Page 1 of 8

CAUSE NO. 10-11915

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE AND MOTION TO STRIKE SUGGESTION OF STAY BY

VIRTUE OF FEDERAL COURT INJUNCTION AND FOR CLARIFICATION

REGARDING ABTEMENT AND DISTRICT COUT INJUNCTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Jeffrey Baron (“Baron

)

and files Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’

Response and Motion to Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal Court Injunction

and for Clarification Regarding Abatement and District Court Injunction

and Request for

Payment of Attorneys’ Fees

, and for cause would represent.

INTRODUCTION

PG&K’s Response to and Motion to Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal

Court Injunction and Request for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees filed on June 5, 2014, should be

denied in all respects. Pronske and PG&K’s continued attempts to paint Mr. Baron as a “crazed

vexatious litigant” is belied by record. Rather than stoop to alleging hyperbolic rhetoric that

Pronske and PG&K have continually presented to court after court, losing on each of their

attempts, Baron would advise this Court of the truth, as follows:

Pronske and PG&K made representations to Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan in early

September 2010, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found to be false.

JEFF BARON,

Plaintiff,

GERRIT M. PRONSKE, INDIVIDUALLY

AND PRONSKE & PATEL, P.C.

Defendants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

193

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

7/1/2014 12:47:11 AM

GARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

Page 2 of 8

By engaging in such conduct, Pronske and PG&K participated in and aided and

abetted the appointment of a receiver over Baron’s person and his assets that was

reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but not before causing millions of

dollars of damages to be incurred by Baron.

On September 15, 2010, Baron filed the captioned cause against Gerrit M. Pronske

(“Pronske”) and Pronske and Patel, PC, n/k/a Pronske, Goolsby & Kathman, PC

(“PG&K”) seeking declaratory judgment relief, damages and injunctive relief

including a Temporary Restraining Order. Pronske and PG&K removed the captioned

case to the Bankruptcy Court and Judge Jernigan ultimately remanded it back to this

Court on Mr. Baron’s motion finding that there was no jurisdiction over the matter.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the receivership and remanded the case to

the Federal District Court with instructions to wind down the receivership and then

vacate the Receivership Order.

Two hours after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the receivership, Pronske

and PG&K caused an involuntary bankruptcy to be filed against Baron, and an order

for relief was granted ,which the Federal District Court, Judge Sam Lindsay presiding,

reversed a year after it was filed, causing millions of dollars of damages to Baron.

Pronske and PG&K then filed an application for prejudgment writ of garnishment

against Baron and asked for the abatement that had been ordered by Judge Jernigan be

lifted while this case was pending before Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan, and Judge

Jernigan refused to grant Pronske’s requested relief.

Pronske then instituted a new action in the 68

Judicial District Court in and for Dallas

County, Texas, and was able to obtain a prejudgment garnishment on an ex parte basis,

failing to advise the District Judge that the very same emergency relief was requested

before Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan and was denied.

Indeed, if there is anyone in this case that is a crazed, vexatious litigant, it is

Pronske and his law firm, PG&K. The detailed facts supporting the above allegations appear in

Plaintiff’s Response to PG&K’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on June 30, 2014.

FACTS

The captioned case was filed by Baron on September 15, 2010. On the same date,

while Baron was waiting the requisite 2 hour notice period prior to seeking the TRO relief,

Pronske and PG&K removed the lawsuit to the Bankruptcy Court, where it was pending as

Page 3 of 8

Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03281 before Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan, related to the Ondova

Chapter 11 Case. A true and correct copy of the Adversary Proceeding Docket Sheets are

attached hereto as

Exhibit “1”

and incorporated herein for all purposes.

On September 29, 2010, PG&K filed an answer and counterclaim against Baron.

See

Exhibit “1”

at Docket Entry 5.

Baron filed a Motion to Remand this case.

See

Exhibit “1”

, at docket entries 9

and 10.

Thereafter, beginning on November 3, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series

of orders abating the Adversary Proceeding and continuing such abatement.

See

Exhibit “1”

Orders at docket entries 13 and 26. Ultimately, by docket entry on January 9, 2012, the

Bankruptcy Court continued the abatement indefinitely.

See

Exhibit “1”

, at p 9, docket entry for

January 9, 2012.

On March 13, 2014, Pronske filed an Emergency Motion before Bankruptcy Judge

Jernigan in the Adversary Proceeding to Lift the Abatement of the case, and a Motion for

Emergency Hearing thereon. Judge Jernigan denied PG&K and Pronske’s Emergency Motion for

Hearing the following day, March 14, 2014.

See

Exhibits “2”, “3” and “4”

attached hereto

and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, and

Exhibit “1”

hereto as p10, docket

entries 36, 37 and 39. Pronske also filed an Application for Prejudgment Garnishment.

Three days later, having failed to obtain relief before Judge Jernigan, Pronske then

filed a new state court lawsuit in the 68

Judicial District Court in and for Dallas County, Texas,

Cause Nos. DC14-02619 and DC14-02622, where Pronske made identical allegations as were

made in this cause. Pronske then arranged for an

ex parte

hearing before Judge Hoffman of the

Judicial District Court, without notice to Baron. In his pleadings before Judge Hoffman,

Page 4 of 8

Pronske failed to disclose to Judge Hoffman that PG&K had attempted to have Judge Jernigan

enter an emergency hearing on PG&K’s prejudgment garnishment application filed in the

Bankruptcy Court on March 13, 2014, and that Judge Jernigan refused to grant PG&K’s

Emergency Motion for Hearing the following day. Baron believes that Pronske did not advise

Judge Hoffman of these events, before Judge Hoffman entered an

ex parte

prejudgment

garnishment order against Baron on the 17

of March 2014.

On March 27, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Jernigan set for hearing PG&K’s Motion to

Lift Abatement and Application for Prejudgment Garnishment. The Court also set Baron’s

Motion for Remand,

sua sponte

, for hearing. The hearing date was April 28, 2014. A true and

correct copy of Judge Jernigan’s Order setting hearing is attached hereto as

Exhibit “5”

10.

Before the hearing occurred, on April 8, 2014, PG&K filed a Notice of Withdrawal

of its Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement. On the same date PG&K also filed a Notice of

Withdrawal of PG&K’s Application for Writ of Garnishment.

See

Exhibit “1”

hereto at p11,

docket entries 44 and 45.

11.

Judge Jernigan conducted a hearing on the only remaining motion on the docket,

Baron’s Motion to Remand, on April 28, 2014. Judge Jernigan granted the Motion to Remand

finding and concluding that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the

Adversary Proceeding. Judge Jernigan entered an Order Remanding Case on May 5, 2014, a true

and correct copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit “6”

See also

Exhibit “1”

hereto at p11,

docket entry for April 28, 2014, and Docket Entries 47 and 49.

12.

The Adversary Proceeding was remanded on or about May 21, 2014, but the

abatement was never lifted.

13.

On June 3, 2014, Baron filed with this Court a Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of

Page 5 of 8

Federal Court Injunction. In said Suggestion, Baron alerted the Court to the fact that on

November 24, 2010, in the case styled

Netsphere Inc., et al, v. Jeffrey Baron, et al

, in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil Action No. 3-09-cv-

0988-F, the District Court entered an Order Appointing Receiver as to Jeff Baron, Defendant in

this cause. A true and correct copy of the Order Appointing Receiver is attached hereto as

Exhibit "7"

and incorporated herein by reference. The pertinent part of the Order Appointing

Receiver states as follows:

"A Except by leave of this Court, during the pendency of the receivership ordered

herein, all other persons and entities aside from the Receiver are hereby stayed from

taking any action to establish or enforce any claim, right, or interest for, against, on

behalf of, in, or in the name of, the Receivership Party (Defendant Baron), any of

their partnerships, assets, documents, or the Receiver or the Receiver's duly

authorized agents actin in the capacities as such, including by not limited to, the

following actions: 1. Commencing, prosecuting, continuing, entering, or enforcing

any suit or proceeding, except that such actions may be filed to toll any applicable

statute of limitations;"

See

Exhibit “7”

, Page 12.

14.

On December 28, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the

receivership and remanded the case to the District Court for the purpose of winding up the

receivership and entering an order vacating the receivership.

Netspherre v Baron

, 703 F3d 296,

315 (5th Cir 2012) (“The judgment appointing the receiver is reversed with directions to [on

remand] vacate the receivership and discharge the receiver, his attorneys and employees, and to

charge against the cash in the receivership fund the remaining receivership fees in accordance

with this opinion.”).

In a subsequent order entered by the Fifth Circuit on December 31, 2012, a

true and correct copy of which is attached as

Exhibit “9”

, the Court stated:

“We point out that our opinion did not dissolve the receivership immediately. We



For convenience, the Fifth Circuit Opinion is attached as Exhibit “9”.

Page 6 of 8

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.”

Id.,

at page 7.

15.

The wind down has not has not been completed as of this date, and the

Receivership Order has not been vacated.

See

email exchange with the Receiver’s attorney

attached hereto as

Exhibit “10”.

16.

Finally, attached hereto as

Exhibit “11”

is a true and correct copy of the docket

sheets for the Receivership Action from December 18, 2012, the date of the Fifth Circuit decision

reversing the receivership, to present. As the Court can see, there is no entry where the

Receivership Order has been vacated. Furthermore, Pronske and PG&K have participated in and

have filed pleadings regarding the wind down of the receivership.

See Id.,

Docket Entry 1403, at

p__. In this pleading, a true and copy of which is attached as

Exhibit “12”

RELIEF REQUESTED

17.

It appears that this case still remains abated pursuant to the orders of Judge

Jernigan. It also appears that this case is stayed by the Receivership Order, which has not been

vacated as of this date.

18.

Therefore, Pronske’s and PG&K’s various motions that are set on July 7, 2014,

should be taken off the calendar so that this Court does not need to spend any unnecessary time

preparing to consider such motions and considering such motions at the hearing on July 7, 2014.

Specifically, the Motions that are set for July 7, 10`4 are as follows:



PG&K’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on May 16, 2014; and

Page 7 of 8



PG&K’s Response to and Motion to Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal Court

Injunction and Request for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees filed on June 5, 2014.

19.

In addition, Pronske and PG&K have served Baron with paper discovery in this

case which is also in violation of the abatement, in violation of the District Court injunction and in

violation of

Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5)

20.

The relief requested in Pronske and PG&K’s PG&K’s Response to and Motion to

Strike Suggestion of Stay by Virtue of Federal Court Injunction and Request for Payment of

Attorneys’ Fees filed on June 5, 2014, should be denied in all respects and the hearing set for July

7, 2014, on PG&K’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on May 16, 2014, should be

continued.

WHEREFORE, Baron prays for clarification as to whether this case remains abated and/or

whether the case is enjoined from proceeding forward by virtue of the Federal Court Injunction. If

the case is abated and/or stayed from proceeding, Baron would ask that the Court remove the

motions referenced above from the hearing docket for June 7, 2014, and that the Court order that

all discovery is abated until both the abatement of this case is lifted and the Receivership Order is

vacated. Baron prays for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Baron is justly

entitled.

Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted on July 1, 2014.

Pendergraft & Simon, LLP

/s/

Leonard H. Simon

Texas Bar No. 18387400

S.D.Tex. Adm. No. 8200

William P. Haddock

Texas Bar No. 00793875

S.D.Tex. Adm. No. 19637

2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77019

Tel. (713) 528-8555

Fax. (713) 868-1267

Counsel for Jeffrey Baron

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 1, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the Court’s electronic filing system, which will send notification of

such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Leonard H. Simon

U.S. Bankruptcy Cour

Northern District of Texas (Dallas)

Adversary Proceeding #: 10-03281-sgj

Assigned to: Stacey G. Jernigan

Lead BK Case: 09-34784

Lead BK Title: Ondova Limited Company

Lead BK Chapter: 11

Demand:

Date Filed: 09/15/10

Date Removed From State: 09/15/10

Nature[s] of Suit: 01 Determination of removed claim or cause

Plaintiff

-----------------------

Jeff Baron represented by Stanley D. Broome

The Broome Law Firm, PLLC

105 Decker Court

Suite 850

Irving, TX 75062

(214)574-7500

Fax : (214)574-7501

Email: sbroome@broomelegal.com

TERMINATED: 07/11/2011

Leonard H. Simon

Pendergraft & Simon L.L.P.

The Riviana Building, Suite 800

2777 Allen Parkway

Houston, TX 77019

713-528-8555

Fax : 832-202-2810

Email: lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com

Defendant

-----------------------

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C. represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

214-658-6500

Fax : 214-658-6509

Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com

Rakhee V. Patel

Page 1 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

Shackelford, Melton & McKinley LLP

3333 Lee Parkway

Tenth Floor

Dallas, TX 75219

214-780-1400

Fax : 214-780-1401

Email: rpatel@shacklaw.net

Gerrit M. Pronske

Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.

2200 Ross Avenue

Suite 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 658-6500

Fax : 214-658-6509

Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com

Christina Walton Stephenson

Shackelford, Melton & McKinley, LLP

3333 Lee Parkway

10th Floor

Dallas, TX 75219

2147801400

Fax : 2147801401

Email: cstephenson@shacklaw.net

Defendant

-----------------------

Pronske & Patel, P.C.

2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 658-6500

represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

Rakhee V. Patel

(See above for address)

Gerrit M. Pronske

(See above for address)

Christina Walton Stephenson

(See above for address)

Counter-Defendant

-----------------------

Jeff Baron represented by Jeff Baron

PRO SE

Stanley D. Broome

The Broome Law Firm, PLLC

Page 2 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

105 Decker Court

Suite 850

Irving, TX 75062

(214)574-7500

Fax : (214)574-7501

Email: sbroome@broomelegal.com

TERMINATED: 07/11/2011

3rd Party Plaintiff

-----------------------

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C. represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

Gerrit M. Pronske

(See above for address)

Christina Walton Stephenson

(See above for address)

3rd Party Plaintiff

-----------------------

Pronske & Patel, P.C.

2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 658-6500

represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

Gerrit M. Pronske

(See above for address)

Christina Walton Stephenson

(See above for address)

3rd Pty Defendant

-----------------------

The Village Trust

c/0 Adrian Taylor

Asiaciti Trust Pacific, Ltd.

Level 2, BCI House

Rarotonga

Cook Islands

Filing Date Docket Text

09/15/2010

Page 3 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

1 (4 pgs) Adversary case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature(s) of suit: 01

(Determination of removed claim or cause). (Patel, Rakhee)

09/15/2010

Receipt of filing fee for Complaint(10-03281-sgj) [cmp,cmp] ( 250.00). Receipt

number 12462138, amount $ 250.00. (U.S. Treasury)

09/15/2010

2 (2 pgs) Adversary proceeding cover sheet without signature filed by

Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. (RE: related document

(s)1 Complaint). (Patel, Rakhee) Modified text on 9/16/2010 (Jones, A.).

09/15/2010

3 (23 pgs) State court pleading: Original petition filed by Defendants Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. (Patel, Rakhee)

09/16/2010

4 (2 pgs) Adversary proceeding cover sheet filed by Defendants Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint).

(Patel, Rakhee)

09/27/2010

5 (15 pgs) Answer to complaint , Counterclaim by Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C.,

Pronske & Patel, P.C. against Jeff Baron , Third-Party complaint by Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. against The Village Trust . filed by Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. (Pronske, Gerrit)

09/30/2010

6 (2 pgs) Notice of Status Conference filed by Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske

& Patel, P.C., Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. (Patel,

Rakhee)

09/30/2010

7 (2 pgs) Notice of hearing filed by Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,

P.C., Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Status

Conference to be held on 10/27/2010 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm

for #1 complaint. (Patel, Rakhee) Modified on 10/1/2010 to create link to related

document (Ward, J).

10/05/2010

8 (3 pgs) Certificate of service re: Notice of Status Conference filed by Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske

& Patel, P.C. (RE: related document(s)7 Notice of hearing). (Pronske, Gerrit)

10/15/2010

9 (3 pgs) Motion for remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron (Broome, Stanley)

10/15/2010

10 (31 pgs) Brief in support filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff

Baron (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and Motion to Strike).

(Broome, Stanley)

10/15/2010 11 (12 pgs; 4 docs) Support/supplemental documentAppendix filed by Counter-

Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for

Page 4 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

reman

and Motion to Strik

). (Attachments: 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Appendix2

Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Appendix3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Appendix) (Broome, Stanley)

10/15/2010

Proposed order regarding Motion to Remand and Motion to Strike (RE: related

document(s)9 Motion for remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Document uploaded on 10/15/2010 (Ref-ID:

1286311015373_2840). (Broome, Stanley)

10/21/2010

12 (2 pgs) Notice of hearing filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron, Counter-Defendant Jeff

Baron (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 10 Brief filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron,

Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 11 Support/supplemental document filed by Counter-

Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Hearing to be held on 12/1/2010 at

09:30 AM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 11 and for 10 and for 9, (Broome,

Stanley)

10/27/2010

Status conference held on 10/27/2010. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary

case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske

& Patel, P.C.) Appearances: G. Pronske for himself and his firm; S. Broome for J.

Baron. Nonevidentiary hearing. Announcement that parties are discussing

mediation (before global mediation of attorneys fees issues). Court ruled it will

enter order: (a) abating adversary proceeding until at least middle of December; (b)

set another status conference in or shortly after the middle of December; (c)

continue the 11/29/10 hearing on Mr. Pronskes Section 503(b) application in the

Ondova case (and objection the deadline relating thereto) and also continue the

12/1/10 hearing on the motion for remand of J. Baron in this Adv. Proc., with these

matters to be rescheduled as necessary at the next status conference. Court to issue

order reflecting this ruling. (Harden, D.) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/03/2010

13 (2 pgs) Order Abating Adversary Proceeding and Setting Status Conference.

Entered on 11/3/2010 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint ). Status Conference

to be held on 12/16/2010 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Moroles,

D.)

11/05/2010

14 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

13 Order Abating Adversary Proceeding and Setting Status Conference. Entered

on 11/3/2010 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint ). Status Conference to be held

on 12/16/2010 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 1.

Service Date 11/05/2010. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/06/2010)

11/23/2010

15 (4 pgs) Motion to withdraw as attorney (Stan Broome) filed by Plaintiff Jeff

Baron, Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron (Broome, Stanley)

11/23/2010

Proposed order regarding Motion to Withdraw (RE: related document(s)15

Motion to withdraw as attorney). Document uploaded on 11/23/2010 (Ref-ID:

1288986969630_4132). (Broome, Stanley)

11/24/2010

Page 5 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

(4 pgs) Motion for leave Agreed Motion to Mediat

Filed by Defendants

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske

& Patel, P.C. (Stephenson, Christina)

11/24/2010

Proposed order regarding Agreed Order to Mediate (RE: related document(s)16

Motion for leave Agreed Motion to Mediate Filed by Defendants Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,

P.C.). Document uploaded on 11/24/2010 (Ref-ID: 1288986969630_4294).

(Stephenson, Christina)

12/16/2010

Hearing held on 12/16/2010. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 10-

03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,

P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature(s) of suit: 01 (Determination of removed claim or

cause).) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee; B. Golden for Receiver; G. Pronske

for himself; S. Broome (telephonically), for himself and with a pending motion to

withdraw for J. Baron. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard reports, particularly

with regard to Receiver developments. Court will continue with abatement of this

matter and the Section 503 substantial contribution claims in the underlying case

until at least lefting of the stay under the Receivership Order. Court to hold a status

conference on 1/25/11. Mr. Urbanik to upload order. (Harden, D.) (Entered:

12/17/2010)

12/16/2010

17 Status conference continued (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 10-

03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel,

P.C.) Status Conference to be held on 1/25/2011 at 09:30 AM at Dallas Judge

Jernigan Ctrm. (Harden, D.) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/20/2010

Proposed order regarding Scheduling Order (RE: related document(s)1

Adversary case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske,

P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature). Document uploaded on

12/20/2010 (Ref-ID: 1291646361376_4241). (Urbanik, Raymond)

12/23/2010

18 (3 pgs) Order setting a status conference hearing Entered on 12/23/2010 (RE:

related document(s)1 Complaint filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff

Jeff Baron, 9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 1/25/2011 at

09:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Simpson, B)

12/25/2010

19 (4 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

18 Order setting a status conference hearing Entered on 12/23/2010 (RE: related

document(s)1 Complaint filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff

Baron, 9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff

Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 1/25/2011 at 09:30

AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 12/25/2010.

(Admin.)

01/06/2011 20 (2 pgs) Order resetting status conference hearing Entered on 1/6/2011 (RE:

related document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-

Page 6 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on

1/31/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Simpson, B)

01/08/2011

21 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

20 Order resetting status conference hearing Entered on 1/6/2011 (RE: related

document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 1/31/2011 at

09:30 AM.) No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 01/08/2011. (Admin.)

01/31/2011

23 Status Conference held on 1/31/2011., Status Conference continued (RE:

related document(s)1 Adversary case 10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C.. Nature(s) of suit: 01

(Determination of removed claim or cause). filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff

Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee Sherman;

Trustee Sherman; B. Golden for Receiver Vogel; Receiver Vogel; J. MacPete for

Manilla/NetSphere; M. Goolsby for Pronske Patel; S. Broome, for J. Baron in AP

# 10-3281 (subject to a motion to withdraw); E. Taube (telephonically) for his firm

and Shurig and West firms; R. Puri for Manilla. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court

heard status report from various parties. Matter continued to 4/4/11 at 11:30 am.

Status Conference to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan

Ctrm. (Womack, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

01/31/2011

24 Status Conference held on 1/31/2011., Status Conference continued (RE:

related document(s)9 Motion for remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-

Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron,

Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee Sherman; Trustee

Sherman; B. Golden for Receiver Vogel; Receiver Vogel; J. MacPete for

Manilla/NetSphere; M. Goolsby for Pronske Patel; S. Broome, for J. Baron in AP

# 10-3281 (subject to a motion to withdraw); E. Taube (telephonically) for his firm

and Shurig and West firms; R. Puri for Manilla. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court

heard status report from various parties. Matter continued to 4/4/11 at 11:30 am.

Status Conference to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan

Ctrm. (Womack, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

02/07/2011

22 (1 pg) Order Continuing Hearings. Entered on 2/7/2011 (RE: related

document(s)1 Complaint , 9 Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of

Removal). Status Conference reset and to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at

Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Moroles, D.)

02/09/2011

25 (2 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

22 Order Continuing Hearings. Entered on 2/7/2011 (RE: related document(s)1

Complaint , 9 Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of Removal). Status

Conference reset and to be held on 4/4/2011 at 11:30 AM at Dallas Judge Jernigan

Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 02/09/2011. (Admin.)

