopy)
lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR
JEFFREY BARON
Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 47 Filed 05/05/14 Entered 05/05/14 12:19:47 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 1 of 14 PageID 2141
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2142
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 3 of 14 PageID 2143
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 4 of 14 PageID 2144
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 5 of 14 PageID 2145
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 6 of 14 PageID 2146
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 7 of 14 PageID 2147
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 8 of 14 PageID 2148
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 9 of 14 PageID 2149
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 10 of 14 PageID 2150
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 11 of 14 PageID 2151
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 12 of 14 PageID 2152
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 13 of 14 PageID 2153
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 14 of 14 PageID 2154
Page 1
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
9
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
NETSPHERE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey BARON, Defendant–Appellant,
v.
Ondova Limited Company, Defendant–Appellee.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, et al., Defendants,
v.
Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
v.
Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant,
v.
Daniel J. Sherman, Appellee.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, et al., Defendants,
v.
Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
v.
Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.
Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
v.
Ondova Limited Company, Defendant–Appellee.
Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.
Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.,
Appellant,
v.
Peter S. Vogel; Daniel J. Sherman, Appellees.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.
Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
Gary Schepps, Appellant,
v.
Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.
In re Novo Point, L.L.C., Petitioner.
Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.
Novo Point, L.L.C.; Quantec, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
v.
Peter S. Vogel; Daniel J. Sherman, Appellees.
Netsphere, Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.
Quantec L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-
vants–Appellants,
v.
Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.
Nos. 10–11202, 11–10113, 11–10289, 11–10290,
11–10390, 11–10501, 12–10003, 12–10444,
12–10489, 12–10657, 12–10804 and 12–11082.
Dec. 18, 2012.
Background: Plaintiffs brought action to enforce
prior settlement agreement against individual de-
fendant, one of defendant's companies, and others.
Trustee in intervening bankruptcy case of defendant's
Page 2
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
company filed emergency motion for appointment of
receiver over individual defendant's property. The
United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., J., entered receiv-
ership order. Defendant appealed receivership and
other orders, and other appeals and petition for writ of
mandamus were also filed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Leslie H. South-
wick, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) receivership was not needed to allow district court
to take control of property that was subject of litiga-
tion;
(2) district court lacked authority to establish receiv-
ership to secure pool of assets to pay defendant's
former attorneys;
(3) district court could not appoint receiver as means
of controlling defendant's vexatious litigation tactics;
(4) charging receivership fund for reasonable receiv-
ership expenses, without allowing any additional
assets to be sold, was equitable;
(5) determination that appointment of receiver was
improper required district court's reconsideration of
receivership fees and expenses; and
(6) defendant waived, on appeal, issue of legal suffi-
ciency of his affidavits seeking recusal.
Ordered accordingly.
West Headnotes
[1] Federal Courts 170B 813
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(K) Scope, Standards, and Extent
170BVIII(K)4 Discretion of Lower Court
170Bk813 k. Allowance of remedy and
matters of procedure in general. Most Cited Cases
Court of Appeals reviews district court's ap-
pointment of a receiver for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Receivers 323 9
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k9 k. Persons entitled to appointment of
receiver. Most Cited Cases
Under procedural rule addressing receivers, ap-
pointment of a receiver can be sought by anyone
showing an interest in certain property or a relation to
the party in control or ownership thereof such as to
justify conservation of the property by a court officer.
Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 66, 28 U.S.C.A.
[3] Receivers 323 16
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver
323k15 Preservation of Property Pending
Litigation
323k16 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
District court has authority to place into receiv-
ership assets in litigation to preserve and protect the
property pending its final disposition. Fed.Rules
Civ.Proc.Rule 66, 28 U.S.C.A.
[4] Receivers 323 1
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k1 k. Nature and purpose of remedy.
Most Cited Cases
Receivers 323 6
323 Receivers
Page 3
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k6 k. Existence of and resort to other
remedy. Most Cited Cases
Receivers 323 14
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver
323k14 k. Preservation and protection of
property in general. Most Cited Cases
Receivership is an extraordinary remedy that
should be employed with the utmost caution, and is
justified only where there is a clear necessity to protect
a party's interest in property, legal and less drastic
equitable remedies are inadequate, and the benefits of
receivership outweigh the burdens on the affected
parties. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 66, 28 U.S.C.A.
[5] Receivers 323 11
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k11 k. Property which may be subject of
receivership. Most Cited Cases
Equity does not allow a receivership to be im-
posed over property that was not the subject of the
underlying dispute.
[6] Execution 161 405
161 Execution
161XIV Supplementary Proceedings
161k404 Receivers
161k405 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
A receivership is a remedy for taking possession
of a judgment debtor's property.
[7] Execution 161 405
161 Execution
161XIV Supplementary Proceedings
161k404 Receivers
161k405 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Fraudulent Conveyances 186 305
186 Fraudulent Conveyances
186III Remedies of Creditors and Purchasers
186III(L) Receiver
186k305 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Receivership can be used when a judgment cred-
itor seeks to set aside allegedly fraudulent convey-
ances by judgment debtor, or who has had execution
issued and returned unsatisfied, or who otherwise is
attempting to have debtor's property preserved from
dissipation until his claim can be satisfied.
[8] Securities Regulation 349B 182
349B Securities Regulation
349BI Federal Regulation
349BI(E) Remedies
349BI(E)3 Receivership
349Bk182 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
In cases of non-compliance with Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, a receiver
may be appointed to prevent the corporation from
dissipating corporate assets and to pay defrauded
investors.
[9] Federal Courts 170B 10.1
170B Federal Courts
Page 4
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
170BI Jurisdiction and Powers in General
170BI(A) In General
170Bk10 Issuance of Writs
170Bk10.1 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
The All Writs Act empowers a federal court to
employ procedures necessary to promote the resolu-
tion of issues in a case properly before it; this author-
ity, though, is firmly circumscribed, its scope de-
pending on the nature of the case before the court and
the legitimacy of the ends sought to be achieved
through the exercise of the power. 28 U.S.C.A. §
1651.
[10] Federal Courts 170B 10.1
170B Federal Courts
170BI Jurisdiction and Powers in General
170BI(A) In General
170Bk10 Issuance of Writs
170Bk10.1 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
Under All Writs Act, court is limited to issuing
orders to curb conduct which threatens improperly to
impede or defeat the subject matter jurisdiction then
being exercised by the court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651.
[11] Receivers 323 16
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver
323k15 Preservation of Property Pending
Litigation
323k16 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Receivership appointed over individual defend-
ant's personal property and entities that he owned or
controlled was not needed to allow district court to
take control of property that was subject of litigation,
where underlying action concerned enforcement of
global settlement agreement and resulting transfer of
internet domain names, and defendant, despite en-
gaging in actions that disrupted, complicated, and
made more expensive both action before district court
and related bankruptcy case, had not threatened to
nullify settlement agreement by transferring domain
names outside district court's jurisdiction.
[12] Receivers 323 9
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k9 k. Persons entitled to appointment of
receiver. Most Cited Cases
Receivers 323 12
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver
323k12 k. Right or interest in property re-
quiring protection. Most Cited Cases
Receiver may be appointed for a secured creditor
who has legitimate fears that his security may be dis-
sipated, but unsecured simple contract creditor has, in
the absence of a statute, no substantive right, legal or
equitable, in or to the property of his debtor.
[13] Receivers 323 9
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k9 k. Persons entitled to appointment of
receiver. Most Cited Cases
District court lacked authority, in action to en-
force settlement agreement, to establish receivership
Page 5
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
over individual defendant's personal property and
entities that he owned or controlled to secure pool of
assets to pay defendant's former attorneys, who were
unsecured contract creditors without judgments
against defendant; although attorneys' allegations and
claims were delaying district court and related bank-
ruptcy court proceedings, they were not the subject of
the underlying litigation.
[14] Receivers 323 16
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver
323k15 Preservation of Property Pending
Litigation
323k16 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Receivers may be appointed to preserve property
pending final determination of its distribution in sup-
plementary proceedings in aid of execution.
[15] Injunction 212 1231
212 Injunction
212IV Particular Subjects of Relief
212IV(D) Property in General
212k1231 k. Freezing or protecting assets
pending litigation. Most Cited Cases
General federal rule of equity is that a court may
not reach a defendant's assets unrelated to the under-
lying litigation and freeze them so that they may be
preserved to satisfy a potential money judgment.
[16] Receivers 323 29(2)
323 Receivers
323II Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure
323k29 Jurisdiction and Authority of Court or
Judge
323k29(2) k. Property or owner thereof
beyond jurisdiction of court. Most Cited Cases
Court lacks jurisdiction to impose a receivership
over property that is not the subject of an underlying
claim or controversy.
[17] Internal Revenue 220 4801
220 Internal Revenue
220XXIII Liens
220k4794 Actions to Enforce Lien
220k4801 k. Receivers. Most Cited Cases
District court may use authority from tax statute
governing actions to enforce liens or to subject prop-
erty to payment of tax to appoint a receiver over
debtor's assets in a proceeding to enforce a tax lien if
the government makes the necessary showing of need.
26 U.S.C.A. § 7403.
[18] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 2820
170A Federal Civil Procedure
170AXX Sanctions
170AXX(D) Type and Amount
170Ak2820 k. Non-monetary sanctions.
Most Cited Cases
District court, in action to enforce settlement
agreement, could not appoint receiver over individual
defendant's personal property and entities that he
owned or controlled as means of controlling defend-
ant's vexatious litigation tactics, which included ig-
noring court orders and hiring and firing attorneys,
thereby delaying court proceedings, increasing gen-
eral cost of litigation, and increasing expenses for
estate in related bankruptcy case, even if traditional
means of addressing such actions were insufficient to
prevent defendant's behavior.
Page 6
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[19] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 1991
170A Federal Civil Procedure
170AXV Trial
170AXV(B) Time for Trial; Dockets, Lists and
Calendars
170Ak1991 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Receivers 323 11
323 Receivers
323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership
323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy
323k11 k. Property which may be subject of
receivership. Most Cited Cases
Court has undeniable authority to control its
docket, but not through creating a receivership over
assets, including personal assets, that are not the sub-
ject of the litigation.
[20] Receivers 323 200
323 Receivers
323VII Accounting and Compensation
323k200 k. Liabilities of parties, property, or
funds for compensation and expenses. Most Cited
Cases
When a receivership is proper, the general rule is
that receivership fees and expenses are a charge upon
the property administered.
[21] Receivers 323 200
323 Receivers
323VII Accounting and Compensation
323k200 k. Liabilities of parties, property, or
funds for compensation and expenses. Most Cited
Cases
Equity controls when addressing the costs created
by an improper receivership.
[22] Receivers 323 200
323 Receivers
323VII Accounting and Compensation
323k200 k. Liabilities of parties, property, or
funds for compensation and expenses. Most Cited
Cases
Charging receivership fund for reasonable re-
ceivership expenses, without allowing any additional
assets to be sold, was equitable in action to enforce
settlement agreement in which district court improp-
erly appointed receiver for individual defendant's
personal property and entities that he owned or con-
trolled to address defendant's vexatious behavior and
to conserve property for defendant's unpaid attorney
fees, given that circumstances leading to receivership
were largely of defendant's own making and, to a large
extent, defendant's actions resulted in more work and
fees for receiver and his attorneys, and that there was
no malice or wrongful purpose behind receiver's ap-
pointment.
[23] Federal Courts 170B 945
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(L) Determination and Disposition of
Cause
170Bk943 Ordering New Trial or Other
Proceeding
170Bk945 k. Determination of damages,
costs or interest; remittitur. Most Cited Cases
Receivers 323 154(1)
323 Receivers
323V Allowance and Payment of Claims
323k154 Expenses of Receivership
Page 7
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
323k154(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Determination, on appeal, that district court's
appointment of receiver over individual defendant's
personal property and entities that he owned or con-
trolled was improper in action to enforce settlement
agreement required that district court, on remand,
reconsider amount of all receivership fees and ex-
penses, as well as any other payments made from
receivership fund, as appropriate, and that charges had
to go unpaid to the extent that new determination by
district court of reasonable fees and expenses to be
paid exceeded cash on hand.
[24] Federal Courts 170B 723.1
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(I) Dismissal, Withdrawal or Aban-
donment
170Bk723 Want of Actual Controversy
170Bk723.1 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
An appeal must be dismissed when an event oc-
curs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it
impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief
whatever to a prevailing party.
[25] Federal Courts 170B 723.1
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(I) Dismissal, Withdrawal or Aban-
donment
170Bk723 Want of Actual Controversy
170Bk723.1 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
Appellate court's continued jurisdiction does not
depend upon being able to provide complete relief; if
there is some means by which court can effectuate a
partial remedy, case remains a live controversy.
[26] Federal Courts 170B 724
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(I) Dismissal, Withdrawal or Aban-
donment
170Bk723 Want of Actual Controversy
170Bk724 k. Particular cases. Most
Cited Cases
Defendant's challenge on appeal to receiver's
subpoena of records for his attorney's trust fund ac-
count was rendered “moot,” given that records had
been produced and reviewed by receiver, such that
there was no relief that Court of Appeals could pro-
vide.
[27] Judges 227 49(1)
227 Judges
227IV Disqualification to Act
227k49 Bias and Prejudice
227k49(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Judges 227 51(2)
227 Judges
227IV Disqualification to Act
227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings
Thereon
227k51(2) k. Time of making objection.
Most Cited Cases
Judges 227 51(3)
227 Judges
227IV Disqualification to Act
227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings
Thereon
Page 8
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
227k51(3) k. Sufficiency of objection or
affidavit. Most Cited Cases
A judge is to recuse himself if a party to the pro-
ceeding makes and files a timely and sufficient affi-
davit that the judge before whom the matter is pending
has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or
in favor of any adverse party. 28 U.S.C.A. § 144.
[28] Federal Courts 170B 586
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(C) Decisions Reviewable
170BVIII(C)2 Finality of Determination
170Bk585 Particular Judgments, De-
crees or Orders, Finality
170Bk586 k. Transferring cases;
disqualifying judges; convening three-judge courts.
Most Cited Cases
District court's ruling with respect to affidavit in
support of motion for recusal is appealable under
statute governing appeals of interlocutory orders. 28
U.S.C.A. §§ 144, 1292(b).
[29] Judges 227 51(4)
227 Judges
227IV Disqualification to Act
227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings
Thereon
227k51(4) k. Determination of objections.
Most Cited Cases
When motion for recusal is filed based on party's
affidavit that judge has personal bias or prejudice,
district court must pass on legal sufficiency of affida-
vit without passing on the truth of the matter asserted.
28 U.S.C.A. § 144.
[30] Judges 227 51(3)
227 Judges
227IV Disqualification to Act
227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings
Thereon
227k51(3) k. Sufficiency of objection or
affidavit. Most Cited Cases
Legally sufficient affidavit in support of motion
for recusal due to judge's personal bias must (1) state
material facts with particularity, (2) state facts that, if
true, would convince a reasonable person that a bias
exists, and (3) state facts that show the bias is per-
sonal, as opposed to judicial, in nature. 28 U.S.C.A. §
144.
[31] Federal Courts 170B 617
170B Federal Courts
170BVIII Courts of Appeals
170BVIII(D) Presentation and Reservation in
Lower Court of Grounds of Review
170BVIII(D)1 Issues and Questions in
Lower Court
170Bk617 k. Sufficiency of presentation
of questions. Most Cited Cases
Defendant waived, on appeal, issue of legal suf-
ficiency of his affidavits seeking recusal based on
judge's alleged personal bias, where district court
considered original affidavit, determined that it was
insufficient and ordered defendant to correct defi-
ciency, defendant submitted second affidavit which he
admitted did not comply with court's order, and de-
fendant did not file affidavit complying with order,
despite being allowed to do so. 28 U.S.C.A. § 144.
*301 Gary N. Schepps (argued), Schepps Law Offic-
es, Dallas, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Hunt (argued), Raymond James Urbanik,
Page 9
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Munsch, Hardt, Kopf & Harr, P.C., Edwin Paul
Keiffer, Wight Ginsberg Brusilow, Dallas, TX, for
Defendant–Appellee.
David John Schenck (argued), Christopher D. Krato-
vil, Dykema Gossett, P.L.L.C., Richard M. Hunt, Curt
M. Covington, Munsch, Hardt, Kopf & Harr, P.C.,
Dallas, TX, for Appellees.
Peter S. Vogel, Gardere Wynne Sewell, L.L.P., Dal-
las, TX, pro se.
Richard M. Hunt (argued), Munsch, Hardt, Kopf &
Harr, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Ondova Ltd. Co., Amicus
Curiae.
Jeffrey Michael Sutherland, Thomas Fenton Allen, Jr.,
Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.,
Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.
Before DeMOSS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON,
Circuit Judges.
LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated interlocutory appeals arise
from the district court's appointment of a receiver over
Jeffrey Baron's personal property and entities he
owned or controlled. The district court sought to stop
Baron's practice of regularly firing one lawyer and
hiring a new one. This practice vexed the litigation
involving Baron's alleged breaches of a settlement
agreement and a related bankruptcy. It also created
new claims in bankruptcy by unpaid*302 attorneys.
Baron appealed the receivership order and almost
every order entered by the district court thereafter. We
hold that the appointment of the receiver was an abuse
of discretion and REVERSE and REMAND.
Numerous motions and a writ of mandamus to
overturn the bankruptcy court's striking of notices of
appeal to the district court are also before us. Most are
denied as moot. We address below the motions that
remain relevant.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jeffrey Baron and Munish Krishan formed a joint
venture involving the ownership and sale of internet
domain names. Disputes arose between the venturers,
resulting in at least seven lawsuits. In April 2009, after
four mediation attempts and several years of litigation,
Baron, Krishan, and other parties signed a Memo-
randum of Understanding (“MOU”) settling all dis-
putes. Soon, Baron and one of his companies, Ondova
Limited Company, allegedly breached the MOU. In
May 2009, Krishan and his company, Netsphere, Inc.,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas to enforce the MOU.
That suit is the one from which the current appeals
have been brought.
In June 2009, the district court entered a prelim-
inary injunction to compel Baron's compliance with
the MOU. That injunction was later amended to in-
clude a $50,000 per day penalty for a violation. The
injunction was entered to prevent deletion of domain
names and to force compliance with parts of the
MOU. The district court also began expressing con-
cern with the multitude of lawyers appearing for
Baron, concerns that would continue in the months
ahead.
In July 2009, Netsphere moved to have Baron
held in contempt for violating the preliminary injunc-
tion. On the day before the scheduled contempt hear-
ing, Baron caused Ondova to file for bankruptcy,
which automatically stayed the district court litigation.
Netsphere sought to lift the automatic stay, arguing
that the domain names at issue in the lawsuit were not
owned by Ondova and were not subject to the stay.
Ondova allegedly admitted it did not own the domain
names that were the subject of the district court liti-
gation—i.e., the ones involving plaintiff Krishan and
Page 10
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
defendant Baron that the settlement provided would
be divided between them.
The bankruptcy creditors and Ondova eventually
agreed to a settlement, but Baron continued to hire
new lawyers. Many of the lawyers claimed they had
not been paid and began to file claims for legal fees in
the bankruptcy proceedings. In September 2009, in
bankruptcy court, Baron asserted his Fifth Amend-
ment right not to answer questions that might reveal he
was violating the June preliminary injunction. Six
days later, the bankruptcy court appointed Daniel
Sherman as Chapter 11 trustee. The bankruptcy court
recommended that the district court appoint a special
master to mediate among the trustee, Baron, and the
attorneys with claims against the Ondova bankruptcy
estate, but no master was appointed at that time.
Beginning in February 2010, negotiations began
for another settlement. On May 5, 2010, the bank-
ruptcy court held a status conference. If no settlement
could be reached by May 14, the bankruptcy judge
suggested the trustee file to convert the case to one in
Chapter 7. The trustee did so, stating liquidation was
in the best interest of creditors. Several hearings were
held over the next month. On June 22, 2010, the par-
ties announced a global settlement in principle. At a
July 12 *303 bankruptcy court hearing, the parties
represented that most issues had been resolved. Two
days later at another hearing, the bankruptcy judge
approved the settlement subject to six remaining is-
sues.
The settlement, dated July 2, 2010, provided for
the division of domain names between companies
controlled by Baron and Krishan. The odd-numbered
names were assigned to Quantec, LLC, for Baron's
benefit, while Manila Industries, Inc.—under
Krishan's control—was assigned the even-numbered
names. The agreement was not to become effective
until the “Settlement Date,” which was defined as “the
day after the date on which the Bankruptcy Court's
order approving this Agreement becomes a Final Set-
tlement Order.” On July 28, 2010, the bankruptcy
court approved the settlement and ordered it to be fully
executed by July 30. The bankruptcy court maintained
jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under the
agreement. Attached to the agreement was a “Stipu-
lated Dismissal with Prejudice” of the district court
suit. Though signed by the parties and attorneys, the
district court never entered the dismissal.
