Evidence Record

Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Modify.

1. The Definition in 12, p. of the Order provides: "Defendant(s)" or "Judgment Debtor(s)", collectively and individually refers to the following Debtors: (referring to Cyberlux and "Mark D. Schmidt (individually)). This section refers to...

Type: court filing
Pages: 10
Lines: 437
SHA-256: e2f6e574d6e0

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run

Profile

Standard

Version

Doc Type

Emergency Motion to Modify Court Order

Total Nodes

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

Emergency Motion to Modify Court Order Defense counsel (Thompson Coburn LLP) representing Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Post-judgment enforcement proceeding in Harris County District Court, Texas January 16, 2025 hearing through June 3, 2025 filing

emergency_motionprocedural_disputereceiver_scopeorder_reformation

Analytical Frame

Procedural dispute over scope of receivership order following oral ruling

Analytical Summary

Defense counsel for Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed an emergency motion seeking to modify a May 22, 2025 receivership order that inadvertently included Schmidt individually despite the Court's January 16, 2025 oral ruling explicitly excluding him. The motion argues that during the hearing, plaintiffs withdrew their turnover claims against Schmidt personally and conceded they presented no evidence supporting receivership relief against him. Defense counsel objected to the proposed order on April 5, 2025, noting it improperly included Schmidt, but the Court signed the order on May 22, 2025. The practical impact has already materialized: Charles Schwab restricted Schmidt's personal accounts on June 2, 2025 based on the order. The motion seeks reformation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b(g) to align the written order with the Court's actual ruling, protecting Schmidt and his wife's property from receivership jurisdiction.

Key Points

Court ruled on January 16, 2025 that receivership would apply only to Cyberlux Corporation, not Mark D. Schmidt individually
Plaintiffs withdrew turnover claims against Schmidt and conceded no evidence was presented against him personally
Defense objected to proposed order on April 5, 2025 but Court signed order including Schmidt on May 22, 2025
Charles Schwab restricted Schmidt's personal accounts on June 2, 2025 based on the order
Motion seeks reformation under Texas R. Civ. P. 329b(g) to align written order with oral ruling

Stage 2

Core — Entities, Events, Claims

17 nodes

ENT-001

Entity

Cyberlux Corporation

Defendant judgment debtor in post-judgment enforcement proceeding, subject to receivership order

Page 1 — NOW COME Defendants Cyberlux Corporation ("Cyberlux") and Mark D. Schmidt, Individually (collectively "Defendants")

ENT-002

Entity

Mark D. Schmidt

Individual defendant who Court ruled would be excluded from receivership, but was inadvertently included in written order

Page 1, 2 — Mark D. Schmidt, Individually... that turnover and receivership relief would be granted against Cyberlux, but not Schmidt

ENT-003

Entity

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC

Plaintiffs/judgment creditors seeking enforcement through turnover and receivership

Page 1 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor

ENT-004

Entity

129th District Court, Harris County

Trial court presiding over post-judgment enforcement proceeding, Cause No. 2024-48085

Page 1 — IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ENT-005

Entity

Robert W. Berleth

Court-appointed receiver over Cyberlux Corporation's non-exempt assets

Page 5 — the Court Appoints Robert W. Berleth as Receiver over each Debtor's non-exempt assets

ENT-006

Entity

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

Financial institution that restricted Schmidt's personal accounts based on receivership order

Page 7 — On June 2, 2025, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ("Schwab") provided notice to Schmidt that Schmidt's accounts with Schwab, which may encompass his personal brokerage, securities, and related accounts, have been restricted

ENT-007

Entity

Thompson Coburn LLP

Law firm representing defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt

Page 8 — THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201... Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt

EVT-001

Event

January 16, 2025 Court Hearing on Turnover and Receivership

Court hearing where plaintiffs withdrew turnover claims against Schmidt individually and Court ruled receivership would apply only to Cyberlux Corporation

Page 2 — During the hearing on Plaintiffs' Application for Turnover and Receivership (the "Hearing"), Plaintiffs requested relief against Cyberlux, but withdrew their claims against Schmidt and conceded they provided no evidence against Schmidt. Accordingly, this Court ruled from the bench that turnover and receivership relief would be granted against Cyberlux, but not Schmidt.