04/04/2011 Status Conference held on 4/4/2011. (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for

remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff

Baron) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Trustee D. Sherman; Trustee D. Sherman

Page 7 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

(Ondova estate); B. Golden for Receiver P. Vogel; Receiver P. Vogel (over J.

Baron); M. Keen for Powers Taylor; R. Patel for Pronske Patel; E. Taube

(telephonically) for Hohmann, Taube & Summers, L.L.P.; M. Thomas for J.

Baron; S. Broome for J. Baron in AP # 10-3281), subject to pending motion to

withdraw; G. Lyons, another counsel for J. Baron, subject to pending motion to

withdraw. Court heard reports regarding receivership action, attorneys fees issues,

and pending matters in Ondova case. Court will continue with abatement of

adversary proceeding for another 90 days. Court to issue order. (Womack,

Jennifer) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

04/06/2011

26 (2 pgs) Order Abating Adversary and Setting Status Conference hearing

Entered on 4/6/2011 (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to

strike filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 7/11/2011 at

02:30 PM at Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm. (Simpson, B)

04/08/2011

27 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

26 Order Abating Adversary and Setting Status Conference hearing Entered on

4/6/2011 (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and motion to strike filed

by Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Status Conference to be held on 7/11/2011 at 02:30 PM at

Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm.) No. of Notices: 0. Service Date 04/08/2011.

(Admin.)

07/11/2011

28 (2 pgs) Order granting motion of Stanley D. Broome to withdraw as attorney

(related document # 15). Entered on 7/11/2011. (Moroles, D.)

07/11/2011

29 (2 pgs) Notice to service order (RE: related document(s)28 Order granting

motion of Stanley D. Broome to withdraw as attorney (related document # 15).

Entered on 7/11/2011.) (Moroles, D.)

07/11/2011

Status conference held on 7/11/2011. (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for

remand and Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff

Baron filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances:

R. Urbanik for Trustee; B. Golden for Receiver Vogel; Receiver Vogel; S. Broome

for himself and subject to a motion to withdraw as counsel to Jeff Baron; G.

Pronske for himself; E. Taube (telephonically) for his law firm and Shurig law

firm. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard status reports. Court will set another

status conference in approximately 90 days, in light of delays in receivership and

overlapping issues it has in Ondova case. Mr. Urbanik should coordinate next

setting with CRD. (Harden, D.) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

07/12/2011

30 (2 pgs) Notice of hearing Notice of Continued Hearing filed by Interested

Party Daniel J. Sherman, Trustee (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand

filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron). Hearing to be held on

10/13/2011 at 09:30 AM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 9 and for 9, (Urbanik,

Raymond)

07/13/2011 31 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

28 Order granting motion of Stanley D. Broome to withdraw as attorney (related

Page 8 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

document # 1

). Entered on 7/11/2011.) No. of Notices: 0. Service Date

07/13/2011. (Admin.)

07/13/2011

32 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing. (RE: related document(s)29 Notice to

service order (RE: related document(s)28 Order granting motion of Stanley D.

Broome to withdraw as attorney (related document # 15). Entered on 7/11/2011.))

No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 07/13/2011. (Admin.)

10/13/2011

Hearing held on 10/13/2011. (RE: related document(s)9 Status conference re:

Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of Removal filed byCounter-

Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron ) Appearances: R. Urbanik for Chapter

11 Trustee; P. Loh for Baron Receiver; G. Pronske for Pronske Patel firm; M.

Taylor for Powers Taylor firm; E. Taube for West firm and Hohmann Taube firm.

Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard reports about continued pendency of Fifth

Circuit appeals and inactivity in District Court Receivership Action in light of

Fifth Circuit appeals. Court to set another status conference in approximately 90

days (Mr. Urbanik to contact CRD for setting). Mr. Pronske announced he may file

a motion for scheduling order and seek to move to dismiss claims in this action

(court announced it would consider such a motion on NNL). (Garrison, Krystyl)

11/08/2011

33 (8 pgs; 2 docs) Motion for leave Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed by

Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske,

P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C. Objections due by 12/2/2011. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit A) (Pronske, Gerrit)

11/30/2011

34 (143 pgs; 7 docs) Response opposed to (related document(s): 33 Motion for

leave Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M.

Pronske, P.C., Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske &

Patel, P.C., Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C.) filed by Other Professional Peter S.

Vogel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5

Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F) (Ruckman, Deirdre)

12/02/2011

35 (3 pgs) Notice of hearing & Status Conference filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C. (RE: related document

(s)33 Motion for leave Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed by Defendants

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske

& Patel, P.C. Objections due by 12/2/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)). Hearing

to be held on 1/9/2012 at 02:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 33, (Pronske,

Gerrit)

01/09/2012 Hearing held on 1/9/2012. (RE: related document(s)33 Motion to Enter

Scheduling Order filed by Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &

Patel,P.C.) Appearances: G. Pronske for Defendant; P. Loh for Receiver P. Vogel

(w/ P. Vogel); R. Urbanik for Trustee D. Sherman. Nonevidentiary hearing.

Motion denied. Court will continue with abatement of this adversary proceeding

indefinitely, in light of District Court Stay Order, but this is without prejudice to

any partys motion to move forward in adversary proceeding if District Court lifts

Page 9 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

stay. Court will set another statu conference in approximately 90 days if there is no

activity sooner. (Garrison, Krystyl)

01/09/2012

Hearing held on 1/9/2012. (RE: related document(s)1 Status conference )

Appearances: G. Pronske for Defendant; P. Loh for Receiver P. Vogel (w/ P.

Vogel); R. Urbanik for Trustee D. Sherman. Nonevidentiary hearing. Court heard

status reports. Court will continue with abatement of this adversary proceeding

indefinitely, in light of District Court Stay Order, but this is without prejudice to

any partys motion to move forward in adversary proceeding if District Court lifts

stay. Court will set another statu conference in approximately 90 days if there is no

activity sooner. (Garrison, Krystyl)

03/13/2014

36 (7 pgs) Motion for leave (Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement)

filed by Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Gerrit Pronske Objections due by

4/7/2014. (Pronske, Gerrit)

03/13/2014

37 (5 pgs) Motion for expedited hearing(related documents 36 Motion for leave)

Motion for Emergency Hearing filed by Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C.,

Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (Pronske, Gerrit)

03/13/2014

38 (19 pgs; 2 docs) Application for writ of garnishment filed by Defendants

Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske

& Patel, P.C., Gerrit Pronske, Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (Attachments: #

1 Exhibit A) (Pronske, Gerrit)

03/14/2014

39 (2 pgs) Order denying motion for expedited hearing (Related Doc# 37

Expedited hearing and #36 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement)

Entered on 3/14/2014. (Mathews, M.)

03/16/2014

40 (3 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

39 Order denying motion for expedited hearing (Related Doc37 Expedited hearing

and #36 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement) Entered on 3/14/2014.

(Mathews, M.)) No. of Notices: 0. Notice Date 03/16/2014. (Admin.)

03/27/2014

41 (3 pgs) Order Setting hearing on motions and setting general status

conference. Entered on 3/27/2014 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint filed by

Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 9 Motion for remand filed by

Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 36 Motion for leave filed by

Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Creditor Gerrit Pronske, 38

Application for writ of garnishment filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M. Pronske,

P.C., Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske & Patel, P.C.,

Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.,

Creditor Gerrit Pronske). Hearing to be held on 4/28/2014 at 01:30 PM Dallas

Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 38 and for 1 and for 36 and for 9, (Blanco, J.) Modified

TEXT on 3/27/2014 (Blanco, J.).

03/29/2014 42 (4 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

41 Order Setting hearing on motions and setting general status conference. Entered

Page 10 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

on 3/27/2014 (RE: related document(s)1 Complaint filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 9 Motion for remand filed by Counter-Defendant

Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron, 36 Motion for leave filed by Creditor Pronske

Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Creditor Gerrit Pronske, 38 Application for writ of

garnishment filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Defendant Gerrit

M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske & Patel, P.C., Defendant Pronske &

Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C., Creditor Gerrit Pronske).

Hearing to be held on 4/28/2014 at 01:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 38

and for 1 and for 36 and for 9, (Blanco, J.) Modified TEXT on 3/27/2014 (Blanco,

J.).) No. of Notices: 0. Notice Date 03/29/2014. (Admin.)

04/07/2014

43 (2 pgs) Plaintiff's Verified Objection to (related document(s): 38 Application

for writ of garnishment filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C.,

Defendant Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., 3rd Party Plaintiff Pronske & Patel, P.C.,

Defendant Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.,

Creditor Gerrit Pronske) filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron . (Brown, D.)

04/08/2014

44 (2 pgs) Withdrawal filed by Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &

Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske

Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (RE: related document(s)36 Motion for leave

(Defendants' Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement)). (Goolsby, Melanie)

04/08/2014

45 (2 pgs) Withdrawal filed by Defendants Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &

Patel, P.C., Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske & Patel, P.C., Creditor Pronske

Goolsby & Kathman, P.C. (RE: related document(s)38 Application for writ of

garnishment ). (Goolsby, Melanie)

04/28/2014

46 (2 pgs) Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice on Behalf of Jeffrey

Baron by Leonard H. Simon filed by Plaintiff Jeff Baron. (Simon, Leonard)

04/28/2014

Hearing held on 4/28/2014. (RE: related document(s)9 Motion for remand and

Motion to Strike filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron filed

by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron) Appearances: G. Pronske

and M. Goolsby for Defendants; L. Simon for Plaintiff (pursuant to a Notice of

Appearance filed approximately 1:00 am on 4/28/14; it was represented that Mr.

Baron was ill and would not attend hearing). Motion granted, for reasons stated on

the record. Mr. Simon instructed to submit Order remanding action to state court.

(Harden, D.)

04/28/2014

Status conference held on 4/28/2014. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case

10-03281. Complaint by Jeff Baron against Gerrit M. Pronske, P.C., Pronske &

Patel, P.C.. Fee Amount $250. Nature(s) of suit: 01 (Determination of removed

claim or cause). filed by Counter-Defendant Jeff Baron, Plaintiff Jeff Baron)

Appearances: G. Pronske and M. Goolsby for Defendants; L. Simon for Plaintiff

(pursuant to a Notice of Appearance filed approximately 1:00 am on 4/28/14; it

was represented that Mr. Baron was ill and would not attend hearing). Court will

remand action, for reasons stated on the record. Mr. Simon instructed to submit

Order remanding action to state court. (Harden, D.)

Page 11 of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

05/05/201

(2 pgs) Order granting motion for remand case back to the 193rd Judicial

District Court, Dallas County, Texas (related document # 9) Entered on 5/5/2014.

(Moroles, D.)

05/07/2014

48 (4 pgs) BNC certificate of mailing - PDF document. (RE: related document(s)

47 Order granting motion for remand case back to the 193rd Judicial District

Court, Dallas County, Texas (related document 9) Entered on 5/5/2014. (Moroles,

D.)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 05/07/2014. (Admin.)

05/21/2014 49 (1 pg) Notice of remand (Bibbs, P.)

06/18/2014

50 Request for transcript (ruling only) regarding a hearing held on 4/28/2014. The

requested turn-around time is 7-day expedited (Baird, Dennis)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/19/2014 10:20:51

PACER

ls1001

Client

Code:

Description:

Docket

Report

Criteria:

10-03281-sgj Fil or Ent: filed From:

6/5/2010 To: 6/19/2014 Doc From: 0

Doc To: 99999999 Term: included

Headers: included Format: html Page

counts for documents: included

Billable

Pages:

9 Cost: 0.90

Page 1

of 1

U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Northern District of Texas

201

https://ecf.txnb.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?756683518278421-L_1_0-1

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 1 of 7

Gerrit M. Pronske

State Bar No. 16351640

Melanie P. Goolsby

State Bar No. 24059841

PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 658-6500 - Telephone

(214) 658-6509 – Telecopier

Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com

Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com

COUNSEL FOR GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND

PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC,

F/K/A PRONSKE & PATEL, PC

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,

Debtor.

CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11

CHAPTER 11

JEFF BARON,

Plaintiff,

GERRIT M. PRONSKE,

INDIVIDUALLY, AND PRONSKE &

PATEL, P.C.,

Defendants.

ADVERSARY NO. 10-03281-SGJ

GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND

PRONSKE & PATEL, P.C.,

Counter-Plaintiffs and Third-

Party Plaintiffs,

JEFF BARON,

Counter-Defendant, and

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 1 of 7

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 2 of 7

THE VILLAGE TRUST,

Third-Party Defendant.

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT

TO THE HONORABLE STACEY G.C. JERNIGAN,

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Gerrit M. Pronske (“Pronske”) and Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske

& Patel, PC (“PGK” and, together with Pronske, the “Defendants”), defendants, cross-

plaintiffs, and third party plaintiffs in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, hereby

file this Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement (the “Motion”), and in support of this

Motion, state as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Involuntary Case

1. On December 18, 2012 (the “Petition Date”), PGK and other petitioning

creditors (together, the “Petitioning Creditors”) filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition

against Jeffrey Baron (“Baron” or the “Debtor”) under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code

[Docket No. 1, later amended at Docket No. 45].

2. On June 26, 2013, after conducting an involuntary trial over two days, the

Court entered an Order for Relief in an Involuntary Case (the “Order for Relief”) [Docket

No. 240].

3. On January 2, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas (the “District Court”) entered an Amended Memorandum Opinion and

Order reversing this Court’s Order for Relief and remanding the matter to this Court the

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 2 of 7

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 3 of 7

limited purpose of considering potential claims for attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i)

and dismissal of the case.

4. PGK and the other Petitioning Creditors have appealed the District Court’s

reversal of the Order for Relief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

They also requested stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal, which was denied by

the Fifth Circuit on March 6, 2014.

5. The District Court has recently entered an order requiring the Baron

Receiver to return receivership assets to Baron, Novo Point LLC, and Quantec LLC on or

before March 14, 2014. See Order entered February 28, 2014 at Document No. 1368 in

Netsphere, Inc., et al v. Baron, et al, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0988-L.

B. The Ondova Adversary Proceeding

6. Prior to the Petition Date, on September 15, 2010, Baron filed his Original

Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Original Petition, Application for Temporary

Restraining Order and Request for Disclosure (the “Complaint”) against Gerrit M.

Pronske, individually, and Pronske & Patel, PC (together, the “Defendants”) in the 193rd

Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the “State Court”).

7. On that same date, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal of the

Complaint to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas in the

bankruptcy case styled In re Ondova Limited Company, Case. No. 09-34784-SGJ-11 (the

“Ondova Case”).

8. On September 27, 2010, the Defendants filed their Original Answer and

Counter-Claim and Third Party Complaint (the “Answer”). The Answer states claims

against Baron and The Village Trust for theft of services, breach of contract, quantum

meruit, attorney’s fees, fraud, and alter ego.

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 3 of 7

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 4 of 7

9. On November 3, 2010, this Court entered its Order Abating Adversary

Proceeding and Setting Status Conference temporarily abating the adversary proceeding to

December 16, 2010.

10. The adversary proceeding has continued to be abated and/or stayed by the

intervening involuntary bankruptcy case against Baron since November 3, 2010, and the

Court has not conducted a hearing or entered an order on Baron’s Motion to Remand and

Motion to Strike Notice of Removal.

II. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

11. There is no longer cause to abate the adversary proceeding because of

intervening proceedings that address the subject matter of the parties’ dispute. The

adversary proceeding was first abated after the appointment of the Receiver by the District

Court, and the abatement continued throughout the duration of the Baron Receivership.

Yet the circumstances have changed substantially since November 2010. The Fifth Circuit

has reversed and vacated the appointment of the Receiver, and the District Court is taking

steps to expeditiously wind-down the Receivership, including the return of Baron’s assets

on or before March 14, 2014. As a result, Baron is soon to be in possession of his assets,

and the Receiver will soon be discharged from his duties under the Receivership Order.

These significant changes in circumstances support lifting the abatement of the removed

State Court lawsuit so that the parties may be free to pursue their claims against each other.

12. Although never expressly articulated by the Court, the abatement of the

adversary proceeding continued past the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of the Receivership Order

because of the intervening involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Baron immediately

after the Fifth Circuit’s opinion reversing the Receivership Order was released. As before,

the circumstances of the involuntary bankruptcy against Baron have also materially

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 4 of 7

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 5 of 7

changed. The District Court reversed the Order for Relief on appeal entered against Baron

in the involuntary matter, and although that reversal has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit,

the Fifth Circuit has declined to stay the reversal pending resolution of the appeal.

Although the involuntary case is still open, all that remains to be resolved prior to

dismissal of the case is the potential assessment of attorneys’ fees against the Petitioning

Creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i). The Defendants have filed a motion for relief from the

bankruptcy automatic stay in Baron’s individual bankruptcy case contemporaneously with

the filing of this Motion, although the Defendants believe Baron is judicially estopped

from opposing relief from the automatic stay given his prior positions and arguments

during the course of the appeal of the Order for Relief. For these reasons, the intervening

involuntary bankruptcy case against Baron no longer supports abatement of the adversary

proceeding.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully request that

the Court grant this Motion, lift the abatement of the above-captioned adversary

proceeding, and grant Defendants such other, further relief to which they may be entitled.

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 5 of 7

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 6 of 7

Dated: March 13, 2014. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske

Gerrit M. Pronske

State Bar No. 16351640

Melanie P. Goolsby

State Bar No. 24059841

PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 658-6500 - Telephone

(214) 658-6509 – Telecopier

Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com

Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com

COUNSEL FOR GERRIT M. PRONSKE

AND PRONSKE GOOLSBY &

KATHMAN, PC, F/K/A PRONSKE &

PATEL, PC

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on March 11, 2014, I conferred with Leonard

Simon, proposed counsel for Baron, regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who

indicated that Baron is opposed to the relief requested herein.

/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske

Gerrit M. Pronske

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 6 of 7

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT - Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that, on March 13, 2014, a true and correct

copy of the above and foregoing Motion was served upon the Debtor via email as

identified below, and also via ECF email on all parties accepting such service. Any party

may request a copy of the attached exhibits to the undersigned counsel.

Stephen Cochell

The Cochell Law Firm

7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259

Houston, Texas 77024

srcochell@cochellfirm.com

COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR

Leonard H. Simon

Pendergraft & Simon, LLP

The Riviana Building, Suite 800

2777 Allen Parkway

Houston, Texas 77019

lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com

PROPOSED COUNSEL FOR THE

DEBTOR

/s/ Melanie P. Goolsby

Melanie P. Goolsby

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 36 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:09:51 Page 7 of 7

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 1 OF 5

Gerrit M. Pronske

State Bar No. 16351640

Melanie P. Goolsby

State Bar No. 24059841

PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 658-6500 - Telephone

(214) 658-6509 – Telecopier

Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com

Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

JEFFREY BARON,

Debtor.

CASE NO. 12-37921-7

INVOLUNTARY CHAPTER 7

PROCEEDING

In re:

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,

Debtor.

CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11

CHAPTER 11

GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND PRONSKE

& PATEL, P.C.,

Counter-Plaintiffs and Third-Party

Plaintiffs,

JEFF BARON,

Counter-Defendant, and

THE VILLAGE TRUST,

Third-Party Defendant.

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 1 of 5

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 2 OF 5

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Gerrit Pronske and Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske & Patel, P.C.

(“PGK” and, together with Gerrit Pronske, the “Movants”) file this Motion for Emergency

Hearing (the “Motion for Emergency Hearing”) on their: (i) Emergency Motion for Relief from

stay filed in In re Jeffrey Baron, Case No. 12-37921-7, and (ii) Emergency Motion to Lift

Abatement filed in Baron v. Pronske, et al, Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03281-SGJ. In support

of the Motion for Emergency Hearing, Movants respectfully show the Court as follows:

1. On December 18, 2012 (the “Petition Date”), PGK and other petitioning creditors

(together, the “Petitioning Creditors”) filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Jeffrey

Baron (“Baron” or the “Debtor”) under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code [Baron Docket No. 1,

later amended at Docket No. 45].

2. On June 26, 2013, after conducting an involuntary trial over two days, the Court

entered an Order for Relief in an Involuntary Case (the “Order for Relief”) [Baron Docket No.

240].

3. On January 2, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Texas (the “District Court”) entered an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing

this Court’s Order for Relief and remanding the matter to this Court the limited purpose of

considering potential claims for attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) and dismissal of the

case.

4. PGK and the other Petitioning Creditors have appealed the District Court’s

reversal of the Order for Relief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They

also requested stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal, which was denied by the Fifth

Circuit on March 6, 2014.

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 2 of 5

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 3 OF 5

5. The District Court has recently entered an order requiring the Baron Receiver to

return receivership assets to Baron, Novo Point LLC, and Quantec LLC on or before March 14,

2014. See Order entered February 28, 2014 at Document No. 1368 in Netsphere, Inc., et al v.

Baron, et al, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0988-L. Upon information and belief, this includes

possession, custody, and control over certain investment accounts Baron, some of which

accounts Baron alleges to be qualified IRA accounts.

6. The Movants are gravely concerned that, immediately upon the imminent return

of Baron’s personal assets from the Receivership, Baron intends to remove those assets beyond

the reach of his creditors, possibly to off-shore trusts in The Cook Islands. Movants therefore

seek emergency relief in the Baron bankruptcy case for relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay

and emergency relief in the Baron v. Pronske adversary case to lift the abatement of that

proceeding and move forward with any and all rights and remedies available to Movants under

applicable law to protect their interests vis-à-vis Baron and his personal assets.

7. Movants respectfully request that the Court set emergency hearings on these

matters on Friday, March 14, 2014, the date Movants expect Baron to regain possession of his

personal assets from the Receiver, or otherwise at the earliest convenience of the Court. Movants

are seeking emergency relief at the earliest possible moment after learning of the District Court’s

orders concerning objections to the March 14, 2014 distribution date and confirming the

Receiver’s intent to return possession of Receivership assets to Baron by tomorrow.

8. Notice of the Motion is being given to counsel for Baron and the Chapter 7

Trustee by email, as set forth in the Certificate of Service below.

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 3 of 5

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 4 OF 5

WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully request that the Court: (i) grant this Motion for

Emergency Hearing; (ii) set an emergency hearing to consider the Motions; and (iv) grant the

Movants such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled.

Dated: March 13, 2014. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske

Gerrit M. Pronske

Texas Bar No. 16351640

Melanie P. Goolsby

State Bar No. 24059841

PRONSKE GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, PC

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5350

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: 214.658.6500

Facsimile: 214.658.6509

Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com

Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on March 11, 2014, I conferred with Leonard

Simon, proposed counsel for Baron, regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who indicated

that Baron is opposed to the relief requested herein.

