1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
In re Jeffrey Baron )
Alleged Debtor
)
Case No 12-27921-sgj-7
)
)
)
APELLANT JEFFREY BARON’S AMENDED DESIGNATION OF THE RECORD
Appellant, Jeffrey Baron, subject to this court’s ruling on his Motion for Leave to File
Appeal files this, his Designation of the Record in appealing the Order Denying Motion to
Dismiss [Bk Dkt Doc. 112] and Partial Summary Judgment Order [111]. This Designation of
Record covers both orders as the two orders are inextricably intertwined. District court
pleadings and pleadings from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will be supplied on cd to the
Bankruptcy Clerk.
Number
Docket Number / Docket Text
Date
1
Bk Dkt Doc 1. Chapter 7 involuntary petition. Fee Amount $306
Re: Jeffrey Baron Filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C., Shurig Jetel
Beckett Tackett, Dean Ferguson, Gary G. Lyon, Robert Garrey,
Powers Taylor, LLP, Jeffrey Hall (Pronske, Gerrit)
12/18/2012
2
Dist. Doc. 13. MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay
6/18/2009
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 1 of 12
2
Plaintiffs' Claims filed by Jeffrey Baron, Ondova Limited
Company with Brief in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A,
# 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Vitullo, Anthony)
Modified on 6/19/2009 (jyg). (Entered: 06/18/2009)
3
Dist. Doc. 27. MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively Stay Plaintiffs'
Claims filed by Jeffrey Baron, Ondova Limited Company with
Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Boisvert, Carter) (Entered:
07/06/2009)
7/6/2009
4
Dist. Doc. 28. Appendix in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron, Ondova
Limited Company re 27 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively Stay
Plaintiffs' Claims (Boisvert, Carter) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
7/6/2009
5
Dist. Doc. 35. ORDER denying 27 Motion to Dismiss or
Alternatively Stay Plaintiffs' Claims; denying 29 Motion to File
Documents Under Seal. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
7/7/2009) (axm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
7/7/2009
6
Dist. Doc. 36. ORDER denying 27 Motion to Dismiss or
Alternatively Stay Plaintiffs' Claims. (see order) (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 7/7/2009) (axm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
7/7/2009
7
Dist. Doc. 39. NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
of Status Conference Proceedings held on 7-9-09 before Judge
Furgeson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cass Casey, Telephone
number 214-354-3139. 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. The
clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically
noticed. Redaction Request due 8/6/2009. Redacted Transcript
Deadline set for 8/17/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
10/14/2009. (clc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2009:
# 1 Main Document) (axm). Modified pdf on 7/20/2009 (axm).
(Entered: 07/16/2009)
7/16/2009
8
Dist. Doc. 52 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
of Status Conference Proceedings held on 7-28-09 before Judge
Furgeson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cass Casey, Telephone
number Cassidi45@AOL.COM.
8/14/2009
9
Dist. Doc. 569 Fourth MOTION to Approve Assessment and
Disbursement of Attorney Claims [Corrected Version] filed by
Receiver with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Golden, Barry)
(Entered: 05/13/2011)
5/13/2011
10
Dist. Doc. 575 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ORDER ON 569 ASSESSMENT AND DISBURSEMENT
OF FORMER ATTORNEY CLAIMS: The Court orders that once
the Receiver has obtained cash to pay the Former Attorney Claims,
and only if the Receiver receives a Waiver as set forth in
5/18/2011
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 2 of 12
3
paragraphs 36 and 37 below, the Receiver shall pay the following
Former Attorney Claims. If Baron asserts the Baron Claims against
any attorney, that attorney may bring his or her own Punitive
Claims and/or claims to seek the amount of his or her own Fee Cap
Reductions against Baron as counterclaims. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 5/18/2011) (twd) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
11
Dist. Doc. 586. ORDER REGARDING BARON'S NOTICE OF
APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (DOC. NO. 576). The Court advises
the parties that it is STAYED from taking further action in the
various matters involved in the instant appeal. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 5/24/2011) (mfw) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
5/24/2011
12
Dist. Doc. 590. MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Stay
Receivership Pending Appeal filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit(s) EXHIBIT A) (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
05/31/2011
13
Dist. Doc. 591. MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Stay of
Injunction Pending Appeal filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
05/31/2011
14
Dist. Doc. 592. MOTION for Leave to File Motion for an
Expedited Hearing on the 590 and 591 Stay Motions filed by
Jeffrey Baron (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
06/01/2011
15
Dist. Doc. 596. ORDER denying 590 Motion for Leave to File
Motion to Stay Receivership Pending Appeal. (Ordered by Judge
Royal Furgeson on 6/2/2011) (mfw) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
