Response to Coleman Motion Doc 639

RESPONSE  - Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., §
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §
MUNISH KRISHAN,  §
Plaintiffs.  §
§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
v.  §
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
RESPONSE TO CARRINGTON COLEMAN MOTION TO BE GIVEN 
JEFF BARON’S MONEY WITHOUT TRIAL [DOC 613]
Appellant, Jeffrey Baron makes this response to Carrington Coleman’s motion  
filed as Doc 613, seeking to be given Jeff Baron’s money by this Court.
1. As  a  preliminary  matter,  objection  is  raised  to  Carrington  Coleman’s 
(hereinafter “CCOLE”) lack of standing.  CCOLE is neither a party to this lawsuit 
nor has made any prior motion for relief.  Further, the Court has made no finding 
or adjudication as to CCOLE.   Since no right of CCOLE was adjudicated and no 
motion was made by any party to adjudicate any right of CCOLE, CCOLE has no 
standing to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order.
2. CCOLE is not a party and their motion does not fall within the scope of 
4(a)(1)  which  is  expressly  limited  in  application  to  motions  filed  by  “a  party”.  
Accordingly,  the  trial court was  divested  of jurisdiction over  the appealed  from 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 639    Filed 07/06/11    Page 1 of 5   PageID 26550

RESPONSE  - Page 2
order when it was appealed.  CCOLE’s argument that their rights should have been 
adjudicated by the Court when no pleading or motion seeking the adjudication of 
their rights was before the court, borders on the frivolous. 
3. Objection is further raised that CCOLE failed to comply with the local 
rules of procedure in failing to confer with the undersigned prior to filing of their 
motion.  
4. The entire basis of CCOLE’s motion is that the district court has created 
a  ‘back  door’ to  do away  with  Americans’ Constitutional  right  to  Jury trials  to 
adjudicate legal claims against them.    Instead of CCOLE being required to file a 
lawsuit and prove a claim in a lawsuit against Mr. Baron, CCOLE would like the 
Court to bypass the US Constitution and simply give them some of Mr. Baron’s 
money.  However, that is not the law.  Mr. Baron’s assets are in the possession of 
the receiver. Mr. Baron’s alleged debts are not.  CCOLE has no claim to the assets 
held by the receiver.  CCOLE has at best a claim at law against Mr. Baron, most of 
which  is  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations  and  all  of  which  is  outside  of  the 
subject matter jurisdiction of a US District court since Mr. Baron and CCOLE are 
non-diverse.  
5. Again, the claim asserted by CCOLE is not a claim against any asset of 
the receivership, but against Mr. Baron personally.   The legally fallacious grounds 
asserted are that because a claim is alleged against an individual, that claim can be 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 639    Filed 07/06/11    Page 2 of 5   PageID 26551

RESPONSE  - Page 3
directly paid—without trial— from assets held in receivership because those assets 
were seized from that person.  Ordering that a person’s assets be placed into a 
receivership does not abrogate that person’s Constitutional right to trial by 
jury for all legal claims asserted against that person.
6. No  prior  motion  seeking  to  pay  CCOLE  money  has  been  filed,  and 
therefore there has been no opportunity to object to their ‘claim’.   Most of the 
‘claim’  is barred by the statute of limitations.   Moreover, while it was initially 
raised in preliminary negotiations between Mr. Baron, Ondova, and CCOLE that 
Mr.  Baron  would  be  a  formal  party  to  the  engagement  agreement,  in  the  final 
agreement Ondova was the primary beneficiary of CCOLE’s services and became 
the exclusive party responsible for the payment of any fees incurred.   CCOLE was 
clearly on notice and acted in conformity with their being on notice that Ondova 
was the sole obligee.  Moreover, Ondova obligated itself not to seek resolution of 
any dispute over the fees in court without first seeking resolution in arbitration.
7. For further cause, if same is necessary: Mr. Baron has appealed the order 
appointing  the  receiver  [Doc  #136]  and  NovoPoint,  LLC  and  Quantec,  LLC 
(“SouthPac’s  LLC  companies”)  have  appealed  from  the  order  including  the 
SouthPac LLC companies into the receivership [Doc #227].
8. Accordingly, pending appeal the district court is without jurisdiction to 
dispose of any of the assets which were seized by the receiver.  See e.g., Taylor v. 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 639    Filed 07/06/11    Page 3 of 5   PageID 26552

RESPONSE  - Page 4
Sterrett, 640 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 1981)  (“[T]he District Court was divested of 
jurisdiction  only  as  to  matters  relating  to  the  April  27  and  May  12  orders  and 
subsequent orders and, for that reason, fees cannot be recovered for work relating 
to these orders”). 
9.  Mr. Baron would like to respond and object further, but requires access 
to his money in order to retain counsel expert in objecting to improper fee claims, 
and an expert to offer an opinion as to the unreasonableness of the fees claimed.  
Mr. Baron objects to the Court’s denial of his access to his own money for these 
purposes, and moves to be allowed to have access to such funds and a reasonable 
opportunity  to  further  object  to  the  motions  and  provide  further  evidence  in 
response to the motion.  Objection is also made to the denial of Mr. Baron’s rights 
to conduct discovery, and demand is made for a jury trial on the claims asserted by 
CCOLE in their motion.
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
COUNSEL FOR JEFFREY BARON
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 639    Filed 07/06/11    Page 4 of 5   PageID 26553

RESPONSE  - Page 5
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-F   Document 639    Filed 07/06/11    Page 5 of 5   PageID 26554