EVT-002

Event

April 1, 2025 Submission of Proposed Order

Plaintiffs' counsel submitted proposed Order Appointing Receiver that included turnover and receivership relief against Schmidt despite Court's ruling

Page 2 — on April 1, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Order Appointing Receiver that included turnover and receivership relief against Schmidt

EVT-003

Event

April 5, 2025 Objection to Proposed Order

Defense counsel objected to inclusion of Schmidt in proposed order, noting it exceeded the record and Court's ruling

Page 2, 3 — Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order, stating in part: "Plaintiffs' Proposed Order greatly exceeds what is shown in the record and statutory authority... especially because this Court expressly declined to appoint a receiver as to Defendant Mark Schmidt." (Cyberlux's Counsel's letter of April 5, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1)

EVT-004

Event

May 22, 2025 Order Signing

Court signed Order Appointing Receiver that inadvertently included Schmidt contrary to January 16, 2025 ruling

Page 3 — The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025, and that order is contrary to the Court's specific ruling at the hearing of January 16, 2025

EVT-005

Event

June 2, 2025 Account Restrictions

Charles Schwab restricted Schmidt's personal brokerage and securities accounts based on receivership order

EVT-006

Event

June 3, 2025 Filing of Emergency Motion

Defendants filed Emergency Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the receivership order to exclude Schmidt

Page 1 — 6/3/2025 4:56 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County... Filed: 6/3/2025 4:56 PM... DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY, CORRECT, OR REFORM ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER

CLM-001

Claim

Plaintiffs Withdrew Claims Against Schmidt at Hearing

Plaintiffs withdrew their turnover request against Schmidt individually and conceded no evidence was presented to support relief against him

Page 2 — Plaintiffs requested relief against Cyberlux, but withdrew their claims against Schmidt and conceded they provided no evidence against Schmidt

CLM-002

Claim

Proposed Order Exceeded Court's Ruling

Defense asserts the proposed order improperly included Schmidt despite Court's express exclusion and lack of evidentiary support

Page 3 — Plaintiffs' Proposed Order greatly exceeds what is shown in the record and statutory authority... especially because this Court expressly declined to appoint a receiver as to Defendant Mark Schmidt

CLM-003

Claim

Written Order Does Not Comport with Court's Ruling

The May 22, 2025 written order contradicts the Court's January 16, 2025 oral ruling excluding Schmidt from receivership

Page 1 — the written order does not comport with the Court's ruling, as the parties agreed-and the Court ordered-that no receivership relief was to be rendered against Schmidt

CLM-004

Claim

Order Creates Irreparable Harm to Schmidt

Without modification, Schmidt remains subject to receivership restrictions and his property shared with spouse is in jeopardy, causing irreparable harm

Page 4 — without this modification and correction, Schmidt would remain subject to the restriction and obligations of the Order Appointing Receiver and Mr. Schmidt's property, which he shares with his spouse, would remain in jeopardy, resulting in irreparable harm with no adequate remedy by appeal

Stage 3

In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions

6 nodes

QUO-001

Quotation

Court and Counsel Exchange on Schmidt's Exclusion

Direct courtroom dialogue showing Court's intent to exclude Schmidt from turnover relief based on plaintiff's withdrawal

Page 3 — THE COURT: So we talked a little bit about what specifically the turnover needs to apply to just so we don't have an issue on its face. In terms of -- she did raise a point regarding Mr. Schmidt. We didn't have anything on Mr. Schmidt; is that right? MR. VARGO [Counsel for Plaintiffs]: The turnover is just against the company. It's not against Mr. Schmidt. THE COURT: Okay. So he's going to be removed? MR. VARGO: Yes. THE COURT: So they're only seeking a turnover regarding the company. So in the amended order he'll be removed.

