RESPONSE - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NETSPHERE, INC., §

MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §

MUNISH KRISHAN, §

Plaintiffs. §

§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F

JEFF BARON’S MONEY WITHOUT TRIAL [DOC 613]

Appellant, Jeffrey Baron makes this response to Carrington Coleman’s motion

filed as Doc 613, seeking to be given Jeff Baron’s money by this Court.

1. As a preliminary matter, objection is raised to Carrington Coleman’s

(hereinafter “CCOLE”) lack of standing. CCOLE is neither a party to this lawsuit

nor has made any prior motion for relief. Further, the Court has made no finding

or adjudication as to CCOLE. Since no right of CCOLE was adjudicated and no

motion was made by any party to adjudicate any right of CCOLE, CCOLE has no

standing to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order.

2. CCOLE is not a party and their motion does not fall within the scope of

RESPONSE - Page 2

order when it was appealed. CCOLE’s argument that their rights should have been

adjudicated by the Court when no pleading or motion seeking the adjudication of

their rights was before the court, borders on the frivolous.

3. Objection is further raised that CCOLE failed to comply with the local

rules of procedure in failing to confer with the undersigned prior to filing of their

lawsuit and prove a claim in a lawsuit against Mr. Baron, CCOLE would like the

Court to bypass the US Constitution and simply give them some of Mr. Baron’s

money. However, that is not the law. Mr. Baron’s assets are in the possession of

the receiver. Mr. Baron’s alleged debts are not. CCOLE has no claim to the assets

held by the receiver. CCOLE has at best a claim at law against Mr. Baron, most of

which is barred by the statute of limitations and all of which is outside of the

subject matter jurisdiction of a US District court since Mr. Baron and CCOLE are

non-diverse.

5. Again, the claim asserted by CCOLE is not a claim against any asset of

RESPONSE - Page 3

directly paid—without trial— from assets held in receivership because those assets

were seized from that person. Ordering that a person’s assets be placed into a

jury for all legal claims asserted against that person.

6. No prior motion seeking to pay CCOLE money has been filed, and

agreement Ondova was the primary beneficiary of CCOLE’s services and became

the exclusive party responsible for the payment of any fees incurred. CCOLE was

clearly on notice and acted in conformity with their being on notice that Ondova

was the sole obligee. Moreover, Ondova obligated itself not to seek resolution of

any dispute over the fees in court without first seeking resolution in arbitration.

7. For further cause, if same is necessary: Mr. Baron has appealed the order

appointing the receiver [Doc #136] and NovoPoint, LLC and Quantec, LLC

(“SouthPac’s LLC companies”) have appealed from the order including the

SouthPac LLC companies into the receivership [Doc #227].

RESPONSE - Page 4

Sterrett, 640 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[T]he District Court was divested of

jurisdiction only as to matters relating to the April 27 and May 12 orders and

subsequent orders and, for that reason, fees cannot be recovered for work relating

to these orders”).

9. Mr. Baron would like to respond and object further, but requires access

opportunity to further object to the motions and provide further evidence in

response to the motion. Objection is also made to the denial of Mr. Baron’s rights

to conduct discovery, and demand is made for a jury trial on the claims asserted by

CCOLE in their motion.

RESPONSE - Page 5

This is to certify that this was served on all parties who receive notification

through the Court’s electronic filing system.