On September 15, 2010, a hearing was held on the
settlement agreement. The trustee said that 30 or 40
items in the agreement had been completed and the
remaining items were the execution of a supplemental
agreement appointing a trustee of a trust and the
transfer of domain names to Quantec from Manila.
At this hearing, the trustee's attorney also ad-
dressed Baron's repeated hiring and firing of law-
yers—he presented a chart identifying 45 lawyers
whom Baron had not paid. Gerrit Pronske, one of
Baron's former attorneys who was seeking to with-
draw, testified that he worked for Baron full-time for
six months and had not been paid. Pronske testified
that Baron planned to move assets that were at the
time subject to jurisdiction in the United States to a
trust in a foreign country. The trust to which Pronske
was referring was the Village Trust, a Cook Islands
entity which owned Novo Point, LLC and Quantec,
LLC. Its trustee is SouthPac, which is also a Cook
Islands entity, and Baron is the trust's sole beneficiary.
Pronske indicated that the assets being transferred out
of the United States would have been the principal
source of payment for his allegedly unpaid attorney
fees. The attorney for the trustee was concerned be-
cause the money to pay the lawyers and satisfy other
claims would be lost if the domain names that Baron's
entities were to own under the settlement left control
of the trust that was subject to the court's jurisdiction.
At this point, the bankruptcy judge stated that “no
more lawyers [are] going to be allowed. The question
is: Whether any are going to be released; is he going to
be pro se; or is he going to have lawyers?” In light of
Page 11
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
those questions, the bankruptcy judge said she was
considering recommending the district court appoint a
receiver over Baron and his assets “and let that re-
ceiver implement the settlement agreement.” Addi-
tionally, the bankruptcy court ordered Baron to re-
quest from the trust that $330,000 be deposited with
the bankruptcy trustee as security, to be held until
further court order. The money was deposited and held
“to pay [Baron's] obligations.”
On October 13, 2010, in a report and recom-
mendation to the district court, the bankruptcy court
reported substantial progress toward the settlement,
including “steps towards transferring the ‘Odd Names
Portfolio’ portion of the internet domain names to a
new Registrar away from Ondova.” Included in the
order, in bold, was the bankruptcy court's judgment
that Baron's hiring and firing of lawyers was exposing
the Ondova bankruptcy estate*304 to great expense
that should be paid by Baron's other entities such as
Quantec and Novo Point. The court expressed it was
“perhaps most concerned about the risk that the
bankruptcy estate has and will be exposed to admin-
istrative expense claims” because of Baron's failure to
pay lawyers.
Also in this October 13, 2010 report, the bank-
ruptcy court recommended that the district court ap-
point Peter S. Vogel as special master to mediate the
claims for unpaid legal fees. The bankruptcy court
further stated that if Baron chose not to cooperate with
final consummation of the settlement, Baron could
“expect [it] to recommend to His Honor that he ap-
point a receiver over Mr. Baron.” The court adopted
the bankruptcy court's recommendation and appointed
Vogel as special master. Baron again fired his attor-
ney. At this point, the bankruptcy trustee filed an
Emergency Motion for Appointment of a Receiver
over Baron on November 24, 2010. The trustee as-
serted the receivership was necessary because of
Baron's failure to cooperate with the order to mediate
the legal-fee claims and his continued hiring and firing
of lawyers in violation of the court's order. The trustee
argued that Baron's practice of hiring and firing law-
yers would expose the bankruptcy estate to additional
administrative claims and further delay the resolution
of the bankruptcy proceedings. On November 24, the
same day the motion was filed, the district court en-
tered the receivership order without notice to Baron.
On December 2, Baron appealed to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals and five days later moved for a stay.
While “express[ing] no view on the ultimate merits,”
we held on December 20, that he had made an inad-
equate showing for a stay. Baron renewed his motion
on occasion but was never granted a stay. Somewhat
belatedly, we now express our views on the ultimate
merits.
In the district court, the receiver moved to revise
the receivership order to make it clear that Novo Point,
LLC and Quantec, LLC had always been subject to the
receivership. The original order identified Novo Point,
Inc., and Quantec, Inc., which are actual but distinct
legal entities. The two LLCs filed objections on sev-
eral grounds. At a hearing on December 17, 2010,
attorneys for Novo Point, LLC and Quantec, LLC
appeared and agreed they were subject to the receiv-
ership order. The district court entered an order stating
that the receivership had always included Novo Point,
LLC and Quantec, LLC and ordered the LLCs to
comply with all reasonable instructions given to them
by the receiver. On January 28, 2011, the LLCs filed a
notice of appeal challenging their inclusion as re-
ceivership parties.
On January 4, 2011, the district court held an
evidentiary hearing on Baron's motion to vacate the
receivership order. A month later, the district court
entered an order denying Baron's motion to vacate the
receivership. The district court gave six reasons for
denying the motion to vacate: (1) “Baron hired and
fired counsel in bad faith as a means of delaying court
proceedings [;]” (2) “Baron's vexatious litigation tac-
tics have increased the cost of [the] litigation for all
parties[;]” (3) “Baron's practice of hiring and firing
attorneys exposed the Ondova bankruptcy estate to
Page 12
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
significant expense [;]” (4) “Baron has repeatedly
ignored court orders[;]” (5) “Baron repeatedly hired
attorneys in bad faith without the intention of paying
them[;]” and (6) “the appointment of a receiver is
necessary to stop Baron from attempting to transfer
funds outside the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Nowhere in its order did the district court find that
Baron failed to assign half of the domain names as
required by the settlement agreement.
*305 Baron appealed the appointment of the re-
ceiver and then appealed numerous subsequent orders
entered by the district court. An order appointing a
receiver is appealable to courts of appeals as a matter
of right. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2).
FN1
There is less clar-
ity as to which orders during the pendency of a re-
ceivership may properly be appealed. As we later
discuss, our conclusions about the receivership itself
make most of the later appeals irrelevant.
FN1. In one of the consolidated appeals in
this case, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman &
Blumenthal, L.L.P. (“CCSB”), a firm that
served as counsel to Baron and Ondova in the
bankruptcy proceedings, claimed it is owed
$224,232.69 in unpaid fees. CCSB filed a
separate appeal from the district court's dis-
bursement order providing for payment to
unpaid attorneys. Under the disbursement
order, CCSB is to receive no payments from
the receivership; instead, CCSB is to be paid
out of the Ondova bankruptcy estate. CCSB
agreed that this court lacks jurisdiction over
CCSB's appeal given that the firm filed a
motion to reconsider that remains pending in
the district court. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d
745, 752, n. 13 (5th Cir.2005).
Thus, the CCSB appeal is dismissed.
DISCUSSION
The central issue on appeal is whether a court can
establish a receivership to control a vexatious litigant.
The district court appointed a receiver primarily to
control Baron's hiring, firing, and non-payment of
numerous attorneys. The receiver was granted exclu-
sive control over assets, including Baron's personal
property, that were not at issue in the underlying liti-
gation over the domain names. We find no authority to
permit establishing a receivership for this purpose. We
set out below our reasons for that conclusion and its
effect on what has occurred since the receivership was
put in place.
I. Propriety of the Receivership Order
[1][2][3][4] We review a district court's ap-
pointment of a receiver for an abuse of discretion.
Santibanez v. Weir McMahon & Co., 105 F.3d 234,
242 (5th Cir.1997). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66
gives limited guidance, stating that the civil rules
govern in an action involving a receiver. “Under that
rule, the appointment of a receiver can be sought ‘by
anyone showing an interest in certain property or a
relation to the party in control or ownership thereof
such as to justify conservation of the property by a
court officer.’ ” Santibanez, 105 F.3d at 241 (quoting
7 James Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice §
66.05[1] (2d ed.1996)). Correspondingly, a district
court has authority to place into receivership assets in
litigation “to preserve and protect the property pend-
ing its final disposition.” Gordon v. Washington, 295
U.S. 30, 37, 55 S.Ct. 584, 79 L.Ed. 1282 (1935).
Examples the Court gave of the proper use of a re-
ceivership included the preservation of property until
the foreclosure of a mortgage, or of trust property until
appointment of a new trustee, or of a debtor's property
until a judgment creditor has it applied to his judg-
ment. Id. In none of those situations was the receiver
named simply to secure or preserve funds for the sat-
isfaction of a potential later judgment. Receivership is
“an extraordinary remedy that should be employed
with the utmost caution” and is justified only where
there is a clear necessity to protect a party's interest in
property, legal and less drastic equitable remedies are
inadequate, and the benefits of receivership outweigh
Page 13
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
the burdens on the affected parties. See 12 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2983 (3d ed.2012); see also Santibanez,
105 F.3d at 241–42 (summarizing factors courts must
consider before appointing a receiver).
*306 [5] Even if a reasonable basis exists for be-
lieving there are benefits to the court and the parties to
imposing a receivership, and those reasons likely
existed here, resort to that remedy may be inappro-
priate. The cases on which the district court initially
relied in appointing a receiver establish that the court
has inherent power “to manage [its] own affairs so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417
(5th Cir.1995). These cases, however, refer to a court's
power to dismiss a case with prejudice and the district
court's authority to impose monetary sanctions. Id.;
FDIC v. Maxxam, Inc., 523 F.3d 566, 584 (5th
Cir.2008). In a later order disbursing attorney fees, the
district court also relied on precedents stating that a
receivership is an equitable remedy. Santibanez, 105
F.3d at 241. That is so, but for the reasons discussed
below, equity does not allow a receivership to be
imposed over property that was not the subject of the
underlying dispute.
[6][7] Receivers have been used in a number of
contexts. “Secured creditors, lienholders, and mort-
gagees” may seek appointment of a receiver because
they “clearly have an interest in the property in which
they have a security interest that may provide a basis
for convincing the court to appoint a receiver ending a
foreclosure suit or any other action to enforce one or
more outstanding liens.” Wright & Miller, supra, §
2983; see also Bookout v. First Nat'l Mortg. & Disc.
Co., 514 F.2d 757, 758 (5th Cir.1975). Additionally, a
receivership is a remedy for taking possession of a
judgment debtor's property. Santibanez, 105 F.3d at
241. A receivership also can be utilized when a
judgment creditor seeks “to set aside allegedly fraud-
ulent conveyances by the judgment debtor, or who has
had execution issued and returned unsatisfied ... or
who otherwise is attempting to have the debtor's
property preserved from dissipation until his claim can
be satisfied.” Id. (quoting Wright & Miller, supra, §
2983). Importantly, to justify the appointment of a
receiver such claims would already have been reduced
to judgment. That was not the case here, as the re-
ceivership was deemed imposed for unresolved
claims.
[8] The receiver and trustee pointed us to another
line of cases where a receivership was proper as an
adjunct to injunctive relief for a securities fraud. E.g.,
SEC v. Keller Corp., 323 F.2d 397, 402 (7th
Cir.1963). Receiverships also have been upheld in
derivative actions by stockholders against corpora-
tions to prevent the threatened diversion of assets
through fraud or mismanagement. E.g., Tanzer v.
Huffines, 408 F.2d 42, 43 (3d Cir.1969). Thus, in cases
of non-compliance with SEC regulations, a receiver
may be appointed to prevent the corporation from
dissipating corporate assets and to pay defrauded
investors. Id.; SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1035 (9th
Cir.1986). Nonetheless, in a derivative suit or a suit
for non-compliance with SEC regulations, the corpo-
rate assets are the underlying subject matter of the
dispute. Here, the only assets that were the subject
matter of the dispute were the domain names that were
to be transferred under the settlement agreement. They
were transferred.
Last, the receiver and trustee relied on cases
where courts appointed receivers to run institutions
where constitutional violations were occurring. Such
receiverships are generally ordered in the context of
ensuring a governmental entity's compliance with
court orders. See, e.g., Morgan v. McDonough, 540
F.2d 527 (1st Cir.1976) (upholding a receivership
imposed to insure a high school's compliance with
desegregation orders); Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603
F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.2010) (upholding*307 a receiver-
ship to administer and improve prison health care).
This is not a case where a governmental organization
will not comply with the law. Plata, 603 F.3d at 1094.
Page 14
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
We now look at the specific arguments for the
receivership presented by the receiver and trustee and
explain why none is consistent with the limited pur-
poses for this “extraordinary remedy.” Strickland v.
Peters, 120 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir.1941).
A. Preserving Jurisdiction and Bringing Litigation to
a Close
Among the justifications presented by the re-
ceiver and trustee for the receivership is that it was
needed to preserve the court's jurisdiction over Baron's
assets, given that one of Baron's former attorneys had
testified that Baron intended to move assets outside of
the country. They further asserted that the receivership
order was a valid exercise of the court's inherent au-
thority because bringing the Netsphere litigation and
Ondova bankruptcy to a close required that Baron be
prevented from either hiring or firing additional
counsel. The receiver halted the hiring and firing of
counsel by seizing all of Baron's personal assets and
the assets of the companies he controlled.
[9][10] We first examine the argument that assets
needed to satisfy a future money judgment were being
transferred beyond the court's jurisdiction. The All
Writs Act “empowers a federal court to employ pro-
cedures necessary to promote the resolution of issues
in a case properly before it.” ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp. v.
Barton, 569 F.2d 1351, 1359 (5th Cir.1978); 28
U.S.C. § 1651. This authority, though, “is firmly cir-
cumscribed, its scope depending on the nature of the
case before the court and the legitimacy of the ends
sought to be achieved through the exercise of the
power.” ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 569 F.2d at 1358–59.
A court is limited to issuing orders “to curb conduct
which threaten[s] improperly to impede or defeat the
subject matter jurisdiction then being exercised by the
court.” Id. at 1359.
The jurisdiction “being exercised” by the district
court in this case prior to the receivership order was
enforcing a settlement agreement and the transfer of
domain names, which would end the Netsphere liti-
gation and the Ondova bankruptcy. Baron executed
the settlement agreement in July 2010 and agreed to
quitclaim the “Even Group” of domain names to
Netsphere. Neither the trustee nor the receiver has
pointed to record evidence that Baron failed to transfer
the domain names in accordance with the agreement.
He had other obligations, but there is no record evi-
dence brought to our attention that any discrete assets
subject to the settlement agreement were being moved
beyond the reach of the court.
At a September 15, 2010 hearing in bankruptcy
court, the attorney for the trustee gave an update on the
parties' progress toward completing the terms of the
settlement agreement. In addition to addressing the
few minor unresolved issues with respect to domain
names to be conveyed to Baron, the trustee's attorney
discussed the increasing number of attorneys who had
formerly represented Baron and Ondova and were
now making claims against the bankruptcy estate. At
this point, when the bankruptcy court considered
recommending the district court appoint a receiver, the
bankruptcy court was not responding to a threatened
loss of control over domain names or other discrete
property. Instead, it was trying to prevent the loss of
the funds necessary to pay the various claims that
continued to mount up against the Ondova bankruptcy
estate. It was at this hearing that the *308 bankruptcy
court heard testimony from Baron's attorney, Pronske,
explaining that he had learned Baron was planning to
transfer “assets” offshore. Based on these allegations,
the bankruptcy court ordered Baron to direct the Vil-
lage Trust to deposit $330,000 with the bankruptcy
trustee as a form of security to pay Baron's “obliga-
tions.”
Baron continued to hire and fire attorneys, caus-
ing the bankruptcy trustee to move for the appoint-
ment of a receiver over Baron, followed soon by the
district court's ex parte appointment of a receiver. In
the January 2011 hearing that followed, the district
Page 15
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
court provided its justifications for appointing the
receiver. Those justifications centered almost entirely
on the court's concern that Baron's vexatious litigation
tactics—particularly the hiring and firing of law-
yers—were increasing the costs of litigation and ex-
posing the bankruptcy estate to additional administra-
tive claims. The court briefly mentioned its concern
that Baron would transfer “funds” outside of the
court's jurisdiction, a concern grounded in the court's
desire to fashion a remedy through a receivership to
pay the claims of Baron's former attorneys.
[11] There certainly was evidence that Baron's
actions were disrupting, complicating, and making
more expensive both the bankruptcy and the district
court suit. We do not, though, find evidence that
Baron was threatening to nullify the global settlement
agreement by transferring domain names outside the
court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the receivership
cannot be justified in this instance on the basis that it
was needed to take control of the property that was the
subject of the litigation. Rather, the receivership was
established to pay the attorneys and to control vexa-
tious litigation. We will now examine each of those
reasons.
B. Paying Attorneys
[12][13] The district court in its order establishing
a receivership referred to the testimony received by
the bankruptcy court on Baron's debts to former at-
torneys. The district court described those debts as the
primary rationale for the receivership. A receiver may
be appointed for a secured creditor who has legitimate
fears his security may be dissipated; “an unsecured
simple contract creditor has, in the absence of a stat-
ute, no substantive right, legal or equitable, in or to the
property of his debtor.” Pusey & Jones Co. v.
Hanssen, 261 U.S. 491, 497, 43 S.Ct. 454, 67 L.Ed.
763 (1923). Baron's former attorneys were free to
make claims against the bankruptcy estate. Many had
done so. Alternatively, to the extent that they repre-
sented Baron or his companies in matters unrelated to
the Ondova bankruptcy, the attorneys could file suit in
a court of appropriate jurisdiction to collect the fees
owed, which many had done. Establishing a receiv-
ership to secure a pool of assets to pay Baron's former
attorneys, who were unsecured contract creditors, was
beyond the court's authority. Id.
[14] Moreover, for those unpaid attorneys who
had filed claims, the claims had not been reduced to
judgment such that a receiver would have been proper
to “set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances by
[Baron].” Santibanez, 105 F.3d at 241. “[R]eceivers
may be appointed to preserve property pending final
determination of its distribution in supplementary
proceedings in aid of execution.” Id. (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). They may also be properly ap-
pointed for a judgment creditor who “is attempting to
have the debtor's property preserved from dissipation
until his claim can be satisfied.” Id.
[15] Although the attorneys' allegations and
claims were delaying the district *309 court and
bankruptcy proceedings, they were not the subject
matter of the underlying litigation. “The general fed-
eral rule of equity is that a court may not reach a de-
fendant's assets unrelated to the underlying litigation
and freeze them so that they may be preserved to
satisfy a potential money judgment.” In re Fredeman
Litig., 843 F.2d 821, 824 (5th Cir.1988). Fredeman
involved a civil action under RICO for treble damag-
es. Id. at 822. The district court entered a preliminary
injunction that effectively froze all of the defendants'
assets, which were unrelated to the underlying lawsuit,
based solely on the need to protect the potential RICO
judgment. Id. at 825. This court set aside the injunc-
tion as an improper exercise of the court's equitable
powers. Id.
In setting aside the injunction in Fredeman, this
court relied on De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v.
United States, 325 U.S. 212, 222–23, 65 S.Ct. 1130,
89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945). Id. In De Beers, the government
sought and obtained a pretrial preliminary injunction
freezing the domestic assets of a foreign corporation
Page 16
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
suspected of violating antitrust laws. De Beers, 325
U.S. at 215, 65 S.Ct. 1130. The government argued
that freezing the corporation's assets was the only
method of ensuring compliance with future court
orders. Id. The government also speculated that the
corporation would withdraw its domestic assets in an
effort to evade the jurisdiction of the courts of the
United States. Id. at 215–16, 65 S.Ct. 1130. Though
the Supreme Court acknowledged a court's inherent
power to protect its jurisdiction, it concluded that the
injunction exceeded the court's powers. Id. at 222–23,
65 S.Ct. 1130. The Court explained that if it were to
hold otherwise, every plaintiff in an action for a per-
sonal judgment would apply for a “so-called injunc-
tion sequestrating his opponent's assets pending re-
covery and satisfaction of a judgment.... No relief of
this character has been thought justified in the long
history of equity jurisprudence.” Id.
In a more recent articulation of its “cautious ap-
proach to equitable powers,” the Supreme Court stated
that equity is “confined within the broad boundaries of
traditional equitable relief.” Grupo Mexicano de De-
sarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S.
308, 322, 329, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319
(1999). The Court identified the issue as being
“whether, in an action for money damages, a United
States District Court has the power to issue a prelim-
inary injunction preventing the defendant from trans-
ferring assets in which no lien or equitable interest is
claimed.” Id. at 310, 119 S.Ct. 1961. The Court an-
swered “no.” Id. at 333, 119 S.Ct. 1961. The opinion
thoroughly reviewed the breadth of equitable powers
before reaching that conclusion. Id. “[F]ederal courts
in this country have traditionally applied the principle
that courts of equity will not, as a general matter,
interfere with a debtor's disposition of his property at
the instance of a nonjudgment creditor.” Id. at 329,
119 S.Ct. 1961. We conclude that the limits of equity
there described are relevant to the receivership rem-
edy, too.