/s/ Gerrit M. Pronske

Gerrit M. Pronske

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 4 of 5

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING -- PAGE 5 OF 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that, on March 13, 2014, a true and correct copy of

the above and foregoing Motion was served upon the Debtor and counsel for the Trustee via

email as identified below, and also via ECF email on all parties accepting such service. Any

party may request a copy of the attached exhibits to the undersigned counsel.

Stephen Cochell

The Cochell Law Firm

7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259

Houston, Texas 77024

srcochell@cochellfirm.com

COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR

Kevin McCullough

Kathryn Reid

Rochelle McCullough, LLP

325 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 4500

Dallas, Texas 75201

kdm@romclawyers.com

kreid@romclawyers.com

ATTORNEYS FOR JOHN LITZLER, CH.

7 TRUSTEE

Leonard H. Simon

Pendergraft & Simon, LLP

The Riviana Building, Suite 800

2777 Allen Parkway

Houston, Texas 77019

lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com

PROPOSED COUNSEL FOR THE

DEBTOR

/s/ Melanie P. Goolsby

Melanie P. Goolsby

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 37 Filed 03/13/14 Entered 03/13/14 15:11:22 Page 5 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, § CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11

Debtor. § (Chapter 11)

_____________________________________________________________________________

JEFF BARON, §

Plaintiff, § Adversary No. 10-03281

v. §

GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND PRONSKE §

& PATEL, P.C., §

Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, and §

Third-Party Plaintiffs, §

ENTERED

ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

Signed March 14, 2014

______________________________________________________________________

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE DATE OF ENTRY IS

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 39 Filed 03/14/14 Entered 03/14/14 11:47:13 Page 1 of 2

v. §

JEFF BARON, §

Counter-Defendant, and §

THE VILLAGE TRUST, §

Third-Party Defendant. §

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING [DE # 37]

Came on for consideration the Motion for Emergency Hearing (the “Motion”) [DE # 37]

filed March 13, 2014, by Gerrit Pronske and Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske &

Patel, P.C. in the above-referenced adversary proceeding. After a review of the Motion, the

court does not find good cause to grant the relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

### END OF ORDER ###

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 39 Filed 03/14/14 Entered 03/14/14 11:47:13 Page 2 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, § CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11

Debtor. § (Chapter 11)

_____________________________________________________________________________

JEFF BARON, §

Plaintiff, § Adversary No. 10-03281

v. §

GERRIT M. PRONSKE AND PRONSKE §

& PATEL, P.C., §

Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, and §

Third-Party Plaintiffs, §

ENTERED

ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

Signed March 27, 2014

______________________________________________________________________

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE DATE OF ENTRY IS

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 41 Filed 03/27/14 Entered 03/27/14 12:10:49 Page 1 of 3

v. §

JEFF BARON, §

Counter-Defendant, and §

THE VILLAGE TRUST, §

Third-Party Defendant. §

ORDER: (1) SETTING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY

MOTION TO LIFT ABATEMENT [DE # 36]; (2) SETTING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND AND MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF

REMOVAL [DE # 9]; (3) SETTING HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR PRE-

JUDGMENT WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS [DE # 38]; AND

(4) SETTING GENERAL STATUS CONFERENCE

On September 15, 2010, Jeff Baron (the “Plaintiff”) filed Plaintiff’s Original Petition for

Declaratory Judgment, Original Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order and

Request for Disclosure in the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Cause No.

10-11915 (the “State Court Case”). On September 15, 2010, Gerrit M. Pronske, Individually and

Pronske & Patel, P.C., filed a Notice of Removal [DE # 1] of the State Court Case thereby

initiating the above-referenced adversary proceeding (the “Adversary Proceeding”). On October

15, 2010, Jeff Baron filed a Motion for Remand and Motion to Strike Notice of Removal and

Brief in Support in the Adversary Proceeding (the “Motion for Remand”) [DE ## 9, 10, and 11].

On November 3, 2010, this court entered an Order Abating Adversary Proceeding and Setting

Status Conference [DE # 13] which abated the Adversary Proceeding until December 16, 2010

and also set a status conference in the Adversary Proceeding for December 16, 2010. After

several continued status conferences, the court abated the Adversary Proceeding indefinitely at a

hearing held on January 9, 2012 without prejudice to any party’s motion to move forward in the

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 41 Filed 03/27/14 Entered 03/27/14 12:10:49 Page 2 of 3

Adversary Proceeding. On March 13, 2014, Gerrit M. Pronske and Pronske Goolsby &

Kathman, PC, f/k/a Pronske & Patel, P.C. (collectively, the “Pronske Firm”) filed Defendants’

Emergency Motion to Lift Abatement (the “Motion to Lift Abatement”) [DE # 36].

Additionally, the Pronske Firm filed an Application for Pre-Judgment Writ of Garnishment

Against Defendant (the “Writ of Garnishment”) [DE # 38]. Having reviewed the relief requested

in the Motion for Remand, the Motion to Lift Abatement, and the Writ of Garnishment, it is

ORDERED that a hearing will be held on the Motion to Lift Abatement on April 28,

2014 at 1:30 p.m.; it is further

ORDERED that a hearing will be held on the Writ of Garnishment on April 28, 2014 at

1:30 p.m.; it is further

ORDERED that a hearing will be held on the Motion for Remand on April 28, 2014 at

1:30 p.m.; and it is further

ORDERED that a general status conference will be held on the Adversary Proceeding on

April 28, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

### END OF ORDER ###

The court denied the Defendants’ request for an expedited hearing on the Motion to Lift Abatement. See

DE # 39.

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 41 Filed 03/27/14 Entered 03/27/14 12:10:49 Page 3 of 3

______________________________________________________

ORDER REMANDING CASE - Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,

Debtor.

CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ-11

CHAPTER 11

JEFF BARON,

Plaintiff and

Counter-Defendant,

GERRIT M. PRONSKE,

INDIVIDUALLY, AND PRONSKE &

PATEL, P.C.,

Defendants and

Counter-Defendants.

ADVERSARY NO. 10-03281-SGJ

ORDER REMANDING CASE

[Referring to ECF Doc 9]

Came on for consideration and hearing Jeffrey Baron’s Motion to Remand and Motion to

Strike Notice of Removal. ECF Doc 9. The Court set the matter for hearing, sua sponte, and

ENTERED

ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

Signed May 5, 2014

______________________________________________________________________

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE DATE OF ENTRY IS

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 47 Filed 05/05/14 Entered 05/05/14 12:19:47 Page 1 of 2

______________________________________________________

ORDER REMANDING CASE - Page 2 of 2

conducted a hearing on April 28, 2014, at 1:30 pm. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Baron, appeared through

his counsel, Leonard H. Simon, who made an appearance earlier that day, and Defendants

appeared through their counsel, Gerrit Pronske. The Court Considered the arguments of counsel

and the pleadings on file, and recited certain findings of fact and conclusions of law into the

record, which are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. The Court determined that

the captioned adversary proceeding should be remanded. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the captioned adversary proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded back

to the 193

Judicial District Court in and for Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. 10-11915, where

the case was pending before it was removed.

###END OF ORDER###

ORDER PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:

/s/ Leonard H. Simon

Leonard H. Simon, Esq.

TBN: 18387400; SDOT: 8200

PENDERGRAFT & SIMON, L.L.P.

The Riviana Building

2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77019

(713) 727-8207 (Direct Line)

(832) 202-2810 (Direct Telecopy)

lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com

ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR

JEFFREY BARON

Case 10-03281-sgj Doc 47 Filed 05/05/14 Entered 05/05/14 12:19:47 Page 2 of 2

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 1 of 14 PageID 2141

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2142

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 3 of 14 PageID 2143

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 4 of 14 PageID 2144

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 5 of 14 PageID 2145

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 6 of 14 PageID 2146

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 7 of 14 PageID 2147

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 8 of 14 PageID 2148

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 9 of 14 PageID 2149

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 10 of 14 PageID 2150

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 11 of 14 PageID 2151

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 12 of 14 PageID 2152

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 13 of 14 PageID 2153

Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 130 Filed 11/24/10 Page 14 of 14 PageID 2154

Page 1

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

NETSPHERE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey BARON, Defendant–Appellant,

Ondova Limited Company, Defendant–Appellee.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, et al., Defendants,

Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant,

Daniel J. Sherman, Appellee.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, et al., Defendants,

Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.

Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Ondova Limited Company, Defendant–Appellee.

Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.

Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.,

Appellant,

Peter S. Vogel; Daniel J. Sherman, Appellees.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.

Quantec, L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Gary Schepps, Appellant,

Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.

In re Novo Point, L.L.C., Petitioner.

Netsphere, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.

Novo Point, L.L.C.; Quantec, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Peter S. Vogel; Daniel J. Sherman, Appellees.

Netsphere, Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Baron, Defendant–Appellant.

Quantec L.L.C.; Novo Point, L.L.C., Mo-

vants–Appellants,

Peter S. Vogel, Appellee.

Nos. 10–11202, 11–10113, 11–10289, 11–10290,

11–10390, 11–10501, 12–10003, 12–10444,

12–10489, 12–10657, 12–10804 and 12–11082.

Dec. 18, 2012.

Background: Plaintiffs brought action to enforce

prior settlement agreement against individual de-

fendant, one of defendant's companies, and others.

Trustee in intervening bankruptcy case of defendant's

Page 2

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

company filed emergency motion for appointment of

receiver over individual defendant's property. The

United States District Court for the Northern District

of Texas, W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., J., entered receiv-

ership order. Defendant appealed receivership and

other orders, and other appeals and petition for writ of

mandamus were also filed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Leslie H. South-

wick, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) receivership was not needed to allow district court

to take control of property that was subject of litiga-

tion;

(2) district court lacked authority to establish receiv-

ership to secure pool of assets to pay defendant's

former attorneys;

(3) district court could not appoint receiver as means

of controlling defendant's vexatious litigation tactics;

(4) charging receivership fund for reasonable receiv-

ership expenses, without allowing any additional

assets to be sold, was equitable;

(5) determination that appointment of receiver was

improper required district court's reconsideration of

receivership fees and expenses; and

(6) defendant waived, on appeal, issue of legal suffi-

ciency of his affidavits seeking recusal.

Ordered accordingly.

West Headnotes

[1] Federal Courts 170B 813

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(K) Scope, Standards, and Extent

170BVIII(K)4 Discretion of Lower Court

170Bk813 k. Allowance of remedy and

matters of procedure in general. Most Cited Cases

Court of Appeals reviews district court's ap-

pointment of a receiver for an abuse of discretion.

[2] Receivers 323 9

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k9 k. Persons entitled to appointment of

receiver. Most Cited Cases

Under procedural rule addressing receivers, ap-

pointment of a receiver can be sought by anyone

showing an interest in certain property or a relation to

the party in control or ownership thereof such as to

justify conservation of the property by a court officer.

Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 66, 28 U.S.C.A.

[3] Receivers 323 16

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver

323k15 Preservation of Property Pending

Litigation

323k16 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

District court has authority to place into receiv-

ership assets in litigation to preserve and protect the

property pending its final disposition. Fed.Rules

Civ.Proc.Rule 66, 28 U.S.C.A.

[4] Receivers 323 1

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k1 k. Nature and purpose of remedy.

Most Cited Cases

Receivers 323 6

323 Receivers

Page 3

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k6 k. Existence of and resort to other

remedy. Most Cited Cases

Receivers 323 14

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver

323k14 k. Preservation and protection of

property in general. Most Cited Cases

Receivership is an extraordinary remedy that

should be employed with the utmost caution, and is

justified only where there is a clear necessity to protect

a party's interest in property, legal and less drastic

equitable remedies are inadequate, and the benefits of

receivership outweigh the burdens on the affected

parties. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 66, 28 U.S.C.A.

[5] Receivers 323 11

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k11 k. Property which may be subject of

receivership. Most Cited Cases

Equity does not allow a receivership to be im-

posed over property that was not the subject of the

underlying dispute.

[6] Execution 161 405

161 Execution

161XIV Supplementary Proceedings

161k404 Receivers

161k405 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

A receivership is a remedy for taking possession

of a judgment debtor's property.

[7] Execution 161 405

161 Execution

161XIV Supplementary Proceedings

161k404 Receivers

161k405 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Fraudulent Conveyances 186 305

186 Fraudulent Conveyances

186III Remedies of Creditors and Purchasers

186III(L) Receiver

186k305 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Receivership can be used when a judgment cred-

itor seeks to set aside allegedly fraudulent convey-

ances by judgment debtor, or who has had execution

issued and returned unsatisfied, or who otherwise is

attempting to have debtor's property preserved from

dissipation until his claim can be satisfied.

[8] Securities Regulation 349B 182

349B Securities Regulation

349BI Federal Regulation

349BI(E) Remedies

349BI(E)3 Receivership

349Bk182 k. In general. Most Cited

Cases

In cases of non-compliance with Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, a receiver

may be appointed to prevent the corporation from

dissipating corporate assets and to pay defrauded

investors.

[9] Federal Courts 170B 10.1

170B Federal Courts

Page 4

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

170BI Jurisdiction and Powers in General

170BI(A) In General

170Bk10 Issuance of Writs

170Bk10.1 k. In general. Most Cited

Cases

The All Writs Act empowers a federal court to

employ procedures necessary to promote the resolu-

tion of issues in a case properly before it; this author-

ity, though, is firmly circumscribed, its scope de-

pending on the nature of the case before the court and

the legitimacy of the ends sought to be achieved

through the exercise of the power. 28 U.S.C.A. §

1651.

[10] Federal Courts 170B 10.1

170B Federal Courts

170BI Jurisdiction and Powers in General

170BI(A) In General

170Bk10 Issuance of Writs

170Bk10.1 k. In general. Most Cited

Cases

Under All Writs Act, court is limited to issuing

orders to curb conduct which threatens improperly to

impede or defeat the subject matter jurisdiction then

being exercised by the court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651.

[11] Receivers 323 16

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver

323k15 Preservation of Property Pending

Litigation

323k16 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Receivership appointed over individual defend-

ant's personal property and entities that he owned or

controlled was not needed to allow district court to

take control of property that was subject of litigation,

where underlying action concerned enforcement of

global settlement agreement and resulting transfer of

internet domain names, and defendant, despite en-

gaging in actions that disrupted, complicated, and

made more expensive both action before district court

and related bankruptcy case, had not threatened to

nullify settlement agreement by transferring domain

names outside district court's jurisdiction.

[12] Receivers 323 9

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k9 k. Persons entitled to appointment of

receiver. Most Cited Cases

Receivers 323 12

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver

323k12 k. Right or interest in property re-

quiring protection. Most Cited Cases

Receiver may be appointed for a secured creditor

who has legitimate fears that his security may be dis-

sipated, but unsecured simple contract creditor has, in

the absence of a statute, no substantive right, legal or

equitable, in or to the property of his debtor.

[13] Receivers 323 9

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k9 k. Persons entitled to appointment of

receiver. Most Cited Cases

District court lacked authority, in action to en-

force settlement agreement, to establish receivership

Page 5

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

over individual defendant's personal property and

entities that he owned or controlled to secure pool of

assets to pay defendant's former attorneys, who were

unsecured contract creditors without judgments

against defendant; although attorneys' allegations and

claims were delaying district court and related bank-

ruptcy court proceedings, they were not the subject of

the underlying litigation.

[14] Receivers 323 16

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver

323k15 Preservation of Property Pending

Litigation

323k16 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Receivers may be appointed to preserve property

pending final determination of its distribution in sup-

plementary proceedings in aid of execution.

[15] Injunction 212 1231

212 Injunction

212IV Particular Subjects of Relief

212IV(D) Property in General

212k1231 k. Freezing or protecting assets

pending litigation. Most Cited Cases

General federal rule of equity is that a court may

not reach a defendant's assets unrelated to the under-

lying litigation and freeze them so that they may be

preserved to satisfy a potential money judgment.

[16] Receivers 323 29(2)

323 Receivers

323II Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure

323k29 Jurisdiction and Authority of Court or

Judge

323k29(2) k. Property or owner thereof

beyond jurisdiction of court. Most Cited Cases

Court lacks jurisdiction to impose a receivership

over property that is not the subject of an underlying

claim or controversy.

[17] Internal Revenue 220 4801

220 Internal Revenue

220XXIII Liens

220k4794 Actions to Enforce Lien

220k4801 k. Receivers. Most Cited Cases

District court may use authority from tax statute

governing actions to enforce liens or to subject prop-

erty to payment of tax to appoint a receiver over

debtor's assets in a proceeding to enforce a tax lien if

the government makes the necessary showing of need.

26 U.S.C.A. § 7403.

[18] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 2820

170A Federal Civil Procedure

170AXX Sanctions

170AXX(D) Type and Amount

170Ak2820 k. Non-monetary sanctions.

Most Cited Cases

District court, in action to enforce settlement

agreement, could not appoint receiver over individual

defendant's personal property and entities that he

owned or controlled as means of controlling defend-

ant's vexatious litigation tactics, which included ig-

noring court orders and hiring and firing attorneys,

thereby delaying court proceedings, increasing gen-

eral cost of litigation, and increasing expenses for

estate in related bankruptcy case, even if traditional

means of addressing such actions were insufficient to

prevent defendant's behavior.

Page 6

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

[19] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 1991

170A Federal Civil Procedure

170AXV Trial

170AXV(B) Time for Trial; Dockets, Lists and

Calendars

170Ak1991 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Receivers 323 11

323 Receivers

323I Nature and Grounds of Receivership

323I(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy

323k11 k. Property which may be subject of

receivership. Most Cited Cases

Court has undeniable authority to control its

docket, but not through creating a receivership over

assets, including personal assets, that are not the sub-

ject of the litigation.

[20] Receivers 323 200

323 Receivers

323VII Accounting and Compensation

323k200 k. Liabilities of parties, property, or

funds for compensation and expenses. Most Cited

Cases

When a receivership is proper, the general rule is

that receivership fees and expenses are a charge upon

the property administered.

[21] Receivers 323 200

323 Receivers

323VII Accounting and Compensation

323k200 k. Liabilities of parties, property, or

funds for compensation and expenses. Most Cited

Cases

Equity controls when addressing the costs created

by an improper receivership.

[22] Receivers 323 200

323 Receivers

323VII Accounting and Compensation

323k200 k. Liabilities of parties, property, or

funds for compensation and expenses. Most Cited

Cases

Charging receivership fund for reasonable re-

ceivership expenses, without allowing any additional

assets to be sold, was equitable in action to enforce

settlement agreement in which district court improp-

erly appointed receiver for individual defendant's

personal property and entities that he owned or con-

trolled to address defendant's vexatious behavior and

to conserve property for defendant's unpaid attorney

fees, given that circumstances leading to receivership

were largely of defendant's own making and, to a large

extent, defendant's actions resulted in more work and

fees for receiver and his attorneys, and that there was

no malice or wrongful purpose behind receiver's ap-

pointment.

[23] Federal Courts 170B 945

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(L) Determination and Disposition of

Cause

170Bk943 Ordering New Trial or Other

Proceeding

170Bk945 k. Determination of damages,

costs or interest; remittitur. Most Cited Cases

Receivers 323 154(1)

323 Receivers

323V Allowance and Payment of Claims

323k154 Expenses of Receivership

Page 7

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

323k154(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Determination, on appeal, that district court's

appointment of receiver over individual defendant's

personal property and entities that he owned or con-

trolled was improper in action to enforce settlement

agreement required that district court, on remand,

reconsider amount of all receivership fees and ex-

penses, as well as any other payments made from

receivership fund, as appropriate, and that charges had

to go unpaid to the extent that new determination by

district court of reasonable fees and expenses to be

paid exceeded cash on hand.

[24] Federal Courts 170B 723.1

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(I) Dismissal, Withdrawal or Aban-

donment

170Bk723 Want of Actual Controversy

170Bk723.1 k. In general. Most Cited

Cases

An appeal must be dismissed when an event oc-

curs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it

impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief

whatever to a prevailing party.

[25] Federal Courts 170B 723.1

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(I) Dismissal, Withdrawal or Aban-

donment

170Bk723 Want of Actual Controversy

170Bk723.1 k. In general. Most Cited

Cases

Appellate court's continued jurisdiction does not

depend upon being able to provide complete relief; if

there is some means by which court can effectuate a

partial remedy, case remains a live controversy.

[26] Federal Courts 170B 724

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(I) Dismissal, Withdrawal or Aban-

donment

170Bk723 Want of Actual Controversy

170Bk724 k. Particular cases. Most

Cited Cases

Defendant's challenge on appeal to receiver's

subpoena of records for his attorney's trust fund ac-

count was rendered “moot,” given that records had

been produced and reviewed by receiver, such that

there was no relief that Court of Appeals could pro-

vide.

[27] Judges 227 49(1)

227 Judges

227IV Disqualification to Act

227k49 Bias and Prejudice

227k49(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Judges 227 51(2)

227 Judges

227IV Disqualification to Act

227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings

Thereon

227k51(2) k. Time of making objection.

Most Cited Cases

Judges 227 51(3)

227 Judges

227IV Disqualification to Act

227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings

Thereon

Page 8

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

227k51(3) k. Sufficiency of objection or

affidavit. Most Cited Cases

A judge is to recuse himself if a party to the pro-

ceeding makes and files a timely and sufficient affi-

davit that the judge before whom the matter is pending

has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or

in favor of any adverse party. 28 U.S.C.A. § 144.

[28] Federal Courts 170B 586

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(C) Decisions Reviewable

170BVIII(C)2 Finality of Determination

170Bk585 Particular Judgments, De-

crees or Orders, Finality

170Bk586 k. Transferring cases;

disqualifying judges; convening three-judge courts.

Most Cited Cases

District court's ruling with respect to affidavit in

support of motion for recusal is appealable under

statute governing appeals of interlocutory orders. 28

U.S.C.A. §§ 144, 1292(b).

[29] Judges 227 51(4)

227 Judges

227IV Disqualification to Act

227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings

Thereon

227k51(4) k. Determination of objections.

Most Cited Cases

When motion for recusal is filed based on party's

affidavit that judge has personal bias or prejudice,

district court must pass on legal sufficiency of affida-

vit without passing on the truth of the matter asserted.

28 U.S.C.A. § 144.

[30] Judges 227 51(3)

227 Judges

227IV Disqualification to Act

227k51 Objections to Judge, and Proceedings

Thereon

227k51(3) k. Sufficiency of objection or

affidavit. Most Cited Cases

Legally sufficient affidavit in support of motion

for recusal due to judge's personal bias must (1) state

material facts with particularity, (2) state facts that, if

true, would convince a reasonable person that a bias

exists, and (3) state facts that show the bias is per-

sonal, as opposed to judicial, in nature. 28 U.S.C.A. §

144.

