Evidence Record
Order for the Reasons Stated on the Record at the Hearing on March 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, (docket Entry No. 4), Is Granted. This Case Is Remanded to the 129th Judicial District
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 27, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
DISTIL analysis
DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
Court Order
Total Nodes
16
Node Legend
Entity (ENT)
Event (EVT)
Claim (CLM)
Anchor (ANC)
Omission (OMI)
Tension (TEN)
Tell (TEL)
Inference (INF)
Hypothesis (HYP)
Stage 1
Index
Orientation · No nodes
Document Classification
Court Order United States District Court, Southern District of Texas Federal civil litigation - remand order 2025-03-26 to 2025-03-27
remand_grantedattorneys_fees_denied
Analytical Frame
Procedural ruling on motion to remand
Analytical Summary
On March 27, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal issued an order in Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation granting the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court. The order references reasons stated on the record at a hearing held the previous day, March 26, 2025. The case was remanded to the 129th Judicial District Court in Harris County, Texas. Although the motion to remand was granted, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs associated with the removal and remand proceedings.
Key Points
- Motion to remand granted based on reasons stated at March 26, 2025 hearing
- Case remanded from federal court to 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
- Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs denied
- Order signed by Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal on March 27, 2025
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
9 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC - plaintiff entity in federal civil action
Page 1 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
ENT-002
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Cyberlux Corporation - defendant entity in federal civil action
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ENT-003
Entity
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal - judicial officer who issued the order
Page 1 — Lee H. Rosenthal Senior United States District Judge
ENT-004
Entity
129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
State court to which the case is being remanded
Page 1 — This case is remanded to the 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
EVT-001
Event
Hearing on Motion to Remand
Hearing held on March 26, 2025 regarding plaintiffs' motion to remand
Page 1 — For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on March 26, 2025
EVT-002
Event
Grant of Motion to Remand
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand on March 27, 2025
Page 1 — the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted.
EVT-003
Event
Remand to State Court
Case remanded from federal court to 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
Page 1 — This case is remanded to the 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
EVT-004
Event
Denial of Attorneys' Fees Request
Court denied plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs
Page 1 — The plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.
CLM-001
Claim
Reasons for Remand Stated on Record
The court's reasons for granting the motion to remand were stated on the record at the March 26, 2025 hearing
Page 1 — For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on March 26, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted.
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
3 nodes
QST-001
Question
Basis for Federal Jurisdiction
What was the original basis for federal jurisdiction that defendants asserted when removing the case from state court?
Page 1 — the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted. This case is remanded to the 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
QST-002
Question
Legal Standard for Attorneys' Fees Denial
Under what legal standard did the court deny attorneys' fees - was improper removal found but not in bad faith, or was there another basis?
Page 1 — The plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.
TEN-001
Tension
Remand Granted but Fees Denied
The court found the case should be remanded (suggesting improper removal) but denied attorneys' fees, creating tension about whether removal was objectively unreasonable or in bad faith
Page 1 — the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted. [...] The plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
4 nodes
OMI-001
Omission
Substantive Reasons for Remand Not Stated
The written order does not include the substantive legal reasons for granting the remand, only references that they were stated on the hearing record
Page 1 — For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on March 26, 2025
OMI-002
Omission
No Explanation for Denial of Fees
The order denies attorneys' fees and costs without providing any reasoning or legal basis for the denial
Page 1 — The plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.
INF-001
Inference
Case Originally Filed in State Court
The case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court by defendants, prompting plaintiffs' motion to remand
Page 1 — the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted. This case is remanded to the 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
INF-002
Inference
Federal Jurisdiction Found Lacking
The court's grant of the motion to remand indicates it found federal jurisdiction was lacking or improper
Page 1 — For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on March 26, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted.
Extracted text
1 pages · 894 charactersFiling Header
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 27, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
vos vos vos vos vos vos vos vos vos las cas
V. Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-626
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on March 26, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted. This case is remanded to the 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.
SIGNED on March 27, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
Lue H. Rosen The
Lee H. Rosenthal Senior United States District Judge
Unofficial Copy Office of Marian Burgess District Clark
EXHIBIT 1
Original source file
No source file is attached yet. The record is ready for the PDF/media link when the attachment importer is connected.
- File
- aw-harris-awh-2024-48085-doc-120550111.pdf
- Source UID
- source:a3e49e567b3880d866ca330c15afdd3b9399a756f9453faf4ca7a58decc5a30c
- Full SHA-256
- a3e49e567b3880d866ca330c15afdd3b9399a756f9453faf4ca7a58decc5a30c