TEN-001

Tension

Oral Ruling vs. Written Order Discrepancy

Fundamental conflict between Court's explicit oral ruling excluding Schmidt and subsequently signed written order including him

Page 2, 3 — this Court ruled from the bench that turnover and receivership relief would be granted against Cyberlux, but not Schmidt... The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025, and that order is contrary to the Court's specific ruling

TEN-002

Tension

Defense Objection vs. Court Action

Despite timely defense objection on April 5, 2025 to inclusion of Schmidt, Court signed order including him on May 22, 2025

Page 2, 3 — Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order... Notwithstanding these objections... the Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025

TEN-003

Tension

Ambiguous 'Debtor' vs. 'Debtors' Terminology

Order uses inconsistent terminology ('Debtor' vs 'Debtors') creating uncertainty about whether provisions apply to Schmidt individually

Page 3, 4 — It defines 'Judgment Debtors' as the Defendants and then purports to appoint a receiver as to 'Debtor,' which is not defined, making the Proposed Order impermissibly ambiguous on its face... Other provisions refer to "Debtor" which makes it unclear whether Cyberlux and Schmidt are both referred to when that term is used

QST-001

Question

Why Was Order Signed Despite Clear Objections?

Document does not explain why Court signed order including Schmidt on May 22, 2025 despite April 5 objections and January 16 ruling

Page 3 — Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs' representations that they sought an order only against the company, and the Court's clear direction to exclude Schmidt from Plaintiffs' proposed order, Plaintiffs submitted an order that included Schmidt. The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025

QST-002

Question

What Relief Will Court Grant?

Document presents emergency motion but outcome is pending; unclear if Court will reform order as requested

Page 7 — Defendants respectfully request the Court grant the relief requested above and all other relief to which Defendants are entitled

Stage 4

Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns

5 nodes

INF-001

Inference

Court Likely Signed Order Without Detailed Review

The term 'inadvertently' and the gap between objection and signing suggests Court may have signed order without reviewing objections or verifying compliance with oral ruling

Page 3 — The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025

INF-002

Inference

Practical Impact Drives Emergency Status

The emergency nature of motion appears driven by concrete harm: Schwab's account restrictions demonstrate order is being actively enforced against Schmidt

Page 7 — Because the Order currently permits the Receiver to take custody of the assets of Schmidt, the Receiver is currently acting to obtain custody of Schmidt's assets. On June 2, 2025, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ("Schwab") provided notice to Schmidt that Schmidt's accounts with Schwab... have been restricted

INF-003

Inference

Spousal Property at Risk Elevates Stakes

Motion emphasizes community property shared with Schmidt's wife, suggesting concern about marital assets being swept into receivership without proper legal basis

Page 4, 5 — Mr. Schmidt's property, which he shares with his spouse, would remain in jeopardy... all non-exempt community assets of the Debtor

OMI-001

Omission

No Explanation for Six-Week Delay in Order Entry

Document does not explain why order was not entered until May 22, 2025, six weeks after April 5 objections were filed

Page 2, 3 — on April 1, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Order... Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order... (Cyberlux's Counsel's letter of April 5, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1)... The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025

OMI-002

Omission

No Plaintiff Response to Defense Objections Documented

Document does not indicate whether plaintiffs responded to April 5 objections or revised proposed order before Court signed it

Page 2, 3 — Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order... Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs' representations that they sought an order only against the company... Plaintiffs submitted an order that included Schmidt

Extracted text

10 pages · 17363 characters

Filing Header

CAUSE NO. 2024-48085

ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,

§ Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor

CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually,

§ § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors.

§ § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

§ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY. CORRECT, OR REFORM ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER TO EXCLUDE MARK D. SCHMIDT, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S JANUARY 16, 2025 RULING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME Defendants Cyberlux Corporation ("Cyberlux") and Mark D. Schmidt, Individually (collectively "Defendants") and file this Emergency Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver ("Receivership Order" or "Order") to Exclude Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property (collectively "Schmidt") from the imposition of the Order, pursuant to the Court's January 16, 2025 ruling, and would respectfully show the Court the following:

A. Legal Authorities Supporting Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform

The Court has authority to grant a Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) ("Each such motion shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney and shall specify the respects in which the judgment should be modified, corrected, or reformed."). Here, the written order does not comport with the Court's ruling, as the parties agreed-and the Court ordered-that no receivership relief was to be rendered against Schmidt. See Cook v. Cook, 888 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex. App. 1994) ("If the written order

does not comport with the judgment rendered, the parties are entitled to have the order reformed to accurately reflect the action taken by the trial court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g)."); See also Burrows v. Burrows, 1998 WL 35277038, at *3 (Tex. App .- Corpus Christi 1998, writ denied) (A judge's intent to sign the decree in the future goes to its entry and not to its rendition. See S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. 1995) ("words used by the trial court must clearly indicate the intent to render judgment at the time the words are expressed").).