[31] Federal Courts 170B 617

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(D) Presentation and Reservation in

Lower Court of Grounds of Review

170BVIII(D)1 Issues and Questions in

Lower Court

170Bk617 k. Sufficiency of presentation

of questions. Most Cited Cases

Defendant waived, on appeal, issue of legal suf-

ficiency of his affidavits seeking recusal based on

judge's alleged personal bias, where district court

considered original affidavit, determined that it was

insufficient and ordered defendant to correct defi-

ciency, defendant submitted second affidavit which he

admitted did not comply with court's order, and de-

fendant did not file affidavit complying with order,

despite being allowed to do so. 28 U.S.C.A. § 144.

*301 Gary N. Schepps (argued), Schepps Law Offic-

es, Dallas, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.

Richard M. Hunt (argued), Raymond James Urbanik,

Page 9

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

Munsch, Hardt, Kopf & Harr, P.C., Edwin Paul

Keiffer, Wight Ginsberg Brusilow, Dallas, TX, for

Defendant–Appellee.

David John Schenck (argued), Christopher D. Krato-

vil, Dykema Gossett, P.L.L.C., Richard M. Hunt, Curt

M. Covington, Munsch, Hardt, Kopf & Harr, P.C.,

Dallas, TX, for Appellees.

Peter S. Vogel, Gardere Wynne Sewell, L.L.P., Dal-

las, TX, pro se.

Richard M. Hunt (argued), Munsch, Hardt, Kopf &

Harr, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Ondova Ltd. Co., Amicus

Curiae.

Jeffrey Michael Sutherland, Thomas Fenton Allen, Jr.,

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.,

Dallas, TX, for Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas.

Before DeMOSS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON,

Circuit Judges.

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated interlocutory appeals arise

from the district court's appointment of a receiver over

Jeffrey Baron's personal property and entities he

owned or controlled. The district court sought to stop

Baron's practice of regularly firing one lawyer and

hiring a new one. This practice vexed the litigation

involving Baron's alleged breaches of a settlement

agreement and a related bankruptcy. It also created

new claims in bankruptcy by unpaid*302 attorneys.

Baron appealed the receivership order and almost

every order entered by the district court thereafter. We

hold that the appointment of the receiver was an abuse

of discretion and REVERSE and REMAND.

Numerous motions and a writ of mandamus to

overturn the bankruptcy court's striking of notices of

appeal to the district court are also before us. Most are

denied as moot. We address below the motions that

remain relevant.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jeffrey Baron and Munish Krishan formed a joint

venture involving the ownership and sale of internet

domain names. Disputes arose between the venturers,

resulting in at least seven lawsuits. In April 2009, after

four mediation attempts and several years of litigation,

Baron, Krishan, and other parties signed a Memo-

randum of Understanding (“MOU”) settling all dis-

putes. Soon, Baron and one of his companies, Ondova

Limited Company, allegedly breached the MOU. In

May 2009, Krishan and his company, Netsphere, Inc.,

filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas to enforce the MOU.

That suit is the one from which the current appeals

have been brought.

In June 2009, the district court entered a prelim-

inary injunction to compel Baron's compliance with

the MOU. That injunction was later amended to in-

clude a $50,000 per day penalty for a violation. The

injunction was entered to prevent deletion of domain

names and to force compliance with parts of the

MOU. The district court also began expressing con-

cern with the multitude of lawyers appearing for

Baron, concerns that would continue in the months

ahead.

In July 2009, Netsphere moved to have Baron

held in contempt for violating the preliminary injunc-

tion. On the day before the scheduled contempt hear-

ing, Baron caused Ondova to file for bankruptcy,

which automatically stayed the district court litigation.

Netsphere sought to lift the automatic stay, arguing

that the domain names at issue in the lawsuit were not

owned by Ondova and were not subject to the stay.

Ondova allegedly admitted it did not own the domain

names that were the subject of the district court liti-

gation—i.e., the ones involving plaintiff Krishan and

Page 10

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

defendant Baron that the settlement provided would

be divided between them.

The bankruptcy creditors and Ondova eventually

agreed to a settlement, but Baron continued to hire

new lawyers. Many of the lawyers claimed they had

not been paid and began to file claims for legal fees in

the bankruptcy proceedings. In September 2009, in

bankruptcy court, Baron asserted his Fifth Amend-

ment right not to answer questions that might reveal he

was violating the June preliminary injunction. Six

days later, the bankruptcy court appointed Daniel

Sherman as Chapter 11 trustee. The bankruptcy court

recommended that the district court appoint a special

master to mediate among the trustee, Baron, and the

attorneys with claims against the Ondova bankruptcy

estate, but no master was appointed at that time.

Beginning in February 2010, negotiations began

for another settlement. On May 5, 2010, the bank-

ruptcy court held a status conference. If no settlement

could be reached by May 14, the bankruptcy judge

suggested the trustee file to convert the case to one in

Chapter 7. The trustee did so, stating liquidation was

in the best interest of creditors. Several hearings were

held over the next month. On June 22, 2010, the par-

ties announced a global settlement in principle. At a

July 12 *303 bankruptcy court hearing, the parties

represented that most issues had been resolved. Two

days later at another hearing, the bankruptcy judge

approved the settlement subject to six remaining is-

sues.

The settlement, dated July 2, 2010, provided for

the division of domain names between companies

controlled by Baron and Krishan. The odd-numbered

names were assigned to Quantec, LLC, for Baron's

benefit, while Manila Industries, Inc.—under

Krishan's control—was assigned the even-numbered

names. The agreement was not to become effective

until the “Settlement Date,” which was defined as “the

day after the date on which the Bankruptcy Court's

order approving this Agreement becomes a Final Set-

tlement Order.” On July 28, 2010, the bankruptcy

court approved the settlement and ordered it to be fully

executed by July 30. The bankruptcy court maintained

jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under the

agreement. Attached to the agreement was a “Stipu-

lated Dismissal with Prejudice” of the district court

suit. Though signed by the parties and attorneys, the

district court never entered the dismissal.

On September 15, 2010, a hearing was held on the

settlement agreement. The trustee said that 30 or 40

items in the agreement had been completed and the

remaining items were the execution of a supplemental

agreement appointing a trustee of a trust and the

transfer of domain names to Quantec from Manila.

At this hearing, the trustee's attorney also ad-

dressed Baron's repeated hiring and firing of law-

yers—he presented a chart identifying 45 lawyers

whom Baron had not paid. Gerrit Pronske, one of

Baron's former attorneys who was seeking to with-

draw, testified that he worked for Baron full-time for

six months and had not been paid. Pronske testified

that Baron planned to move assets that were at the

time subject to jurisdiction in the United States to a

trust in a foreign country. The trust to which Pronske

was referring was the Village Trust, a Cook Islands

entity which owned Novo Point, LLC and Quantec,

LLC. Its trustee is SouthPac, which is also a Cook

Islands entity, and Baron is the trust's sole beneficiary.

Pronske indicated that the assets being transferred out

of the United States would have been the principal

source of payment for his allegedly unpaid attorney

fees. The attorney for the trustee was concerned be-

cause the money to pay the lawyers and satisfy other

claims would be lost if the domain names that Baron's

entities were to own under the settlement left control

of the trust that was subject to the court's jurisdiction.

At this point, the bankruptcy judge stated that “no

more lawyers [are] going to be allowed. The question

is: Whether any are going to be released; is he going to

be pro se; or is he going to have lawyers?” In light of

Page 11

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

those questions, the bankruptcy judge said she was

considering recommending the district court appoint a

receiver over Baron and his assets “and let that re-

ceiver implement the settlement agreement.” Addi-

tionally, the bankruptcy court ordered Baron to re-

quest from the trust that $330,000 be deposited with

the bankruptcy trustee as security, to be held until

further court order. The money was deposited and held

“to pay [Baron's] obligations.”

On October 13, 2010, in a report and recom-

mendation to the district court, the bankruptcy court

reported substantial progress toward the settlement,

including “steps towards transferring the ‘Odd Names

Portfolio’ portion of the internet domain names to a

new Registrar away from Ondova.” Included in the

order, in bold, was the bankruptcy court's judgment

that Baron's hiring and firing of lawyers was exposing

the Ondova bankruptcy estate*304 to great expense

that should be paid by Baron's other entities such as

Quantec and Novo Point. The court expressed it was

“perhaps most concerned about the risk that the

bankruptcy estate has and will be exposed to admin-

istrative expense claims” because of Baron's failure to

pay lawyers.

Also in this October 13, 2010 report, the bank-

ruptcy court recommended that the district court ap-

point Peter S. Vogel as special master to mediate the

claims for unpaid legal fees. The bankruptcy court

further stated that if Baron chose not to cooperate with

final consummation of the settlement, Baron could

“expect [it] to recommend to His Honor that he ap-

point a receiver over Mr. Baron.” The court adopted

the bankruptcy court's recommendation and appointed

Vogel as special master. Baron again fired his attor-

ney. At this point, the bankruptcy trustee filed an

Emergency Motion for Appointment of a Receiver

over Baron on November 24, 2010. The trustee as-

serted the receivership was necessary because of

Baron's failure to cooperate with the order to mediate

the legal-fee claims and his continued hiring and firing

of lawyers in violation of the court's order. The trustee

argued that Baron's practice of hiring and firing law-

yers would expose the bankruptcy estate to additional

administrative claims and further delay the resolution

of the bankruptcy proceedings. On November 24, the

same day the motion was filed, the district court en-

tered the receivership order without notice to Baron.

On December 2, Baron appealed to the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals and five days later moved for a stay.

While “express[ing] no view on the ultimate merits,”

we held on December 20, that he had made an inad-

equate showing for a stay. Baron renewed his motion

on occasion but was never granted a stay. Somewhat

belatedly, we now express our views on the ultimate

merits.

In the district court, the receiver moved to revise

the receivership order to make it clear that Novo Point,

LLC and Quantec, LLC had always been subject to the

receivership. The original order identified Novo Point,

Inc., and Quantec, Inc., which are actual but distinct

legal entities. The two LLCs filed objections on sev-

eral grounds. At a hearing on December 17, 2010,

attorneys for Novo Point, LLC and Quantec, LLC

appeared and agreed they were subject to the receiv-

ership order. The district court entered an order stating

that the receivership had always included Novo Point,

LLC and Quantec, LLC and ordered the LLCs to

comply with all reasonable instructions given to them

by the receiver. On January 28, 2011, the LLCs filed a

notice of appeal challenging their inclusion as re-

ceivership parties.

On January 4, 2011, the district court held an

evidentiary hearing on Baron's motion to vacate the

receivership order. A month later, the district court

entered an order denying Baron's motion to vacate the

receivership. The district court gave six reasons for

denying the motion to vacate: (1) “Baron hired and

fired counsel in bad faith as a means of delaying court

proceedings [;]” (2) “Baron's vexatious litigation tac-

tics have increased the cost of [the] litigation for all

parties[;]” (3) “Baron's practice of hiring and firing

attorneys exposed the Ondova bankruptcy estate to

Page 12

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

significant expense [;]” (4) “Baron has repeatedly

ignored court orders[;]” (5) “Baron repeatedly hired

attorneys in bad faith without the intention of paying

them[;]” and (6) “the appointment of a receiver is

necessary to stop Baron from attempting to transfer

funds outside the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Nowhere in its order did the district court find that

Baron failed to assign half of the domain names as

required by the settlement agreement.

*305 Baron appealed the appointment of the re-

ceiver and then appealed numerous subsequent orders

entered by the district court. An order appointing a

receiver is appealable to courts of appeals as a matter

of right. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2).

FN1

There is less clar-

ity as to which orders during the pendency of a re-

ceivership may properly be appealed. As we later

discuss, our conclusions about the receivership itself

make most of the later appeals irrelevant.

FN1. In one of the consolidated appeals in

this case, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman &

Blumenthal, L.L.P. (“CCSB”), a firm that

served as counsel to Baron and Ondova in the

bankruptcy proceedings, claimed it is owed

$224,232.69 in unpaid fees. CCSB filed a

separate appeal from the district court's dis-

bursement order providing for payment to

unpaid attorneys. Under the disbursement

order, CCSB is to receive no payments from

the receivership; instead, CCSB is to be paid

out of the Ondova bankruptcy estate. CCSB

agreed that this court lacks jurisdiction over

CCSB's appeal given that the firm filed a

motion to reconsider that remains pending in

the district court. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d

745, 752, n. 13 (5th Cir.2005).

Thus, the CCSB appeal is dismissed.

DISCUSSION

The central issue on appeal is whether a court can

establish a receivership to control a vexatious litigant.

The district court appointed a receiver primarily to

control Baron's hiring, firing, and non-payment of

numerous attorneys. The receiver was granted exclu-

sive control over assets, including Baron's personal

property, that were not at issue in the underlying liti-

gation over the domain names. We find no authority to

permit establishing a receivership for this purpose. We

set out below our reasons for that conclusion and its

effect on what has occurred since the receivership was

put in place.

I. Propriety of the Receivership Order

[1][2][3][4] We review a district court's ap-

pointment of a receiver for an abuse of discretion.

Santibanez v. Weir McMahon & Co., 105 F.3d 234,

242 (5th Cir.1997). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66

gives limited guidance, stating that the civil rules

govern in an action involving a receiver. “Under that

rule, the appointment of a receiver can be sought ‘by

anyone showing an interest in certain property or a

relation to the party in control or ownership thereof

such as to justify conservation of the property by a

court officer.’ ” Santibanez, 105 F.3d at 241 (quoting

7 James Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice §

66.05[1] (2d ed.1996)). Correspondingly, a district

court has authority to place into receivership assets in

litigation “to preserve and protect the property pend-

ing its final disposition.” Gordon v. Washington, 295

U.S. 30, 37, 55 S.Ct. 584, 79 L.Ed. 1282 (1935).

Examples the Court gave of the proper use of a re-

ceivership included the preservation of property until

the foreclosure of a mortgage, or of trust property until

appointment of a new trustee, or of a debtor's property

until a judgment creditor has it applied to his judg-

ment. Id. In none of those situations was the receiver

named simply to secure or preserve funds for the sat-

isfaction of a potential later judgment. Receivership is

“an extraordinary remedy that should be employed

with the utmost caution” and is justified only where

there is a clear necessity to protect a party's interest in

property, legal and less drastic equitable remedies are

inadequate, and the benefits of receivership outweigh

Page 13

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

the burdens on the affected parties. See 12 Charles

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2983 (3d ed.2012); see also Santibanez,

105 F.3d at 241–42 (summarizing factors courts must

consider before appointing a receiver).

*306 [5] Even if a reasonable basis exists for be-

lieving there are benefits to the court and the parties to

imposing a receivership, and those reasons likely

existed here, resort to that remedy may be inappro-

priate. The cases on which the district court initially

relied in appointing a receiver establish that the court

has inherent power “to manage [its] own affairs so as

to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of

cases.” Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417

(5th Cir.1995). These cases, however, refer to a court's

power to dismiss a case with prejudice and the district

court's authority to impose monetary sanctions. Id.;

FDIC v. Maxxam, Inc., 523 F.3d 566, 584 (5th

Cir.2008). In a later order disbursing attorney fees, the

district court also relied on precedents stating that a

receivership is an equitable remedy. Santibanez, 105

F.3d at 241. That is so, but for the reasons discussed

below, equity does not allow a receivership to be

imposed over property that was not the subject of the

underlying dispute.

[6][7] Receivers have been used in a number of

contexts. “Secured creditors, lienholders, and mort-

gagees” may seek appointment of a receiver because

they “clearly have an interest in the property in which

they have a security interest that may provide a basis

for convincing the court to appoint a receiver ending a

foreclosure suit or any other action to enforce one or

more outstanding liens.” Wright & Miller, supra, §

2983; see also Bookout v. First Nat'l Mortg. & Disc.

Co., 514 F.2d 757, 758 (5th Cir.1975). Additionally, a

receivership is a remedy for taking possession of a

judgment debtor's property. Santibanez, 105 F.3d at

241. A receivership also can be utilized when a

judgment creditor seeks “to set aside allegedly fraud-

ulent conveyances by the judgment debtor, or who has

had execution issued and returned unsatisfied ... or

who otherwise is attempting to have the debtor's

property preserved from dissipation until his claim can

be satisfied.” Id. (quoting Wright & Miller, supra, §

2983). Importantly, to justify the appointment of a

receiver such claims would already have been reduced

to judgment. That was not the case here, as the re-

ceivership was deemed imposed for unresolved

claims.

[8] The receiver and trustee pointed us to another

line of cases where a receivership was proper as an

adjunct to injunctive relief for a securities fraud. E.g.,

SEC v. Keller Corp., 323 F.2d 397, 402 (7th

Cir.1963). Receiverships also have been upheld in

derivative actions by stockholders against corpora-

tions to prevent the threatened diversion of assets

through fraud or mismanagement. E.g., Tanzer v.

Huffines, 408 F.2d 42, 43 (3d Cir.1969). Thus, in cases

of non-compliance with SEC regulations, a receiver

may be appointed to prevent the corporation from

dissipating corporate assets and to pay defrauded

investors. Id.; SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1035 (9th

Cir.1986). Nonetheless, in a derivative suit or a suit

for non-compliance with SEC regulations, the corpo-

rate assets are the underlying subject matter of the

dispute. Here, the only assets that were the subject

matter of the dispute were the domain names that were

to be transferred under the settlement agreement. They

were transferred.

Last, the receiver and trustee relied on cases

where courts appointed receivers to run institutions

where constitutional violations were occurring. Such

receiverships are generally ordered in the context of

ensuring a governmental entity's compliance with

court orders. See, e.g., Morgan v. McDonough, 540

F.2d 527 (1st Cir.1976) (upholding a receivership

imposed to insure a high school's compliance with

desegregation orders); Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603

F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.2010) (upholding*307 a receiver-

ship to administer and improve prison health care).

This is not a case where a governmental organization

will not comply with the law. Plata, 603 F.3d at 1094.

Page 14

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

We now look at the specific arguments for the

receivership presented by the receiver and trustee and

explain why none is consistent with the limited pur-

poses for this “extraordinary remedy.” Strickland v.

Peters, 120 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir.1941).

A. Preserving Jurisdiction and Bringing Litigation to

a Close

Among the justifications presented by the re-

ceiver and trustee for the receivership is that it was

needed to preserve the court's jurisdiction over Baron's

assets, given that one of Baron's former attorneys had

testified that Baron intended to move assets outside of

the country. They further asserted that the receivership

order was a valid exercise of the court's inherent au-

thority because bringing the Netsphere litigation and

Ondova bankruptcy to a close required that Baron be

prevented from either hiring or firing additional

counsel. The receiver halted the hiring and firing of

counsel by seizing all of Baron's personal assets and

the assets of the companies he controlled.

[9][10] We first examine the argument that assets

needed to satisfy a future money judgment were being

transferred beyond the court's jurisdiction. The All

Writs Act “empowers a federal court to employ pro-

cedures necessary to promote the resolution of issues

in a case properly before it.” ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp. v.

Barton, 569 F.2d 1351, 1359 (5th Cir.1978); 28

U.S.C. § 1651. This authority, though, “is firmly cir-

cumscribed, its scope depending on the nature of the

case before the court and the legitimacy of the ends

sought to be achieved through the exercise of the

power.” ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 569 F.2d at 1358–59.

A court is limited to issuing orders “to curb conduct

which threaten[s] improperly to impede or defeat the

subject matter jurisdiction then being exercised by the

court.” Id. at 1359.

The jurisdiction “being exercised” by the district

court in this case prior to the receivership order was

enforcing a settlement agreement and the transfer of

domain names, which would end the Netsphere liti-

gation and the Ondova bankruptcy. Baron executed

the settlement agreement in July 2010 and agreed to

quitclaim the “Even Group” of domain names to

Netsphere. Neither the trustee nor the receiver has

pointed to record evidence that Baron failed to transfer

the domain names in accordance with the agreement.

He had other obligations, but there is no record evi-

dence brought to our attention that any discrete assets

subject to the settlement agreement were being moved

beyond the reach of the court.

At a September 15, 2010 hearing in bankruptcy

court, the attorney for the trustee gave an update on the

parties' progress toward completing the terms of the

settlement agreement. In addition to addressing the

few minor unresolved issues with respect to domain

names to be conveyed to Baron, the trustee's attorney

discussed the increasing number of attorneys who had

formerly represented Baron and Ondova and were

now making claims against the bankruptcy estate. At

this point, when the bankruptcy court considered

recommending the district court appoint a receiver, the

bankruptcy court was not responding to a threatened

loss of control over domain names or other discrete

property. Instead, it was trying to prevent the loss of

the funds necessary to pay the various claims that

continued to mount up against the Ondova bankruptcy

estate. It was at this hearing that the *308 bankruptcy

court heard testimony from Baron's attorney, Pronske,

explaining that he had learned Baron was planning to

transfer “assets” offshore. Based on these allegations,

the bankruptcy court ordered Baron to direct the Vil-

lage Trust to deposit $330,000 with the bankruptcy

trustee as a form of security to pay Baron's “obliga-

tions.”

Baron continued to hire and fire attorneys, caus-

ing the bankruptcy trustee to move for the appoint-

ment of a receiver over Baron, followed soon by the

district court's ex parte appointment of a receiver. In

the January 2011 hearing that followed, the district

Page 15

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

court provided its justifications for appointing the

receiver. Those justifications centered almost entirely

on the court's concern that Baron's vexatious litigation

tactics—particularly the hiring and firing of law-

yers—were increasing the costs of litigation and ex-

posing the bankruptcy estate to additional administra-

tive claims. The court briefly mentioned its concern

that Baron would transfer “funds” outside of the

court's jurisdiction, a concern grounded in the court's

desire to fashion a remedy through a receivership to

pay the claims of Baron's former attorneys.

[11] There certainly was evidence that Baron's

actions were disrupting, complicating, and making

more expensive both the bankruptcy and the district

court suit. We do not, though, find evidence that

Baron was threatening to nullify the global settlement

agreement by transferring domain names outside the

court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the receivership

cannot be justified in this instance on the basis that it

was needed to take control of the property that was the

subject of the litigation. Rather, the receivership was

established to pay the attorneys and to control vexa-

tious litigation. We will now examine each of those

reasons.

