Appellants Joint Response and Motion Doc 245

RESPONSE TO [DOC#199]  - 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. §
APPELLANTS’ JOINT RESPONSE AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE 
RECEIVER'S MOTION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING PROPRIETY OF 
FUND MANAGEMENT [DOC#199]
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
COMES  NOW,  Appellant,  defendant  Jeffrey  Baron  and  Appellants 
NovoPoint,  LLC and Quantec, LLC and make this joint response and motion to 
strike the Receiver's Motion For Order Confirming Propriety of Fund Management 
[Doc#199].
1. The receiver’s motion does not comply with the mandatory requirements 
of Local Rule 7.1(a) which require that “Before filing a motion, an attorney for the 
moving party must confer with an attorney for each party affected by the requested 
relief to determine whether the motion is opposed.”  Further, if a conference was 
not  held,  the  certificate  must  explain  why  it  was  not  possible  to  confer.  LR 
7.1(b)(3).    No  conference  was  held  with  the  Appellants’  counsel  and  no 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 245    Filed 01/24/11    Page 1 of 4   PageID 5762

RESPONSE TO [DOC#199]  - Page 2
explanation was provided why such a conference was not possible.  Accordingly, 
the receiver’s motion should be appropriately stricken.
2. The  Village  Trust  cannot  be  a  receivership  party  because  the  Village 
Trust is not a party.  A trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, 
subjecting the person by whom the title to the property is held to equitable duties to 
deal with the property for the benefit of another person. Restatement (Second) of 
Trusts § 2 (1959); see e.g., Coleman v. Golkin, Bomback  & Co., Inc., 562  F.2d 
166,168-9 (2nd Cir. 1977); In re Columbia Gas Systems Inc., 997 F.2d 1039,1064 
(3rd Cir. 1993).
3. The property of the Village Trust is owned by SouthPac, a non-party over  
whom the district court has acquired no personal jurisdiction.  SouthPac was not 
served  with  process  and  there  is  no  basis  in  law  for  the  district  court  to  assert 
control over any of its assets.
4. The money received by the receiver has been deposited in a way that is 
substantially uninsured and at risk should the bank holding the funds fail.  Pursuant 
to 28 U.S.C. 2041 the funds must be deposited by the receiver into a US Treasury 
account.
5. Respondents  adopt  and  incorporate  by  reference  the  argument  and 
authority  raised  in  Appellant’s  Limited  Objection  To  The  Receiver's  First 
Application  For  Reimbursement  Of  Fees  Incurred  By  Receivership  Professional 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 245    Filed 01/24/11    Page 2 of 4   PageID 5763

RESPONSE TO [DOC#199]  - Page 3
Joshua Cox [Doc#190] and in Appellants’ Joint Objection And Response To (1) 
The  Receiver's  First  Application  For  Reimbursement  Of  Fees  And  Expenses 
Incurred By The Receiver [Doc#192] and (2) The Receiver's First Application For 
Reimbursement Of Fees And Expenses Incurred By Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP 
[Doc#193].
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Appellants move this Honorable Court 
to strike docket no. 199, and to deny the receiver’s motion and jointly and in the 
alternative to order the receiver to immediately deposit all monies it has received 
or receives in the future into a US Treasury account.
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, NOVO POINT,
LLC, and QUANTEC, LLC
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 245    Filed 01/24/11    Page 3 of 4   PageID 5764

RESPONSE TO [DOC#199]  - Page 4
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 attempted to confer in writing (pursuant to 
counsel for the receiver’s request), and no response was received.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 245    Filed 01/24/11    Page 4 of 4   PageID 5765