The trustee and receiver are correct that Grupo
Mexicano involved a claim only for money damages,
in which the district court improperly relied on its
equitable authority to issue a preliminary injunction to
preserve a fund. Even so, the Court detailed the rele-
vant principles that confine the equitable power of
federal courts. Id. at 319–22, 119 S.Ct. 1961. It re-
jected that the merger of law and equity had altered the
relevant limitations on that power. Id. at 322, 119
S.Ct. 1961. The Grupo Mexicano Court distinguished
its ruling from a case in which the suit sought the
equitable relief of contract rescission *310 and resti-
tution. Id. at 325, 119 S.Ct. 1961 (citing Deckert v.
Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 287–88, 61
S.Ct. 229, 85 L.Ed. 189 (1940)). The equitable relief
was not, therefore, simply in aid (as in Grupo Mexi-
cano) of a legal claim for a money judgment. Id. The
case before us is similar to Grupo Mexicano to the
extent that the receivership remedy was for the pur-
pose of controlling Baron's transferring of funds that
were to be paid to attorneys—nonjudgment creditors.
This receivership was intended to control vexatious-
ness, but it is more similar to Grupo Mexicano than it
is to Deckert.
[16] While these precedents dealt with injunc-
tions, the jurisdictional principle that a court's equita-
ble powers do not extend to property unrelated to the
underlying litigation applies with equal force to re-
ceiverships. A court lacks jurisdiction to impose a
receivership over property that is not the subject of an
underlying claim or controversy. Cochrane v. W.F.
Potts Son & Co., 47 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1931).
In Cochrane, a holder of corporate bonds, which were
alleged to be part of a fraud scheme, sought the es-
tablishment of a receivership. Cochrane, 47 F.2d at
1027. The bondholder only claimed an interest in one
series of bonds—series E. Id. at 1028. The district
court appointed a receiver over the series E bonds as
well as five other series that were not part of the un-
derlying complaint. Id. This court held that the district
court only had jurisdiction over the series E bonds,
which were the subject of the litigation. Id. at 1029.
Because the district court lacked subject matter juris-
Page 17
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
diction over the other bonds, which were not at issue
in the litigation, it lacked authority to appoint a re-
ceiver over them. Id.
The receivership ordered in this case encom-
passed all of Baron's personal property, none of which
was sought in the Netsphere lawsuit or the Ondova
bankruptcy other than as a possible fund for paying the
unsecured claims of Baron's current and former at-
torneys that had not been reduced to judgment. The
receivership also included business entities owned or
controlled by Baron, including Novo Point, LLC and
Quantec, LLC. Although Novo Point and Quantec
were listed as parties on the global settlement agree-
ment, they were never named parties in the Netsphere
lawsuit or the Ondova bankruptcy. We conclude the
district court could not impose a receivership over
Baron's personal property and the assets held by Novo
Point and Quantec.
C. Controlling Vexatious Litigation
[17][18] Baron's vexatious litigation tactics were
his ignoring court orders and hiring and firing of at-
torneys, which delayed court proceedings, increased
the general cost of litigation, and increased expenses
for the bankruptcy estate. Such tactics, though, have
not been recognized as a basis for invoking the equi-
table remedy of a receivership. A receiver has been
allowed to halt fraudulent, evasive litigation tactics,
but only when a specific provision of the Internal
Revenue Code applied. In re McGaughey, 24 F.3d 904
(7th Cir.1994); United States v. Bartle, 159 Fed.Appx.
723 (7th Cir.2005) (unpublished). In McGaughey, the
court derived its power to appoint a receiver to collect
unpaid taxes from a specific provision of the Code. In
re McGaughey, 24 F.3d at 907. A district court may
use authority from 26 U.S.C. § 7403 to appoint a
receiver over a debtor's assets in a proceeding to en-
force a tax lien if the Government makes the necessary
showing of need. Id. Bartle did not provide its own
extensive analysis but relied on McGaughey to sup-
port a receiver for that purpose. Bartle, 159 Fed.Appx.
at 725. Here, unlike in McGaughey and *311Bartle,
the court had no statutory authority to appoint the
receiver nor were the receivership assets at issue in the
litigation.
Baron's longstanding vexatious litigation tactics
presented the district court with an exceedingly dif-
ficult situation. The district court recognized that it
had the inherent authority to address those tactics. At
the beginning of the suit, the district court entered a
preliminary injunction to compel compliance with the
first settlement agreement—i.e., the MOU. The court
later held a hearing to address Baron's non-compliance
with the preliminary injunction. The injunction was
amended to include a $50,000 per day penalty for a
violation. When Baron's hiring and firing of attorneys
were first addressed, the court found clear and con-
vincing evidence of Baron's contempt of court and
said it could employ such tools as monetary sanctions
or jailing Baron until he complied with court orders.
The court concluded, though, that these remedies were
insufficient because Baron had repeatedly ignored
court orders.
If the district court entered a sufficiently specific
order, it could have held Baron in contempt, imposed a
fine or imprisoned him for “disobedience ... to its
lawful ... command.” 18 U.S.C. § 401. At oral argu-
ment in the appeal, it seemed conceded that no clear
order existed. Instead, the receiver and trustee cited
only to hearings at which the district court admonished
Baron not to hire or fire any more attorneys. Whether
there was a clear order ultimately does not matter in
our resolution. The question before us concerns the
receivership.
The district court also could have required Baron
to proceed with the same lawyer or pro se at his
choice. McCuin v. Tex. Power & Light Co., 714 F.2d
1255, 1263 (5th Cir.1983) (explaining that the right to
retain the counsel of one's choosing may be restricted
where it is misused “for purposes of delay or obstruc-
tion of the orderly conduct of the trial” and when “the
needs of effective administration of justice” so re-
Page 18
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
quire). The court noted some of these remedies and
determined they would be inadequate. No authority
has been cited to us, though, that a receivership be-
comes appropriate when traditional means might not
fully prevent a litigant from engaging in vexatious
litigation tactics.
[19] A court has undeniable authority to control
its docket but not through creating a receivership over
assets, including personal assets, that were not the
subject of the litigation. The terms of the receivership
order had far-reaching implications for Baron's per-
sonal property. For example, the receiver was em-
powered to take possession of Baron's mobile phone
and computers and to divert mail. Baron was required
to turn over his bank accounts and keys to any prop-
erty he owned or rented, including his own home.
Moreover, when Baron needed funds for medical care,
he had to request such funds from the receiver.
We conclude that the receivership improperly
targeted assets outside the scope of litigation to pay
claims of Baron's former attorneys and control Baron's
litigation tactics. This was an improper use of the
receivership remedy. The order appointing a receiver
is vacated.
II. The Receivership Fees
[20] When a receivership is proper, the general
rule is that receivership fees and expenses “are a
charge upon the property administered.” Gaskill v.
Gordon, 27 F.3d 248, 251 (7th Cir.1994); see also Atl.
Trust Co. v. Chapman, 208 U.S. 360, 374, 28 S.Ct.
406, 52 L.Ed. 528 (1908). When a receivership is
improper or the court lacks equitable authority to
appoint a receiver, the party that sought the receiver-
ship at *312 times has been held accountable for the
receivership fees and expenses. W.F. Potts Son & Co.
v. Cochrane, 59 F.2d 375, 377–78 (5th Cir.1932).
Baron relied on a somewhat later case for the same
point. Porter v. Cooke, 127 F.2d 853 (5th Cir.1942).
That court held that “the parties whose property has
been wrongfully seized are entitled, on equitable
principles, to recover costs from those who have
wrongfully provoked the receivership.” Id. at 859. In
the present case, no party “provoked” the receivership.
The bankruptcy court recommended a receiver, and
the trustee then moved in district court for the ap-
pointment as recommended.
We discover no controlling rule on assessing
costs for an improperly created receivership other than
that equity is the standard. For example, in W.F. Potts,
this court evaluated the assignment of responsibility
for the receivership fees by recognizing that the dis-
trict court itself ordered the receivership. W.F. Potts,
59 F.2d at 377–78. After holding that the receivership
should not have been imposed, we rejected that the
party who sought the receivership had to bear its costs:
[The parties whose assets were seized] treat the
matter too much as though this were a suit for the
wrongful and forcible taking of property by plaintiff
or its agents. They overlook the fact that, though it is
true that one who invokes without sufficient equi-
table grounds the administration by a receiver of the
property of another may be in a proper case held
accountable for the costs and expenses of the re-
ceivership and for losses which the receivership has
visited upon the property, the appointment of a re-
ceiver is at last the court's appointment; the admin-
istration, its administration. We think it perfectly
clear that in a case like this, where there was no
malice nor wrongful purpose, and only an effort to
conserve property in which plaintiff believed,
though it did not show, it was interested, the ques-
tion of its liability should be considered and ad-
judged from the standpoint of working as little
hardship as may be, plaintiff in the end to be held
liable for only the actual losses which its mistaken
course has caused.
Id. (citations omitted). An equitable allocation
was ordered. The plaintiff who sought the receivership
was not charged with disbursements that benefitted
the fund, but it was ordered to reimburse the defendant
Page 19
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
for actual losses to the fund. Id. at 379.
With a similar focus on equity, the Supreme Court
evaluated how to assign the costs of an improper re-
ceivership created by a federal court when that court
had erroneously concluded that a state court receiv-
ership no longer had possession of the relevant prop-
erty. Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118, 125–26, 29 S.Ct.
230, 53 L.Ed. 435 (1909). The Court reversed the
lower court's assessment of the costs against the party
who had sought the receivership, because the Court
concluded “that justice will be done if the costs of the
receivership are paid out of the fund realized in the
Federal court....” Id. at 132, 29 S.Ct. 230.
These precedents are consistent with analysis in
one of our precedents that without “convincing evi-
dence that the appointment of a receiver was either
collusive, capricious, venal, or in bad faith,” ordinarily
the expenses of the receivership will not be charged
“other than against the fund administered by the re-
ceiver, even though the [c]ourts are vested with a
discretion in determining who should pay the costs
and expenses of a receivership in unusual instances.”
Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Connolly, 176 F.2d 1004,
1009 (5th Cir.1949). In holding that the receivership
*313 expenses should be paid out of receivership
funds, we reasoned that, though appointment of a
receiver was a “mistake,” the large recovery by the
plaintiffs in the trial indicated the receivership was not
“needless.” Id. On remand, the lower court was to
enter a decree directing the receiver to pay one-fourth
of the costs of the retrial and appeal, the party moving
for the receiver to pay one-half, and the intervenors
one-fourth. Id. at 1010.
[21][22] We do not find that Baron received any
benefit from this receivership. Nonetheless, these
precedents establish that equity controls when ad-
dressing the costs created by an improper receivership.
Here, the record supports that the circumstances that
led to the appointment of a receiver were primarily of
Baron's own making. The district court had an array of
fairly onerous remedies to apply but chose another
remedy that it did not have. The manner in which the
district court responded to those circumstances was
errant, but the court's perception was reasonable that a
vigorous response was required.
We must decide how equitably to resolve this
misapplication of an equitable remedy. Baron did in
fact contend that the appointment of the receiver was
in bad faith or collusive but fails to convince. He
supported the argument by saying the appointment
was prohibited by law by virtue of the receiver's pre-
vious appointment as special master. Baron relied on
this statutory language: “A person holding any civil or
military office or employment under the United States
or employed by any justice or judge of the United
States shall not at the same time be appointed a re-
ceiver in any case in any court of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 958. The trustee pointed out that a special
master is neither an employee of the United States nor
of the judge who appointed him. While the special
master is subject to the court's supervision, his fee is
paid by the parties to the litigation, not the court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(g)(2). The fact that the receiver was
previously special master is no indication of bad faith
or collusion in the appointment of the receiver.
Additionally, we hold, based on this record, that
in creating the receivership “there was no malice nor
wrongful purpose, and only an effort to conserve
property in which [the court] believed” it was inter-
ested in maintaining for unpaid attorney fees and to
control Baron's vexatious litigation tactics. W.F. Potts,
59 F.2d at 377–78. We recognize that the district court
was dealing with a conundrum when it decided to
appoint the receiver—the problem was great, but
standard remedies seemed inadequate. We also take
into account that, to a large extent, Baron's own ac-
tions resulted in more work and more fees for the
receiver and his attorneys. For these reasons, charging
the current receivership fund for reasonable receiv-
ership expenses, without allowing any additional
assets to be sold, is an equitable solution.
Page 20
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[23] In light of our ruling that the receivership
was improper, equity may well require the fees to be
discounted meaningfully from what would have been
reasonable under a proper receivership. Fees already
paid were calculated on the basis that the receivership
was proper. Therefore, the amount of all fees and
expenses must be reconsidered by the district court.
Any other payments made from the receivership fund
may also be reconsidered as appropriate.
We also conclude that everything subject to the
receivership other than cash currently in the receiv-
ership, which Baron asserts in a November 26, 2012
motion amounts to $1.6 million, should be expedi-
tiously released to Baron under a schedule *314 to be
determined by the district court for winding up the
receivership. The new determination by the district
court of reasonable fees and expenses to be paid to the
receiver, should the amount be set at more than has
already been paid, may be paid from the $1.6 million.
To the extent the cash on hand is insufficient to satisfy
fully what is determined to be the reasonable charges
by the receiver and his attorneys, those charges will go
unpaid. No further sales of domain names or other
assets are authorized.
FN2
FN2. We stayed the closing on sales resulting
from an auction of domain names. Our ruling
means no closing may occur, and the stay is
made permanent.
III. Other Issues
Baron raised other issues related to the receiver-
ship. Additionally, there are multiple outstanding
motions. We address those that would remain unre-
solved despite our holding that the receivership was
improper.
A. Subpoena of IOLTA Account
Baron contended the district court erred in al-
lowing the receiver to subpoena bank records related
to Baron's attorney's IOLTA account. When the re-
ceiver learned that Baron's attorney, Gary Schepps,
was paying another Baron attorney through an IOLTA
account, he served a subpoena on the bank holding the
account. The receiver argued that Baron was using the
account to hide receivership assets and retain addi-
tional counsel in defiance of the district court's orders.
[24][25][26] The receiver argued that the issue
regarding bank records is moot given that the sub-
poena issued, the bank produced the records, and the
receiver has reviewed them. An appeal must be dis-
missed when “an event occurs while a case is pending
on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to
grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing
party.” Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537
(5th Cir.2008). Yet, an appellate court's “continued
jurisdiction does not depend upon being able to pro-
vide complete relief; if there is some means by which
we can effectuate a partial remedy, this case remains a
live controversy.” In re Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 228
F.3d 865, 870 (8th Cir.2000). The records have been
produced and reviewed by the receiver and there is no
relief that this court can provide. Baron's challenge to
the subpoena of his attorney's IOLTA account is moot.
B. Section 144 Affidavit
On April 27, 2011, Baron filed a motion for leave
to file a motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144.
Baron attached to the motion an affidavit detailing his
allegations of bias. At the hearing on Baron's motion,
the court instructed Baron to file a second affidavit
with appropriate record citations to statements by the
court that Baron believed evidenced bias. Baron's
attorney assured the court that providing record cites
would be “no problem” because “everything in the
affidavit is directly cut and pasted from the record.”
The court then entered an order granting Baron's
motion for leave to file a second affidavit, but only
under the condition that Baron submit an affidavit
with record citations. On May 6, 2011, Baron's attor-
ney informed the district court that a new affidavit was
Page 21
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
ready, but that it did not comply with the court's record
cites requirement. In his supplemental affidavit, Baron
alleged that the district court had “a personal bias
against giving credence to allegations of poor conduct
by attorneys” and that his personal bias had allowed
Baron to be victimized by his opponents—many of
whom were attorneys. The district*315 court struck
the new affidavit, but it allowed Baron to file another
affidavit provided that it complied with the court's
original order. Baron never submitted a compliant
affidavit and did not re-urge his motion to disqualify.
Baron contended that the district court erred in
refusing to rule on the legal sufficiency of the affida-
vits. The receiver argued that Baron waived this issue
by failing to file an affidavit that complied with the
court's order.
[27][28] “A judge is to recuse himself if a party to
the proceeding makes and files a timely and sufficient
affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is
pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against
him or in favor of any adverse party.” Patterson v.
Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 483 (5th Cir.2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A district court's
ruling with respect to a Section 144 affidavit is ap-
pealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Davis v. Bd. of
Sch. Comm'rs of Mobile Cnty., 517 F.2d 1044, 1047
(5th Cir.1975).
[29][30] When a motion is filed under Section
144, the district court “must pass on the legal suffi-
ciency of the affidavit” without passing on the truth of
the matter asserted. Davis, 517 F.2d at 1051. “A le-
gally sufficient affidavit must: (1) state material facts
with particularity; (2) state facts that, if true, would
convince a reasonable person that a bias exists; and (3)
state facts that show the bias is personal, as opposed to
judicial, in nature.” Patterson, 335 F.3d at 483.
[31] Based on our reading of the record, the dis-
trict court considered Baron's original affidavit, de-
termined that it was insufficient, and ordered Baron to
correct the deficiency by including citations to the
record. Baron filed a second affidavit and admitted
that it did not comply with the court's order. The dis-
trict court struck the affidavit, but left Baron the op-
tion of filing another affidavit provided it had record
cites. Baron never filed a compliant affidavit; there-
fore, he has waived the issue on appeal.
C. Outstanding Motions & Mandamus
In light of our holding that the receivership order
was improper, we need not address the outstanding
motions that were carried with the case. Similarly, we
do not find it necessary to address Novo Point's peti-
tion for a writ of mandamus, which challenged the
bankruptcy court's decision to strike various notices of
appeal filed by Novo Point. The bankruptcy court
struck these notices based on its finding that they
violated the terms of the receivership order—which
we have now set aside.
The judgment appointing the receiver is RE-
VERSED with directions to vacate the receivership
and discharge the receiver, his attorneys and em-
ployees, and to charge against the cash in the receiv-
ership fund the remaining receivership fees in ac-
cordance with this opinion.
Carrington, Coleman, Sloman and Blumenthal,
LLP's appeal of the district court's disbursement order
is DISMISSED.
Baron's challenge to the subpoena of his attor-
ney's IOLTA account is DENIED as moot.
Baron's challenge to the denial of his Section 144
affidavit was waived.
Should we not have addressed a motion that a
party believes still needs a ruling, that claimed over-
sight should be suggested on rehearing.
Page 22
703 F.3d 296
(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
C.A.5 (Tex.),2012.
Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron
703 F.3d 296
END OF DOCUMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-11202
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
v.
ONDOV
A LIMITED COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee
CONS.
w/
11-10113
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
ET
AL,
Defendants
v.
QUANTEC, L.L.C.;
NOVO
POINT, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
v.
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
PETER
S.
VOGEL,
Appellee
CONS.
w/
11-10289
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
v.
DANIEL J. SHERMAN,
Appellee
CONS.
w/
11-10290
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
ET
AL,
Defendants
v.
QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
Movants - Appellants
v.
PETER
S.
VOGEL,
Appellee
CONS.
w/
11-10390
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
v.
ONDOV A LIMITED COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee
PETER
S.
VOGEL,
Appellee
CONS.
w/
11-10501
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN
& BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P.,
Appellant
v.
PETERS.
VOGEL; DANIEL
J.
SHERMAN,
Appellees
CONS.
w/
12-10003
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
GARY SCHEPPS,
Appellant
v.
PETER
S.
VOGEL,
Appellee
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
CONS.
w/
12-10444
In re:
NOVO
POINT, L.L.C.,
Petitioner
CONS. w 12-10489, 12-10657, and 12-10804
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
NOVO
POINT, L.L.C.; QUANTEC, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
v.
PETERS.
VOGEL; DANIEL J. SHERMAN,
Appellees
CONS.
w/
12-11082
NETSPHERE, INC.,
ET
AL,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
Defendant - Appellant
QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
v.
PETER
S.
VOGEL,
Appellee
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District
of
Texas
Before DeMOSS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER:
IT
IS
ORDERED that the opposed motion
of
Appellee Peter
S.
Vogel for
clarification
of
this Court's November
9,
2012 order is GRANTED.
As stated in Federal Rule
of
Appellate Procedure 41, the mandate that signifies the
finality
of
the Court's decision
is
not in the usual course issued with the opinion. Instead,
it issues later under the varying circumstances set out in the Rule. The December
18,
2012 decision
of
the Court
is
at this time still subject to alteration by the panel or by the
en bane court, and consequently it
is
not final. The district court orders that were in place
prior to the release
of
our opinion remain in place. Upon the issuance
of
the mandate by
this Court, the conclusions
of
our opinion become final and the district court and parties
may rely on the rulings it contains.