B. Paying Attorneys

[12][13] The district court in its order establishing

a receivership referred to the testimony received by

the bankruptcy court on Baron's debts to former at-

torneys. The district court described those debts as the

primary rationale for the receivership. A receiver may

be appointed for a secured creditor who has legitimate

fears his security may be dissipated; “an unsecured

simple contract creditor has, in the absence of a stat-

ute, no substantive right, legal or equitable, in or to the

property of his debtor.” Pusey & Jones Co. v.

Hanssen, 261 U.S. 491, 497, 43 S.Ct. 454, 67 L.Ed.

763 (1923). Baron's former attorneys were free to

make claims against the bankruptcy estate. Many had

done so. Alternatively, to the extent that they repre-

sented Baron or his companies in matters unrelated to

the Ondova bankruptcy, the attorneys could file suit in

a court of appropriate jurisdiction to collect the fees

owed, which many had done. Establishing a receiv-

ership to secure a pool of assets to pay Baron's former

attorneys, who were unsecured contract creditors, was

beyond the court's authority. Id.

[14] Moreover, for those unpaid attorneys who

had filed claims, the claims had not been reduced to

judgment such that a receiver would have been proper

to “set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances by

[Baron].” Santibanez, 105 F.3d at 241. “[R]eceivers

may be appointed to preserve property pending final

determination of its distribution in supplementary

proceedings in aid of execution.” Id. (internal quota-

tion marks omitted). They may also be properly ap-

pointed for a judgment creditor who “is attempting to

have the debtor's property preserved from dissipation

until his claim can be satisfied.” Id.

[15] Although the attorneys' allegations and

claims were delaying the district *309 court and

bankruptcy proceedings, they were not the subject

matter of the underlying litigation. “The general fed-

eral rule of equity is that a court may not reach a de-

fendant's assets unrelated to the underlying litigation

and freeze them so that they may be preserved to

satisfy a potential money judgment.” In re Fredeman

Litig., 843 F.2d 821, 824 (5th Cir.1988). Fredeman

involved a civil action under RICO for treble damag-

es. Id. at 822. The district court entered a preliminary

injunction that effectively froze all of the defendants'

assets, which were unrelated to the underlying lawsuit,

based solely on the need to protect the potential RICO

judgment. Id. at 825. This court set aside the injunc-

tion as an improper exercise of the court's equitable

powers. Id.

In setting aside the injunction in Fredeman, this

court relied on De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v.

United States, 325 U.S. 212, 222–23, 65 S.Ct. 1130,

89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945). Id. In De Beers, the government

sought and obtained a pretrial preliminary injunction

freezing the domestic assets of a foreign corporation

Page 16

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

suspected of violating antitrust laws. De Beers, 325

U.S. at 215, 65 S.Ct. 1130. The government argued

that freezing the corporation's assets was the only

method of ensuring compliance with future court

orders. Id. The government also speculated that the

corporation would withdraw its domestic assets in an

effort to evade the jurisdiction of the courts of the

United States. Id. at 215–16, 65 S.Ct. 1130. Though

the Supreme Court acknowledged a court's inherent

power to protect its jurisdiction, it concluded that the

injunction exceeded the court's powers. Id. at 222–23,

65 S.Ct. 1130. The Court explained that if it were to

hold otherwise, every plaintiff in an action for a per-

sonal judgment would apply for a “so-called injunc-

tion sequestrating his opponent's assets pending re-

covery and satisfaction of a judgment.... No relief of

this character has been thought justified in the long

history of equity jurisprudence.” Id.

In a more recent articulation of its “cautious ap-

proach to equitable powers,” the Supreme Court stated

that equity is “confined within the broad boundaries of

traditional equitable relief.” Grupo Mexicano de De-

sarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S.

308, 322, 329, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319

(1999). The Court identified the issue as being

“whether, in an action for money damages, a United

States District Court has the power to issue a prelim-

inary injunction preventing the defendant from trans-

ferring assets in which no lien or equitable interest is

claimed.” Id. at 310, 119 S.Ct. 1961. The Court an-

swered “no.” Id. at 333, 119 S.Ct. 1961. The opinion

thoroughly reviewed the breadth of equitable powers

before reaching that conclusion. Id. “[F]ederal courts

in this country have traditionally applied the principle

that courts of equity will not, as a general matter,

interfere with a debtor's disposition of his property at

the instance of a nonjudgment creditor.” Id. at 329,

119 S.Ct. 1961. We conclude that the limits of equity

there described are relevant to the receivership rem-

edy, too.

The trustee and receiver are correct that Grupo

Mexicano involved a claim only for money damages,

in which the district court improperly relied on its

equitable authority to issue a preliminary injunction to

preserve a fund. Even so, the Court detailed the rele-

vant principles that confine the equitable power of

federal courts. Id. at 319–22, 119 S.Ct. 1961. It re-

jected that the merger of law and equity had altered the

relevant limitations on that power. Id. at 322, 119

S.Ct. 1961. The Grupo Mexicano Court distinguished

its ruling from a case in which the suit sought the

equitable relief of contract rescission *310 and resti-

tution. Id. at 325, 119 S.Ct. 1961 (citing Deckert v.

Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 287–88, 61

S.Ct. 229, 85 L.Ed. 189 (1940)). The equitable relief

was not, therefore, simply in aid (as in Grupo Mexi-

cano) of a legal claim for a money judgment. Id. The

case before us is similar to Grupo Mexicano to the

extent that the receivership remedy was for the pur-

pose of controlling Baron's transferring of funds that

were to be paid to attorneys—nonjudgment creditors.

This receivership was intended to control vexatious-

ness, but it is more similar to Grupo Mexicano than it

is to Deckert.

[16] While these precedents dealt with injunc-

tions, the jurisdictional principle that a court's equita-

ble powers do not extend to property unrelated to the

underlying litigation applies with equal force to re-

ceiverships. A court lacks jurisdiction to impose a

receivership over property that is not the subject of an

underlying claim or controversy. Cochrane v. W.F.

Potts Son & Co., 47 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1931).

In Cochrane, a holder of corporate bonds, which were

alleged to be part of a fraud scheme, sought the es-

tablishment of a receivership. Cochrane, 47 F.2d at

1027. The bondholder only claimed an interest in one

series of bonds—series E. Id. at 1028. The district

court appointed a receiver over the series E bonds as

well as five other series that were not part of the un-

derlying complaint. Id. This court held that the district

court only had jurisdiction over the series E bonds,

which were the subject of the litigation. Id. at 1029.

Because the district court lacked subject matter juris-

Page 17

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

diction over the other bonds, which were not at issue

in the litigation, it lacked authority to appoint a re-

ceiver over them. Id.

The receivership ordered in this case encom-

passed all of Baron's personal property, none of which

was sought in the Netsphere lawsuit or the Ondova

bankruptcy other than as a possible fund for paying the

unsecured claims of Baron's current and former at-

torneys that had not been reduced to judgment. The

receivership also included business entities owned or

controlled by Baron, including Novo Point, LLC and

Quantec, LLC. Although Novo Point and Quantec

were listed as parties on the global settlement agree-

ment, they were never named parties in the Netsphere

lawsuit or the Ondova bankruptcy. We conclude the

district court could not impose a receivership over

Baron's personal property and the assets held by Novo

Point and Quantec.

C. Controlling Vexatious Litigation

[17][18] Baron's vexatious litigation tactics were

his ignoring court orders and hiring and firing of at-

torneys, which delayed court proceedings, increased

the general cost of litigation, and increased expenses

for the bankruptcy estate. Such tactics, though, have

not been recognized as a basis for invoking the equi-

table remedy of a receivership. A receiver has been

allowed to halt fraudulent, evasive litigation tactics,

but only when a specific provision of the Internal

Revenue Code applied. In re McGaughey, 24 F.3d 904

(7th Cir.1994); United States v. Bartle, 159 Fed.Appx.

723 (7th Cir.2005) (unpublished). In McGaughey, the

court derived its power to appoint a receiver to collect

unpaid taxes from a specific provision of the Code. In

re McGaughey, 24 F.3d at 907. A district court may

use authority from 26 U.S.C. § 7403 to appoint a

receiver over a debtor's assets in a proceeding to en-

force a tax lien if the Government makes the necessary

showing of need. Id. Bartle did not provide its own

extensive analysis but relied on McGaughey to sup-

port a receiver for that purpose. Bartle, 159 Fed.Appx.

at 725. Here, unlike in McGaughey and *311Bartle,

the court had no statutory authority to appoint the

receiver nor were the receivership assets at issue in the

litigation.

Baron's longstanding vexatious litigation tactics

presented the district court with an exceedingly dif-

ficult situation. The district court recognized that it

had the inherent authority to address those tactics. At

the beginning of the suit, the district court entered a

preliminary injunction to compel compliance with the

first settlement agreement—i.e., the MOU. The court

later held a hearing to address Baron's non-compliance

with the preliminary injunction. The injunction was

amended to include a $50,000 per day penalty for a

violation. When Baron's hiring and firing of attorneys

were first addressed, the court found clear and con-

vincing evidence of Baron's contempt of court and

said it could employ such tools as monetary sanctions

or jailing Baron until he complied with court orders.

The court concluded, though, that these remedies were

insufficient because Baron had repeatedly ignored

court orders.

If the district court entered a sufficiently specific

order, it could have held Baron in contempt, imposed a

fine or imprisoned him for “disobedience ... to its

lawful ... command.” 18 U.S.C. § 401. At oral argu-

ment in the appeal, it seemed conceded that no clear

order existed. Instead, the receiver and trustee cited

only to hearings at which the district court admonished

Baron not to hire or fire any more attorneys. Whether

there was a clear order ultimately does not matter in

our resolution. The question before us concerns the

receivership.

The district court also could have required Baron

to proceed with the same lawyer or pro se at his

choice. McCuin v. Tex. Power & Light Co., 714 F.2d

1255, 1263 (5th Cir.1983) (explaining that the right to

retain the counsel of one's choosing may be restricted

where it is misused “for purposes of delay or obstruc-

tion of the orderly conduct of the trial” and when “the

needs of effective administration of justice” so re-

Page 18

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

quire). The court noted some of these remedies and

determined they would be inadequate. No authority

has been cited to us, though, that a receivership be-

comes appropriate when traditional means might not

fully prevent a litigant from engaging in vexatious

litigation tactics.

[19] A court has undeniable authority to control

its docket but not through creating a receivership over

assets, including personal assets, that were not the

subject of the litigation. The terms of the receivership

order had far-reaching implications for Baron's per-

sonal property. For example, the receiver was em-

powered to take possession of Baron's mobile phone

and computers and to divert mail. Baron was required

to turn over his bank accounts and keys to any prop-

erty he owned or rented, including his own home.

Moreover, when Baron needed funds for medical care,

he had to request such funds from the receiver.

We conclude that the receivership improperly

targeted assets outside the scope of litigation to pay

claims of Baron's former attorneys and control Baron's

litigation tactics. This was an improper use of the

receivership remedy. The order appointing a receiver

is vacated.

II. The Receivership Fees

[20] When a receivership is proper, the general

rule is that receivership fees and expenses “are a

charge upon the property administered.” Gaskill v.

Gordon, 27 F.3d 248, 251 (7th Cir.1994); see also Atl.

Trust Co. v. Chapman, 208 U.S. 360, 374, 28 S.Ct.

406, 52 L.Ed. 528 (1908). When a receivership is

improper or the court lacks equitable authority to

appoint a receiver, the party that sought the receiver-

ship at *312 times has been held accountable for the

receivership fees and expenses. W.F. Potts Son & Co.

v. Cochrane, 59 F.2d 375, 377–78 (5th Cir.1932).

Baron relied on a somewhat later case for the same

point. Porter v. Cooke, 127 F.2d 853 (5th Cir.1942).

That court held that “the parties whose property has

been wrongfully seized are entitled, on equitable

principles, to recover costs from those who have

wrongfully provoked the receivership.” Id. at 859. In

the present case, no party “provoked” the receivership.

The bankruptcy court recommended a receiver, and

the trustee then moved in district court for the ap-

pointment as recommended.

We discover no controlling rule on assessing

costs for an improperly created receivership other than

that equity is the standard. For example, in W.F. Potts,

this court evaluated the assignment of responsibility

for the receivership fees by recognizing that the dis-

trict court itself ordered the receivership. W.F. Potts,

59 F.2d at 377–78. After holding that the receivership

should not have been imposed, we rejected that the

party who sought the receivership had to bear its costs:

[The parties whose assets were seized] treat the

matter too much as though this were a suit for the

wrongful and forcible taking of property by plaintiff

or its agents. They overlook the fact that, though it is

true that one who invokes without sufficient equi-

table grounds the administration by a receiver of the

property of another may be in a proper case held

accountable for the costs and expenses of the re-

ceivership and for losses which the receivership has

visited upon the property, the appointment of a re-

ceiver is at last the court's appointment; the admin-

istration, its administration. We think it perfectly

clear that in a case like this, where there was no

malice nor wrongful purpose, and only an effort to

conserve property in which plaintiff believed,

though it did not show, it was interested, the ques-

tion of its liability should be considered and ad-

judged from the standpoint of working as little

hardship as may be, plaintiff in the end to be held

liable for only the actual losses which its mistaken

course has caused.

Id. (citations omitted). An equitable allocation

was ordered. The plaintiff who sought the receivership

was not charged with disbursements that benefitted

the fund, but it was ordered to reimburse the defendant

Page 19

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

for actual losses to the fund. Id. at 379.

With a similar focus on equity, the Supreme Court

evaluated how to assign the costs of an improper re-

ceivership created by a federal court when that court

had erroneously concluded that a state court receiv-

ership no longer had possession of the relevant prop-

erty. Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118, 125–26, 29 S.Ct.

230, 53 L.Ed. 435 (1909). The Court reversed the

lower court's assessment of the costs against the party

who had sought the receivership, because the Court

concluded “that justice will be done if the costs of the

receivership are paid out of the fund realized in the

Federal court....” Id. at 132, 29 S.Ct. 230.

These precedents are consistent with analysis in

one of our precedents that without “convincing evi-

dence that the appointment of a receiver was either

collusive, capricious, venal, or in bad faith,” ordinarily

the expenses of the receivership will not be charged

“other than against the fund administered by the re-

ceiver, even though the [c]ourts are vested with a

discretion in determining who should pay the costs

and expenses of a receivership in unusual instances.”

Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Connolly, 176 F.2d 1004,

1009 (5th Cir.1949). In holding that the receivership

*313 expenses should be paid out of receivership

funds, we reasoned that, though appointment of a

receiver was a “mistake,” the large recovery by the

plaintiffs in the trial indicated the receivership was not

“needless.” Id. On remand, the lower court was to

enter a decree directing the receiver to pay one-fourth

of the costs of the retrial and appeal, the party moving

for the receiver to pay one-half, and the intervenors

one-fourth. Id. at 1010.

[21][22] We do not find that Baron received any

benefit from this receivership. Nonetheless, these

precedents establish that equity controls when ad-

dressing the costs created by an improper receivership.

Here, the record supports that the circumstances that

led to the appointment of a receiver were primarily of

Baron's own making. The district court had an array of

fairly onerous remedies to apply but chose another

remedy that it did not have. The manner in which the

district court responded to those circumstances was

errant, but the court's perception was reasonable that a

vigorous response was required.

We must decide how equitably to resolve this

misapplication of an equitable remedy. Baron did in

fact contend that the appointment of the receiver was

in bad faith or collusive but fails to convince. He

supported the argument by saying the appointment

was prohibited by law by virtue of the receiver's pre-

vious appointment as special master. Baron relied on

this statutory language: “A person holding any civil or

military office or employment under the United States

or employed by any justice or judge of the United

States shall not at the same time be appointed a re-

ceiver in any case in any court of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 958. The trustee pointed out that a special

master is neither an employee of the United States nor

of the judge who appointed him. While the special

master is subject to the court's supervision, his fee is

paid by the parties to the litigation, not the court.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(g)(2). The fact that the receiver was

previously special master is no indication of bad faith

or collusion in the appointment of the receiver.

Additionally, we hold, based on this record, that

in creating the receivership “there was no malice nor

wrongful purpose, and only an effort to conserve

property in which [the court] believed” it was inter-

ested in maintaining for unpaid attorney fees and to

control Baron's vexatious litigation tactics. W.F. Potts,

59 F.2d at 377–78. We recognize that the district court

was dealing with a conundrum when it decided to

appoint the receiver—the problem was great, but

standard remedies seemed inadequate. We also take

into account that, to a large extent, Baron's own ac-

tions resulted in more work and more fees for the

receiver and his attorneys. For these reasons, charging

the current receivership fund for reasonable receiv-

ership expenses, without allowing any additional

assets to be sold, is an equitable solution.

Page 20

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

[23] In light of our ruling that the receivership

was improper, equity may well require the fees to be

discounted meaningfully from what would have been

reasonable under a proper receivership. Fees already

paid were calculated on the basis that the receivership

was proper. Therefore, the amount of all fees and

expenses must be reconsidered by the district court.

Any other payments made from the receivership fund

may also be reconsidered as appropriate.

We also conclude that everything subject to the

receivership other than cash currently in the receiv-

ership, which Baron asserts in a November 26, 2012

motion amounts to $1.6 million, should be expedi-

tiously released to Baron under a schedule *314 to be

determined by the district court for winding up the

receivership. The new determination by the district

court of reasonable fees and expenses to be paid to the

receiver, should the amount be set at more than has

already been paid, may be paid from the $1.6 million.

To the extent the cash on hand is insufficient to satisfy

fully what is determined to be the reasonable charges

by the receiver and his attorneys, those charges will go

unpaid. No further sales of domain names or other

assets are authorized.

FN2

FN2. We stayed the closing on sales resulting

from an auction of domain names. Our ruling

means no closing may occur, and the stay is

made permanent.

III. Other Issues

Baron raised other issues related to the receiver-

ship. Additionally, there are multiple outstanding

motions. We address those that would remain unre-

solved despite our holding that the receivership was

improper.

A. Subpoena of IOLTA Account

Baron contended the district court erred in al-

lowing the receiver to subpoena bank records related

to Baron's attorney's IOLTA account. When the re-

ceiver learned that Baron's attorney, Gary Schepps,

was paying another Baron attorney through an IOLTA

account, he served a subpoena on the bank holding the

account. The receiver argued that Baron was using the

account to hide receivership assets and retain addi-

tional counsel in defiance of the district court's orders.

[24][25][26] The receiver argued that the issue

regarding bank records is moot given that the sub-

poena issued, the bank produced the records, and the

receiver has reviewed them. An appeal must be dis-

missed when “an event occurs while a case is pending

on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to

grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing

party.” Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537

(5th Cir.2008). Yet, an appellate court's “continued

jurisdiction does not depend upon being able to pro-

vide complete relief; if there is some means by which

we can effectuate a partial remedy, this case remains a

live controversy.” In re Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 228

F.3d 865, 870 (8th Cir.2000). The records have been

produced and reviewed by the receiver and there is no

relief that this court can provide. Baron's challenge to

the subpoena of his attorney's IOLTA account is moot.

B. Section 144 Affidavit

On April 27, 2011, Baron filed a motion for leave

to file a motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144.

Baron attached to the motion an affidavit detailing his

allegations of bias. At the hearing on Baron's motion,

the court instructed Baron to file a second affidavit

with appropriate record citations to statements by the

court that Baron believed evidenced bias. Baron's

attorney assured the court that providing record cites

would be “no problem” because “everything in the

affidavit is directly cut and pasted from the record.”

The court then entered an order granting Baron's

motion for leave to file a second affidavit, but only

under the condition that Baron submit an affidavit

with record citations. On May 6, 2011, Baron's attor-

ney informed the district court that a new affidavit was

Page 21

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

ready, but that it did not comply with the court's record

cites requirement. In his supplemental affidavit, Baron

alleged that the district court had “a personal bias

against giving credence to allegations of poor conduct

by attorneys” and that his personal bias had allowed

Baron to be victimized by his opponents—many of

whom were attorneys. The district*315 court struck

the new affidavit, but it allowed Baron to file another

affidavit provided that it complied with the court's

original order. Baron never submitted a compliant

affidavit and did not re-urge his motion to disqualify.

Baron contended that the district court erred in

refusing to rule on the legal sufficiency of the affida-

vits. The receiver argued that Baron waived this issue

by failing to file an affidavit that complied with the

court's order.

[27][28] “A judge is to recuse himself if a party to

the proceeding makes and files a timely and sufficient

affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is

pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against

him or in favor of any adverse party.” Patterson v.

Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 483 (5th Cir.2003)

(internal quotation marks omitted). A district court's

ruling with respect to a Section 144 affidavit is ap-

pealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Davis v. Bd. of

Sch. Comm'rs of Mobile Cnty., 517 F.2d 1044, 1047

(5th Cir.1975).

[29][30] When a motion is filed under Section

144, the district court “must pass on the legal suffi-

ciency of the affidavit” without passing on the truth of

the matter asserted. Davis, 517 F.2d at 1051. “A le-

gally sufficient affidavit must: (1) state material facts

with particularity; (2) state facts that, if true, would

convince a reasonable person that a bias exists; and (3)

state facts that show the bias is personal, as opposed to

judicial, in nature.” Patterson, 335 F.3d at 483.

[31] Based on our reading of the record, the dis-

trict court considered Baron's original affidavit, de-

termined that it was insufficient, and ordered Baron to

correct the deficiency by including citations to the

record. Baron filed a second affidavit and admitted

that it did not comply with the court's order. The dis-

trict court struck the affidavit, but left Baron the op-

tion of filing another affidavit provided it had record

cites. Baron never filed a compliant affidavit; there-

fore, he has waived the issue on appeal.

C. Outstanding Motions & Mandamus

In light of our holding that the receivership order

was improper, we need not address the outstanding

motions that were carried with the case. Similarly, we

do not find it necessary to address Novo Point's peti-

tion for a writ of mandamus, which challenged the

bankruptcy court's decision to strike various notices of

appeal filed by Novo Point. The bankruptcy court

struck these notices based on its finding that they

violated the terms of the receivership order—which

we have now set aside.

The judgment appointing the receiver is RE-

VERSED with directions to vacate the receivership

and discharge the receiver, his attorneys and em-

ployees, and to charge against the cash in the receiv-

ership fund the remaining receivership fees in ac-

cordance with this opinion.

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman and Blumenthal,

LLP's appeal of the district court's disbursement order

is DISMISSED.

Baron's challenge to the subpoena of his attor-

ney's IOLTA account is DENIED as moot.

Baron's challenge to the denial of his Section 144

affidavit was waived.

Should we not have addressed a motion that a

party believes still needs a ruling, that claimed over-

sight should be suggested on rehearing.