06/02/2011
16
Dist. Doc. 597. ORDER denying 591 Motion for Leave to File
Motion To Stay or Vacate Injunction and Civil Lockdown of Jeff
Baron. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 6/2/2011) (mfw)
(Entered: 06/02/2011)
06/02/2011
17
Dist. Doc. 645. ORDER of USCA as to Appellant's motion for stay
of the receivership order and the lockdown injunction pending
appeal is DENIED. Appellant is cautioned that further frivolous
filings could result in sanctions. (svc) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
07/11/2011
18
Dist. Doc. 655. NOTICE of Motion to Dismiss in Part and to Lift
Stay, or to Abate the Appeal of Jeffrey Baron, Novo Point, LLC and
Quantec, LLC (Fifth Cir. Case No. 11-10501) from the District
Court's May 18, 2011 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order on Assessment and Disbursement of Former Attorney Claims
filed in the Fifth Circuit filed by Carrington Coleman Sloman &
Blumenthal, LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Sutherland, J)
(Entered: 08/05/2011)
8/5/2011
19
Dist. Doc. 733. ORDER of USCA IT IS ORDERED that the
opposed motion of Peter S. Vogel to modify stay is GRANTED to
the extent that the opposed motion of Peter S. Vogel for approval to
pay receivership professionals is referred to the district court for
ruling in the first instance. (svc) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
12/12/2011
20
Dist. Doc. 734. ORDER GRANTING THE RECEIVER'S
12/12/2011
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 3 of 12
4
MOTION TO MODIFY STAY AND FOR APPROVAL TO PAY
RECEIVERSHIP PROFESSIONALS. (Ordered by Judge Royal
Furgeson on 12/12/2011) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:
12/12/2011)
21
Dist. Doc. 909. Emergency MOTION to Stay re 908 Notice of
Appeal,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron, Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC
with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered:
05/03/2012)
5/3/2012
22
Dist. Doc. 910. MOTION for Reconsideration Motion of Daniel J.
Sherman, Chapter 11 Trustee to Reconsider Stay Imposed by This
Court's Order of May 24, 2011 (Docket 586) filed by Daniel J.
Sherman (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1A, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1B,
# 3 Exhibit(s) 1C, # 4 Exhibit(s) 1D, # 5 Exhibit(s) 1E,
# 6 Exhibit(s) 1F, # 7 Exhibit(s) 1G, # 8 Exhibit(s) 1H,
# 9 Exhibit(s) 2A, # 10 Exhibit(s) 2B, # 11 Exhibit(s) 3A,
# 12 Exhibit(s) 3B) (Hunt, Richard) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
5/4/2012
23
Dist. Doc. 925. ORDER denying as moot 909 Motion to Stay
(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/14/2012) (Judge Royal
Furgeson) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
5/14/2012
24
Dist. Doc. 969. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTIONS PENDING PRIOR TO THE STAY. If the issues are
still relevant, the parties may amend and re-file their motions no
later than July 2, 2012. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
6/8/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
6/8/2012
25
Dist. Doc. 972. ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 637 Motion
for Attorney Fees per ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTIONS PENDING PRIOR TO THE
STAY 969(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 6/8/2012) (Judge
Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
6/8/2012
26
Dist. Doc. 976. ORDER of USCA as
to 227 , 814 , 759 , 136 , 908 , 340 , 614 , 576 , 341 Notice of
Appeal: Appellants' opposed motion to stay the district court from
entering further orders disbursing the receivership res until the
appeal of this matter is ruled on by this Honorable Court is denied.
(axm) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
06/12/2012
27
Dist. Doc. 980. MOTION to Clarify Instruction to Receiver on
Payments to Former Baron Attorneys filed by Receiver (Golden,
Barry) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
6/14/2012
28
Dist. Doc. 988. ORDER REGARDING WINDING UP THE
RECEIVERSHIP: The Receiver's Report must be filed with the
Court on or before 7/3/2012. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on
6/18/2012) (axm) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
6/18/2012
29
Dist. Doc. 1008. ORDER MODIFYING RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
06/28/2012
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 4 of 12
5
AND ADDRESSING JEFF BARON'S INSURANCE (Ordered by
Judge Royal Furgeson on 6/28/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson)
(Entered: 06/28/2012)
30
Dist. Doc. 1013. MOTION for Reconsideration re 987 Order on
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C.
with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered:
06/28/2012)
06/28/2012
31
Dist. Doc. 1087. MOTION to Stay Fee Disbursements or in the
Alternative to Appoint Counsel for Jeffrey Baron for
Representation on Issues Regarding Applications by the Trustee
and Receiver on Attorneys Fees, Request for Reconsideration of
Order on Receiver's Second Dykema Application filed by Jeffrey
Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments:
# 1 Proposed Order Granting Stay of Fee Disbursements) (Cochell,
Stephen) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
11/11/2012
32
Dist. Doc. 1088. ORDER of USCA...IT IS ORDERED that sales of
the assets scheduled to be auctioned on November 9, 2012, not be
closed prior to November 30, 2012, without order of this Court.