Failing to amend or modify the written order would constitute error because no evidence was adduced to support receivership relief against Schmidt, and because Plaintiffs expressly

bed not be subject to its forthcoming order. Simply put, the written Order must be corrected because it grants relief on an issue about which the Court received no evidence and was abandoned by Plaintiffs. Additionally, there are several grammatical phrasing errors in the Order that make the relief granted vague and ambiguous.

B. The May 22, 2025, Receivership Order Mistakenly Imposed The Receivership and Turnover on Defendant Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property

During the hearing on Plaintiffs' Application for Turnover and Receivership (the "Hearing"), Plaintiffs requested relief against Cyberlux, but withdrew their claims against Schmidt and conceded they provided no evidence against Schmidt. Accordingly, this Court ruled from the bench that turnover and receivership relief would be granted against Cyberlux, but not Schmidt. Notwithstanding that ruling and Plaintiffs' withdrawal of those claims, on April 1, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Order Appointing Receiver that included turnover and receivership relief against Schmidt. Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order, stating in part:

"Plaintiffs' Proposed Order greatly exceeds what is shown in the record and statutory authority. It defines 'Judgment Debtors' as the Defendants and then purports to appoint a receiver as to 'Debtor,' which is not defined, making the Proposed Order impermissibly ambiguous on its face, especially because this Court expressly declined to appoint a receiver as to Defendant Mark Schmidt."

(Cyberlux's Counsel's letter of April 5, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1).

Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs' representations that they sought an order only against the company, and the Court's clear direction to exclude Schmidt from Plaintiffs' proposed order, Plaintiffs submitted an order that included Schmidt. The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs' proposed order on May 22, 2025, and that order is contrary to the Court's specific ruling at the hearing of January 16, 2025.

Dialogue between the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel during the Hearing expressly shows that Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a turnover order against Schmidt-and that the Court expressly excluded Schmidt from receivership and that Plaintiffs presented no evidence that would support such relief against Schmidt;

"THE COURT: So we talked a little bit about what specifically the turnover needs to apply to just so we don't have an issue on its face. In terms of -- she did raise a point regarding Mr. Schmidt. We didn't have anything on Mr. Schmidt; is that right?

MR. VARGO [Counsel for Plaintiffs]: The turnover is just against the company. It's not against Mr. Schmidt.

THE COURT: Okay. So he's going to be removed?

MR. VARGO V.

THE COURT: So they're only seeking a turnover regarding the company. So in the amended order he'll be removed."

(Reporter's Record, January 16, 2025, p. 127, In. 3-16, Exhibit 2 (emphasis added)).1

See also Exhibit 3, Declaration of A. Pennetti, attesting to record attached as Exhibit 2.

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. Defendants respectfully show the Court that without this modification and correction, Schmidt would remain subject to the restriction and obligations of the Order Appointing Receiver and Mr. Schmidt's property, which he shares with his spouse, would remain in jeopardy, resulting in irreparable harm with no adequate remedy by appeal.

Defendants suggest the Court correct the Order Appointing Receiver by signing an amendment that states in substance:

"It is Ordered that any and all references to 'Debtor' or 'Debtors' in the Order Appointing Receiver signed on May 22, 2025, shall be construed and understood to refer only to Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and not to Mark D. Schmidt, individually, and that this Order expressly declines to impose a receiver or a turnover order as to Mark D. Schmidt."