Page 22

703 F.3d 296

(Cite as: 703 F.3d 296)

C.A.5 (Tex.),2012.

Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron

703 F.3d 296

END OF DOCUMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-11202

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

Defendant - Appellant

ONDOV

A LIMITED COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee

CONS.

11-10113

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

AL,

Defendants

QUANTEC, L.L.C.;

NOVO

POINT, L.L.C.,

Movants - Appellants

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

PETER

VOGEL,

Appellee

CONS.

11-10289

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

Defendant - Appellant

DANIEL J. SHERMAN,

Appellee

CONS.

11-10290

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

AL,

Defendants

QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

Movants - Appellants

PETER

VOGEL,

Appellee

CONS.

11-10390

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

Defendant - Appellant

QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,

Movants - Appellants

ONDOV A LIMITED COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee

PETER

VOGEL,

Appellee

CONS.

11-10501

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

JEFFREY BARON,

Defendant - Appellant

QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,

Movants - Appellants

CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN

& BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P.,

Appellant

PETERS.

VOGEL; DANIEL

SHERMAN,

Appellees

CONS.

12-10003

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

Defendant - Appellant

QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,

Movants - Appellants

GARY SCHEPPS,

Appellant

PETER

VOGEL,

Appellee

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

CONS.

12-10444

In re:

NOVO

POINT, L.L.C.,

Petitioner

CONS. w 12-10489, 12-10657, and 12-10804

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

Defendant - Appellant

NOVO

POINT, L.L.C.; QUANTEC, L.L.C.,

Movants - Appellants

PETERS.

VOGEL; DANIEL J. SHERMAN,

Appellees

CONS.

12-11082

NETSPHERE, INC.,

AL,

Plaintiffs

JEFFREY BARON,

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

Defendant - Appellant

QUANTEC, L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,

Movants - Appellants

PETER

VOGEL,

Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District

Texas

Before DeMOSS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER:

ORDERED that the opposed motion

Appellee Peter

Vogel for

clarification

this Court's November

2012 order is GRANTED.

As stated in Federal Rule

Appellate Procedure 41, the mandate that signifies the

finality

the Court's decision

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

the Court

at this time still subject to alteration by the panel or by the

en bane court, and consequently it

not final. The district court orders that were in place

prior to the release

our opinion remain in place. Upon the issuance

the mandate by

this Court, the conclusions

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

the receivership. No assets that were

brought under the control

the receiver will be released immediately from that control

even when the mandate

issued. The district court will thereafter have the authority to

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

manage the process for ending the receivership as quickly as possible.

no rehearing is requested by any party, and absent any hold on the mandate

requested by a member

the en bane court, the mandate will issue immediately after the

expiration

the period to file for rehearing on January

2013. A further order

this

Court will be entered signifying whether the mandate in fact issues on that date.

The Receiver has requested that we explain whether it

proper for further fees

and expenses to be paid. As we said in the opinion and

the Receiver acknowledges, all

fees and expenses need to be re-evaluated in light

our holding that the Receivership

should not have been created. That conclusion neither authorizes nor prevents further

necessary disbursements. The import

our order

November

2012, has not changed,

which said this: "Disbursement

any other assets

the Receivership should be as

limited

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

control

assets. It

for the district court to make the initial

determination

whether approval

additional fees and expenses

appropriate at this

time in light

the re-evaluation

all fees and expenses

the Receivership.

FURTHER ORDERED that the opposed motion

Appellee PeterS. Vogel

to clarify the status

the mandate

DENIED to the extent any clarification beyond what

we have just given was requested.

Baron filed a motion to clarify who

to take custody

the receivership assets

upon the dissolution

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

a shorthand reference to Baron did not in any way affect the ownership

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

not the principal beneficiary

Novo Point,

LLC and Quantec, LLC. Such clarification

irrelevant to our holding and is DENIED.

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motion filed by Appellants

Jeffrey Baron; Novo Point, LLC; Quantec, LLC; and Gary Schepps to clarify that this

Court's opinion

December

18,

2012, was issued "as and for the mandate" is DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motions filed by Appellants Jeffrey

Baron; Novo Point, LLC; Quantec, LLC; and Gary Schepps for a stay

the injunctions

contained in the district court's order appointing the receiver dated November 24, 2010,

DENIED.

Case: 10-11202 Document: 00512097486 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/31/2012

Leonard Simon

From: Schenck, David <DSchenck@dykema.com>

Sent:

Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:50 AM

To:

Leonard Simon

Cc:

Fine, Jeffrey

Subject:

Baron appeals

Leonard,



IseethatyouhavefiledamotiontoconsolidatetwoappealsIassumetobebroughtbyMr.Baron.JeffFine, 

whoisnotcounselinei ther,tellsmeyousentanemailtohimaboutyourmoti on.Canyoudescribethereliefprovided

intheordersthatareappe

aledsothatIcanadviseyouandtheCourtofourposition.Inthefuture,couldyouplease

conferwithmeandtheotherlawyerslistedascounselonthosematters.Also,Jefftellsmethatyouhaveaskedabout

thestatusoftheCourt’sorders.Icansaythatth

eCourthasorderedthereceivertoceasehisoperationsand

stewardshipovertheassetsformerlyintheestate,buttomyknowledgetheCourthasnotenteredanordervacating

theordercreatingthereceivership.

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the

Internet.

Dykema

David J. Schenck

Member

DSchenck@dykema.com

214-462-6413 Direct

214-462-6400 Main

855-227-4721 Fax

Comerica Bank Tower

1717 Main Street, Suite 4000

Dallas, Texas 75201

www.dykema.com

*** Notice from Dykema Gossett PLLC: To comply with U.S. Treasury regulations, we advise you that any

discussion of Federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be

used, by any person (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue

Service, or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any matter addressed herein. This Internet

message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. It is intended for

use only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received this in error, please (1) do not forward or

use this information in any way; and (2) contact me immediately. Neither this information block, the typed

name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. DYKEMA

EXHIBIT “11”

ADR,APPEAL,EXH-ADM,JURY

U.S. District Court

Northern District of Texas (Dallas)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-00988-L

Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al

Assigned to: Judge Sam A Lindsay

Case in other court: 10-11202

10-11202

USCA5, 11-10113

11-10289

11-10290

12-10489

13-10119

13-10696

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

Date Filed: 05/28/2009

Jury Demand: Both

Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other

Jurisdiction: Diversity

Special Master

Peter S Vogel

TERMINATED: 12/13/2010

represented by Peter S Vogel

Gardere Wynne Sewell

1601 Elm St

Suite 3000

Dallas, TX 75201-4761

214/999-4422

Fax: 214/999-3422

Email: pvogel@gardere.com

TERMINATED: 12/13/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Plaintiff

Netsphere Inc represented by John W MacPete

P.O. Box 224726

Dallas, TX 75222

214/564-5205

Email: jmacpete@macpeteiplaw.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Douglas D Skierski

Franklin Skierski Hayward LLP

10501 N Central Expwy

Suite 106

Dallas, TX 75231

214/755-7100

Page 1 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Fax: 214/755-7104

Email: dskierski@fshlawfirm.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

George M Tompkins

Tompkins PC

825 Market St

Building M Suite 250

Allen, TX 75013

972/996-4746

Email: george@tompkinsiplaw.com

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melissa S Hayward

Franklin Chapman Skierski Hayward

LLP

10501 N Central Expwy

Suite 106

Dallas, TX 75231

972/755-7100

Fax: 972/755-7104

Email: mhayward@fcshlaw.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Plaintiff

Manila Industries Inc represented by John W MacPete

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Douglas D Skierski

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

George M Tompkins

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melissa S Hayward

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Plaintiff

Munish Krishan represented by

Page 2 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

John W MacPete

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

George M Tompkins

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Defendant

Jeffrey Baron represented by Leonard H Simon

Pendergraft & Simon LLP

The Riviana Building

2777 Allen Parkway

Suite 800

Houston, TX 77019

713/528-8555

Fax: 832/202-2810

Email: lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Stephen R Cochell

The Cochell Law Firm

7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259

Houston, TX 77024

713/980-4381

Fax: 713/980-1179

Email: srcochell@gmail.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Anthony L Vitullo

Fee Smith Sharp & Vitullo

Three Galleria Tower

13155 Noel Rd Suite 1000

Dallas, TX 75240

972/934-9100

Fax: 972/934-9200 FAX

Email: lvitullo@feesmith.com

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Caleb Rawls

Page 3 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

The Law Offices of Caleb Rawls

3390 Northaven Rd

Dallas, TX 75229

972/804-9068

Fax: 214/723-5932

Email: calebrawls@gmail.com

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Carter Boisvert

Friedman & Feiger LLP

5301 Spring Valley Rd

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75254

972/788-1400

Fax: 972/788-2667

Email: cboisvert@fflawoffice.com

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Edwin E Wright , III

Stradley & Wright

Abrams Centre

9330 LBJ Freeway Suite 1400

Dallas, TX 75243

972/231-6001

Fax: 972/231-9150

Email: wright@edwright.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ernest W Leonard

Friedman & Feiger LLP

5301 Spring Valley Rd

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75254

972/788-1400

Fax: 972/788-2667

Email: eleonard@fflawoffice.com

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Gary G Lyon

The Willingham Law Firm

6401 W. Eldorado Parkway

Suite 234

McKinney, TX 75070

214-250-4407

Fax: 866-309-7476

Page 4 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Email: glyon.attorney@gmail.com

TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Gary N Schepps

Schepps Law Offices

Drawer 670804

Dallas, TX 75367

972-200-0000

Fax: 214-347-4031

Email: legal@schepps.net

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James S Bell

Friedman & Feiger LLP

5301 Spring Valley Road

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75254

972/788-1400

Fax: 972/788-2667

Email: jbell@fflawoffice.com

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James R Krause

Friedman & Feiger

5301 Spring Valley Rd

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75254

972/788-1400

Fax: 972/788-2667 FAX

Email: jkrause@fflawoffice.com

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Jeffrey T Hall

Law Office of Jeffrey T Hall

2200 Ross Avenue

Suite 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

214/658-6513

Fax: 214/658-6509

Email: jthallesq@gmail.com

TERMINATED: 08/26/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lawrence J Friedman

Friedman & Feiger LLP

Page 5 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

5301 Spring Valley Rd

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75254

972/788-1400

Fax: 972/788-2667

Email: lfriedman@fflawoffice.com

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Martin K Thomas

Thomas & Sobol

PO Box 36528

4826 Kelton Dr

Dallas, TX 75235

214/951-9466

Fax: 214/951-9007

Email: thomas12@swbell.net

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Matthew B Probus

Wauson & Associates

One Sugar Creek Center Blvd

Suite 880

Sugar Land, TX 77478

281/242-0303

Fax: 281/242-0306

Email: mbprobus@w-plaw.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett

Tayari Law PLLC

100 Crescent Court

Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75201

214/459-8266

Fax: 214/764-7289

Email: m.tayari@tayarilaw.com

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Peter Michael Barrett

Law Office of Peter Barrett

3500 Maple Avenue

Suite 400

Dallas, TX 75219

214/526-0555

Fax: 214/526-0551

Email: peter@barrettcrimelaw.com

Page 6 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

TERMINATED: 04/18/201

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ryan K Lurich

Friedman & Feiger

5301 Spring Valley Rd

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75254

972/788-1400

Fax: 972/788-2667 FAX

Email: rlurich@fflawoffice.com

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Stephen L Jones

Jones Otjen & Davis

114 E Broadway

Suite 1100

Enid, OK 73701

580/242-5500

Fax: 580/242-4556

Email: sjones@stephenjoneslaw.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Defendant

Ondova Limited Company represented by Anthony L Vitullo

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Caleb Rawls

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Carter Boisvert

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

E P Keiffer

Wight Ginsberg Brusilow P.C.

Republic Center, Suite 4150

325 North St. Paul Street

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 651-6517

Fax: (214) 744-2615

Email: pkeiffer@wgblawfirm.com

Page 7 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ernest W Leonard

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James S Bell

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James R Krause

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Kim M Carpenter

Wright Ginsberg Brusilow PC

Republic Center Suite 4150

325 North St Paul St

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 651-6520

Fax: (214) 744-2615

Email: kmoses@wgblawfirm.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lawrence J Friedman

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ryan K Lurich

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Defendant

The Village Trust

(a Cook Islands Trust)

Defendant

Equity Trust

(an Ohio Trust)

Page 8 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Respondent

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP represented by Richard M Roberson

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP

3000 Thanksgiving Tower

1601 Elm St

Dallas, TX 75201

214/999-4955

Fax: 214/999-3955

Email: rroberson@gardere.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Quantec LLC represented by Christopher A Payne

Law Office of Christopher A Payne

PLLC

6600 LBJ Freeway

Ste. 183

Dallas, TX 75240

972/284-0731

Fax: 214/453-2435

Email: cpayne@cappc.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Craig A Capua

West & Associates LLP

320 S RL Thornton Frwy

Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75203

214/941-1881

Fax: 469/364-7139

Email: craig.c@westllp.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Gary N Schepps

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Joshua Edward Cox

PO Box 2072

Page 9 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Keller, TX 76244

682/583-5918

Email: j.cox.email@gmail.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Thomas P Jackson

Law Office of Thomas P Jackson

5430 Glen Lakes Drive

Suite 230

Dallas, TX 75231

972/387-0007

Fax: 972/584-6159

Email: tpj@dfwlawyer.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Iguana Consulting LLC represented by Craig A Capua

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Novo Point LLC represented by Christopher A Payne

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Craig A Capua

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Gary N Schepps

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Joshua Edward Cox

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Page 10 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

ar Status: Admitted/In Good Standin

Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Thomas P Jackson

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Friedman & Feiger, LLP represented by Ryan K Lurich

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lawrence J Friedman

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Carrington Coleman Sloman &

Blumenthal, LLP

represented by J Michael Sutherland

Carrington Coleman Sloman &

Blumenthal

901 Main St

Suite 5500

Dallas, TX 75202

214/855-3069

Email: msutherland@ccsb.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lisa Marie Lucas

Carrington Coleman Sloman &

Blumenthal LLP

901 Main St

Suite 5500

Dallas, TX 75202

214/855-3114

Fax: 214/758-3707

Email: llucas@ccsb.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Thomas F Allen , Jr

Jones Day

Page 11 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

2727 North Harwood Street

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 220-3939

Fax: (214) 969-5100

Email: tallen@jonesday.com

TERMINATED: 09/05/2013

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Stephen Cochell represented by Stephen R Cochell

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Movant

Power Taylor LLP represented by Gerrit M Pronske

Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.

2200 Ross Ave

Suite 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

214/658-6500

Fax: 214/658-6509

Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melanie Pearce Goolsby

Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, P.C.

2200 Ross Ave

Suite 5350

Dallas, TX 75201

214/658-6500

Fax: 214/658-6509

Email: mgoolsby@pgkpc.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Rakhee Patel

Shackelford, Melton & McKinley, LLP

3333 Lee Parkway

Tenth Floor

Dallas, TX 75219

214-780-1415

Fax: 214-780-1401

Email: rpatel@shacklaw.net

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Movant

David L Pacione represented by Gerrit M Pronske

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Rakhee Patel

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Claimant

Gary G Lyon represented by Gary G Lyon

8951 Synergy Drive

Suite 221

McKinney, TX 75070

9729777221

Fax: 2148310411

Email: glyon.attorney@gmail.com

PRO SE

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Bankruptcy Judge

Stacey G Jernigan represented by Stacey G Jernigan

US Bankruptcy Court

Chambers of Judge Stacey G C Jernigan

1100 Commerce St

Room 1254

Dallas, TX 75242-1496

214/753-2040

Email: sgj_settings@txnb.uscourts.gov

PRO SE

Interested Party

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Simple Solutions LLC represented by Franklin Howard Perr

Payne & Blanchard

717 N. Harwood

Suite 3350

Dallas, TX 75201-7471

214/231-3248

Fax: 214/220-0439

Email: fperry@pandblaw.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Interested Party

Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP represented by Darrell W Cook

Darrell W Cook & Associates

One Meadows Building

5005 Greenville Avenue

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75206

214/368-4686

Fax: 214/363-9979 FAX

Email: darrell@attorneycook.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Stephen W Davis

Darrell W Cook & Associates PC

5005 Greenville Ave

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75206

214/368-4686

Fax: 214/363-9979

Email: stephen@attorneycook.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Interested Party

Sidney Bennett Chesnin represented by Sidney Bennett Chesnin

Law Offfice of Sidney B Chesnin

4841 Tremont

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75246

Email: schesnin@hotmail.com

PRO SE

Interested Party

Broome Law Firm, pllc represented by Stanley D Broome

The Broome Law Firm PLLC

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

105 Decker Court

Suite 850

Irving, TX 75062

214/574-7500

Fax: 214/574-7501

Email: sbroome@broomelegal.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Interested Party

Internet Corporation For Assigned

Names and Numbers

represented by Jason Cross

Jones Day

2727 N Harwood Street

Suite 1

Dallas, TX 75201

214/969-5042

Fax: 214/969-5100

Email: jccross@jonesday.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Jeffrey A LeVee

Jones Day

555 South Flower Street

Fiftieth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213/489-3939

Fax: 213/243-2539

Email: jlevee@jonesday.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Not Admitted

Kate Wallace

Jones Day

555 South Flower Street

50th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213/489-3939

Fax: 213/243-2539

Email: kwallace@jonesday.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Not Admitted

Interested Party

Jones Day represented by Jason Cross

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Jeffrey A LeVee

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Not Admitted

Kate Wallace

(See above for address)

Bar Status: Not Admitted

Interested Party

Navarro County Criminal District

Attorney

represented by Randall P Miller

Navarro County Criminal District

Attorney

300 W 3rd Avenue

Suite 203

Corsicana, TX 75110

903/654-3048

Fax: 903/872-6858

Email: rmiller@navarrocounty.org

LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party

RPV, Ltd., as Trustee of the Village

Trust

represented by Andrew K York

Looper Reed & McGraw PC

1601 Elm St

Suite 4600

Dallas, TX 75201

214/954-4135

Fax: 214/953-1332

Email: dyork@grayreed.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Notice Only

Case Admin Sup represented by Case Admin Sup

Email:

txnb_appeals@txnb.uscourts.gov

PRO SE

Notice Only

Pronske & Patel PC represented by Gerrit M Pronske

(See above for address)

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

LEAD ATTORNE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Rakhee Patel

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Notice Only

Dean W Ferguson represented by Dean W Ferguson

Locke Liddell & Sapp

Chase Tower

2200 Ross Ave

Suite 2200

Dallas, TX 75201-6776

214/740-8000

LEAD ATTORNEY

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Notice Only

Martin K Thomas

Notice Only

Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Notice Only

Robert Garrey represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Notice Only

Jeffrey Hall represented by Melanie Pearce Goolsby

(See above for address)

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Receiver

Peter S Vogel represented by David J Schenck

Dykema Gossett PLLC

1717 Main St

Suite 4000

Dallas, TX 75201

214/462-6400

Fax: 214/462-6401

Email: dschenck@dykema.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Barry M Golden

Gardere Wynne Sewell

1601 Elm St

Suite 3000

Dallas, TX 75201-4761

214/999-4746

Fax: 214/999-4667 FAX

Email: bgolden@gardere.com

TERMINATED: 07/12/2012

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Christopher D Kratovil

Dykema Gossett PLLC

1717 Main St

Suite 4000

Dallas, TX 75201

214/462-6400

Fax: 214/462-6401

Email: ckratovil@dykema.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Peter Lawrence Loh

Gardere Wynne Sewell

1601 Elm St

Suite 3000

Dallas, TX 75201-4761

214/999-4391

Fax: 214/999-3391

Email: ploh@gardere.com

TERMINATED: 07/12/2012

Page 18 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

ar Status: Admitted/In Good Standin

Richard M Roberson

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Jeffrey R Fine

Dykema Gossett PLLC

1717 Main St

Suite 4000

Dallas, TX 75201

214/462-6455

Fax: 214/462-6401 FAX

Email: jfine@dykema.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Creditor

Pronske Goolsby & Kathman, PC

Mediator

ADR Provider

TERMINATED: 05/28/2013

represented by Leif M Clark

PO Box 2676

San Antonio, TX 78299

210/663-5183

TERMINATED: 05/28/2013

Bar Status: Not Admitted

Objector

Gary Schepps represented by Gary N Schepps

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Objector

Amica Mutual Insurance Company represented by Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis

The Stafford Davis Firm PC

305 S Broadway Ave

Suite 406

Page 1

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Tyler, TX 75702

903/593-7000

Fax: 903/705-7369

Email: sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Craig M Scott

Scott & Bush Ltd

30 Kennedy Plaza

4th Floor

Providence, RI 02903

401/865-6035

Fax: 401/865-6039

Email: cscott@scottbushlaw.com

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Not Admitted

Trustee

Daniel J. Sherman represented by Curt M Covington

Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC

500 N Akard St

3800 Lincoln Plaza

Dallas, TX 75201-6659

214/855-7547

Fax: 214/855-7584

Email: ccovington@munsch.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Dennis L Roossien

Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC

3800 Lincoln Plaza

500 N Akard St

Dallas, TX 75201

214/855-7535

Fax: 214/855-7584

Email: droossien@munsch.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lee J Pannier

Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC

500 N Akard St

Page 20 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

3800 Lincoln Plaza

Dallas, TX 75201-6659

214/855-7500

Fax: 214/855-7584

Email: lpannier@munsch.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Raymond J Urbanik

Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC

500 North Akard Street, Ste 3800

Dallas, TX 75201-6659

214/855-7590

Fax: 214/978-4374

Email: rurbanik@munsch.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Richard M Hunt

Hunt Huey PLLC

3102 Maple Ave.

Suite 625

Dallas, TX 75201

214-641-9182

Email: rhunt@hunthuey.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Trustee

John H. Litzler represented by Kathryn Gillian Reid

Rochelle McCullough LLP

325 N St Paul Street

Suite 4500

Dallas, TX 75201

214/580-2508

Fax: 214/953-0185

Email: kreid@romclawyers.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Kevin Dale McCullough

Rochelle McCullough LLP

325 N St Paul St

Suite 4500

Dallas, TX 75201

214/953-0182

Fax: 214/953-0185 FAX

Email: kdm@romclawyers.com

Page 21 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Sean J McCaffity

Rochelle McCullough LLP

325 N St Paul

Suite 4500

Dallas, TX 75201

214/953-0182

Fax: 214/953-0185

Email: smccaffity@romclawyers.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Intervenor