(svc) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
11/13/2012
33
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10-11202. Document:
00512049121, COURT ORDER THAT On November 2, 2012,
counsel for the Receiver informed us that a confirmation hearing
was scheduled for November 13 on a plan to wind down the
Receivership. On November 6, the day before oral argument,
counsel for Appellants notified us that an auction of certain
Receivership assets was to be held on November 9, 2012.
Concerned after oral argument that these developments might moot
some if not all the issues presented, we ordered the parties to
submit written responses on four factual and legal issues.
In their responses, both the Receiver and the Trustee assure the
Court
that the auction to be held on November 9 will not result in an
immediate transfer of title to any property currently under the
control of the Receiver. The Receiver states that no closing will
occur with a successful bidder until sometime between November
14 and November 30. The Trustee states that he and the Receiver
"will not close the asset sale if Mr. Baron acts expeditiously to
bring the
matter before this Court." In light of these representations, we
conclude that the auction itself will not affect the issues before the
Court, but the closing of a sale would present significant mootness
concerns. In order to maintain our ability to resolve the relevant
issues, it is essential that any closing with a bidder from the auction
be delayed until the end of the time period identified by the
Receiver and Trustee. Disbursement of any other assets of the
Receivership should be as limited as possible until this Court
11/09/2012
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 5 of 12
6
resolves the appeals. We enter no order at this point
to effectuate that determination, but we inform the parties of the
Court's intent and willingness to entertain motions to stay
significant disbursements. The Court intends to resolve these
appeals on an expedited basis. IT IS ORDERED that sales of the
assets scheduled to be auctioned on November 9, 2012, not be
closed prior to November 30, 2012, without order of this Court.
34
Dist. Doc. 1091. ORDER of USCA...Stay earlier entered by this
court, prohibiting a closing on sales of assets prior to November 30,
be extended indefinitely. Neither the Receiver nor anyone on his
behalf may sell any assets subject to the Receivership prior to the
decision of this court on these appeals. (svc) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
11/28/2012
35
Dist. Doc. 1101. ORDER DENYING 1087 BARON'S MOTION
FOR STAY OF FEE DISBURSEMENTS OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT AS
COUNSEL FOR JEFFREY BARON FOR REPRESENTATION
ON ISSUES REGARDING APPLICATIONS BY THE
TRUSTEE. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 12/13/2012)
(cea) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
12/13/2012
36
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10-11202. PUBLISHED OPINION
FILED. [10-11202 Reversed 11-10113 Reversed 11-10289
Reversed 11-10290 Reversed 11-10390 Reversed 11-10501
Dismissed 12-10003 Reversed 12-10489 Reversed 12-10657
Reversed 12-10804 Reversed 12-11082 Reversed ] Judge: HRD ,
Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH (Panel involvement data updated for
cases: 12-10003, 11-10113, 11-10289, 11-10290, 11-10390, 12-
10489, 11-10501, 12-10657, 12-10804, 10-11202) Mandate pull
date is 01/08/2013 [10-11202, 11-10113, 11-10289, 11-10290, 11-
10390, 11-10501, 12-10003, 12-10489, 12-10657, 12-10804, 12-
11082] (ALSO FILED IN #12-10444) (RMF)
12/18/2012
37
Dist. Doc. 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
38
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10-11202. COURT ORDER
FILED that the opposed motion of Appellee Peter S. Vogel for
clarification of the 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
12/31/2012
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 6 of 12
7
panel or by the en banc court, and consequently it is not final. The
district court orders that were in place prior to the rlease 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
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 banc court,
the madate 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 Peter S. 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 claify 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 Barron 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. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motion filed by
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 7 of 12
8
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 containted in the district
court's order appointing the receiver dated November 24, 2010, is
DENIED. [7259066-2], [7259066-3], [7259720-3], [7259720-4],
[7259720-5] [7260392-1]
Judge(s): HRD, LHS and SAH. [10-11202, 11-10113, 11-10289,
11-10290, 11-10390, 11-10501, 12-10003, 12-10444, 12-10489,
12-10657, 12-10804, 12-11082] (DMS)
39
Dist. Doc. 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)
12/31/2012
40
Bk Dkt Doc 20. Motion to dismiss case for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and lack of jurisdiction Filed by
Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron (Rielly, Bill)
01/09/2013
41
Bk Dkt Doc 21. Motion for a more definite statement filed by
Jeffrey Baron . (Rielly, Bill)
01/09/2013
42
Bk Dkt Doc 22. Provisional Answer and Counter-Claim to
involuntary petition filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron . (Rielly,
Bill)
01/09/2013
43
Bk Dkt Doc39. Order (A) setting involuntary petition for trial
hearing and (B) granting interim GAP period relief, along with
report and recomendation to the District Court. Entered on
1/17/2013 (RE: related documents 1). Trial Hearing to be held on
2/13/2013 at 01:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 1, (Blanco,
J.) Modified Linkage and text on 1/17/2013 (Blanco, J.).