Further, Exhibit A to the Order sets forth numerous disclosure requirements. Exhibit A to the Order requires production of records of "defendant" without identifying whether that applies to Cyberlux, Schmidt, or both. Many paragraphs of the 43 paragraphs in Exhibit A imply information must be supplied and/or documents must be produced whether held by a "defendant" a spouse, family member, or persons who have any "co" or joint interest. The language of the categories of documents set forth in Exhibit A indicate that documents from Schmidt might be required to be disclosed. These include the following:

The Definition in 12, p. of the Order provides: "Defendant(s)" or "Judgment Debtor(s)", collectively and individually refers to the following Debtors: (referring to Cyberlux and "Mark D. Schmidt (individually)). This section refers to "Debtors."

Other provisions refer to "Debtor" which makes it unclear whether Cyberlux and Schmidt are both referred to when that term is used. See 17, p. 3.

18, p. 4 refers to "Debtors" and their leviable property.

1 10, p. 4 says Receiver "will have a judicial lien on all non-exempt assets of Debtor and on all non-exempt community assets of the Debtor []."

1 14, p. 5 refers to the Court's jurisdiction over "Debtor's" assets and states "[t]he Receivership owns all non-exempt assets of all Debtors []."

1 15, p. 5 states "the Court Appoints Robert W. Berleth as Receiver over each Debtor's non-exempt assets []."

1 18, p. 6 refers to "Peace Officers Responsibilities" accompanying as Receiver" in locating "Debtor's assets or records []."

1 19, p. 6 states "Receiver, no Debtor, is the party entitled to possession, sell, liquidate, and otherwise deal with Debtor's non-exempt property []."

1 19, p. 6 a, b, and c states third parties are to turn over "Debtor's property and records," and notify Receiver of existence of "Debtor's property."

10.

1 20, p. 7 a, states "Each Debtor" is ordered to turn over "items described in Exhibit A."

11.

1 20, p. 7 b, states "No Debtor" may dispose of non-exempt assets without Receiver's consent.

12.

1 20, p. 7 c, states "Debtor" must disclose to Receiver all assest of each "Debtor." may dispose of non-exempt assets without Receiver's consent.

13.

1 20, p. 7 h, states if "Debtor" objects to "Receiver's demands" "Debtor" must comply and "Debtors" may seek protection from the Court.

14.

1 22, p. 8 states "Receiver" takes any interest of "the Debtor" and controls such interest in any entity.

15.

1 25, p. 10 states "Receiver may take possession of Debtor's non-exempt property [].) See also, 1 25, p. 10 q, r, s, and t.

16.

1 26, po11, states "Receiver may take all actions" to access assets owned by 'any Debtor."

17.

927, p. 12, says "Receiver may disable or remove non-exempt property [of] a Debtor []."

18.

1 28, p. 12, states "Receiver may assume Debtor's property is not exempt" and take custody of that property.

19.

129, p. 12, says as to "Personal Property Rights of Judgment Debtor," "Receiver must comply with" Tex. R. Siv. P. 679b.

20.

1 30, p. 12, provides Receiver must provide "Judgment Debtor" notice of disbursal of funds or sale of property and "Judgment Debtor" may assert an exemption.

21.

131, p. 13, says "disputes as to whether an asset" is property of "a Debtor" will be settled by the Court.

22.

1 34, p. 13, authorizes "Receiver [to] redirect, read, and copy Debtor's mail []."

23.

1 36, p. 13 authorizes "Receiver [to] obtain credit reports [and the like]" on the "Debtors."

24.

t 1 36, p. 14 authorizes "Receiver [to] order utilities [and the like} to turn over information [about] Debtor's whereabouts or non-exempt assets []."

25.

1 37, p. 15 authorizes "Receiver [to] require the attendance of third parties" respecting "Debtor's assets."

26.

1 39, p. 15 authorizes "Receiver [to] endorse and cash check and negotiable instruments payable to Debtor | "

27.

141, p. 16 authorizes "Receiver [to] collect all unclaimed funds belonging to Debtor []."

28.

144, p. 16 provides "Receiver" with a specific method of service on Debtor.

29.

1 45, p. 16 provides "Receiver may obtain Debtor's [] drivers license records [].”

30.

146, p. 17 provides "Debtor" may not serve discovery upon "Receiver."

31.

1 49, p. 17 provides for the method of notice to "Debtor" by the receiver of intended sale or abandonment of property.

32.

