Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - 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.  § MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY 
PENDING APPEAL 
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
COMES  NOW,  Jeffrey  Baron,  Appellant,  and  in  light  of  Mr.  Urbanik’s 
motion  filed  Friday  [Doc.  151]  moving  this  Court  to  consider  evidence  and 
adjudicate newly raised claims and factual issues, requests the Court to rule today 
on  [Doc. 137] Mr. Baron’s Motion to Stay.
Appellate Counsel for Mr. Baron has been retained strictly with respect to 
appeal of the order appointing receiver entered by this Court now on appeal to the 
Fifth Circuit.  Mr. Baron is in need of an attorney to file proper legal objections to 
the  timing  and  form  of  the  relief  requested  by  Mr.  Urbanik,  to  object  to  the 
standing  of  Mr.  Urbanik  to  request  such  relief,  as  well  as  seek  a  more  definite 
statement of the relief sought.  
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 157   Filed 12/13/10    Page 1 of 5   PageID 3181

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 2
Mr. Baron needs experienced and specialized counsel to conduct discovery 
and  prepare  to  defend  the  very  serious  new  charges  Mr.  Urbanik  brings  in  his 
motion.  As Mr. Urbanik has maneuvered his motion to be a part of the hearing set 
only  4  days  from  now,  Mr.  Baron  needs  an  attorney  to  represent  him  on  these 
matters immediately.
The limited scope of Appellate Counsel’s representation is strictly limited to 
matters  of  appeal  and  does  not  cover  defense  of  Mr.  Urbanik’s  newly  raised 
claims,  nor  any  other  matter  in  the  district  court  beyond  staying  the  order 
appointing receiver pending appeal, or declaring that order void.
Mr. Urbanik’s motion seeks determination of matters including whether: 
1. Mr. Baron is in breach of an injunction order,  
2. Mr. Baron is violation of Federal Rule of 13 (sic), 
3. Mr. Baron engaged in a bad faith bankruptcy filing,  
4. Mr. Baron refused to testify,  and
5. Mr. Baron is the owner of Ondova.
Mr. Urbanik also seeks the determination of substantive rights between Mr. 
Baron and former attorneys and judicial determination:
6. Declaring Mr. Baron a vexatious litigant, 
7. Finding Mr. Baron in breach of the settlement agreement,  
8. Determining Mr. Baron’s liability to attorneys for fees.   
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 157   Filed 12/13/10    Page 2 of 5   PageID 3182

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 3
Mr. Urbanik further seeks adjudication on serious allegations including:
9. Whether  Mr.  Urbanik’s  attorneys  fees  in  the  bankruptcy  court  are 
legitimate  and  attributable  to  Mr.  Baron's  obstructive  tactics,  (or 
conversely,  if  not,  were  unreasonable,  improper,  unjustified,  and 
excessive),
10. That Mr. Baron has acted with contempt for the court, 
11. Whether Mr. Baron has incurred debts without regard to the financial 
implication of doing so,
12. Whether  Mr.  Baron  has  engaged  in  fraud  and  is  attempted  to 
fraudulently insolate himself from judgment, 
These allegations were not made in the motion to appoint receiver, and by 
their timing  appear clearly  to  be  in  retaliation  for Mr. Baron's  objection  to  Mr. 
Urbanik's fees in the bankruptcy court.  
   Mr. Baron is currently unable to retain counsel to defend  or even object to the 
motion raised by Mr. Urbanik because his money has been seized and this Court 
has  ordered  him  not  to  retain  any  counsel  to  represent  him  in  this  Court.  
Moreover, Mr. Baron’s personal papers have been seized as well as the materials 
of  his prior counsel.   Unless the receivership is stayed and  his  money, right to 
retain and consult with counsel, and his and his lawyer’s papers are immediately 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 157   Filed 12/13/10    Page 3 of 5   PageID 3183

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 4
returned  to  him,  Mr.  Baron  will  be  irreparably  harmed  in  his  defense  of  Mr. 
Urbanik’s motions set only 4 days from now.
Accordingly Mr. Baron seeks an immediate stay of the receivership so that 
he may retain counsel to properly object and defend the very serious motion filed 
by Mr. Urbanik.  
Mr. Urbanik has refused to withdraw his motion.  Short of an order from this 
Court  striking  Mr.  Urbanik’s  motion  or  expressly  removing  it  from  the  docket 
Friday, his motion necessitates immediate stay of the receivership order.  
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
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 157   Filed 12/13/10    Page 4 of 5   PageID 3184

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This is to certify that the undersigned conferred with Mr. Raymond J. Urbanik, attorney 
for  DANIEL  J.  SHERMAN,  Trustee  for  ONDOVA  LIMITED  COMPANY,  and  they 
opposed the motion.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 157   Filed 12/13/10    Page 5 of 5   PageID 3185