01/17/2013
44
Bk Dkt Doc 49. Objection to (related document(s): 20 Motion to
dismiss case filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron, 21 Motion by
Jeffrey Baron. filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron)filed by
Petitioning Creditors Dean Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall,
Gary G. Lyon, David L. Pacione, Powers Taylor, LLP, Pronske &
Patel, P.C., Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett. (Goolsby, Melanie)
01/30/2013
45
Bk Dkt 51, Transcript regarding Hearing Held 1/16/2013
2/1/2013
46
Bk Dkt Doc 52. (1022 pgs; 17 docs) Motion for summary
judgment and Brief in Support filed by Petitioning Creditors Dean
Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G. Lyon, David L.
Pacione, Powers Taylor, LLP, Pronske & Patel, P.C., Shurig Jetel
Beckett Tackett (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B
# 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Exhibit E # 6 Exhibit F # 7Exhibit
G # 8 Exhibit H # 9 Exhibit I # 10 Exhibit J # 11 Exhibit J-1
# 12 Exhibit J-2 # 13 Exhibit J-3 # 14 Exhibit J-4 # 15 Exhibit J-5
# 16 Exhibit J-6) (Goolsby, Melanie)
2/1/2013
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 8 of 12
9
47
Bk Dkt Doc. 56 Response opposed to (related
document(s): 52 Motion for summary judgment and Brief in
Support filed by Petitioning Creditor Gary G. Lyon, Petitioning
Creditor Pronske & Patel, P.C., Petitioning Creditor Shurig Jetel
Beckett Tackett, Petitioning Creditor Dean Ferguson, Petitioning
Creditor Robert Garrey, Petitioning Creditor Powers Taylor, LLP,
Petitioning Creditor Jeffrey Hall, Petitioning Creditor David L.
Pacione) filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron. (Attachments:
# 1 Appendix # 2 Exhibit D1 # 3 Exhibit D2 #4 Exhibit D3
# 5 Exhibit D4 # 6 Exhibit D5 # 7 Exhibit D6 # 8 Exhibit D7
# 9 Exhibit D9) (Stromberg, Mark)
02/08/2013
48
Bk Dkt Doc 57. Objection to (related document(s): 52 Motion for
summary judgment and Brief in Support filed by Petitioning
Creditor Gary G. Lyon, Petitioning Creditor Pronske & Patel, P.C.,
Petitioning Creditor Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett, Petitioning
Creditor Dean Ferguson, Petitioning Creditor Robert Garrey,
Petitioning Creditor Powers Taylor, LLP, Petitioning Creditor
Jeffrey Hall, Petitioning Creditor David L. Pacione) filed by
Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron. (Stromberg, Mark)
02/08/2013
49
Bk Dkt Doc 64. Response opposed to (related
document(s): 57 Objection filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron)
filed by Petitioning Creditors Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G.
Lyon, David L. Pacione, Powers Taylor, LLP, Pronske & Patel,
P.C., Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett. (Goolsby, Melanie)
02/12/2013
50
Bk Dkt 72, Transcript regarding Hearing Held 02/13/13
02/21/2013
51
Bk Dkt Doc. 111 Partial Summary Judgment order. (related
document # 52) Entered on 4/5/2013. (Blanco, J.)
04/05/2013
52
Bk Dkt Doc. 112. Order denying motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction . (related document # 20) Entered on 4/5/2013. (Blanco,
J.)
04/05/2013
53
Dist. Doc. 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 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
54
Dist. Doc. 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
04/24/2013
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 9 of 12
10
atwww.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)
55
Dist. Doc. 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
56
Dist. Doc. 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
57
Dist. Doc. 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
58
Dist. Doc. 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 additional notice. (Clerk to notice
any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
04/24/2013
59
Dist. Doc. 1262. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as
to 982 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,
04/24/2013
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 10 of 12
11
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)
60
Dist. Doc. 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)
04/24/2013
61
District Court 3:09-cv-00988-F Dkt 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)
4/29/2013
Very respectfully,
/s/ Stephen R. Cochell
Stephen R. Cochell
The Cochell Law Firm, P.C.
Texas Bar No. 24044255
7026 Old Katy Rd., Ste 259
Houston, Texas 77096
(713)980-8796 (phone)
(713)980-1179 (facsimile)
srcochell@cochellfirm.com
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 11 of 12
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this date I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the Bankruptcy Clerk for the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I
hereby certify that I have served all parties who receive notification through the electronic filing system.
/s/ Stephen R. Cochell
Stephen R. Cochell
Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 159 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 23:53:39 Page 12 of 12