We point out that our opinion did not dissolve the receivership immediately. We
ordered a remand for an expeditious winding up
of
the receivership. No assets that were
brought under the control
of
the receiver will be released immediately from that control
even when the mandate
is
issued. The district court will thereafter have the authority to
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
manage the process for ending the receivership as quickly as possible.
If
no rehearing is requested by any party, and absent any hold on the mandate
requested by a member
of
the en bane court, the mandate will issue immediately after the
expiration
of
the period to file for rehearing on January
2,
2013. A further order
of
this
Court will be entered signifying whether the mandate in fact issues on that date.
The Receiver has requested that we explain whether it
is
proper for further fees
and expenses to be paid. As we said in the opinion and
as
the Receiver acknowledges, all
fees and expenses need to be re-evaluated in light
of
our holding that the Receivership
should not have been created. That conclusion neither authorizes nor prevents further
necessary disbursements. The import
of
our order
of
November
9,
2012, has not changed,
which said this: "Disbursement
of
any other assets
of
the Receivership should be as
limited
as
possible until this Court resolves the appeals." We have resolved the appeals,
but the only expenditures should be those appropriate for the Receiver to make until
relinquishment
of
control
of
assets. It
is
for the district court to make the initial
determination
of
whether approval
of
additional fees and expenses
is
appropriate at this
time in light
of
the re-evaluation
of
all fees and expenses
of
the Receivership.
IT
IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the opposed motion
of
Appellee PeterS. Vogel
to clarify the status
of
the mandate
is
DENIED to the extent any clarification beyond what
we have just given was requested.
Baron filed a motion to clarify who
is
to take custody
of
the receivership assets
upon the dissolution
of
the receivership. The opinion stated that everything subject to the
receivership other than cash "should be expeditiously returned to Baron under a schedule
to be determined by the district court for winding up the receivership." Our utilization
of
a shorthand reference to Baron did not in any way affect the ownership
of
assets that were
brought into the receivership. Assets are to be returned as appropriate to Baron or other
entities that were subject to the receivership.
Baron requests we clarify that he
is
not the principal beneficiary
of
Novo Point,
LLC and Quantec, LLC. Such clarification
is
irrelevant to our holding and is DENIED.
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
IT
IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motion filed by Appellants
Jeffrey Baron; Novo Point, LLC; Quantec, LLC; and Gary Schepps to clarify that this
Court's opinion
of
December
18,
2012, was issued "as and for the mandate" is DENIED.
IT
IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motions filed by Appellants Jeffrey
Baron; Novo Point, LLC; Quantec, LLC; and Gary Schepps for a stay
of
the injunctions
contained in the district court's order appointing the receiver dated November 24, 2010,
is
DENIED.
Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/31/2012
1
Leonard Simon
From: Schenck, David <DSchenck@dykema.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:50 AM
To:
Leonard Simon
Cc:
Fine, Jeffrey
Subject:
Baron appeals
Leonard,
IseethatyouhavefiledamotiontoconsolidatetwoappealsIassumetobebroughtbyMr.Baron.JeffFine,
whoisnotcounselinei ther,tellsmeyousentanemailtohimaboutyourmoti on.Canyoudescribethereliefprovided
intheordersthatareappe
aledsothatIcanadviseyouandtheCourtofourposition.Inthefuture,couldyouplease
conferwithmeandtheotherlawyerslistedascounselonthosematters.Also,Jefftellsmethatyouhaveaskedabout
thestatusoftheCourt’sorders.Icansaythatth
eCourthasorderedthereceivertoceasehisoperationsand
stewardshipovertheassetsformerlyintheestate,buttomyknowledgetheCourthasnotenteredanordervacating
theordercreatingthereceivership.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
Dykema
David J. Schenck
Member
DSchenck@dykema.com
214-462-6413 Direct
214-462-6400 Main
855-227-4721 Fax
Comerica Bank Tower
1717 Main Street, Suite 4000
Dallas, Texas 75201
www.dykema.com
*** Notice from Dykema Gossett PLLC: To comply with U.S. Treasury regulations, we advise you that any
discussion of Federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue
Service, or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any matter addressed herein. This Internet
message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. It is intended for
use only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received this in error, please (1) do not forward or
use this information in any way; and (2) contact me immediately. Neither this information block, the typed
name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a
specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. DYKEMA
EXHIBIT “11”
ADR,APPEAL,EXH-ADM,JURY
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-00988-L
Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al
Assigned to: Judge Sam A Lindsay
Case in other court: 10-11202
10-11202
USCA5, 11-10113
11-10289
11-10290
12-10489
13-10119
13-10696
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Date Filed: 05/28/2009
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Special Master
Peter S Vogel
TERMINATED: 12/13/2010
represented by Peter S Vogel
Gardere Wynne Sewell
1601 Elm St
Suite 3000
Dallas, TX 75201-4761
214/999-4422
Fax: 214/999-3422
Email: pvogel@gardere.com
TERMINATED: 12/13/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Plaintiff
Netsphere Inc represented by John W MacPete
P.O. Box 224726
Dallas, TX 75222
214/564-5205
Email: jmacpete@macpeteiplaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Douglas D Skierski
Franklin Skierski Hayward LLP
10501 N Central Expwy
Suite 106
Dallas, TX 75231
214/755-7100
Page 1 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Fax: 214/755-7104
Email: dskierski@fshlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
George M Tompkins
Tompkins PC
825 Market St
Building M Suite 250
Allen, TX 75013
972/996-4746
Email: george@tompkinsiplaw.com
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melissa S Hayward
Franklin Chapman Skierski Hayward
LLP
10501 N Central Expwy
Suite 106
Dallas, TX 75231
972/755-7100
Fax: 972/755-7104
Email: mhayward@fcshlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Plaintiff
Manila Industries Inc represented by John W MacPete
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Douglas D Skierski
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
George M Tompkins
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melissa S Hayward
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Plaintiff
Munish Krishan represented by
Page 2 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
John W MacPete
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
George M Tompkins
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Defendant
Jeffrey Baron represented by Leonard H Simon
Pendergraft & Simon LLP
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway
Suite 800
Houston, TX 77019
713/528-8555
Fax: 832/202-2810
Email: lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Stephen R Cochell
The Cochell Law Firm
7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259
Houston, TX 77024
713/980-4381
Fax: 713/980-1179
Email: srcochell@gmail.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Anthony L Vitullo
Fee Smith Sharp & Vitullo
Three Galleria Tower
13155 Noel Rd Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75240
972/934-9100
Fax: 972/934-9200 FAX
Email: lvitullo@feesmith.com
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Caleb Rawls
Page 3 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
The Law Offices of Caleb Rawls
3390 Northaven Rd
Dallas, TX 75229
972/804-9068
Fax: 214/723-5932
Email: calebrawls@gmail.com
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Carter Boisvert
Friedman & Feiger LLP
5301 Spring Valley Rd
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
972/788-1400
Fax: 972/788-2667
Email: cboisvert@fflawoffice.com
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Edwin E Wright , III
Stradley & Wright
Abrams Centre
9330 LBJ Freeway Suite 1400
Dallas, TX 75243
972/231-6001
Fax: 972/231-9150
Email: wright@edwright.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ernest W Leonard
Friedman & Feiger LLP
5301 Spring Valley Rd
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
972/788-1400
Fax: 972/788-2667
Email: eleonard@fflawoffice.com
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Gary G Lyon
The Willingham Law Firm
6401 W. Eldorado Parkway
Suite 234
McKinney, TX 75070
214-250-4407
Fax: 866-309-7476
Page 4 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Email: glyon.attorney@gmail.com
TERMINATED: 01/07/2011
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Gary N Schepps
Schepps Law Offices
Drawer 670804
Dallas, TX 75367
972-200-0000
Fax: 214-347-4031
Email: legal@schepps.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James S Bell
Friedman & Feiger LLP
5301 Spring Valley Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
972/788-1400
Fax: 972/788-2667
Email: jbell@fflawoffice.com
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James R Krause
Friedman & Feiger
5301 Spring Valley Rd
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
972/788-1400
Fax: 972/788-2667 FAX
Email: jkrause@fflawoffice.com
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Jeffrey T Hall
Law Office of Jeffrey T Hall
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
214/658-6513
Fax: 214/658-6509
Email: jthallesq@gmail.com
TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lawrence J Friedman
Friedman & Feiger LLP
Page 5 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
5301 Spring Valley Rd
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
972/788-1400
Fax: 972/788-2667
Email: lfriedman@fflawoffice.com
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Martin K Thomas
Thomas & Sobol
PO Box 36528
4826 Kelton Dr
Dallas, TX 75235
214/951-9466
Fax: 214/951-9007
Email: thomas12@swbell.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Matthew B Probus
Wauson & Associates
One Sugar Creek Center Blvd
Suite 880
Sugar Land, TX 77478
281/242-0303
Fax: 281/242-0306
Email: mbprobus@w-plaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett
Tayari Law PLLC
100 Crescent Court
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
214/459-8266
Fax: 214/764-7289
Email: m.tayari@tayarilaw.com
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Peter Michael Barrett
Law Office of Peter Barrett
3500 Maple Avenue
Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75219
214/526-0555
Fax: 214/526-0551
Email: peter@barrettcrimelaw.com
Page 6 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
TERMINATED: 04/18/201
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ryan K Lurich
Friedman & Feiger
5301 Spring Valley Rd
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
972/788-1400
Fax: 972/788-2667 FAX
Email: rlurich@fflawoffice.com
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Stephen L Jones
Jones Otjen & Davis
114 E Broadway
Suite 1100
Enid, OK 73701
580/242-5500
Fax: 580/242-4556
Email: sjones@stephenjoneslaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Defendant
Ondova Limited Company represented by Anthony L Vitullo
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Caleb Rawls
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Carter Boisvert
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
E P Keiffer
Wight Ginsberg Brusilow P.C.
Republic Center, Suite 4150
325 North St. Paul Street
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 651-6517
Fax: (214) 744-2615
Email: pkeiffer@wgblawfirm.com
Page 7 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ernest W Leonard
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James S Bell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James R Krause
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Kim M Carpenter
Wright Ginsberg Brusilow PC
Republic Center Suite 4150
325 North St Paul St
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 651-6520
Fax: (214) 744-2615
Email: kmoses@wgblawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lawrence J Friedman
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ryan K Lurich
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Defendant
The Village Trust
(a Cook Islands Trust)
Defendant
Equity Trust
(an Ohio Trust)
V.
Page 8 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Respondent
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP represented by Richard M Roberson
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
3000 Thanksgiving Tower
1601 Elm St
Dallas, TX 75201
214/999-4955
Fax: 214/999-3955
Email: rroberson@gardere.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Movant
Quantec LLC represented by Christopher A Payne
Law Office of Christopher A Payne
PLLC
6600 LBJ Freeway
Ste. 183
Dallas, TX 75240
972/284-0731
Fax: 214/453-2435
Email: cpayne@cappc.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Craig A Capua
West & Associates LLP
320 S RL Thornton Frwy
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75203
214/941-1881
Fax: 469/364-7139
Email: craig.c@westllp.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Gary N Schepps
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Joshua Edward Cox
PO Box 2072
Page 9 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Keller, TX 76244
682/583-5918
Email: j.cox.email@gmail.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Thomas P Jackson
Law Office of Thomas P Jackson
5430 Glen Lakes Drive
Suite 230
Dallas, TX 75231
972/387-0007
Fax: 972/584-6159
Email: tpj@dfwlawyer.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Movant
Iguana Consulting LLC represented by Craig A Capua
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Movant
Novo Point LLC represented by Christopher A Payne
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Craig A Capua
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Gary N Schepps
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Joshua Edward Cox
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Page 10 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
ar Status: Admitted/In Good Standin
Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Thomas P Jackson
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Movant
Friedman & Feiger, LLP represented by Ryan K Lurich
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lawrence J Friedman
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Movant
Carrington Coleman Sloman &
Blumenthal, LLP
represented by J Michael Sutherland
Carrington Coleman Sloman &
Blumenthal
901 Main St
Suite 5500
Dallas, TX 75202
214/855-3069
Email: msutherland@ccsb.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lisa Marie Lucas
Carrington Coleman Sloman &
Blumenthal LLP
901 Main St
Suite 5500
Dallas, TX 75202
214/855-3114
Fax: 214/758-3707
Email: llucas@ccsb.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Thomas F Allen , Jr
Jones Day
Page 11 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
2727 North Harwood Street
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 220-3939
Fax: (214) 969-5100
Email: tallen@jonesday.com
TERMINATED: 09/05/2013
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Movant
Stephen Cochell represented by Stephen R Cochell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Movant
Power Taylor LLP represented by Gerrit M Pronske
Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.
2200 Ross Ave
Suite 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
214/658-6500
Fax: 214/658-6509
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melanie Pearce Goolsby
Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.
2200 Ross Ave
Suite 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
214/658-6500
Fax: 214/658-6509
Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Rakhee Patel
Shackelford, Melton & McKinley, LLP
3333 Lee Parkway
Tenth Floor
Dallas, TX 75219
214-780-1415
Fax: 214-780-1401
Email: rpatel@shacklaw.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Movant
David L Pacione represented by Gerrit M Pronske
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Rakhee Patel
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Claimant
Gary G Lyon represented by Gary G Lyon
8951 Synergy Drive
Suite 221
McKinney, TX 75070
9729777221
Fax: 2148310411
Email: glyon.attorney@gmail.com
PRO SE
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Bankruptcy Judge
Stacey G Jernigan represented by Stacey G Jernigan
US Bankruptcy Court
Chambers of Judge Stacey G C Jernigan
1100 Commerce St
Room 1254
Dallas, TX 75242-1496
214/753-2040
Email: sgj_settings@txnb.uscourts.gov
PRO SE
V.
Interested Party
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Simple Solutions LLC represented by Franklin Howard Perr
Payne & Blanchard
717 N. Harwood
Suite 3350
Dallas, TX 75201-7471
214/231-3248
Fax: 214/220-0439
Email: fperry@pandblaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Interested Party
Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP represented by Darrell W Cook
Darrell W Cook & Associates
One Meadows Building
5005 Greenville Avenue
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75206
214/368-4686
Fax: 214/363-9979 FAX
Email: darrell@attorneycook.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Stephen W Davis
Darrell W Cook & Associates PC
5005 Greenville Ave
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75206
214/368-4686
Fax: 214/363-9979
Email: stephen@attorneycook.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Interested Party
Sidney Bennett Chesnin represented by Sidney Bennett Chesnin
Law Offfice of Sidney B Chesnin
4841 Tremont
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75246
Email: schesnin@hotmail.com
PRO SE
Interested Party
Broome Law Firm, pllc represented by Stanley D Broome
The Broome Law Firm PLLC
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
105 Decker Court
Suite 850
Irving, TX 75062
214/574-7500
Fax: 214/574-7501
Email: sbroome@broomelegal.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Interested Party
Internet Corporation For Assigned
Names and Numbers
represented by Jason Cross
Jones Day
2727 N Harwood Street
Suite 1
Dallas, TX 75201
214/969-5042
Fax: 214/969-5100
Email: jccross@jonesday.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Jeffrey A LeVee
Jones Day
555 South Flower Street
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213/489-3939
Fax: 213/243-2539
Email: jlevee@jonesday.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Not Admitted
Kate Wallace
Jones Day
555 South Flower Street
50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213/489-3939
Fax: 213/243-2539
Email: kwallace@jonesday.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Not Admitted
Interested Party
Jones Day represented by Jason Cross
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Jeffrey A LeVee
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Not Admitted
Kate Wallace
(See above for address)
Bar Status: Not Admitted
Interested Party
Navarro County Criminal District
Attorney
represented by Randall P Miller
Navarro County Criminal District
Attorney
300 W 3rd Avenue
Suite 203
Corsicana, TX 75110
903/654-3048
Fax: 903/872-6858
Email: rmiller@navarrocounty.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Interested Party
RPV, Ltd., as Trustee of the Village
Trust
represented by Andrew K York
Looper Reed & McGraw PC
1601 Elm St
Suite 4600
Dallas, TX 75201
214/954-4135
Fax: 214/953-1332
Email: dyork@grayreed.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Notice Only
Case Admin Sup represented by Case Admin Sup
Email:
txnb_appeals@txnb.uscourts.gov
PRO SE
Notice Only
Pronske & Patel PC represented by Gerrit M Pronske
(See above for address)
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
LEAD ATTORNE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Rakhee Patel
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Notice Only
Dean W Ferguson represented by Dean W Ferguson
Locke Liddell & Sapp
Chase Tower
2200 Ross Ave
Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
214/740-8000
LEAD ATTORNEY
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Notice Only
Martin K Thomas
Notice Only
Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Notice Only
Robert Garrey represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Notice Only
Jeffrey Hall represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby
(See above for address)
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Receiver
Peter S Vogel represented by David J Schenck
Dykema Gossett PLLC
1717 Main St
Suite 4000
Dallas, TX 75201
214/462-6400
Fax: 214/462-6401
Email: dschenck@dykema.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Barry M Golden
Gardere Wynne Sewell
1601 Elm St
Suite 3000
Dallas, TX 75201-4761
214/999-4746
Fax: 214/999-4667 FAX
Email: bgolden@gardere.com
TERMINATED: 07/12/2012
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Christopher D Kratovil
Dykema Gossett PLLC
1717 Main St
Suite 4000
Dallas, TX 75201
214/462-6400
Fax: 214/462-6401
Email: ckratovil@dykema.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Peter Lawrence Loh
Gardere Wynne Sewell
1601 Elm St
Suite 3000
Dallas, TX 75201-4761
214/999-4391
Fax: 214/999-3391
Email: ploh@gardere.com
TERMINATED: 07/12/2012
Page 18 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
ar Status: Admitted/In Good Standin
Richard M Roberson
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Jeffrey R Fine
Dykema Gossett PLLC
1717 Main St
Suite 4000
Dallas, TX 75201
214/462-6455
Fax: 214/462-6401 FAX
Email: jfine@dykema.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Creditor
Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC
V.
Mediator
ADR Provider
TERMINATED: 05/28/2013
represented by Leif M Clark
PO Box 2676
San Antonio, TX 78299
210/663-5183
TERMINATED: 05/28/2013
Bar Status: Not Admitted
V.
Objector
Gary Schepps represented by Gary N Schepps
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Objector
Amica Mutual Insurance Company represented by Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis
The Stafford Davis Firm PC
305 S Broadway Ave
Suite 406
Page 1
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Tyler, TX 75702
903/593-7000
Fax: 903/705-7369
Email: sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Craig M Scott
Scott & Bush Ltd
30 Kennedy Plaza
4th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
401/865-6035
Fax: 401/865-6039
Email: cscott@scottbushlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Not Admitted
V.
Trustee
Daniel J. Sherman represented by Curt M Covington
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC
500 N Akard St
3800 Lincoln Plaza
Dallas, TX 75201-6659
214/855-7547
Fax: 214/855-7584
Email: ccovington@munsch.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Dennis L Roossien
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC
3800 Lincoln Plaza
500 N Akard St
Dallas, TX 75201
214/855-7535
Fax: 214/855-7584
Email: droossien@munsch.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lee J Pannier
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC
500 N Akard St
Page 20 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
3800 Lincoln Plaza
Dallas, TX 75201-6659
214/855-7500
Fax: 214/855-7584
Email: lpannier@munsch.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Raymond J Urbanik
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC
500 North Akard Street, Ste 3800
Dallas, TX 75201-6659
214/855-7590
Fax: 214/978-4374
Email: rurbanik@munsch.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Richard M Hunt
Hunt Huey PLLC
3102 Maple Ave.
Suite 625
Dallas, TX 75201
214-641-9182
Email: rhunt@hunthuey.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Trustee
John H. Litzler represented by Kathryn Gillian Reid
Rochelle McCullough LLP
325 N St Paul Street
Suite 4500
Dallas, TX 75201
214/580-2508
Fax: 214/953-0185
Email: kreid@romclawyers.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Kevin Dale McCullough
Rochelle McCullough LLP
325 N St Paul St
Suite 4500
Dallas, TX 75201
214/953-0182
Fax: 214/953-0185 FAX
Email: kdm@romclawyers.com
Page 21 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Sean J McCaffity
Rochelle McCullough LLP
325 N St Paul
Suite 4500
Dallas, TX 75201
214/953-0182
Fax: 214/953-0185
Email: smccaffity@romclawyers.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Intervenor
Charla Aldous represented by Charla G Aldous
Aldous Law Firm
2311 Cedar Springs Rd
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75201
214/526-5595
Fax: 214/526-5525
Email: caldous@aldouslaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Jeffrey H Rasansky
Rasansky Law Firm
2525 McKinnon St
Suite 625
Dallas, TX 75201
214/651-6100
Fax: 214/651-6150
Email: jrasansky@jrlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Robert Edward Wolf , Jr
Rasansky Law Firm
2525 McKinnon
Suite 625
Dallas, TX 75201
214/651-6100
Email: rwolf@jrlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Intervenor
Jeffrey H Rasansky represented by Charla G Aldous
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Jeffrey H Rasansky
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Robert Edward Wolf , Jr
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Intervenor
Aldous Law Firm
Intervenor
Rasansky Law Firm
Intervenor
Partner Mark L Taylor represented by Mark L Taylor
Powers Taylor LLP
8150 North Central Expressway
Suite 1575
Dallas, Tx 75206
214-239-8900
Fax: 214-239-8901
Email: mark@powerstaylor.com
PRO SE
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Mark L Taylor
Powers Taylor LLP
8150 N Central Expwy
Suite 1575
Dallas, TX 75206
214/239-8900
Fax: 214/239-8901
Email: mark@powerstaylor.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Intervenor
Verisign, Inc. represented by
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Allen W Yee
Vinson & Elkins
Trammell Crow Center
2001 Ross Ave Suite 3700
Dallas, TX 75201
214/220-7996
Fax: 214/999-7996
Email: ayee@velaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Counter Claimant
Jeffrey Baron represented by Anthony L Vitullo
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Caleb Rawls
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Carter Boisvert
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Edwin E Wright , III
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ernest W Leonard
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Gary G Lyon
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/07/2011
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Gary N Schepps
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James S Bell
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James R Krause
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lawrence J Friedman
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Matthew B Probus
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ryan K Lurich
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Stephen R Cochell
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Counter Claimant
Ondova Limited Company represented by Anthony L Vitullo
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Caleb Rawls
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Carter Boisvert
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
E P Keiffer
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Ernest W Leonard
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James S Bell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
James R Krause
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Kim M Carpenter
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Lawrence J Friedman
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Ryan K Lurich
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/29/2010
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
V.