1 52, p. (18 provides "Receiver does not have to defend or prosecute any litigation regarding the Debtor "

See Order, at Exhibit A.

As stated above, Plaintiffs adduced zero evidence that the requirements of the Texas Turnover Statute were met with respect to Schmidt. During the hearing, Plaintiffs conceded that they adduced no such evidence and, further, that they did not seek turnover of or appointment of a receiver over, Schmidt's assets. Ex. A, p. 127, In. 3-16. The Court further indicated that Schmidt

would be removed from the Order. It appears that inadvertently did not occur. Id. Therefore, the Order must be corrected to comport with the Court's January 16, 2025 ruling.

C. The Impact of the Order's Inadvertent Inclusion of Schmidt

Because the Order currently permits the Receiver to take custody of the assets of Schmidt, the Receiver is currently acting to obtain custody of Schmidt's assets. On June 292025, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ("Schwab") provided notice to Schmidt that Schmidt's accounts with Schwab, which may encompass his personal brokerage, securities, and related accounts, have been restricted.2 Thus, even though Atlantic Wave conceded it produced no evidence of turnover with respect to Schmidt, the parties agreed-and the Court ordered @that Schmidt would not be subject to the Turnover Order, the Turnover Order has caused Schwab to restrict Schmidt's accounts. The Turnover Order must be modified or corrected to remove Schmidt.

D. Conclusion

Wherefore, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant the relief requested above and all other relief to which Defendants are entitled.

(signature on following page)

A copy of the Schwab notice is attached as Exhibit 4.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Douglas S. Lang State Bar No. 11895500 Alexander J. Pennetti State Bar No. 24110208

Unofficial Comoface of Marilyn euro basket Cer

THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (97207629-7171 dlang@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com

Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On June 2, 2025, the undersigned advised Mr. Berleth, the Receiver appointed by this Court, and Mr. Walton, counsel for Plaintiffs, of its intent to file this Motion. The undersigned did not receive a response.

/s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Alexander J. Pennetti

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 3, 2025.

/s/ Alexander J. Pennetti

Alexander J. Pennetti

Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Linda Carranza on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lcarranza@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101577441 Filing Code Description: Motion to Modify Filing Description: Defendants' Emergency Motion to Correct, etc. the Order Appointing Receiver Status as of 6/4/2025 10:08 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name

BarNumber

TimestampSubmitted

Status

David A.Walton

dwalton@bellnunnally.com Burgess District Clerk

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

LaDonna Arey

LArey@bellnunnally.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Sandra Meiners

smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com MSN

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Travis Vargo

tvargo@vargolawfirm.com with

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Roxanna Lock

rlock@thompsoncoburn.com Fond

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com Gal

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com Ban

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Jeff Brown

jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com Aner

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

Ban bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Records Department

Records@bellnunnally.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Hannah Petrea

Com

hpetrea@bellnunnally.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Michael Poynter

mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Laurie DeBardeleben

ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Micah Jackson

mjackson@berlethlaw.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Sheli Davis Unexcel

sdavis@berlethlaw.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Lena Brasher

lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Frankie Huff

fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Tristian Harris

tharris@berlethlaw.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Corinne Martin

cmartin@berlethlaw.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Hannah Fischer

hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Greg Nieman

gnieman@bellnunnally.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Jemisha Gandhi

jgandhi@bellnunnally.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Automated Certificate of eService

Case Contacts

Jemisha Gandhi

jgandhi@bellnunnally.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Jocelin A.Tapia

jtapia@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Alex Pennetti

apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Edward W.Gray, Jr.

EGray@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Katharine Clark

kclark@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

David M.Keithly

dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Paula Gentry

pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

Douglas S.Lang

dlang@thompsoncoburn.com

6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM

SENT

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-120894209.pdf
Source UID: source:e2f6e574d6e00c5bd83870ef83fd60e576aa17e789521e1ad134d6429c528834
Full SHA-256: e2f6e574d6e00c5bd83870ef83fd60e576aa17e789521e1ad134d6429c528834

DISTIL analysis

Extracted text

Defendants' Emergency Motion to Modify. — Formatted Extract

Original source file