Charla Aldous represented by Charla G Aldous

Aldous Law Firm

2311 Cedar Springs Rd

Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214/526-5595

Fax: 214/526-5525

Email: caldous@aldouslaw.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Jeffrey H Rasansky

Rasansky Law Firm

2525 McKinnon St

Suite 625

Dallas, TX 75201

214/651-6100

Fax: 214/651-6150

Email: jrasansky@jrlawfirm.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Robert Edward Wolf , Jr

Rasansky Law Firm

2525 McKinnon

Suite 625

Dallas, TX 75201

214/651-6100

Email: rwolf@jrlawfirm.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Intervenor

Jeffrey H Rasansky represented by Charla G Aldous

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Jeffrey H Rasansky

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Robert Edward Wolf , Jr

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Intervenor

Aldous Law Firm

Intervenor

Rasansky Law Firm

Intervenor

Partner Mark L Taylor represented by Mark L Taylor

Powers Taylor LLP

8150 North Central Expressway

Suite 1575

Dallas, Tx 75206

214-239-8900

Fax: 214-239-8901

Email: mark@powerstaylor.com

PRO SE

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Mark L Taylor

Powers Taylor LLP

8150 N Central Expwy

Suite 1575

Dallas, TX 75206

214/239-8900

Fax: 214/239-8901

Email: mark@powerstaylor.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Intervenor

Verisign, Inc. represented by

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Allen W Yee

Vinson & Elkins

Trammell Crow Center

2001 Ross Ave Suite 3700

Dallas, TX 75201

214/220-7996

Fax: 214/999-7996

Email: ayee@velaw.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Counter Claimant

Jeffrey Baron represented by Anthony L Vitullo

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Caleb Rawls

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Carter Boisvert

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Edwin E Wright , III

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ernest W Leonard

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Gary G Lyon

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Gary N Schepps

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James S Bell

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James R Krause

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lawrence J Friedman

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Matthew B Probus

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ryan K Lurich

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Stephen R Cochell

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Counter Claimant

Ondova Limited Company represented by Anthony L Vitullo

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Caleb Rawls

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Carter Boisvert

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

E P Keiffer

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Ernest W Leonard

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James S Bell

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

James R Krause

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Kim M Carpenter

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Lawrence J Friedman

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Ryan K Lurich

(See above for address)

TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Counter Defendant

Netsphere Inc represented by John W MacPete

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Douglas D Skierski

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melissa S Hayward

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Counter Defendant

Manila Industries Inc represented by John W MacPete

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Douglas D Skierski

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Melissa S Hayward

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Counter Defendant

Munish Krishan represented by John W MacPete

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Date Filed # Docket Text

12/18/2012 1110 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1108 MOTION for Reconsideration re

1106 Order, Approving Fees and Expenses of Matthew Morris (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/18/2012 1111 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1098 Motion per Doc. No. 1105

(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 12/18/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson)

(Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/20/2012 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 1113

Fifth MOTION for Attorney Fees of Dykema filed by Peter S Vogel

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:

12/20/2012)

12/20/2012 1114 NOTICE of Filing of Motion to Vacate Order Confirming Plan and Related

Findings and to Dismiss All Appeals and Pending Appeals filed by

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP (Sutherland, J) (Entered:

12/20/2012)

12/20/2012 1115 NOTICE of Involuntary Bankruptcy filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C. (Pronske,

Gerrit) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

12/21/2012 1116 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Peter S. Vogel filed by Peter S Vogel

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:

12/21/2012)

12/21/2012 1117

Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees Twenty-Second filed by Peter S Vogel

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schenck, David) (Entered:

12/21/2012)

12/27/2012 1118 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1095 Fourth

MOTION for Attorney Fees of Dykema, 1084 Third MOTION for Attorney

Fees (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/27/2012 1119 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1096 MOTION

for Attorney Fees Trustee's Motion for Partial Reimbursement of Fees and

Expenses From the Receivership Estate (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered:

12/27/2012)

12/28/2012 1120 ORDER REGARDING FEE APPLICATIONS: IT IS ORDERED that

Dykema Gosett PLLC submit its Sixth Fee Application for services

performed as of December 28, 2012, by December 31, 2012 at 10:00 am. IT

IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver submit his fee application for

services performed through December 28, 2012, by December 31, 2012 at

10:00 am. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 12/28/2012) (Judge Royal

Furgeson) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

12/30/2012 1121 MOTION for Recusal filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in

Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Disqualify)

(Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 12/30/2012)

12/31/2012 1122 NOTICE of December Receiver's Fee Applications filed by Peter S Vogel

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Invoices, # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Declaration(s), # 4

Declaration(s)) (Vogel, Peter) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1123 NOTICE of December Receiver's Fee Apllication for Dykema filed by Peter

S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A Invoice, # 2 Exhibit(s)) (Vogel,

Peter) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1124 NOTICE of Receiver's Open Invoices filed by Peter S Vogel (Vogel, Peter)

(Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1125

MOTION for Attorney Fees Third Motion of Daniel J. Sherman, Chapter 11

Trustee for Ondova Limited Company, for Reimbursement of Fees and

Expenses from the Receivership Estate filed by Daniel J. Sherman

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1126 Amended MOTION re 1121 MOTION for Recusal filed by Jeffrey Baron

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Testimony of Daniel Sherman 11-16-12)

(Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

Page 28 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

12/31/201

112

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 112

Amended

MOTION re 1121 MOTION for Recusal (Vogel, Peter) (Entered:

12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1128 REPLY filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1121 MOTION for Recusal (Cochell,

Stephen) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1129

NOTICE of Gardere's Notice of Outstanding Fee Applications re: 1112

Order, filed by Peter S Vogel (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 1130

NOTICE of 5th Circuit Order filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s) 5th Circuit Order) (Vogel, Peter) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 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)

01/02/2013 1132 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1125 MOTION for Attorney Fees

Third Motion of Daniel J. Sherman, Chapter 11 Trustee for Ondova Limited

Company, for Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership

Estate (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 1133

ORDER REGARDING GLOBAL SETTLEMENT: On or before January 11,

2013, Netsphere must deposit with the Receiver all monies due and owing to

Baron under the Global Settlement through December 31, 2012. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/2/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 1134 REPLY filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1132 Response/Objection, (Urbanik,

Raymond) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 1135 NOTICE of Supplemental Declaration of Gary Schepps filed by Jeffrey

Baron (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 1136 ORDER: It is Ordered that the Receiver file with the Court an inventory of

each asset presently held in the Receivership, along with the value of each

asset, by noon on 1/4/2013. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/2/2013)

(skt) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 1137 NOTICE of Fifth Circuit Filing filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s)) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 1138 ADVISORY ON PAST AND PENDING RECEIVERSHIP

DISBURSEMENTS: The Court has considered the Fifth Circuit opinion in

the appeal from this Court and has interpreted the opinion to require a

reduction in all past and pending requests for fees and expenses from the

Receivership. If any of the parties wish to contest this Court's interpretation

of the Fifth Circuit opinion, they shall submit briefing on the matter no later

than Wednesday, 1/9/2013. If the Court is not persuaded by briefing on this

this issue, it will allow an immediate appeal, since the Receivership will soon

be closed and the matter will become moot. (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 1/2/2013) (skt) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

01/03/2013 1139 Order to Show Cause. The Receiver is hereby ordered to show cause why

Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC should not be immediately returned to

Page 2

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Jeffrey Baron. The Receiver must respond no later than Wednesday,

1/9/2013. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/3/2013) (cea) (Entered:

01/03/2013)

01/03/2013 1140 ORDER DENYING 1121 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE.

The Court is of the opinion that Baron will be unsuccessful in any attempts to

subpoena testimony from the presiding judge. Additionally, that the personal

knowledge on which Baron seeks recusal is inapplicable to those obtained in

the judicial proceedings themselves and findings that the Receivership,

however invalid, was created in good faith lead this Court to conclude that

this Motion to Disqualify the Trial Judge must be DENIED. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/3/2013) (cea) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

01/03/2013 1141

STATUS REPORT Letter to Judge filed by Peter S Vogel. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s)) (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

01/04/2013 1142

NOTICE of Receiver's Assets as of January 3, 2013 re: 1136 Order filed by

Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1143 ORDER DENYING CERTAIN PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT: The

Court DENIES AS MOOT Doc. Nos. 880, 1001, 1038, and 1046. (Ordered

by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1144 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 880 Motion per Order Denying

Certain Pending Motions as Moot (Doc. No. 1143). (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1146 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1038 Motion for Leave to File per

Order Denying Certain Pending Motions as Moot (Doc. No. 1143). (Ordered

by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1147 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1046 Motion per Order Denying

Certain Pending Motions as Moot (Doc. No. 1143). (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1148 MOTION to Order Third-Party Payment to Receivership and Sanctions filed

by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s)

Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D) (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1149 MOTION to Extend Time for response to Advisory filed by Peter S Vogel

with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Roberson, Richard) (Entered:

01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1150 REQUEST TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT: This Court requests the

Bankruptcy Court presiding over the involuntary bankruptcy of Mr. Jeffrey

Baron, as soon as practicably possible, to lift the automatic stay with regard

to all matters governing the administration of the Receivership, motions and

litigation regarding the winding down of the receivership, and compliance

with the Fifth Circuits opinion once the mandate issues. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

Page 30 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

01/04/201

1151 RESPONSE filed by Dean W Ferguson, Gary G Lyon, Pronske & Patel,

P.C., Mark L Taylor, Shurig Jetel Backett Tackett, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey

Hall re: 1113 Fifth MOTION for Attorney Fees of Dykema, 1116 MOTION

for Attorney Fees for Peter S. Vogel, 1117 Amended MOTION for Attorney

Fees Twenty-Second, 1125 MOTION for Attorney Fees Third Motion of

Daniel J. Sherman, Chapter 11 Trustee for Ondova Limited Company, for

Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Goolsby,

Melanie) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/04/2013 1152

ORDER granting 1148 ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER'S MOTION TO

ORDER THIRD-PARTY PAYMENT TO RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR

STEPHEN COCHELL TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO CONTEMPT (Ordered

by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/4/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

01/04/2013)

01/06/2013 1153 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1149 Motion to Extend Time. The deadline

to respond to the Advisory on Past and Pending Receivership Disbursements

(Doc. No. 1138) is extended to January 23, 2013 for all parties. All other

deadlines remain in place. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/6/2013)

(Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/06/2013)

01/07/2013 1154 ORDER denying 1108 Motion for Reconsideration. In light of the Fifth

Circuit's ruling charging this Court with reconsidering all prior fees and

expenses, this Court is of the opinion that Mr. Morris' fee should be paid at a

95% rate. Further, this money should be retained in the Dykema Gossett

PLLC trust account until further ordered by this Court. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 1155 ORDER: This Court is committed to winding up the Receivership quickly in

accordance with the Fifth Circuit's instructions. It will not tolerate, however,

any improper interference with its duties. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson

on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 1156 ORDER INSTRUCTING RECEIVER TO PAY DYKEMA GOSSETT'S

LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES AT A 95% RATE. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 1157 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1084 Motion for Attorney Fees per

Order Instructing Receiver to Pay Dykema Gossett's Legal Fees and

Expenses at a 95% Rate (Doc. No. 1156 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 1158 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1095 Motion for Attorney Fees per

Order Instructing Receiver to Pay Dykema Gossett's Legal Fees and

Expenses at a 95% Rate (Doc. No. 1156 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 1159 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1113 Motion for Attorney Fees per

Order Instructing Receiver to Pay Dykema Gossett's Legal Fees and

Expenses at a 95% Rate (Doc. No. 1156 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 1/7/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 1160

Page 31 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

MOTION to Vacate 115

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 115

Order, filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-Fifth Circuit Opinion & Clerk of the Court

Letter Regarding Mandate) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/08/2013 1161

NOTICE of RECEIVERS INVENTORY OF ASSETS AS OF JANUARY 8,

2013 filed by Peter S Vogel (Vogel, Peter) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/08/2013 1162 ORDER denying 1160 Motion to Vacate. No action should be taken by any

parties to alter the Receivership contracts or attempt to reclaim property until

further ordered by either this Court or the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 1/8/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/08/2013 1163

ORDER AMENDING ORDER INSTRUCTING RECEIVER TO PAY

DYKEMA GOSSETT'S LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES: The Court now

amends its previous Order to change the accounts from which the Receiver is

to pay Dykema's fees. The Court makes no changes to the total amount of

fees authorized. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/8/2013) (Judge

Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/09/2013 1164

NOTICE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT: Input from this Honorable

Bankruptcy Court is hereby requested. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

1/9/2013) (tln) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2013: # 1 exhibit)

(tln). (Entered: 01/09/2013)

01/09/2013 1165 ORDER TO PAY RENEWAL FEES FOR DOMAIN NAMES. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/9/2013) (tln) (Entered: 01/09/2013)

01/09/2013 1166 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 1150 Order, (Attachments: # 1

REPORT TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST

TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DATED JANUARY 4, 2013) (Blanco -

TXNB, Juan) (Entered: 01/09/2013)

01/10/2013 1167 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1139 Order to Show Cause, (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/10/2013 1168 ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT'S REPORT. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/10/2013) (ctf) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/11/2013 1169 ORDER of USCA : See order for specifics. (Attachments: # 1 USCA5

Letter) (svc) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/15/2013 1170 ORDER: The Court has considered the arguments of the Receiver and the

recent developments in the above numbered case and its corresponding

bankruptcies and now believes that no further action should be taken with

regard to these entities until the issuance of the Mandate from the Fifth

Circuit, the resolution of the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against

Jeffrey Baron, and the winding down of the Receivership by this Court. This

Court will release these entities, as well as all other assets, as soon as it is

authorized by the Fifth Circuit and under the Bankruptcy Code. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/15/2013) (tln) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 1171

Emergency MOTION of Jeffrey Baron for Order Approving Payment of

Retainer to Bankruptcy Counsel and Brief in Support Thereof filed by Jeffrey

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Probus, Matthew) (Entered:

01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 1172 ORDER denying 1171 Emergency MOTION of Jeffrey Baron for Order

Approving Payment of Retainer to Bankruptcy Counsel. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 1/15/2013) (tln) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 1173 NOTICE of Trustee's Recommendation re: 1112 Order, filed by Daniel J.

Sherman (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 1174

STATUS REPORT Receiver's Report filed by Peter S Vogel. (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/17/2013 1175 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 1150 Order, (Attachments: # 1 Report

and Recommendation) (Whitaker - TXNB, Sheniqua) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

01/17/2013 1176 ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT RECOMMENDATIONS

(1175). The Receiver is hereby ORDERED to release $25,000 in cash funds

to be used as a retainer by Mr. Jeffrey Baron's bankruptcy attorney of his

choosing. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/17/2013) (tln) Modified

on 12/31/2013--see order 1349 vacating this order to the extent that it

referred to the bankruptcy court for findings and recommendation

applications by the Receiver for reimbursement of receivership fees and

expenses (gr). (Entered: 01/17/2013)

01/17/2013 1177 ELECTRONIC ORDER: Per the Order Adopting Bankruptcy Court

Recommendations (Doc. No. 1176 ), all scheduling deadlines are

VACATED. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 1/17/2013) (Judge Royal

Furgeson) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

02/04/2013 1178 ORDER REQUIRING EX PARTE, IN CAMERA HEARING WITH

RECEIVER AND HIS COUNSEL: It has come to this Court's attention that

a representation question has arisen between the Receiver and his counsel,

the firm Dykema Gossett PLLC. In order to promptly resolve this issue, the

Court requests that the Receiver and his counsel appear at an ex parte, in

camera hearing on Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 10:00 am in the

undersigned's chambers. The hearing will be on the record, but as it relates to

representation, all records will be sealed. If these parties are unable to appear

in person, they may make alternative arrangements with the Court to appear

by phone. Status Conference set for 2/7/2013 10:00 AM in US Courthouse,

Courtroom 1310, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge

Royal Furgeson. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 2/4/2013) (Judge

Royal Furgeson) (Main Document 1178 replaced on 2/4/2013) (Furgeson,

Royal). (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/06/2013 1179 MOTION Leave to participate in ex parte hearing re 1178 Order Setting

Deadline/Hearing,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in

Support. (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/06/2013 1180 ELECTRONIC ORDER denying 1179 Motion. The issues to be discussed

have no impact on Mr. Baron or his interests. (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 2/6/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

02/06/201

1181 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit as to 115

Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 1156 Order, 1163 Order, 1106 Order,

1083 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1103 Order by Jeffrey Baron, Novo

Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Filing fee $455, receipt number 0539-5104578.

T.O. form to appellant electronically at Transcript Order Form or US Mail as

appropriate. Copy of NOA to be sent US Mail to parties not electronically

noticed. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/12/2013 1182 NOTICE of Fifth Circuit Directive and Request to Preserve Status Quo of

Receivership Pending Fifth Circuit Action filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013 1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses

Pursuant to the Interim Order filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David)

Modified on 2/13/2013 to correct text(svc). (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013 1184 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1138 Order,, (Schenck, David)

(Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013 1185 STATUS REPORT And Wind Down Recommendations filed by Peter S

Vogel. (Schenck, David) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY

COUNSEL filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) Modified text on

2/13/2013 (svc). (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/13/2013 1187 MOTION TO WIND DOWN RECEIVERSHIP WITH PROPOSED PLAN,

MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY

COURT, AND PROVIDE RESOLUTION FOR ALL DISPUTED

ATTORNEYS FEE CLAIMS filed by Jeffrey Baron. (Cochell, Stephen)

Modified on 2/14/2013 to reflect correct event (svc). (Entered: 02/13/2013)

02/15/2013 1188 Receiver's Request for Joint Status Conference in the District Court and the

Bankruptcy Court or, Alternatively, For Status Conference in the District

Court filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) Modified on 2/19/2013 to

modify text (svc). (Entered: 02/15/2013)

02/18/2013 1189

Transcript Order Form: re 1181 Notice of Appeal,, transcript requested by

Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC for Miscellaneous Hearing held on 4-23-2012,

12-4-2012, 2-7-2013, before Judge Furgeson. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered:

02/18/2013)

02/19/2013 USCA Case Number 13-10119 for 1181 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo

Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. (svc) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/20/2013 1190 MOTION Receiver's Expedited Application For Payment of Receivership

Expenses (Court Reporters) Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of

filing in Bankruptcy Court] filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David)

(Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/21/2013 1191 NOTICE of Hearing on March 19, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.and Notice of Deadline

to Respond re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of

Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim Orde, 1190 MOTION

Receiver's Expedited Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

(Court Reporters) Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of filing in

Bankruptcy Court], 1182 Notice (Other), 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY

THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL, 1188 MOTION for

Extension of Time to File, 1185 Status Report filed by Peter S Vogel (Fine,

Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

02/24/2013 1192 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1188 Motion for Extension of Time to

File per Notice of Hearing on March 19, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.and Notice of

Deadline to Respond (Doc. No. 1191 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson

on 2/24/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 02/24/2013)

02/24/2013 1193

Transcript Order Form: re 1181 Notice of Appeal,, transcript requested by

Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC for Miscellaneous Hearing held on 12-14-2012

before Judge Furgeson. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 02/24/2013)

02/24/2013 1194 Transcript Order Form: re 1181 Notice of Appeal,, transcript requested by

Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC for Miscellaneous Hearing held on 4-23-

2012,2-7-2013 before Judge Furgeson. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered:

02/24/2013)

03/04/2013 1195 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited

Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim

Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A- Email Chain dtd 1-28-10, # 2

Declaration(s) B-Declaration of Jeffrey Baron) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered:

03/04/2013)

03/05/2013 1196 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited

Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim

Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A- Declaration of Eli Pearlman, # 2

Exhibit(s) B- Email Exchange re: Dykema Firm, # 3 Exhibit(s) C-

Declaration of Jeffrey Baron) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013 1197 REPLY to Receiver's Response to Advisory [Docket No. 1138] filed by

Jeffrey Baron re: 1184 Response/Objection. (Cochell, Stephen) Modified text

on 3/6/2013 (axm). (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/06/2013 1198 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE

RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL (Cochell, Stephen)

(Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/06/2013 1199 RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1185 Status Report and Wind Down

Recommendations . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A- Extract of Testimony of

Daniel "Corky" Sherman) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/07/2013 1200 MOTION to Appoint Counsel Edward Wright as Local Counsel filed by

Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Cochell, Stephen)

(Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/08/2013 1201 MOTION to Compel Payment of Settlement and for Order to Show Cause

filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Schenck, David)

(Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/08/2013 1202 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP re:

1191 Notice (Other),, (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

03/08/2013 1203 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP re:

1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership

Expenses Pursuant to the Interim Order, 1190 MOTION Receiver's

Expedited Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses (Court

Reporters) Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of filing in

Bankruptcy Court], 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S

AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL, 1188 MOTION for Extension of Time

to File (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/08/2013 1204 RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1185 Status Report (Hunt,

Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/08/2013 1205

RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1182 Notice (Other) (Hunt,

Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/08/2013 1206

RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited

Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim

Order (Hunt, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/08/2013 1207 RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY

THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY COUNSEL (Hunt, Richard)

(Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/11/2013 1208 OBJECTION filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C. re: 1183 Receiver's Expedited

Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses Pursuant to the Interim

Order, 1186 REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY

TO PAY COUNSEL (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/11/2013 1209 OBJECTION filed by Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP re:

1183 Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership

Expenses Pursuant to the Interim Order, 1182 Notice (Other), 1186

REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY

COUNSEL, 1185 Status Report (Sutherland, J) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/12/2013 1210 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION DESIGNATING LOCAL

COUNSEL: Defendants' Motion Designating Local Counsel (Doc. No.

1200 ) is GRANTED. Edward Wright at Abrams Centre, 9330 LBJ Freeway,

Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas 75243 will serve as counsel of record for Mr.