Counter Defendant
Netsphere Inc represented by John W MacPete
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Douglas D Skierski
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melissa S Hayward
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Counter Defendant
Manila Industries Inc represented by John W MacPete
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Douglas D Skierski
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Melissa S Hayward
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Counter Defendant
Munish Krishan represented by John W MacPete
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Date Filed # Docket Text
12/18/2012 1110 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1108 MOTION for Reconsideration re
1106 Order, Approving Fees and Expenses of Matthew Morris (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
12/18/2012 1111 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1098 Motion per Doc. No. 1105
(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 12/18/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson)
(Entered: 12/18/2012)
12/20/2012 1112
ORDER: The Fifth Circuit has delivered its opinion regarding the
Receivership, nullifying the appointment of the Receiver. While the case has
been reversed and remanded back to this Court, the mandate has not yet
issued. Once the mandate has been issued, the Court intends to hold a hearing
and to close the Receivership. In the meantime, the Court takes the following
actions (see attached order). (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
12/20/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
12/20/2012 1113
Fifth MOTION for Attorney Fees of Dykema filed by Peter S Vogel
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
12/20/2012)
12/20/2012 1114 NOTICE of Filing of Motion to Vacate Order Confirming Plan and Related
Findings and to Dismiss All Appeals and Pending Appeals filed by
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP (Sutherland, J) (Entered:
12/20/2012)
12/20/2012 1115 NOTICE of Involuntary Bankruptcy filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C. (Pronske,
Gerrit) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
12/21/2012 1116 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Peter S. Vogel filed by Peter S Vogel
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
12/21/2012)
12/21/2012 1117
Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees Twenty-Second filed by Peter S Vogel
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
12/21/2012)
12/27/2012 1118 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1095 Fourth
MOTION for Attorney Fees of Dykema, 1084 Third MOTION for Attorney
Fees (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
12/27/2012 1119 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1096 MOTION
for Attorney Fees Trustee's Motion for Partial Reimbursement of Fees and
Expenses From the Receivership Estate (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered:
12/27/2012)
12/28/2012 1120 ORDER REGARDING FEE APPLICATIONS: IT IS ORDERED that
Dykema Gosett PLLC submit its Sixth Fee Application for services
performed as of December 28, 2012, by December 31, 2012 at 10:00 am. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver submit his fee application for
services performed through December 28, 2012, by December 31, 2012 at
10:00 am. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 12/28/2012) (Judge Royal
Furgeson) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
12/30/2012 1121 MOTION for Recusal filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in
Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Disqualify)
(Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/31/2012 1122 NOTICE of December Receiver's Fee Applications filed by Peter S Vogel
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Invoices, # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Declaration(s), # 4
Declaration(s)) (Vogel, Peter) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1123 NOTICE of December Receiver's Fee Apllication for Dykema filed by Peter
S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A Invoice, # 2 Exhibit(s)) (Vogel,
Peter) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1124 NOTICE of Receiver's Open Invoices filed by Peter S Vogel (Vogel, Peter)
(Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1125
MOTION for Attorney Fees Third Motion of Daniel J. Sherman, Chapter 11
Trustee for Ondova Limited Company, for Reimbursement of Fees and
Expenses from the Receivership Estate filed by Daniel J. Sherman
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1126 Amended MOTION re 1121 MOTION for Recusal filed by Jeffrey Baron
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Testimony of Daniel Sherman 11-16-12)
(Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
Page 28 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
12/31/201
112
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 112
Amended
MOTION re 1121 MOTION for Recusal (Vogel, Peter) (Entered:
12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1128 REPLY filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1121 MOTION for Recusal (Cochell,
Stephen) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1129
NOTICE of Gardere's Notice of Outstanding Fee Applications re: 1112
Order, filed by Peter S Vogel (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1130
NOTICE of 5th Circuit Order filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) 5th Circuit Order) (Vogel, Peter) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 1131 Counter NOTICE re: 1130 Notice of Fifth Circuit Order filed by Jeffrey
Baron (Schepps, Gary) Modified on 1/2/2013 (skt). (Entered: 12/31/2012)
01/02/2013 1132 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1125 MOTION for Attorney Fees
Third Motion of Daniel J. Sherman, Chapter 11 Trustee for Ondova Limited
Company, for Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership
Estate (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/02/2013 1133
ORDER REGARDING GLOBAL SETTLEMENT: On or before January 11,
2013, Netsphere must deposit with the Receiver all monies due and owing to
Baron under the Global Settlement through December 31, 2012. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/2/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
01/02/2013)
01/02/2013 1134 REPLY filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1132 Response/Objection, (Urbanik,
Raymond) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/02/2013 1135 NOTICE of Supplemental Declaration of Gary Schepps filed by Jeffrey
Baron (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/02/2013 1136 ORDER: It is Ordered that the Receiver file with the Court an inventory of
each asset presently held in the Receivership, along with the value of each
asset, by noon on 1/4/2013. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/2/2013)
(skt) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/02/2013 1137 NOTICE of Fifth Circuit Filing filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s)) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/02/2013 1138 ADVISORY ON PAST AND PENDING RECEIVERSHIP
DISBURSEMENTS: The Court has considered the Fifth Circuit opinion in
the appeal from this Court and has interpreted the opinion to require a
reduction in all past and pending requests for fees and expenses from the
Receivership. If any of the parties wish to contest this Court's interpretation
of the Fifth Circuit opinion, they shall submit briefing on the matter no later
than Wednesday, 1/9/2013. If the Court is not persuaded by briefing on this
this issue, it will allow an immediate appeal, since the Receivership will soon
be closed and the matter will become moot. (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 1/2/2013) (skt) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
01/03/2013 1139 Order to Show Cause. The Receiver is hereby ordered to show cause why
Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC should not be immediately returned to
Page 2
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Jeffrey Baron. The Receiver must respond no later than Wednesday,
1/9/2013. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/3/2013) (cea) (Entered:
01/03/2013)
01/03/2013 1140 ORDER DENYING 1121 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE.
The Court is of the opinion that Baron will be unsuccessful in any attempts to
subpoena testimony from the presiding judge. Additionally, that the personal
knowledge on which Baron seeks recusal is inapplicable to those obtained in
the judicial proceedings themselves and findings that the Receivership,
however invalid, was created in good faith lead this Court to conclude that
this Motion to Disqualify the Trial Judge must be DENIED. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/3/2013) (cea) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
01/03/2013 1141
STATUS REPORT Letter to Judge filed by Peter S Vogel. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s)) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
01/04/2013 1142
NOTICE of Receiver's Assets as of January 3, 2013 re: 1136 Order filed by
Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1143 ORDER DENYING CERTAIN PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT: The
Court DENIES AS MOOT Doc. Nos. 880, 1001, 1038, and 1046. (Ordered
by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1144 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 880 Motion per Order Denying
Certain Pending Motions as Moot (Doc. No. 1143). (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1146 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1038 Motion for Leave to File per
Order Denying Certain Pending Motions as Moot (Doc. No. 1143). (Ordered
by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1147 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1046 Motion per Order Denying
Certain Pending Motions as Moot (Doc. No. 1143). (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1148 MOTION to Order Third-Party Payment to Receivership and Sanctions filed
by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D) (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1149 MOTION to Extend Time for response to Advisory filed by Peter S Vogel
with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Roberson, Richard) (Entered:
01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1150 REQUEST TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT: This Court requests the
Bankruptcy Court presiding over the involuntary bankruptcy of Mr. Jeffrey
Baron, as soon as practicably possible, to lift the automatic stay with regard
to all matters governing the administration of the Receivership, motions and
litigation regarding the winding down of the receivership, and compliance
with the Fifth Circuits opinion once the mandate issues. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
Page 30 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
01/04/201
1151 RESPONSE filed by Dean W Ferguson, Gary G Lyon, Pronske & Patel,
P.C., Mark L Taylor, Shurig Jetel Backett Tackett, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey
Hall re: 1113 Fifth MOTION for Attorney Fees of Dykema, 1116 MOTION
for Attorney Fees for Peter S. Vogel, 1117 Amended MOTION for Attorney
Fees Twenty-Second, 1125 MOTION for Attorney Fees Third Motion of
Daniel J. Sherman, Chapter 11 Trustee for Ondova Limited Company, for
Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Goolsby,
Melanie) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
01/04/2013 1152
ORDER granting 1148 ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER'S MOTION TO
ORDER THIRD-PARTY PAYMENT TO RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR
STEPHEN COCHELL TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO CONTEMPT (Ordered
by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
01/04/2013)
01/06/2013 1153 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1149 Motion to Extend Time. The deadline
to respond to the Advisory on Past and Pending Receivership Disbursements
(Doc. No. 1138) is extended to January 23, 2013 for all parties. All other
deadlines remain in place. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/6/2013)
(Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/06/2013)
01/07/2013 1154 ORDER denying 1108 Motion for Reconsideration. In light of the Fifth
Circuit's ruling charging this Court with reconsidering all prior fees and
expenses, this Court is of the opinion that Mr. Morris' fee should be paid at a
95% rate. Further, this money should be retained in the Dykema Gossett
PLLC trust account until further ordered by this Court. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 1155 ORDER: This Court is committed to winding up the Receivership quickly in
accordance with the Fifth Circuit's instructions. It will not tolerate, however,
any improper interference with its duties. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson
on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 1156 ORDER INSTRUCTING RECEIVER TO PAY DYKEMA GOSSETT'S
LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES AT A 95% RATE. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 1157 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1084 Motion for Attorney Fees per
Order Instructing Receiver to Pay Dykema Gossett's Legal Fees and
Expenses at a 95% Rate (Doc. No. 1156 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 1158 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1095 Motion for Attorney Fees per
Order Instructing Receiver to Pay Dykema Gossett's Legal Fees and
Expenses at a 95% Rate (Doc. No. 1156 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 1159 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1113 Motion for Attorney Fees per
Order Instructing Receiver to Pay Dykema Gossett's Legal Fees and
Expenses at a 95% Rate (Doc. No. 1156 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 1160
Page 31 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
MOTION to Vacate 115
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 115
Order, filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-Fifth Circuit Opinion & Clerk of the Court
Letter Regarding Mandate) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/08/2013 1161
NOTICE of RECEIVERS INVENTORY OF ASSETS AS OF JANUARY 8,
2013 filed by Peter S Vogel (Vogel, Peter) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
01/08/2013 1162 ORDER denying 1160 Motion to Vacate. No action should be taken by any
parties to alter the Receivership contracts or attempt to reclaim property until
further ordered by either this Court or the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 1/8/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
01/08/2013 1163
ORDER AMENDING ORDER INSTRUCTING RECEIVER TO PAY
DYKEMA GOSSETT'S LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES: The Court now
amends its previous Order to change the accounts from which the Receiver is
to pay Dykema's fees. The Court makes no changes to the total amount of
fees authorized. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/8/2013) (Judge
Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
01/09/2013 1164
NOTICE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT: Input from this Honorable
Bankruptcy Court is hereby requested. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
1/9/2013) (tln) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2013: # 1 exhibit)
(tln). (Entered: 01/09/2013)
01/09/2013 1165 ORDER TO PAY RENEWAL FEES FOR DOMAIN NAMES. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/9/2013) (tln) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
01/09/2013 1166 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 1150 Order, (Attachments: # 1
REPORT TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST
TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DATED JANUARY 4, 2013) (Blanco -
TXNB, Juan) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
01/10/2013 1167 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1139 Order to Show Cause, (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
01/10/2013 1168 ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT'S REPORT. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/10/2013) (ctf) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
01/11/2013 1169 ORDER of USCA : See order for specifics. (Attachments: # 1 USCA5
Letter) (svc) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/15/2013 1170 ORDER: The Court has considered the arguments of the Receiver and the
recent developments in the above numbered case and its corresponding
bankruptcies and now believes that no further action should be taken with
regard to these entities until the issuance of the Mandate from the Fifth
Circuit, the resolution of the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against
Jeffrey Baron, and the winding down of the Receivership by this Court. This
Court will release these entities, as well as all other assets, as soon as it is
authorized by the Fifth Circuit and under the Bankruptcy Code. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/15/2013) (tln) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/15/2013 1171
Emergency MOTION of Jeffrey Baron for Order Approving Payment of
Retainer to Bankruptcy Counsel and Brief in Support Thereof filed by Jeffrey
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Probus, Matthew) (Entered:
01/15/2013)
01/15/2013 1172 ORDER denying 1171 Emergency MOTION of Jeffrey Baron for Order
Approving Payment of Retainer to Bankruptcy Counsel. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 1/15/2013) (tln) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/15/2013 1173 NOTICE of Trustee's Recommendation re: 1112 Order, filed by Daniel J.
Sherman (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/15/2013 1174
STATUS REPORT Receiver's Report filed by Peter S Vogel. (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/17/2013 1175 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 1150 Order, (Attachments: # 1 Report
and Recommendation) (Whitaker - TXNB, Sheniqua) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
01/17/2013 1176 ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT RECOMMENDATIONS
(1175). The Receiver is hereby ORDERED to release $25,000 in cash funds
to be used as a retainer by Mr. Jeffrey Baron's bankruptcy attorney of his
choosing. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/17/2013) (tln) Modified
on 12/31/2013--see order 1349 vacating this order to the extent that it
referred to the bankruptcy court for findings and recommendation
applications by the Receiver for reimbursement of receivership fees and
expenses (gr). (Entered: 01/17/2013)
01/17/2013 1177 ELECTRONIC ORDER: Per the Order Adopting Bankruptcy Court
Recommendations (Doc. No. 1176 ), all scheduling deadlines are
VACATED. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/17/2013) (Judge Royal
Furgeson) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
02/04/2013 1178 ORDER REQUIRING EX PARTE, IN CAMERA HEARING WITH
RECEIVER AND HIS COUNSEL: It has come to this Court's attention that
a representation question has arisen between the Receiver and his counsel,
the firm Dykema Gossett PLLC. In order to promptly resolve this issue, the
Court requests that the Receiver and his counsel appear at an ex parte, in
camera hearing on Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 10:00 am in the
undersigned's chambers. The hearing will be on the record, but as it relates to
representation, all records will be sealed. If these parties are unable to appear
in person, they may make alternative arrangements with the Court to appear
by phone. Status Conference set for 2/7/2013 10:00 AM in US Courthouse,
Courtroom 1310, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge
Royal Furgeson. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 2/4/2013) (Judge
Royal Furgeson) (Main Document 1178 replaced on 2/4/2013) (Furgeson,
Royal). (Entered: 02/04/2013)
02/06/2013 1179 MOTION Leave to participate in ex parte hearing re 1178 Order Setting
Deadline/Hearing,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in
Support. (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
02/06/2013 1180 ELECTRONIC ORDER denying 1179 Motion. The issues to be discussed
have no impact on Mr. Baron or his interests. (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 2/6/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
02/06/201
1181 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit as to 115
Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 1156 Order, 1163 Order, 1106 Order,
1083 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1103 Order by Jeffrey Baron, Novo
Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Filing fee $455, receipt number 0539-5104578.
T.O. form to appellant electronically at Transcript Order Form or US Mail as
appropriate. Copy of NOA to be sent US Mail to parties not electronically
noticed. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
02/12/2013 1182 NOTICE of Fifth Circuit Directive and Request to Preserve Status Quo of
Receivership Pending Fifth Circuit Action filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
02/12/2013 1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses
Pursuant to the Interim Order filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David)
Modified on 2/13/2013 to correct text(svc). (Entered: 02/12/2013)
02/12/2013 1184 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1138 Order,, (Schenck, David)
(Entered: 02/12/2013)
02/12/2013 1185 STATUS REPORT And Wind Down Recommendations filed by Peter S
Vogel. (Schenck, David) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
02/12/2013 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY
COUNSEL filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) Modified text on
2/13/2013 (svc). (Entered: 02/12/2013)
02/13/2013 1187 MOTION TO WIND DOWN RECEIVERSHIP WITH PROPOSED PLAN,
MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT, AND PROVIDE RESOLUTION FOR ALL DISPUTED
ATTORNEYS FEE CLAIMS filed by Jeffrey Baron. (Cochell, Stephen)
Modified on 2/14/2013 to reflect correct event (svc). (Entered: 02/13/2013)
02/15/2013 1188 Receiver's Request for Joint Status Conference in the District Court and the
Bankruptcy Court or, Alternatively, For Status Conference in the District
Court filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) Modified on 2/19/2013 to
modify text (svc). (Entered: 02/15/2013)
02/18/2013 1189
Transcript Order Form: re 1181 Notice of Appeal,, transcript requested by
Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC for Miscellaneous Hearing held on 4-23-2012,
12-4-2012, 2-7-2013, before Judge Furgeson. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered:
02/18/2013)
02/19/2013 USCA Case Number 13-10119 for 1181 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo
Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. (svc) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
02/20/2013 1190 MOTION Receiver's Expedited Application For Payment of Receivership
Expenses (Court Reporters) Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of
filing in Bankruptcy Court] filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David)
(Entered: 02/20/2013)
02/21/2013 1191 NOTICE of Hearing on March 19, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.and Notice of Deadline
to Respond re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of
Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim Orde, 1190 MOTION
Receiver's Expedited Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
(Court Reporters) Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of filing in
Bankruptcy Court], 1182 Notice (Other), 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY
THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL, 1188 MOTION for
Extension of Time to File, 1185 Status Report filed by Peter S Vogel (Fine,
Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
02/24/2013 1192 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1188 Motion for Extension of Time to
File per Notice of Hearing on March 19, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.and Notice of
Deadline to Respond (Doc. No. 1191 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson
on 2/24/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 02/24/2013)
02/24/2013 1193
Transcript Order Form: re 1181 Notice of Appeal,, transcript requested by
Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC for Miscellaneous Hearing held on 12-14-2012
before Judge Furgeson. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 02/24/2013)
02/24/2013 1194 Transcript Order Form: re 1181 Notice of Appeal,, transcript requested by
Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC for Miscellaneous Hearing held on 4-23-
2012,2-7-2013 before Judge Furgeson. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered:
02/24/2013)
03/04/2013 1195 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited
Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim
Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A- Email Chain dtd 1-28-10, # 2
Declaration(s) B-Declaration of Jeffrey Baron) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered:
03/04/2013)
03/05/2013 1196 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited
Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim
Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A- Declaration of Eli Pearlman, # 2
Exhibit(s) B- Email Exchange re: Dykema Firm, # 3 Exhibit(s) C-
Declaration of Jeffrey Baron) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
03/05/2013 1197 REPLY to Receiver's Response to Advisory [Docket No. 1138] filed by
Jeffrey Baron re: 1184 Response/Objection. (Cochell, Stephen) Modified text
on 3/6/2013 (axm). (Entered: 03/05/2013)
03/06/2013 1198 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE
RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL (Cochell, Stephen)
(Entered: 03/06/2013)
03/06/2013 1199 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1185 Status Report and Wind Down
Recommendations . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A- Extract of Testimony of
Daniel "Corky" Sherman) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
03/07/2013 1200 MOTION to Appoint Counsel Edward Wright as Local Counsel filed by
Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Cochell, Stephen)
(Entered: 03/07/2013)
03/08/2013 1201 MOTION to Compel Payment of Settlement and for Order to Show Cause
filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Schenck, David)
(Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/08/2013 1202 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP re:
1191 Notice (Other),, (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
03/08/2013 1203 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP re:
1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership
Expenses Pursuant to the Interim Order, 1190 MOTION Receiver's
Expedited Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses (Court
Reporters) Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of filing in
Bankruptcy Court], 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S
AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL, 1188 MOTION for Extension of Time
to File (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/08/2013 1204 RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1185 Status Report (Hunt,
Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/08/2013 1205
RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1182 Notice (Other) (Hunt,
Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/08/2013 1206
RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited
Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim
Order (Hunt, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/08/2013 1207 RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY
THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL (Hunt, Richard)
(Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/11/2013 1208 OBJECTION filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C. re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited
Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim
Order, 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY
TO PAY COUNSEL (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
03/11/2013 1209 OBJECTION filed by Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP re:
1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership
Expenses Pursuant to the Interim Order, 1182 Notice (Other), 1186
REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY
COUNSEL, 1185 Status Report (Sutherland, J) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
03/12/2013 1210 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION DESIGNATING LOCAL
COUNSEL: Defendants' Motion Designating Local Counsel (Doc. No.
