Schepps Motion to Strick Shermans Response to Disqualify Urbanik Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE SHERMAN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY [DOC 172] - Page 1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
    
NETSPHERE, INC.,        §  Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F 
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and    § 
MUNISH KRISHAN,       § 
  Plaintiffs.         § 
                        § 
    v.                     §   
                        § 
JEFFREY BARON, and      §   
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,    § 
  Defendants.        § 
 
MOTION TO STRIKE SHERMAN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 
DISQUALIFY [DOC 172]   
 
 
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: 
   COMES  NOW,  Jeffrey  Baron,  Appellant,  and  respectfully  requests  this 
Court  to  strike  the  response  to  Motion  to  Disqualify  Mr.  Urbanik  filed  by  Mr. 
Sherman [DOC 172] and award costs to Mr. Baron because Mr. Sherman’s motion 
was filed in multifarious violation of Rule 11(c)(2). 
   Mr.  Sherman’s  response  [DOC  172]  includes  in  the  same  instrument  a 
“Motion for Sanctions”.  Mr. Sherman’s motion directly violates Rule 11(c)(2) in 
that: 
1.  The motion for sanctions was not filed separately.   
2.  The motion for sanctions was not first served under Rule 5 prior to filing 
and presentment to the Court.  
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 183    Filed 12/24/10    Page 1 of 3   PageID 4434

MOTION TO STRIKE SHERMAN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY [DOC 172] - Page 2 
   Appellate  counsel  for  Mr.  Baron  has  raised  substantive  legal  issues  to the 
attention  of  the  Court.    In  response  counsel  has  been  faced  with  a  serious  of 
personally directed charges and accusations, brought both by Mr. Sherman and on 
behalf of the receiver.  
   The  Rules  of  Procedure  are  specifically  designed  so  that  accusations  of 
sanctionable  conduct  will  be  not  be  used  as  a  tool  of  advocacy.    Firstly,  such 
accusations must be made separately, so as not to taint the issues raised in another 
matter.   Secondly, a party must first attempt to confer with counsel weeks prior to 
presenting the accusations to the Court. 
   Mr.  Sherman’s  conduct  in  attempting  to  bypass  the  rules  and  improperly 
inject  allegations  of  sanctionable  conduct  is  clearly  in  violation  of  Rule  11.  
Pursuant  to  Rule  11(c)(2)  an  award  of  reasonable  expenses  including  attorney’s 
fees incurred on behalf of Mr. Baron in responding to the motion are proper. 
 
   Accordingly, Mr. Baron respectfully requests this Court to strike the response 
filed  by  Mr.  Sherman  to  the  Motion  to  Disqualify  Mr.  Urbanik  [DOC  172]  and 
award costs to Mr. Baron. 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 183    Filed 12/24/10    Page 2 of 3   PageID 4435

MOTION TO STRIKE SHERMAN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY [DOC 172] - Page 3 
                          Respectfully submitted, 
 
                          /s/ Gary N. Schepps       
                          Gary N. Schepps 
                          State Bar No. 00791608 
                          Drawer 670804 
                          Dallas, Texas 75367 
                          (214) 210-5940 
                          (214) 347-4031 Facsimile 
                          APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR  
                          JEFFREY BARON 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This  is  to  certify  that  this  was  served  on  all  parties  who  receive  notification  
through the Court’s electronic filing system. 
/s/ Gary N. Schepps       
                          Gary N. Schepps 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
This is to certify that the undersigned called and left messages for Mr. Raymond J. 
Urbanik,  attorney  for  DANIEL J. SHERMAN, Trustee  for  ONDOVA LIMITED 
COMPANY, and they did not return the calls. 
/s/ Gary N. Schepps       
                          Gary N. Schepps 
 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 183    Filed 12/24/10    Page 3 of 3   PageID 4436