Baron. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 3/12/2013) (Judge Royal

Furgeson) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 1211 ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 1200 Motion to Appoint Counsel per

Doc. No. 1210 ). (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 3/12/2013) (Judge

Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/18/2013 1212 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1187 MOTION TO WIND DOWN

RECEIVERSHIP WITH PROPOSED PLAN, MOTION TO WITHDRAW

THE REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND PROVIDE

RESOLUTION FOR ALL DISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEE CLAIMS, 1183

Receiver's Expedited Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses

Pursuant to the Interim Order, 1190 MOTION Receiver's Expedited

Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses (Court Reporters)

Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39] [copy of filing in Bankruptcy Court],

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

118

REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE RECEIVER'S AUTHORITY TO PAY

COUNSEL, 1188 MOTION for Extension of Time to File (Schenck, David)

(Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 1213 RESPONSE filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1203 Response/Objection,,

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B) (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/27/2013 1214

MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1

Proposed Order GRANTING FEES TO JEFFREY BARONS APPELLATE

COUNSEL) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/28/2013 1215 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1

Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

03/28/2013 1216

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Netsphere Inc re: 1201 MOTION to

Compel Payment of Settlement and for Order to Show Cause (MacPete,

John) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

04/03/2013 1217 NOTICE of Advisory Regarding Court Ordered Settlement Conferences filed

by Jeffrey Baron (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 04/03/2013)

04/03/2013 1218 REPLY filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1201 MOTION to Compel Payment of

Settlement and for Order to Show Cause (Schenck, David) (Entered:

04/03/2013)

04/04/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal

Furgeson: Status Conference held on 4/4/2013. Attorney Appearances:

Plaintiff - John MacPete; Defense - Stephen Cochell, Edward Wright; Peter

Vogel, Jeffrey Fine, David Schenck, Christopher Kratovil, Raymond

Urbanik, Richard Hunt (Court Reporter: Shawn McRoberts) (No exhibits)

Time in Court - 2:30. (chmb) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 1219 Received letter from USCA5 regarding transcripts (svc) (Entered:

04/05/2013)

04/05/2013 1220

SCHEDULING ORDER: Fee applications due by 4/17/2013; Objections to

fee applications due by 4/25/2013; Pre-Trial hearing on fee applications set

for 4/29/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge Royal Furgeson; The trial on fee

applications is set on 5/8/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge Royal Furgeson.

(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/5/2013) (tln) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/05/2013 1221

Designation of Mediator by Daniel J. Sherman. (Urbanik, Raymond)

(Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/08/2013 1222 ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT

ORDER: Concurring in all matters, this Court hereby ADOPTS and

ACCEPTS the Bankruptcy Court's Order in its entirety. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 4/8/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013 1223 ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Receiver submit an

accounting of all Receivership assets by Tuesday, April 23, 2013. (Ordered

by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/8/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

04/08/2013)

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

04/08/201

1224 ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the trial on fee applications

is RE-SET to 2:00 pm on Wednesday, May 8, 2013. The trial will continue

on Thursday, May 9, 2013. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/8/2013)

(Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013 Hearing Modification: Hearings reset per 1224 Order. Bench Trial set for

5/8/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Royal Furgeson. (cea) (Entered:

04/08/2013)

04/12/2013 1225 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why WIPO and ICANN Should not Be

Held in Contempt filed by Peter S Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered:

04/12/2013)

04/15/2013 1226

MOTION to Quash Punitive Notice of Deposition of Peter S. Vogel filed by

Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

04/16/2013 1227

ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDER DIRECTING

MEDIATION AND ORDERING PAYMENT OF MEDIATOR FEES

FROM RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE: The Court now ORDERS that the

Receivership release $12,000 to pay the agreed upon mediator by April 19,

2013 for two full day mediation sessions. If the mediation only lasts for one

day, Judge Clark will remit $6,000 back to the Receivership estate. (Ordered

by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/16/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) Docket text

modified on 4/16/2013 (twd). (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/16/2013 1228 ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that a response to the Motion to

Quash (Doc. No. 1226 be filed on or before April 19, 2013. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/16/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

04/16/2013)

04/16/2013 Hearing/Deadline Modification: Response to 1226 Motion to Quash due by

4/19/2013. (Per 1228 Order.) Responses (twd) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/16/2013 19th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 10-11202 (related to 227 ,

814 , 759 , 136 , 449 , 1034 , 982 , 908 , 340 , 1181 , 614 , 1080 , 576 , 341

appeal): transmitted to Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP on disk only by hand

delivery. (svc) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/17/2013 1229

MOTION for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for

Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate filed by

Daniel J. Sherman with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C-1, # 4 Exhibit C-2, # 5 Exhibit C-3, #

6 Exhibit C-4, # 7 Exhibit C-5, # 8 Exhibit C-6, # 9 Exhibit C-7, # 10 Exhibit

C-8, # 11 Exhibit D) (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/17/2013 1230 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Daniel J. Sherman re 1229 MOTION

for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of

Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)

A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B) (Urbanik, Raymond) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/17/2013 1231 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Baron with Brief/Memorandum

in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Setting Deadlines for Filing of

Page 38 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

Fee Applications for Services Provided to Jeffrey Baron) (Cochell, Stephen)

(Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/17/2013 1232 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP filed by Gardere

Wynne Sewell LLP with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s) A) (Roberson, Richard) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/17/2013 1233

MOTION for Attorney Fees Fee Application for the Receiver filed by Peter S

Vogel with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, #

2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6

Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H) (Vogel, Peter) (Entered:

04/17/2013)

04/17/2013 1234

MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Peter S Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, #

6 Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H, # 9 Exhibit(s) I) (Schenck,

David) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/18/2013 1235 CERTIFICATE of Conference re 1226 MOTION to Quash Punitive Notice

of Deposition of Peter S. Vogel by David J Schenck on behalf of Peter S

Vogel (Schenck, David) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 1236 ORDER DENYING 1231 MOTION TO SET DATES FOR SUBMISSION

OF FEE APPLICATIONS FOR JEFFREY BARON. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 4/18/2013) (twd) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1236. Thu

Apr 18 14:22:21 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/19/2013 1237 NOTICE of Receiver's Inventory filed by Peter S Vogel (Vogel, Peter)

(Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/19/2013 1238 RESPONSE filed by Daniel J. Sherman re: 1226 MOTION to Quash

Punitive Notice of Deposition of Peter S. Vogel (Hunt, Richard) (Entered:

04/19/2013)

04/19/2013 1239 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 1226 Motion to Quash per Doc. No.

1238 , withdrawing notice of deposition. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson

on 4/19/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/19/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1239. Fri Apr

19 15:32:51 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/19/2013 1240 MOTION for Discovery, MOTION for Continuance and to Re-Consider

Funding for Jeffrey Baron's Counsel filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin). Added

MOTION for Attorney Fees on 4/22/2013 (axm). (Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/22/2013 1241

AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority

by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 1242 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority

by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 1243

Page 3

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

AFFIDAVIT re 122

Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authorit

by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 1244 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority

by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 1245 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1240 MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY, AND DENYING 1240 MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE

AND TO RE-CONSIDER FUNDING FOR JEFFREY BARON'S

COUNSEL. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/22/2013) (cea)

(Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1245. Mon

Apr 22 16:07:11 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 1246

ORDER of USCA: IT IS ORDERED that the opposed emergency motion of

Jeffrey Baron for stay pending appeal is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that the opposed emergency motion to stay the issuance of the

mandate is DENIED. (svc) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

04/23/2013 1247 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority

by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

04/24/2013 1254 Opinion of USCA (certified copy) in accordance with USCA judgment re

227 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC, 814 Notice

of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Gary Schepps, Quantec

LLC, 759 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Gary

Schepps, Quantec LLC, 136 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeffrey Baron, 449

Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC,

1034 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec

LLC, 982 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,

Quantec LLC, 908 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey

Baron, Quantec LLC, 340 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron, 1181

Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC,

614 Notice of Appeal, filed by Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal,

LLP, 1080 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,

Quantec LLC, 576 Notice of Appeal,,,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey

Baron, Quantec LLC, 341 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC,

Quantec LLC. (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013 1255 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 136 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 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 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

Page 40 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Page 41 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

additional notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically noticed.) (svc)

(Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013 1262 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 982 Notice of Appeal, filed by

Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron, 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)

04/24/2013 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)

04/25/2013 1248 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1229 MOTION

for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of

Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Vogel, Peter) (Entered:

04/25/2013)

04/25/2013 1249 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Peter S Vogel re: 1229 MOTION

for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of

Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Schenck, David) (Entered:

04/25/2013)

04/25/2013 1250 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for

objections to fee applications set Thursday, April 25, 2013 is hereby Vacated

until further order of the court. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

4/25/2013) (chmb) (Entered: 04/25/2013)

04/25/2013 1251 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is ORDERED that the pre-trial hearing set on

Monday, April 29, 2013 at 9:00 a.m is hereby Vacated until further order of

the court. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/25/2013) (chmb) (Entered:

04/25/2013)

04/25/2013 1252 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to file

objections to fee applications is reset to Thursday, May 2, 2013. The pre-trial

hearing is reset for Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. with the trial to

follow. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 4/25/2013) (chmb) (Entered:

04/25/2013)

04/25/2013 Deadline Modification: Response Deadlines terminated per 1250

ELECTRONIC Order. (cea) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

Page 4

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

04/25/201

Hearing Modification: Hearings terminated per 1251 ELECTRONIC Order.

(cea) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/25/2013 Hearing/Deadline Modification: Deadlines/hearings set per 1252

ELECTRONIC Order. Responses due by 5/2/2013. Pretrial Conference set

for 5/8/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Royal Furgeson. (cea) (Entered:

04/26/2013)

04/26/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1250, 1251,

1252. Fri Apr 26 07:14:40 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/26/2013 1253 AFFIDAVIT re 1227 Order,, Declaration Designating Settlement Authority

by Pronske & Patel PC. (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/29/2013 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) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/29/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1264. Mon

Apr 29 16:54:47 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

05/01/2013 1265 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to file

objections to fee applications is reset to Monday, May 6, 2013. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/1/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

05/01/2013)

05/01/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1265. Wed

May 1 11:26:59 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

05/06/2013 1266 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Status Conference

Proceedings held on December 14, 2012 before Judge Royal Furgeson. Court

Reporter/Transcriber Charyse C. Crawford, CSR, RPR, Telephone number

(214)753-2373. 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. If

redaction request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see

redacted transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not

electronically noticed. (57 pages) Redaction Request due 5/28/2013.

Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/6/2013. Release of Transcript

Restriction set for 8/5/2013. (ccc) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 1267 ELECTRONIC ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to file

objections to fee applications is reset to Thursday, May 9, 2013. The pre-trial

conference and trial on fees will still commence on Wednesday, May 8, 2013

at 2:00 pm. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/6/2013) (Judge Royal

Furgeson) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 1268 RESPONSE filed by Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G Lyon, David

Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Pronske & Patel PC, Shurig Jetel Backett

Tackett re: 1233 MOTION for Attorney Fees Fee Application for the

Receiver, 1232 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP,

Page 4

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

122

MOTION for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application fo

Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate, 1234

MOTION for Attorney Fees (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/07/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1267. Tue

May 7 07:29:47 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/08/2013 1269 OBJECTION filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1233 MOTION for Attorney Fees

Fee Application for the Receiver, 1232 MOTION for Attorney Fees for

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1229 MOTION for Attorney Fees Chapter 11

Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses from the

Receivership Estate, 1234 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Wright, Edwin)

(Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal

Furgeson: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/8/2013. Opening statements heard

from Mr. Rukavina, Mr. Schenck, Mr. Cochell and Mr. MacPete. Mr.

Rukavina calls Daniel Sherman to the stand (Mr. Sherman sworn-in). Mr.

Schenck on cross-examination of Mr. Sherman. Mr. Cochell on cross-

examination of Mr. Sherman. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr.

Sherman. Mr. Rukavina calls Peter Vogel to the stand (Mr. Vogel sworn-in).

Mr. Schenck on cross-examination of Mr. Vogel. Mr. Cochell on cross-

examination of Mr. Vogel. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr. Vogel.

Mr. Rukavina calls Raymond Urbanik to the stand (Mr. Urbanik sworn-in).

Mr. Fine on cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. Cochell on cross-

examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr.

urbanik. Proceedings to resume tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Courts in recess.

Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - John MacPete; Defense - Stephen Cochell,

Edward Wright, Peter Vogel, David Schenck, Jeffrey Fine, Raymond

Urbanik, Davor Rukavina, Richard Roberson, Gerrit Pronske. (Court

Reporter: Cass Casey) (Exhibits admitted) Time in Court - 4:30. (chmb)

(Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/09/2013 1270

MOTION for Leave to File Amend, Abate and DeclarationRegarding Fee

Applications and Subsequent Orders Granting or Awarding Fees filed by

Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin) (Entered:

05/09/2013)

05/09/2013 1271 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Netsphere Inc re: 1233 MOTION

for Attorney Fees Fee Application for the Receiver, 1232 MOTION for

Attorney Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1229 MOTION for Attorney

Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of Fees and

Expenses from the Receivership Estate, 1234 MOTION for Attorney Fees

(MacPete, John) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal

Furgeson: Day two of Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/9/2013. Mr. Rukovina

puts on legal fee presentation. Mr. Vogel puts on legal fee presentation.

Proffer heard from Mr. Urbanik, Mr. Loh cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik.

Mr. Fine cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. Cochell cross-examination

of Mr. Urbanik. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr. Urbanik. Mr.

Rukavina rest. Proffer heard from Mr. Vogel on application fees. Mr. Vogel

Page 4

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

calls Damon Nelson (sworn-in) to the stand. Mr. Wright cross-examination

of Mr. Nelson. Mr. Vogel calls Peter Loh (sworn-in) to the stand. Mr.

Roberson on cross-examination- of Mr. Loh. Mr. Cochell on cross-

examination of Mr. Loh. Mr. MacPete on cross-examination of Mr. Loh. Mr.

Vogel call David Schenck (sworn-in) to the stand. Mr. Fine on cross-

examination of Mr. Schenck. Mr. Wright on cross-examination of Mr.

Schenck. Mr. Urbanik on cross-examination of Mr. Schenck. Mr. MacPeter

on cross-examination of Mr. Schenck. Court to resume tomorrow at 8:50 a.m.

Courts in recess. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - John MacPete; Defense -

Stephen Cochell, Edward Wright, Peter Vogel, David Schenck, Jeffrey Fine,

Davor Rukavina, Zac Annable, Ray Urbanik, Peter Loh, Richard Roberson,

Melanie Goolsby. (Court Reporter: Cass Casey/Pam Wilson) (Exhibits

admitted) Time in Court - 5:45. (chmb) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/10/2013 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Royal

Furgeson: Day three of Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/10/2013. Closing

arguments heard from Mr. Pronske, Mr. Rukavina, Mr. Roberson, Mr.

Schenck, Mr. Fine, Mr. MacPete and Mr. Cocohell. Court to issue opinion in

the next in 10-15 days. Courts in recess. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff -

John MacPete; Defense - Stephen Cochell, Peter Vogel, Jeffrey Fine, David

Schenck, Davor Rukavina, Richard Roberson. (Court Reporter: Cass Casey)

(No exhibits) Time in Court - 2:25. (chmb) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/14/2013 1272 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Peter S Vogel re Evidentiary

Hearing,, RECEIVER AND DYKEMAS CONSOLIDATED POST-HEARING

BRIEF (Schenck, David) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013 1273 Dykema's Supplemental Application by Peter S Vogel. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s) A) (Schenck, David) Modified on 5/15/2013 (svc). (Entered:

05/14/2013)

05/15/2013 1274 MOTION for Attorney Fees of Edwin E. Wright, III, Counsel for Defendant

Jeffrey Baron filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Redacted

Fee Bill, # 2 Proposed Order) (Wright, Edwin) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 1275 AFFIDAVIT re 1274 MOTION for Attorney Fees of Edwin E. Wright, III,

Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Baron by Jeffrey Baron. (Wright, Edwin)

(Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 1276

Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Daniel J. Sherman re 1229 MOTION

for Attorney Fees Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of

Fees and Expenses from the Receivership Estate (Urbanik, Raymond)

(Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 1277

RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1272 Brief/Memorandum in Support

of Motion (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 1278

RESPONSE filed by Jeffrey Baron re: 1276 Brief/Memorandum in Support

of Motion (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/16/2013 1279 ORDER denying without prejudice 1215 and 1274 Motions for Attorney

Fees. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/16/2013) (ndt) (Entered:

05/16/2013)

Page 4

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

05/16/201

***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1279. Thu

May 16 16:25:33 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

05/20/2013 1280 Receiver's Supplemental Application for Payment of Receivership Expenses

(Equivalent Data) by Peter S Vogel. (Schenck, David) Modified on

5/21/2013 to change to correct event (svc). (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/21/2013 1281 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron re 1233 MOTION for

Attorney Fees Fee Application for the Receiver, 1232 MOTION for Attorney

Fees for Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1229 MOTION for Attorney Fees

Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses

from the Receivership Estate (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

05/23/2013 1282

ORDER Granting 1233 Motion for Fee Application for the Receiver in

regard to certain miscellaneous Receiver professionals. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 5/23/2013) (cea) (Entered: 05/23/2013)

05/23/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1282. Thu

May 23 08:48:42 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/23/2013)

05/23/2013 1283 OBJECTION filed by Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G Lyon, David

Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Pronske & Patel PC, Shurig Jetel Beckett

Tackett re: 1234 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered:

05/23/2013)

05/28/2013 1284 (Document Restricted) Joint Motion by Former Baron Lawyers and Jeffrey

Baron for Wind Down Plan and Settlement Agreement (Sealed pursuant to

motion to seal) filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A: Wind

Down Plan & Settlement Agreement) (Cochell, Stephen) (Entered:

05/28/2013)

05/28/2013 1285 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Status Conference and

Hearing on Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 04/23/12 before Judge Royal

Furgeson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number 214-

354-3139, Email: Cassidi45@aol.com. 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. If redaction request filed, this transcript will

not be accessible via PACER; see redacted transcript. The clerk will mail a

copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed. (83 pages) Redaction

Request due 6/18/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/28/2013.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/26/2013. (svc) (Entered:

05/28/2013)

05/28/2013 1286

ORDER DENYING 1284 JOINT MOTION BY JEFFREY BARON AND

FORMER LAWYERS FOR ENTRY OF WIND DOWN PLAN AND FOR

EXPEDITED HEARING THEREON. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

5/28/2013) (ctf) Modified security per chambers on 5/29/2013 (ctf). (Entered:

05/28/2013)

05/28/2013

Page 4

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1286. Tue

May 28 16:35:51 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/28/2013)

05/29/2013 1287 ORDER ON RECEIVERSHIP PROFESSIONAL FEES: The Court

authorizes additional payments to the Receiver in the amount of $166,550

and to Dykema in the amount of $1,130,000. These additional allowed fees

total $1,296,550. The Court understands that payment now depends on the

cash reserves of the Receivership estate. The Court has allowed Gardere and

the Trustee to retain the funds already distributed, but will authorize no more.

(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013) (ctf) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

05/29/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1287. Wed

May 29 10:03:26 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

05/29/2013 1288 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1190 Motion Receiver's Expedited

Application For Payment of Receivership Expenses (Court Reporters)

Pursuant to the Interim Order [D.E.39]. This Motion has already been

approved by the Bankruptcy Court in case number 12-37921-sgj7 (Docket

No. 96). The Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that these expenses

should be paid. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013) (Judge

Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

05/29/2013 1289 ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as MOOT 1270 Motion for Leave to File.

The Court has issued its ruling on this matter, accordingly, Baron's request is

hereby found MOOT. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013)

(Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

05/29/2013 1290 ELECTRONIC ORDER denying 1033 Motion for Leave to File. (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/29/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

05/29/2013)

05/31/2013 1291 ORDER: By ORDER of this Court, the Sealed Memorandum signed on

5/31/2013, the Sealed transcript of the in-camera hearing held on 2/7/2013

and the Sealed transcript of the telephonic conference call held on 2/12/2013,

shall be placed under seal. None of these matters shall be unsealed and none

shall be available to the parties or their attorneys or anyone else except by a

Court order. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/31/2013) (ctf) (Entered:

05/31/2013)

05/31/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1291. Fri

May 31 16:48:44 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

05/31/2013 1292

Case reassigned to Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater. Judge Royal Furgeson

no longer assigned to the case. Future filings should indicate the case number

as: 3:09-cv-0988-D. (gr) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

05/31/2013 1294

Received letter from USCA5 transmitting approved bills of costs

inadvertently not issued with the mandate on 4/19/13. (svc) (Entered:

06/05/2013)

06/03/2013 1293

Court Request for Recusal: Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater recused.

Pursuant to instruction in Special Order 3-249, the Clerk has reassigned the

case to Judge Sam A Lindsay for all further proceedings. Future filings

Page 4

of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

should indicate the case number as: 3:09-cv-0988-L. (gr) (Entered:

06/03/2013)

06/24/2013 1295 MOTION Approve Compromise and Wind-Down Plan filed by Jeffrey

Baron, Dean W Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G Lyon, David

Pacione, Power Taylor LLP, Pronske & Patel PC, Shurig Jetel Beckett

Tackett, Mark L Taylor (Goolsby, Melanie) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

06/26/2013 21th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119 (related to 814 ,

1181 , 614 , 576 appeal): Record consisting of: 7 ECF electronic record, 1

Volume(s) electronic transcript, Sealed or ex parte document number(s):

1284,1296 (circuit approval is required for access), certified to USCA. To

request a copy of the record (on disk or on paper), contact the appeals deputy

in advance to arrange delivery. (svc) Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc). (Entered:

06/26/2013)

06/27/2013 21th Supplemental Record on Appeal for USCA5 13-10119 (related to 1181

appeal): transmitted to Gary N Schepps on disk only by hand delivery. (svc)

Modified on 7/18/2013 (svc). (Entered: 06/27/2013)

06/28/2013 1297 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit as to 1282

Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 1287 Order on Motion for Attorney

Fees, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Jeffrey Baron,

Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC. Filing fee $455, receipt number 0539-

5398023. T.O. form to appellant electronically at Transcript Order Form or

US Mail as appropriate. Copy of NOA to be sent US Mail to parties not

electronically noticed. (Tayari Garrett, Mpatanishi) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

07/01/2013 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1297. Mon

Jul 1 08:29:30 CDT 2013 (crt) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

07/07/2013 1298 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 1, Trial on

Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 5-8-2013 before Judge Furgeson. Court

Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number Cassidi45@aol.com.

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. If redaction

request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see redacted

transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not

electronically noticed. (203 pages) Redaction Request due 7/29/2013.

Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2013. Release of Transcript

Restriction set for 10/7/2013. (clc) (Entered: 07/07/2013)

07/07/2013 1299 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 2, Trial on

Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 5-9-2013 before Judge Furgeson. Court

Reporter/Transcriber Cassidi Casey, Telephone number Cassidi45@aol.com.

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

Page 48 of 6

District Version 5.1.1

201

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cg

in/DktRpt.pl?33686135420718

-L_1_0-1

available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. If redaction

request filed, this transcript will not be accessible via PACER; see redacted

transcript. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not

electronically noticed. (100 pages) Redaction Request due 7/29/2013.

Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2013. Release of Transcript

Restriction set for 10/7/2013. (clc) (Entered: 07/07/2013)

07/07/2013 1300 Notice of Filing of Official Electronic Transcript of Volume 3, Trial on

Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 5-10-2013 before Judge Furgeson. Court