1200 ) is GRANTED. Edward Wright at Abrams Centre, 9330 LBJ Freeway,
Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas 75243 will serve as counsel of record for Mr.
Baron. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 3/12/2013) (Judge Royal
Furgeson) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
03/12/2013 1211 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1200 Motion to Appoint Counsel per
Doc. No. 1210 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 3/12/2013) (Judge
Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
03/18/2013 1212 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1187 MOTION TO WIND DOWN
RECEIVERSHIP WITH PROPOSED PLAN, MOTION TO WITHDRAW
THE REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND PROVIDE
RESOLUTION FOR ALL DISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEE CLAIMS, 1183
Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses
Pursuant to the Interim Order, 1190 MOTION Receiver's Expedited
Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses (Court Reporters)
Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of filing in Bankruptcy Court],
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
118
REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY
COUNSEL, 1188 MOTION for Extension of Time to File (Schenck, David)
(Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/18/2013 1213 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1203 Response/Objection,,
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B) (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/27/2013 1214
MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order GRANTING FEES TO JEFFREY BARONS APPELLATE
COUNSEL) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
03/28/2013 1215 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
03/28/2013 1216
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Netsphere Inc re: 1201 MOTION to
Compel Payment of Settlement and for Order to Show Cause (MacPete,
John) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
04/03/2013 1217 NOTICE of Advisory Regarding Court Ordered Settlement Conferences filed
by Jeffrey Baron (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
04/03/2013 1218 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1201 MOTION to Compel Payment of
Settlement and for Order to Show Cause (Schenck, David) (Entered:
04/03/2013)
04/04/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal
Furgeson: Status Conference held on 4/4/2013. Attorney Appearances:
Plaintiff - John MacPete; Defense - Stephen Cochell, Edward Wright; Peter
Vogel, Jeffrey Fine, David Schenck, Christopher Kratovil, Raymond
Urbanik, Richard Hunt (Court Reporter: Shawn McRoberts) (No exhibits)
Time in Court - 2:30. (chmb) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
04/04/2013 1219 Received letter from USCA5 regarding transcripts (svc) (Entered:
04/05/2013)
04/05/2013 1220
SCHEDULING ORDER: Fee applications due by 4/17/2013; Objections to
fee applications due by 4/25/2013; Pre-Trial hearing on fee applications set
for 4/29/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge Royal Furgeson; The trial on fee
applications is set on 5/8/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge Royal Furgeson.
(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/5/2013) (tln) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
04/05/2013 1221
Designation of Mediator by Daniel J. Sherman. (Urbanik, Raymond)
(Entered: 04/05/2013)
04/08/2013 1222 ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT
ORDER: Concurring in all matters, this Court hereby ADOPTS and
ACCEPTS the Bankruptcy Court's Order in its entirety. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 4/8/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
04/08/2013 1223 ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Receiver submit an
accounting of all Receivership assets by Tuesday, April 23, 2013. (Ordered
by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/8/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
04/08/2013)
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
04/08/201
1224 ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the trial on fee applications
is RE-SET to 2:00 pm on Wednesday, May 8, 2013. The trial will continue
on Thursday, May 9, 2013. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/8/2013)
(Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
04/08/2013 Hearing Modification: Hearings reset per 1224 Order. Bench Trial set for
5/8/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Royal Furgeson. (cea) (Entered:
04/08/2013)
04/12/2013 1225 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why WIPO and ICANN Should not Be
Held in Contempt filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered:
04/12/2013)
04/15/2013 1226
MOTION to Quash Punitive Notice of Deposition of Peter S. Vogel filed by
Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
04/16/2013 1227
ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDER DIRECTING
MEDIATION AND ORDERING PAYMENT OF MEDIATOR FEES
FROM RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE: The Court now ORDERS that the
Receivership release $12,000 to pay the agreed upon mediator by April 19,
2013 for two full day mediation sessions. If the mediation only lasts for one
day, Judge Clark will remit $6,000 back to the Receivership estate. (Ordered
by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/16/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) Docket text
modified on 4/16/2013 (twd). (Entered: 04/16/2013)
04/16/2013 1228 ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that a response to the Motion to
Quash (Doc. No. 1226 be filed on or before April 19, 2013. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/16/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
04/16/2013)
04/16/2013 Hearing/Deadline Modification: Response to 1226 Motion to Quash due by
4/19/2013. (Per 1228 Order.) Responses (twd) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
04/16/2013 19th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 10-11202 (related to 227 ,
814 , 759 , 136 , 449 , 1034 , 982 , 908 , 340 , 1181 , 614 , 1080 , 576 , 341
appeal): transmitted to Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP on disk only by hand
delivery. (svc) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
04/17/2013 1229
MOTION for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for
Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate filed by
Daniel J. Sherman with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C-1, # 4 Exhibit C-2, # 5 Exhibit C-3, #
6 Exhibit C-4, # 7 Exhibit C-5, # 8 Exhibit C-6, # 9 Exhibit C-7, # 10 Exhibit
C-8, # 11 Exhibit D) (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
04/17/2013 1230 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Daniel J. Sherman re 1229 MOTION
for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of
Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B) (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
04/17/2013 1231 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum
in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Setting Deadlines for Filing of
Page 38 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Fee Applications for Services Provided to Jeffrey Baron) (Cochell, Stephen)
(Entered: 04/17/2013)
04/17/2013 1232 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP filed by Gardere
Wynne Sewell LLP with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A) (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
04/17/2013 1233
MOTION for Attorney Fees Fee Application for the Receiver filed by Peter S
Vogel with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, #
2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6
Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H) (Vogel, Peter) (Entered:
04/17/2013)
04/17/2013 1234
MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, #
6 Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H, # 9 Exhibit(s) I) (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
04/18/2013 1235 CERTIFICATE of Conference re 1226 MOTION to Quash Punitive Notice
of Deposition of Peter S. Vogel by David J Schenck on behalf of Peter S
Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
04/18/2013 1236 ORDER DENYING 1231 MOTION TO SET DATES FOR SUBMISSION
OF FEE APPLICATIONS FOR JEFFREY BARON. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 4/18/2013) (twd) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
04/18/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1236. Thu
Apr 18 14:22:21 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
04/19/2013 1237 NOTICE of Receiver's Inventory filed by Peter S Vogel (Vogel, Peter)
(Entered: 04/19/2013)
04/19/2013 1238 RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1226 MOTION to Quash
Punitive Notice of Deposition of Peter S. Vogel (Hunt, Richard) (Entered:
04/19/2013)
04/19/2013 1239 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1226 Motion to Quash per Doc. No.
1238 , withdrawing notice of deposition. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson
on 4/19/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
04/19/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1239. Fri Apr
19 15:32:51 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
04/19/2013 1240 MOTION for Discovery, MOTION for Continuance and to Re-Consider
Funding for Jeffrey Baron's Counsel filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin). Added
MOTION for Attorney Fees on 4/22/2013 (axm). (Entered: 04/19/2013)
04/22/2013 1241
AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority
by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 1242 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority
by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 1243
Page 3
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
AFFIDAVIT re 122
Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authorit
by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 1244 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority
by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 1245 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1240 MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY, AND DENYING 1240 MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE
AND TO RE-CONSIDER FUNDING FOR JEFFREY BARON'S
COUNSEL. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/22/2013) (cea)
(Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1245. Mon
Apr 22 16:07:11 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 1246
ORDER of USCA: IT IS ORDERED that the opposed emergency motion of
Jeffrey Baron for stay pending appeal is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the opposed emergency motion to stay the issuance of the
mandate is DENIED. (svc) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
04/23/2013 1247 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority
by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
04/24/2013 1254 Opinion of USCA (certified copy) in accordance with USCA judgment re
227 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC, 814 Notice
of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Gary Schepps, Quantec
LLC, 759 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Gary
Schepps, Quantec LLC, 136 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeffrey Baron, 449
Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC,
1034 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec
LLC, 982 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,
Quantec LLC, 908 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey
Baron, Quantec LLC, 340 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron, 1181
Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC,
614 Notice of Appeal, filed by Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal,
LLP, 1080 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,
Quantec LLC, 576 Notice of Appeal,,,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey
Baron, Quantec LLC, 341 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC,
Quantec LLC. (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1255 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 136 Notice of Appeal, filed by
Jeffrey Baron. Judgment of the District Court is reversed and remanded for
further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and
LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period following final
disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found at
www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that
remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to
notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1256
JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 227 Notice of Appeal, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is reversed
and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant
Page 40 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period
following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found at
www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that
remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to
notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1257 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 340 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by
Jeffrey Baron. Judgment of the District Court is reversed and remanded for
further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and
LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period following final
disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found at
www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that
remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to
notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1258 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 341 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is reversed
and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant
to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period
following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found at
www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that
remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to
notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1259 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 341 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is reversed
and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant
to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period
following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found at
www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that
remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to
notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1260
JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 449 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District
Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate:
4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during
the 60-day period following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures
found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard
exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional
notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered:
04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1261
JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 759 Notice of Appeal,, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Gary Schepps, Quantec LLC. Judgment of
the District Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as
Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be
claimed during the 60-day period following final disposition (to do so, follow
the procedures found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk
will discard exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without
Page 41 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
additional notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc)
(Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1262 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 982 Notice of Appeal, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC, 908 Notice of Appeal,,, filed
by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District
Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate:
4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during
the 60-day period following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures
found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard
exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional
notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered:
04/29/2013)
04/24/2013 1263
JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 1080 Notice of Appeal,, filed by
Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District
Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate:
4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during
the 60-day period following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures
found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard
exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without additional
notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered:
04/29/2013)
04/25/2013 1248 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1229 MOTION
for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of
Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Vogel, Peter) (Entered:
04/25/2013)
04/25/2013 1249 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1229 MOTION
for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of
Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Schenck, David) (Entered:
04/25/2013)
04/25/2013 1250 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for
objections to fee applications set Thursday, April 25, 2013 is hereby Vacated
until further order of the court. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
4/25/2013) (chmb) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
04/25/2013 1251 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is ORDERED that the pre-trial hearing set on
Monday, April 29, 2013 at 9:00 a.m is hereby Vacated until further order of
the court. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/25/2013) (chmb) (Entered:
04/25/2013)
04/25/2013 1252 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to file
objections to fee applications is reset to Thursday, May 2, 2013. The pre-trial
hearing is reset for Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. with the trial to
follow. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/25/2013) (chmb) (Entered:
04/25/2013)
04/25/2013 Deadline Modification: Response Deadlines terminated per 1250
ELECTRONIC Order. (cea) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
04/25/201
Hearing Modification: Hearings terminated per 1251 ELECTRONIC Order.
(cea) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
04/25/2013 Hearing/Deadline Modification: Deadlines/hearings set per 1252
ELECTRONIC Order. Responses due by 5/2/2013. Pretrial Conference set
for 5/8/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Royal Furgeson. (cea) (Entered:
04/26/2013)
04/26/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1250, 1251,
1252. Fri Apr 26 07:14:40 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
04/26/2013 1253 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority
by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
04/29/2013 1264 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1013 Motion for Reconsideration
per issuance of the mandate by the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 4/29/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/29/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1264. Mon
Apr 29 16:54:47 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
05/01/2013 1265 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to file
objections to fee applications is reset to Monday, May 6, 2013. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/1/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
05/01/2013)
05/01/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1265. Wed
May 1 11:26:59 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
05/06/2013 1266 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Status Conference
Proceedings held on December 14, 2012 before Judge Royal Furgeson. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Charyse C. Crawford, CSR, RPR, Telephone number
(214)753-2373. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript. A
copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office
public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Redaction Request - Transcript
must be filed within 21 days. If no such Request is filed, the transcript will be
made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. If
redaction request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see
redacted transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not
electronically noticed. (57 pages) Redaction Request due 5/28/2013.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/6/2013. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 8/5/2013. (ccc) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
05/06/2013 1267 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to file
objections to fee applications is reset to Thursday, May 9, 2013. The pre-trial
conference and trial on fees will still commence on Wednesday, May 8, 2013
at 2:00 pm. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/6/2013) (Judge Royal
Furgeson) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
05/06/2013 1268 RESPONSE filed by Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G Lyon, David
Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Pronske & Patel PC, Shurig Jetel Backett
Tackett re: 1233 MOTION for Attorney Fees Fee Application for the
Receiver, 1232 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP,
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
122
MOTION for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application fo
Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate, 1234
MOTION for Attorney Fees (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
05/07/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1267. Tue
May 7 07:29:47 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
05/08/2013 1269 OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1233 MOTION for Attorney Fees
Fee Application for the Receiver, 1232 MOTION for Attorney Fees for
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1229 MOTION for Attorney Fees Chapter 11
Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the
Receivership Estate, 1234 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Wright, Edwin)
(Entered: 05/08/2013)
05/08/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal
Furgeson: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/8/2013. Opening statements heard
from Mr. Rukavina, Mr. Schenck, Mr. Cochell and Mr. MacPete. Mr.
Rukavina calls Daniel Sherman to the stand (Mr. Sherman sworn-in). Mr.
Schenck on cross-examination of Mr. Sherman. Mr. Cochell on cross-
examination of Mr. Sherman. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr.
Sherman. Mr. Rukavina calls Peter Vogel to the stand (Mr. Vogel sworn-in).
Mr. Schenck on cross-examination of Mr. Vogel. Mr. Cochell on cross-
examination of Mr. Vogel. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr. Vogel.
Mr. Rukavina calls Raymond Urbanik to the stand (Mr. Urbanik sworn-in).
Mr. Fine on cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. Cochell on cross-
examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr.
urbanik. Proceedings to resume tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Courts in recess.
Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - John MacPete; Defense - Stephen Cochell,
Edward Wright, Peter Vogel, David Schenck, Jeffrey Fine, Raymond
Urbanik, Davor Rukavina, Richard Roberson, Gerrit Pronske. (Court
Reporter: Cass Casey) (Exhibits admitted) Time in Court - 4:30. (chmb)
(Entered: 05/08/2013)
05/09/2013 1270
MOTION for Leave to File Amend, Abate and DeclarationRegarding Fee
Applications and Subsequent Orders Granting or Awarding Fees filed by
Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin) (Entered:
05/09/2013)
05/09/2013 1271 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Netsphere Inc re: 1233 MOTION
for Attorney Fees Fee Application for the Receiver, 1232 MOTION for
Attorney Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1229 MOTION for Attorney
Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of Fees and
Expenses from the Receivership Estate, 1234 MOTION for Attorney Fees
(MacPete, John) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
05/09/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal
Furgeson: Day two of Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/9/2013. Mr. Rukovina
puts on legal fee presentation. Mr. Vogel puts on legal fee presentation.
Proffer heard from Mr. Urbanik, Mr. Loh cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik.
Mr. Fine cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. Cochell cross-examination
of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr.
Rukavina rest. Proffer heard from Mr. Vogel on application fees. Mr. Vogel
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
calls Damon Nelson (sworn-in) to the stand. Mr. Wright cross-examination
of Mr. Nelson. Mr. Vogel calls Peter Loh (sworn-in) to the stand. Mr.
Roberson on cross-examination- of Mr. Loh. Mr. Cochell on cross-
examination of Mr. Loh. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr. Loh. Mr.
Vogel call David Schenck (sworn-in) to the stand. Mr. Fine on cross-
examination of Mr. Schenck. Mr. Wright on cross-examination of Mr.
Schenck. Mr. Urbanik on cross-examination of Mr. Schenck. Mr. MacPeter
on cross-examination of Mr. Schenck. Court to resume tomorrow at 8:50 a.m.
Courts in recess. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - John MacPete; Defense -
Stephen Cochell, Edward Wright, Peter Vogel, David Schenck, Jeffrey Fine,
Davor Rukavina, Zac Annable, Ray Urbanik, Peter Loh, Richard Roberson,
Melanie Goolsby. (Court Reporter: Cass Casey/Pam Wilson) (Exhibits
admitted) Time in Court - 5:45. (chmb) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
05/10/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal
Furgeson: Day three of Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/10/2013. Closing
arguments heard from Mr. Pronske, Mr. Rukavina, Mr. Roberson, Mr.
Schenck, Mr. Fine, Mr. MacPete and Mr. Cocohell. Court to issue opinion in
the next in 10-15 days. Courts in recess. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff -
John MacPete; Defense - Stephen Cochell, Peter Vogel, Jeffrey Fine, David
Schenck, Davor Rukavina, Richard Roberson. (Court Reporter: Cass Casey)
(No exhibits) Time in Court - 2:25. (chmb) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
05/14/2013 1272 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Peter S Vogel re Evidentiary
Hearing,, RECEIVER AND DYKEMAS CONSOLIDATED POST-HEARING
BRIEF (Schenck, David) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
05/14/2013 1273 Dykema's Supplemental Application by Peter S Vogel. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A) (Schenck, David) Modified on 5/15/2013 (svc). (Entered:
05/14/2013)
05/15/2013 1274 MOTION for Attorney Fees of Edwin E. Wright, III, Counsel for Defendant
Jeffrey Baron filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Redacted
Fee Bill, # 2 Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
05/15/2013 1275 AFFIDAVIT re 1274 MOTION for Attorney Fees of Edwin E. Wright, III,
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Baron by Jeffrey Baron. (Wright, Edwin)
(Entered: 05/15/2013)
05/15/2013 1276
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Daniel J. Sherman re 1229 MOTION
for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of
Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Urbanik, Raymond)
(Entered: 05/15/2013)
05/15/2013 1277
RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1272 Brief/Memorandum in Support
of Motion (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
05/15/2013 1278
RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1276 Brief/Memorandum in Support
of Motion (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
05/16/2013 1279 ORDER denying without prejudice 1215 and 1274 Motions for Attorney
Fees. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/16/2013) (ndt) (Entered:
05/16/2013)
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
05/16/201
***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1279. Thu
May 16 16:25:33 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
05/20/2013 1280 Receiver's Supplemental Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses
(Equivalent Data) by Peter S Vogel. (Schenck, David) Modified on
5/21/2013 to change to correct event (svc). (Entered: 05/20/2013)
05/21/2013 1281 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron re 1233 MOTION for
Attorney Fees Fee Application for the Receiver, 1232 MOTION for Attorney
Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1229 MOTION for Attorney Fees
Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses
from the Receivership Estate (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
05/23/2013 1282
ORDER Granting 1233 Motion for Fee Application for the Receiver in
regard to certain miscellaneous Receiver professionals. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 5/23/2013) (cea) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
05/23/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1282. Thu
May 23 08:48:42 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
05/23/2013 1283 OBJECTION filed by Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G Lyon, David
Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Pronske & Patel PC, Shurig Jetel Beckett
Tackett re: 1234 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered:
05/23/2013)
05/28/2013 1284 (Document Restricted) Joint Motion by Former Baron Lawyers and Jeffrey
Baron for Wind Down Plan and Settlement Agreement (Sealed pursuant to
motion to seal) filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A: Wind
Down Plan & Settlement Agreement) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered:
05/28/2013)
05/28/2013 1285 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Status Conference and
Hearing on Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 04/23/12 before Judge Royal
Furgeson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number 214-
354-3139, Email: Cassidi45@aol.com. Parties are notified of their duty to
review the transcript. A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or
viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a
Redaction Request - Transcript must be filed within 21 days. If no such
Request is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without
redaction after 90 calendar days. If redaction request filed, this transcript will
not be accessible via PACER; see redacted transcript. The clerk will mail a
copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed. (83 pages) Redaction
Request due 6/18/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/28/2013.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/26/2013. (svc) (Entered:
05/28/2013)
05/28/2013 1286
ORDER DENYING 1284 JOINT MOTION BY JEFFREY BARON AND
FORMER LAWYERS FOR ENTRY OF WIND DOWN PLAN AND FOR
EXPEDITED HEARING THEREON. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
5/28/2013) (ctf) Modified security per chambers on 5/29/2013 (ctf). (Entered:
05/28/2013)
05/28/2013
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1286. Tue
May 28 16:35:51 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
05/29/2013 1287 ORDER ON RECEIVERSHIP PROFESSIONAL FEES: The Court
authorizes additional payments to the Receiver in the amount of $166,550
and to Dykema in the amount of $1,130,000. These additional allowed fees
total $1,296,550. The Court understands that payment now depends on the
cash reserves of the Receivership estate. The Court has allowed Gardere and
the Trustee to retain the funds already distributed, but will authorize no more.
(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013) (ctf) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
05/29/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1287. Wed
May 29 10:03:26 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
05/29/2013 1288 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1190 Motion Receiver's Expedited
Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses (Court Reporters)
Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39]. This Motion has already been
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in case number 12-37921-sgj7 (Docket
No. 96). The Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that these expenses
should be paid. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013) (Judge
Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
05/29/2013 1289 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as MOOT 1270 Motion for Leave to File.
The Court has issued its ruling on this matter, accordingly, Baron's request is
hereby found MOOT. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013)
(Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
05/29/2013 1290 ELECTRONIC ORDER denying 1033 Motion for Leave to File. (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
05/29/2013)
05/31/2013 1291 ORDER: By ORDER of this Court, the Sealed Memorandum signed on
5/31/2013, the Sealed transcript of the in-camera hearing held on 2/7/2013
and the Sealed transcript of the telephonic conference call held on 2/12/2013,
shall be placed under seal. None of these matters shall be unsealed and none
shall be available to the parties or their attorneys or anyone else except by a
Court order. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/31/2013) (ctf) (Entered:
05/31/2013)
05/31/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1291. Fri
May 31 16:48:44 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
05/31/2013 1292
Case reassigned to Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater. Judge Royal Furgeson
no longer assigned to the case. Future filings should indicate the case number
as: 3:09-cv-0988-D. (gr) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
05/31/2013 1294
Received letter from USCA5 transmitting approved bills of costs
inadvertently not issued with the mandate on 4/19/13. (svc) (Entered:
06/05/2013)
06/03/2013 1293
Court Request for Recusal: Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater recused.
Pursuant to instruction in Special Order 3-249, the Clerk has reassigned the
case to Judge Sam A Lindsay for all further proceedings. Future filings
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
should indicate the case number as: 3:09-cv-0988-L. (gr) (Entered:
06/03/2013)
06/24/2013 1295 MOTION Approve Compromise and Wind-Down Plan filed by Jeffrey
Baron, Dean W Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G Lyon, David
Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Pronske & Patel PC, Shurig Jetel Beckett
Tackett, Mark L Taylor (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
06/26/2013 21th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119 (related to 814 ,
1181 , 614 , 576 appeal): Record consisting of: 7 ECF electronic record, 1
Volume(s) electronic transcript, Sealed or ex parte document number(s):
1284,1296 (circuit approval is required for access), certified to USCA. To
request a copy of the record (on disk or on paper), contact the appeals deputy
in advance to arrange delivery. (svc) Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc). (Entered:
06/26/2013)
06/27/2013 21th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119 (related to 1181
appeal): transmitted to Gary N Schepps on disk only by hand delivery. (svc)
Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc). (Entered: 06/27/2013)
06/28/2013 1297 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit as to 1282
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motion for Attorney
Fees, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Jeffrey Baron,
Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Filing fee $455, receipt number 0539-
5398023. T.O. form to appellant electronically at Transcript Order Form or
US Mail as appropriate. Copy of NOA to be sent US Mail to parties not
electronically noticed. (Tayari Garrett, Mpatanishi) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
07/01/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1297. Mon
Jul 1 08:29:30 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
07/07/2013 1298 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 1, Trial on
Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 5-8-2013 before Judge Furgeson. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number Cassidi45@aol.com.
Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript. A copy may be
purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public
terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Redaction Request - Transcript must be
filed within 21 days. If no such Request is filed, the transcript will be made
available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. If redaction
request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see redacted
transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not
electronically noticed. (203 pages) Redaction Request due 7/29/2013.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2013. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 10/7/2013. (clc) (Entered: 07/07/2013)
07/07/2013 1299 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 2, Trial on
Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 5-9-2013 before Judge Furgeson. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number Cassidi45@aol.com.
Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript. A copy may be
purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public
terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Redaction Request - Transcript must be
filed within 21 days. If no such Request is filed, the transcript will be made
Page 48 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. If redaction
request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see redacted
transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not
electronically noticed. (100 pages) Redaction Request due 7/29/2013.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2013. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 10/7/2013. (clc) (Entered: 07/07/2013)
07/07/2013 1300 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 3, Trial on
Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 5-10-2013 before Judge Furgeson. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number Cassidi45@aol.com.
Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript. A copy may be
purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public
terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Redaction Request - Transcript must be
filed within 21 days. If no such Request is filed, the transcript will be made
available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. If redaction
request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see redacted
transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not
electronically noticed. (106 pages) Redaction Request due 7/29/2013.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2013. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 10/7/2013. (clc) (Entered: 07/07/2013)
07/09/2013 USCA Case Number 13-10696 for 1297 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo
Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. (svc) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
07/09/2013 22nd Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119/13-10696
(related to 814 , 1297 , 1181 , 614 , 576 appeal): Record consisting of: 1 ECF
electronic record, 3 Volume(s) electronic transcript, certified to USCA. To
request a copy of the record (on disk or on paper), contact the appeals deputy
in advance to arrange delivery. (svc) Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc). (Entered:
07/09/2013)
07/09/2013 1301 21 & 22 Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119 (related to
814 , 1297 , 1181 , 576 appeal): Record consisting of: 8 Volume(s) ECF
electronic record, 5 Volume(s) electronic transcript, transmitted to USCA5.
Shipped: Federal Express 296232215012096 (svc) Modified on 7/18/2013
(svc). (Entered: 07/09/2013)
07/11/2013 21 & 22 Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119/13-10696
(related to 814 , 1297 , 1181 , 614 , 576 appeal): transmitted to Munsch Hardt
Kopf & Harr PC on disk only by mail. (svc) Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc).
(Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 21 & 22 Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119/13-10696
(related to 814 , 1297 , 1181 , 614 , 576 appeal): transmitted to Gary N
Schepps on disk only by hand delivery. (svc) Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc).
(Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/18/2013 20th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119 (related to 814 ,
1297 , 908 , 1181 , 614 , 576 appeal): Record consisting of: 4 ECF electronic
record, 1 Volume(s) electronic transcript, Sealed electronic entries - see
sealed docket sheet 1089,1145 (circuit approval is required for access),
certified to USCA. To request a copy of the record (on disk or on paper),
Page 4
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
contact the appeals deputy in advance to arrange delivery. Previous
certification was entered in error. (svc) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
07/18/2013 1302 20th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119/13-10696
(related to 814 , 1297 , 1181 , 576 appeal): Record consisting of: 4 Volume(s)
ECF electronic record, 1 Volume(s) electronic transcript, Sealed electronic
entries - see sealed docket sheet 1089,1145, transmitted to USCA5. Shipped:
Federal Express 296232215012423 (svc) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
07/26/2013 1303
Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 2B of Trial on
Attorney's Fees held on 5/9/2013 before Judge Royal Furgeson. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Pamela Wilson, Telephone number 214.662.1557.
Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript. A copy may be
purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public
terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Redaction Request - Transcript must be
filed within 21 days. If no such Request is filed, the transcript will be made
available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. If redaction
request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see redacted
transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not
electronically noticed. (197 pages) Redaction Request due 8/16/2013.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/26/2013. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 10/24/2013. (pjw) Modified on 7/30/2013 to show vol 2B
(svc). M (Entered: 07/26/2013)
07/29/2013 1304 SUA SPONTE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE DISTRICT
COURT PROPOSING DISPOSITION OF ASSETS HELD IN THE
OVERRULED RECEIVERSHIP OF JEFFREY BARON, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 541-543 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
CODE (Attachments: # 1 Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation)
(Whitaker - TXNB, Sheniqua) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
08/07/2013 1308 Received letter from USCA5 acknowledging receipt of 21 & 22
Supplemental Record on Appeal. (axm) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
08/07/2013 1309 Received letter from USCA5 acknowledging receipt of 20th Supplemental
Record on Appeal. (axm) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
08/09/2013 1305
Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to 1304 Sue Sponte Report
and Recommendation filed by the USBC or in the Alternative, Provisional
Objections filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1304 Additional Attachments to Main
Document, (Cochell, Stephen) Modified on 8/12/2013 to correct event type
(svc). (Entered: 08/09/2013)
08/11/2013 1306 Supplement to 1305 Motion For Extension of Time to File Objections to
1304 Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation filed by the Bankrutpcy Court
[Dkt. 1304] or, the Alternative, Provisional Objections filed by Jeffrey Baron
re: 1304 Additional Attachments to Main Document, (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit
(s) E, # 6 Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H, # 9 Exhibit(s) I)
(Cochell, Stephen) Modified on 8/12/2013 to correct text (svc). (Entered:
08/11/2013)
Page 50 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
08/12/201
130
MOTION to Strike 130
SUA SPONTE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT PROPOSING
DISPOSITION OF ASSETS HELD IN THE OVERRULED
RECEIVERSHIP OF JEFFREY BARON, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTIONS 541-543 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE filed by Novo Point
LLC, Quantec LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Payne,
Christopher) Modified on 8/13/2013 to clean up text (svc). (Entered:
08/12/2013)
08/16/2013 1310
MOTION for Return of Recievership Assets to Novo Point LLC and Quantec
LLC filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC with Brief/Memorandum in
Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Payne, Christopher) (Entered:
08/16/2013)
08/21/2013 1311
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re
1310 MOTION for Return of Recievership Assets to Novo Point LLC and
Quantec LLC Supplemental Brief in Support of the Immediate Return of
Corporate Property to Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC (Payne,
Christopher) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
08/30/2013 1312 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1305 MOTION for Extension of Time
to File Response/Reply (Fine, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
09/04/2013 1313 REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1312
Response/Objection (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
09/05/2013 1314 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by J Michael Sutherland on behalf of
Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP. (Filer confirms contact
info in ECF is current.) (Sutherland, J) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
09/05/2013 1315 ***Disregard***Image incorrect - RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re:
1310 MOTION for Return of Recievership Assets to Novo Point LLC and
Quantec LLC, 1307 MOTION to Strike 1304 Additional Attachments to
Main Document, (Schenck, David) Modified on 9/6/2013 (svc). (Entered:
09/05/2013)
09/06/2013 1316
RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1310 MOTION for Return of
Recievership Assets to Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC, 1307 MOTION
to Strike 1304 Additional Attachments to Main Document, (Schenck, David)
(Entered: 09/06/2013)
09/06/2013 1317 REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1310 MOTION for
Return of Recievership Assets to Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC, 1307
MOTION to Strike 1304 Additional Attachments to Main Document, (Payne,
Christopher) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
09/06/2013 1318 MOTION to Intervene by Bankruptcy Trustee to Respond to Motion of Novo
Point LLC and Quantec LLC 1310 filed by John H. Litzler with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Response). Party
John H. Litzler, Chapter 7 Trustee for Jeffrey Baron added. (Reid, Kathryn)
(Entered: 09/06/2013)
09/11/2013 1319
Page 51 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
RESPONSE filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1318 MOTION to
Intervene by Bankruptcy Trustee to Respond to Motion of Novo Point LLC
and Quantec LLC 1310 (Payne, Christopher) Modified event text on
9/16/2013 (axm). (Entered: 09/11/2013)
09/13/2013 1320
REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1318 MOTION to
Intervene by Bankruptcy Trustee to Respond to Motion of Novo Point LLC
and Quantec LLC 1310 (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
09/16/2013 1321 REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1310 MOTION for
Return of Recievership Assets to Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC (Payne,
Christopher) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
09/25/2013 1322
MOTION Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses (Lain,
Faulkner & Co., P.C.) re 1176 Order, filed by Peter S Vogel (Fine, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 09/25/2013)
10/03/2013 1323
NOTICE of Entry of Order Regarding Auction Sale filed by Daniel J.
Sherman (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered:
10/03/2013)
10/03/2013 1324 MOTION for Authority to Immediately Comply with Mandate, for Wind
Down Plan and Discharge, and for Payment Consistent with the May 29,
2013 Order of this Court filed by Peter S Vogel re 1282 Order on Motion for
Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) Modified text on 10/4/2013 (axm). (Entered:
10/03/2013)
10/16/2013 1325 RESPONSE filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1322 MOTION
Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses (Lain, Faulkner & Co.,
P.C.) re 1176 Order, (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
10/22/2013 1326 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re:
1324 MOTION for Authority to Immediately Comply with Mandate, for
Wind Down Plan and Discharge, and for Payment Consistent with the May
29, 2013 Order of this Court re 1282 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,
1287 Order on Motio (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Payne, Christopher)
(Entered: 10/22/2013)
10/24/2013 1327
RESPONSE filed by John H. Litzler re: 1324 MOTION for Authority to
Immediately Comply with Mandate, for Wind Down Plan and Discharge, and
for Payment Consistent with the May 29, 2013 Order of this Court re 1282
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motio (Reid, Kathryn)
(Entered: 10/24/2013)
10/25/2013 1328
REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1324 MOTION for
Authority to Immediately Comply with Mandate, for Wind Down Plan and
Discharge, and for Payment Consistent with the May 29, 2013 Order of this
Court re 1282 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motio
(Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
10/29/2013 1329 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1322 MOTION Application for Payment
of Receivership Expenses (Lain, Faulkner & Co., P.C.) re 1176 Order,
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4
Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
11/01/2013 1330 MOTION for Leave to File SUR-REPLY TO VOGELS MOTION FOR
PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL RECEIVERS EXPENSES [DOC 1322] filed
by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Proposed sur-reply) (Payne, Christopher)
(Entered: 11/01/2013)
11/06/2013 1331 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1324 MOTION for Authority to
Immediately Comply with Mandate, for Wind Down Plan and Discharge, and
for Payment Consistent with the May 29, 2013 Order of this Court re 1282
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motio (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
11/07/2013 1332 NOTICE of filing corrected version of the Consolidated Reply filed by Peter
S Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
11/07/2013 1333 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1324 MOTION for Authority to
Immediately Comply with Mandate, for Wind Down Plan and Discharge, and
for Payment Consistent with the May 29, 2013 Order of this Court re 1282
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motio (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
11/12/2013 1334 MOTION for Emergency Order to protect the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court and to stay the show cause hearing requested by Vogel set November
19, 2013 in the bankruptcy court to attempt to divest the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court over distribution of the receivership res. (), Emergency
MOTION to Stay Vogel from proceeding to attempt to divest this Honorable
Court of jurisdiction, Emergency MOTION to Withdraw Reference as to
distribution of the receivership assets of Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC
filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC. filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec
LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, #
2 Proposed Order) (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
11/13/2013 1335 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1334 MOTION for Emergency Order to
protect the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and to stay the show cause
hearing requested by Vogel set November 19, 2013 in the bankruptcy court
to attempt to divest the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over
distribEmergency MOTION to Stay Vogel from proceeding to attempt to
divest this Honorable Court of jurisdictionEmergency MOTION to
Withdraw Reference as to distribution of the receivership assets of Novo
Point LLC and Quantec LLC filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.
(Schenck, David) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
11/14/2013 1336
REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1334 MOTION for
Emergency Order to protect the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and to
stay the show cause hearing requested by Vogel set November 19, 2013 in
the bankruptcy court to attempt to divest the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court over distribEmergency MOTION to Stay Vogel from proceeding to
attempt to divest this Honorable Court of jurisdictionEmergency MOTION
to Withdraw Reference as to distribution of the receivership assets of Novo
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Point LLC and Quantec LL
filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.
(Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
11/14/2013 1337 Emergency MOTION to Withdraw Reference of the proceedings set for
hearing November 19, 2013 in bankruptcy cause 12-37921-sgj7 pursuant to
the mandatory withdrawal provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) filed by Novo
Point LLC, Quantec LLC. filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) "A") (Payne,
Christopher) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
11/15/2013 1338 ORDER: The court directs Receiver Peter S. Vogel (Receiver) to file an
expedited response to Movants' Emergency Motion for Mandatory
Withdrawal of the Reference of the Proceedings Set for Hearing 11/19/2013
in Bankruptcy Case 12-37921-SGJ7 (Doc. 1337) no later than 11/18/2013, at
1:00 p.m. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/15/2013) (tla) (Entered:
11/15/2013)
11/15/2013 1339 ORDER OF REFERENCE: Accordingly, the Emergency Motion to Protect
the Dignity and Jurisdiction of the Court and Preserve the Rule of Law (Doc.
1334) and the Emergency Motion for Mandatory Withdrawal of the
Reference of the Proceedings Set for Hearing 11/19/2013 in Bankruptcy Case
12-37921-SGJ7 (Doc. 1337) filed by Movants are referred, insofar as they
seek withdrawal of the reference, to United States Bankruptcy Judge Stacey
G. C. Jernigan to conduct a status conference, submit a report and
recommendation to the court concerning whether the reference should or
must be withdrawn, and, in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 5011-1,
consider and determine any other matters relevant to the requests and
decision to withdraw the reference. This order of reference also prospectively
refers all procedural motions that are related to the referred motions and
Movants' request to withdraw the reference to the United States Bankruptcy
Judge for resolution. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/15/2013) (tla)
(Entered: 11/15/2013)
11/18/2013 1340
RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1337 Emergency MOTION to
Withdraw Reference of the proceedings set for hearing November 19, 2013
in bankruptcy cause 12-37921-sgj7 pursuant to the mandatory withdrawal
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.
(Schenck, David) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
11/20/2013 1341
ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 1337 Emergency MOTION to
Withdraw Reference of the proceedings set for hearing November 19, 2013
in bankruptcy cause 12-37921-sgj7 pursuant to the mandatory withdrawal
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.
(Attachments: # 1 Order continuing status conference on Emergency
MOTION to Withdraw Reference in bankruptcy case 12-37921-sgj7)
(Whitaker - TXNB, Sheniqua) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
11/25/2013 1342
NOTICE of Filing Response Regarding Motion for Withdrawal of the
Reference in Jeffrey Baron Bankruptcy Case filed by Daniel J. Sherman
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
12/02/2013 1343
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 133
Emergency
MOTION to Withdraw Reference of the proceedings set for hearing
November 19, 2013 in bankruptcy cause 12-37921-sgj7 pursuant to the
mandatory withdrawal provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) filed by Novo Point
LLC, Quantec LLC. (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
12/04/2013 1344 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 1337 Emergency MOTION to
Withdraw Reference of the proceedings set for hearing November 19, 2013
in bankruptcy cause 12-37921-sgj7 pursuant to the mandatory withdrawal
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.,
1334 MOTION for Emergency Order to protect the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court and to stay the show cause hearing requested by Vogel set
November 19, 2013 in the bankruptcy court to attempt to divest the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over distribEmergency MOTION to Stay
Vogel from proceeding to attempt to divest this Honorable Court of
jurisdictionEmergency MOTION to Withdraw Reference as to distribution of
the receivership assets of Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC filed by Novo
Point LLC, Quantec LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation to
the District Court, ENTERED 12/4/2013) (Blanco - TXNB, Juan) (Entered:
12/04/2013)
12/11/2013 1345 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re
1344 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 1337 Emergency
MOTION to Withdraw Reference of the proceedings set for hearing
November 19, 2013 in bankruptcy cause 12-37921-sgj7 pursuant to the
mandatory withdrawal provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) filed by Novo Point
LLC, Quantec LLC., 1339 Order,,,, and OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO
BANKRUPTCY COURT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE (Payne, Christopher) (Entered:
12/11/2013)
12/12/2013 1346 Emergency MOTION to Stay Vogel and his counsel from disbursing any
receivership or trust assets to themselves without prior order from this Court,
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER DIRECTING VOGEL AND HIS
COUNSEL NOT TO DISBURSE ANY RECEIVERSHIP OR TRUST
ASSETS TO THEMSELVES WITHOUT THE PRIOR ORDER OF THIS
COURT AND ORDERING THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF ALL
ASSETS ALREADY DISBURSED IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURTS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE RECEIVERSHIP PROPERTY
(), Emergency MOTION for Writ to prevent the frustration of the exercise of
the jurisdiction of this Court over receivership assets filed by Novo Point
LLC, Quantec LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A) (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/12/2013 1347 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1345 Brief/Memorandum in Support
of Motion,, 1344 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/13/2013 1348 NOTICE of Reply_on_Objection_to_Bankruptcy Court
Report_on_withdrawal_of_reference and brief in support re: 1345
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion,, filed by Novo Point LLC,
Quantec LLC (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
12/31/2013 1349 ***VACATED, PER 1350 ORDER*** ORDER denying as moot the
Motion to Wind Down Receivership with Proposed Plan, Motion to
Withdraw the Reference to the Bankruptcy Court, and Provide Resolution for
All Disputed Attorneys Fee Claims 1187 ,Barons Motion to Approve
Compromise and Wind-Down Plan 1295 ,Barons Motion for Extension of
Time to File Objections to Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation filed by
the Bankruptcy Court or, Alternatively, Provisional Objection 1305 ,Motion
to Strike Bankruptcy Court Report and Recommendation 1307 ,Motion to
Order the Immediate Return of the Domain Assets and Bank Accountsof
Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC 1310 , Bankruptcy Trustees Motion for
Leave to Intervene to Respond to the Motion to Order Immediate Return of
the Domain Name Assets and Bank Accounts of Novo Point LLC and
Quantec LLC 1318 ,the Receivers Motion for Authority to Immediately
Comply with Mandate for Wind Down Plan and Discharge, and for Payment
Consistent with the May 29, 2013 Order of this Court 1324 , Motion for
Leave to File Sur-reply to Vogels Erroneous and Misleading NewArgument
in Doc. 1329 1330 , the Emergency Motion to Protect the Dignity and
Jurisdiction of the Court and Preserve the Rule of Law 1334 , the Emergency
Motion for Mandatory Withdrawal of the Reference of the Proceedings Set
for Hearing November 19, 2013 in Bankruptcy Case 12-37921-SGJ7 1337 ;
resolves and moots the matters set forth in the bankruptcy courts July 29,
2013 Sua Sponte Report 1304 and Report on Motion toWithdraw Reference
1344 ; Motions 1183 , 1186 , and 1322 are therefore denied without
prejudice, and the clerk of the court is directed to term thesemotions. The
court vacates the Order AdoptingBankruptcy Court Recommendation 1176 ,
but only to the extent that it referred to thebankruptcy court for findings and
recommendation applications by the Receiver for reimbursementof
receivership fees and expenses. In addition, the Receiver is directed to submit
any futureapplications for reimbursement of receivership fees and expenses
to this court for resolution in theNetsphere action.The court construes the
emergency motion 1346 as an objection to the bankruptcy courts December
11, 2013 order and it is overruled; the court denies without prejudice the
Receivers Motion to Compel Payment of Settlement and for Order to Show
Cause Why Plaintiff Netsphere,Inc. Should Not Be Held in Contempt 1201
and the Receivers Motion for Order to Show Cause Why WIPO and ICANN
Should Not be Held in Contempt 1225 . Objections to and appeals of orders
entered by the bankruptcy court must not be filed in the first instance in the
Netsphereaction and any motions filed in the Netsphere action that purport to
object to or appeal an order of the bankruptcy court will be stricken, and the
court may impose other sanctions in this regard as it deems appropriate.
(Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/31/2013) (gr) Modified text on
1/6/2014 (tla). (Entered: 12/31/2013)
01/02/2014 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1349. Thu
Jan 2 09:11:19 CST 2014 (crt) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
01/06/2014 1350
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
AMENDED ORDER: The court's 12/31/2013 memorandum opinion and
order in Case No. 3:13-CV-3461- L, reversing the 6/26/2013 Order for Relief
in the Chapter 7 involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, Case No. 12-37921-
SGJ-7, that was initiated against Baron by his former attorneys moots a
majority of the aforementioned pending matters in this case pertaining to the
receivership and involuntary bankruptcy proceeding. On 1/3/2013, the court
entered an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order in Case No. 3:13-CV-
3461-L, to correct certain nonsubstantive matters. In light of that Amended
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court vacates its 12/31/2013 Order in
this case (Doc. 1349), issues this Amended Order, and makes the court's
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order of 1/3/2014, entered in Case No.
3:13-CV-3461-L, a part of this Amended Order as if repeated herein
verbatim. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/6/2014) (tla) (Entered:
01/06/2014)
01/06/2014 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1350. Mon
Jan 6 15:35:10 CST 2014 (crt) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
01/06/2014 1351
STATUS REPORT ORDER: The court further directs the Receiver to file
with the court by 3/7/2014, a final accounting for the court's approval, an
application for payment of any remaining receivership costs and expenses,
and a proposed order that addresses these and any other matters necessary to
close the receivership. If the receivership estate cannot be terminated by
3/7/2014, the Receiver shall file a status report by 2/28/2014, advising the
court when the Receiver believes the receivership can be terminated and what
additional steps will be necessary to terminate the estate. (Ordered by Judge
Sam A Lindsay on 1/6/2014) (tla) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
01/06/2014 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1351. Mon
Jan 6 16:01:31 CST 2014 (crt) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
01/24/2014 1352
STATUS REPORT and Request for Scheduling Conference filed by Peter S
Vogel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
01/24/2014)
02/03/2014 1353 RESPONSE filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1352 Status Report
(Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
02/04/2014 1354
ORDER: Any response by Jeffrey Baron to the 1352 Receiver's Preliminary
Status Report and Request for Scheduling Conference must be filed by
2/11/2014. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/4/2014) (cea) (Entered:
02/04/2014)
02/04/2014 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1354. Tue
Feb 4 13:10:01 CST 2014 (crt) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
02/11/2014 1355 ***Disregard*** See document 1356***Objections to 1352 Vogel's Status
Report filed by Jeffrey Baron. (Cochell, Stephen) Modified on 2/14/2014
(svc). (Entered: 02/11/2014)
02/11/2014 1356 Corrected Response to 1352 Vogel's Status Report filed by Jeffrey Baron.
(Simon, Leonard) Modified on 2/14/2014 (svc). (Entered: 02/11/2014)
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
02/11/201
135
Appendix in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron re 135
Response/Objection to
Vogel's Preliminary Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Appendix
Item 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) Appendix Item 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) Appendix Item 3, # 4
Exhibit(s) Appendix Item 4) (Simon, Leonard) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
02/14/2014 1358
REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1353 Response/Objection, 1356
Response/Objection (Schenck, David) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
02/14/2014 1359
CORRECTED REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1353 Response/Objection,
1356 Response/Objection (Schenck, David) Modified on 2/18/2014 (svc).
(Entered: 02/14/2014)
02/18/2014 1360 REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1355 Status Report,
1356 Response/Objection (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
02/25/2014 1361 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Jeffrey Baron with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order
Granting Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel) (Cochell, Stephen)
(Entered: 02/25/2014)
02/25/2014 1362
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Leonard H Simon on behalf of Jeffrey
Baron. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (Simon, Leonard)
(Entered: 02/25/2014)
02/25/2014 1363 JEFFREY BARON'S REJOINDER REPLIES OF VOGEL AND NOVO
POINT AND QUANTEC (ECF DOCUMENTS 1359 AND 1360 ) filed by
Jeffrey Baron re: 1354 Order Setting Deadline/Hearing (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) "1" Corporate Assignments and Resolutions, # 2 Exhibit(s) "2"
Quit Claim Deed - Vogel, # 3 Exhibit(s) "3" Quit Claim Deed - Litzler)
(Simon, Leonard) Modified on 2/26/2014 to correct text (svc). (Entered:
02/25/2014)
02/26/2014 1364 ORDER denying 1361 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The motion does
not contain the requisite certificate of conference. (Ordered by Judge Sam A
Lindsay on 2/26/2014) (ykp) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/27/2014 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1364. Thu
Feb 27 07:59:48 CST 2014 (crt) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
02/27/2014 1365
MOTION to Strike 1363 Response/Objection, 'Rejoinder' filed by Novo
Point LLC, Quantec LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Payne,
Christopher) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
02/28/2014 1366 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Jeffrey Baron with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cochell,
Stephen) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
02/28/2014 1367 STATUS REPORT Pursuant to The Court's January 6, 2014 Order filed by
Peter S Vogel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Addendum A, # 2 Proposed
Order Order, # 3 Proposed Order Order) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
02/28/2014)
02/28/2014 1368 ORDER re 1352 Status Report, denying as moot 1365 Motion to Strike. The
court rejects Receiver's request to conduct a show cause hearing. The
Page 58 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Receiver is directed to return by 3/7/14 receivership assets and shall take
steps necessary to remove impediments to assets and accounts. The court
VACATES the orders appointing Damon Nelson as manager of Novo Point
& Quantec 362 473 . Receiver's request to identify and assign to Baron for
resolution any potential claims under Bankruptcy Code section 303(I) arising
out of the now dismissed Baron involuntary bankruptcy is denied. Request by
the Receiver, Baron, Novo Point, and Quantec for order enjoining any 3rd
party actions regarding the Novo Point and Quantec assets for 60 days to 12
months is denied. All other requests not expressly addressed herein are
denied. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/28/2014) Note from clerk:
this order was received by clerk prior to receipt of Motion to Withdraw as
Attorney 1366 so that motion is open, pending review of the court. (gr)
(Entered: 02/28/2014)
03/03/2014 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1368. Mon
Mar 3 09:08:53 CST 2014 (crt) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
03/03/2014 1369 ORDER re 1367 Status Report Pursuant to the Court's January 6, 2014
Order: The court's prior order stands, except to the extent that it conflicts
with the matters addressed in this order. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay
on 3/3/2014) (twd) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
03/06/2014 1370
Supplemental Application to Pay Lain Faulkner re 1368 Order on Motion to
Strike, 1369 Order, filed by Peter S Vogel (Fine, Jeffrey) Modified on
3/7/2014 to clean up text (svc). (Entered: 03/06/2014)
03/07/2014 1371 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Peter S Vogel re 1370 MOTION
Supplemental Application to Pay Lain Faulkner re 1368 Order on Motion to
Strike,,,, 1369 Order, (Fine, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
03/09/2014 1372 Supplemental MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Jeffrey Baron with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/09/2014)
03/10/2014 1373 Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 1368 Order on Motion to
Strike,,,, 1369 Order, , MOTION to Expedite Consideration () filed by
Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order) (Simon, Leonard) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
03/10/2014 1374 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron re 1373 Emergency
MOTION for Reconsideration re 1368 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, 1369
Order, MOTION to Expedite Consideration (Simon, Leonard) (Entered:
03/10/2014)
03/10/2014 1375 Appendix in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron re 1373 Emergency MOTION
for Reconsideration re 1368 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, 1369 Order,
MOTION to Expedite Consideration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Appendix
Item 1) (Simon, Leonard) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
03/11/2014 1377 RESPONSE filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1373 Emergency
MOTION for Reconsideration re 1368 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, 1369
Order, MOTION to Expedite Consideration (Payne, Christopher) (Entered:
03/11/2014)
Page 5
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
03/11/201
1378 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 137
Emergency MOTION fo
Reconsideration re 1368 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, 1369 Order, MOTION
to Expedite Consideration (Fine, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
03/11/2014 1379 ORDER Denying 1373 Motion for Reconsideration ; Denying 1373 Motion
to Expedite; Denying as moot sealed and/or ex parte motion 1376 . (Ordered
by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/11/2014) (cea) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
03/13/2014 1380 Unopposed MOTION to Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the
Receivership filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A and B, # 2
Proposed Order) (Payne, Christopher) Modified text on 3/14/2014 (axm).
(Entered: 03/13/2014)
03/13/2014 1381 OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1380 Unopposed MOTION to
Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the Receivership . (Cochell,
Stephen) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
03/13/2014 1382 Reply Declaration filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1380
Unopposed MOTION to Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the
Receivership . (Payne, Christopher) Modified text on 3/14/2014 (axm).
(Entered: 03/13/2014)
03/13/2014 1383 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Simon H Leonard re: 1380
Unopposed MOTION to Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the
Receivership. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) "1", # 2 Exhibit(s) "2", # 3
Exhibit(s) "3", # 4 Exhibit(s) "4") (Simon, Leonard) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
03/13/2014 1384 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1380 Unopposed
MOTION to Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the Receivership .
(Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
03/14/2014 1385 ORDER: The court directs the Receiver and any party that opposes the
motion to file by 3/17/2014, a response that sets forth the basis for any
opposition re: 1366 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . (Ordered by Judge
Sam A Lindsay on 3/14/2014) (cea) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
03/17/2014 1386
RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1366 MOTION to Withdraw as
Attorney , 1372 Supplemental MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Schenck,
David) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
03/20/2014 1387 ORDER: Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice Stephen Cochell's
Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel (Doc. 1366 ). After the
receivership has been wound down and the court has discharged the
Receiver, Mr. Cochell may renew his request for withdrawal and substitution.
(Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/20/2014) (ctf) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
03/27/2014 1388
ORDER granting 1370 Supplemental Application to Pay Lain Faulkner.
(Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/27/2014) (jrr) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
03/27/2014 1389 REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1380 Unopposed
MOTION to Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the Receivership
(Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
Page 60 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
04/02/201
1390 MOTION for entry of an order for the Receiver to immediately turn ove
assets necessary to pay domain name renewal fees due beginning April 1,
2014 and for EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION to prevent imminent asset
forfeiture due to non-payment filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
04/03/2014 Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10696 (related to 1297 appeal): Record
consisting of: ECF electronic record, 21 Volume(s) electronic transcript,
Sealed or ex parte document(s)(circuit approval is required for access),
certified to USCA. To request a copy of the record (on disk or on paper),
contact the appeals deputy in advance to arrange delivery. (svc) (Entered:
04/03/2014)
04/03/2014 1391 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1390 MOTION
for entry of an order for the Receiver to immediately turn over assets
necessary to pay domain name renewal fees due beginning April 1, 2014 and
for EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION to prevent imminent asset forfeiture
due to non-payment (Fine, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
04/04/2014 1392
REPLY filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1390 MOTION for entry
of an order for the Receiver to immediately turn over assets necessary to pay
domain name renewal fees due beginning April 1, 2014 and for EXPEDITED
CONSIDERATION to prevent imminent asset forfeiture due to non-payment
(Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
04/04/2014 1393 Additional Attachment to Main Document to be Included and Attached to
Previous Filing re: 1391 Response/Objection, filed by Peter S Vogel
(Schenck, David) Modified docket text on 4/4/2014 (cea). (Entered:
04/04/2014)
04/08/2014 1394 Supplemental Document by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC as to 1380
Unopposed MOTION to Restrain from Interfering with Wind Down of the
Receivership, 1389 Reply . (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
04/10/2014 1395 ORDER: Before the court is the Unopposed Motion of Novo Point LLC and
Quantec LLC to Restrain Baron from Interfering with the Wind Down of the
Receivership (Doc. 1380 ), filed 3/13/2014. Also before the court is the
Motion to Order Receiver to Immediately Turn Over Assets Necessary to Pay
Domain Name Renewal Fees Due Beginning 4/1/2014 and for Expedited
Hearing (Doc. 1390 ), filed 4/2/2014, by Novo Point LLC ("Novo Point")
and Quantec LLC ("Quantec") (collectively, "the LLCs"). After considering
the motions, briefs, evidence, and record, the court grants, to the extent set
forth herein, the Motion to Order Receiver to Immediately Turn Over Assets
Necessary to Pay Domain Name Renewal Fees Due Beginning 4/1/2014, and
for Expedited Hearing (Doc. 1390 ); and denies without prejudice the
Unopposed Motion of Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC to Restrain Baron
from Interfering with the Wind Down of the Receivership (Doc. 1380 ).
(Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/10/2014) (ctf) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/14/2014 Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10696 (related to 1297 appeal): transmitted
to Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett on disk only by mail. (svc) (Entered:
04/14/2014)
Page 61 of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
04/14/201
139
NOTICE of
eceiver's Accounting Report of April 14, 201
filed by Peter S
Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-D, # 2 Exhibit(s) E-01, # 3 Exhibit(s)
E-02, # 4 Exhibit(s) E-03, # 5 Exhibit(s) E-04, # 6 Exhibit(s) E-05, # 7
Exhibit(s) E-06, # 8 Exhibit(s) E-07, # 9 Exhibit(s) E-08, # 10 Exhibit(s)
E-09, # 11 Exhibit(s) E-10, # 12 Exhibit(s) E-11, # 13 Exhibit(s) E-12, # 14
Exhibit(s) E-13, # 15 Exhibit(s) E-14, # 16 Exhibit(s) E-15, # 17 Exhibit(s)
E-16, # 18 Exhibit(s) E-17, # 19 Exhibit(s) F-01, # 20 Exhibit(s) F-02)
(Schenck, David) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
04/14/2014 1397
MOTION Request for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for
Payment, and Request for Order of Final Discharge filed by Peter S Vogel
with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2
Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6 Exhibit
(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
04/14/2014)
04/15/2014 1398
MOTION Supplemental Application for Payment and Notice of Filing of
Petition for Certiorari re 1397 MOTION Request for Approval of Final
Accounting, Application for Payment, and Request for Order of Final
Discharge filed by Peter S Vogel with Brief/Memorandum in Support.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) I, # 2 Exhibit(s) J) (Schenck, David) (Entered:
04/15/2014)
04/22/2014 1399 OBJECTION filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1397 MOTION
Request for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for Payment, and
Request for Order of Final Discharge (Payne, Christopher) (Entered:
04/22/2014)
04/22/2014 1400 OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1398 MOTION Supplemental
Application for Payment and Notice of Filing of Petition for Certiorari re
1397 MOTION Request for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for
Payment, and Request for Order of Final Discharge, 1397 MOTION Request
for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for Payment, and Request for
Order of Final Discharge (Simon, Leonard) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
04/22/2014 1401
Appendix in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron re 1400 Response/Objection,
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) "1", # 2 Exhibit(s) "2", # 3 Exhibit(s) "3", # 4
Exhibit(s) "4", # 5 Exhibit(s) "5", # 6 Exhibit(s) "6") (Simon, Leonard)
(Entered: 04/23/2014)
04/25/2014 1402 OBJECTION filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1397 MOTION
Request for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for Payment, and
Request for Order of Final Discharge (Payne, Christopher) (Entered:
04/25/2014)
04/30/2014 Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10696 (related to 1297 appeal): transmitted
to Gary Schepps on disk only by hand delivery. (svc) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
05/05/2014 1403 OBJECTION filed by Dean W Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary
G Lyon, David Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett,
Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC re: 1398 MOTION Supplemental
Application for Payment and Notice of Filing of Petition for Certiorari re
Page 6
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
139
MOTION Request for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for
Payment, and Request for Order of Final Discharge, 1397 MOTION Request
for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for Payment, and Request for
Order of Final Discharge (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
05/05/2014 1404
OBJECTION filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1397 MOTION
Request for Approval of Final Accounting, Application for Payment, and
Request for Order of Final Discharge (Payne, Christopher) (Entered:
05/05/2014)
05/08/2014 1405 NOTICE of Status of Certain Former Receivership Assets filed by Peter S
Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
05/09/2014 1406
OBJECTION filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1405 Notice
(Other) (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
05/12/2014 1407 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1405 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A) (Sikes, James) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
05/13/2014 1408
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re:
1407 Reply, 1405 Notice (Other) (Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
05/14/2014 1409 NOTICE of Final Notice Regarding Quasar Services, LLC re: 1405 Notice
(Other) filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s)
B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C) (Sikes, James) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
05/14/2014 1410 RESPONSE filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC re: 1409 Notice (Other)
(Payne, Christopher) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
05/28/2014 1411 OBJECTION filed by RPV, Ltd., as Trustee of the Village Trust re: 1405
Notice (Other) (York, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
05/28/2014 1412 Appendix in Support filed by RPV, Ltd., as Trustee of the Village Trust re
1411 Response/Objection to Receiver's Notice of Status of Certain Former
Receivership Assets and Opposition to Reply of Novo Point LLC and Quantec
LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Part 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) Part 2, # 3 Exhibit(s)
Part 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) Part 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) Part 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) Part 6)
(York, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
05/28/2014 1413
(Document Restricted) Sealed Appendix in Support re: 1411
Response/Objection (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by
RPV, Ltd., as Trustee of the Village Trust (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Pages
118-146) (York, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/20/2014 12:15:41
PACER
Login:
ls1001
Client
Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
3:09-cv-00988-L Start date:
12/18/2012 End date: 6/20/2014
Page 6
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
Billable
Pages:
30 Cost: 3.00
Page 6
of 6
District Version 5.1.1
6
20
201
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg
-
in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718
-L_1_0-1
