Evidence Record
Exhibit 7
Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator's Emergency. Motion...
DISTIL analysis
DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
appellate_court_order
Total Nodes
22
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
appellate_court_order Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston appellate_mandamus_proceeding 2025-05-22 to 2025-06-24
emergency_motion_pendingreceiver_appointment_disputejudgment_satisfaction_contested
Analytical Frame
emergency_stay_request_corporate_receiver
Analytical Summary
On June 24, 2025, the Texas First District Court of Appeals issued an order in a mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's May 22, 2025 receiver appointment over Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt. The relators filed an emergency motion seeking to stay the receiver order, claiming the underlying judgment has been satisfied, the company cannot operate under receivership, and Schmidt should not have been included. The appellate court requested responses from real parties in interest by specific deadlines but notably declined to stay trial court proceedings, explicitly stating the trial court may continue determining whether the judgment is satisfied and how funds should be disbursed.
Key Points
- Mandamus petition filed challenging May 22, 2025 receiver appointment order
- Emergency motion requests stay based on alleged judgment satisfaction and operational harm
- Appellate court requests responses but does not grant immediate stay
- Trial court explicitly authorized to continue proceedings on judgment satisfaction
- Parallel interlocutory appeal docketed as separate case
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
13 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Corporate entity subject to receiver appointment order, named as relator in mandamus proceeding seeking to vacate or stay receivership.
Page 2 — Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus
ENT-002
Entity
Mark D. Schmidt
Individual named alongside Cyberlux Corporation in receiver appointment order and mandamus petition.
Page 2 — Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus
ENT-003
Entity
Court of Appeals First District Texas
Texas appellate court with jurisdiction over the mandamus proceeding, issuing the June 24, 2025 order.
Page 2 — COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ENT-004
Entity
129th District Court Harris County
Trial court that issued the May 22, 2025 receiver appointment order and June 12, 2025 oral denial of emergency stay motion.
Page 2 — Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County
ENT-005
Entity
Judge Andrew Johnson
Judge acting individually to issue the June 24, 2025 appellate court order.
Page 2 — /s/ Andrew Johnson Acting individually Date: June 24, 2025
EVT-001
Event
Receiver Appointment Order May 22 2025
Trial court issued Order Appointing Receiver on May 22, 2025, placing Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt under receivership.
Page 2 — the trial court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver
EVT-002
Event
Mandamus Petition Filing
Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed petition for writ of mandamus challenging the receiver appointment and stay denial.
Page 2 — Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial
EVT-003
Event
Trial Court Stay Denial June 12 2025
Trial court orally denied relators' Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver on June 12, 2025.
Page 2 — June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator's Emergency. Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver
EVT-004
Event
Appellate Order June 24 2025
Court of Appeals issued order on June 24, 2025, requesting responses and declining to prevent trial court from continuing proceedings on judgment satisfaction.
Page 2 — It is so ORDERED. Judge's signature: /s/ Andrew Johnson Acting individually Date: June 24, 2025
EVT-005
Event
Interlocutory Appeal Filing
Relators filed parallel interlocutory appeal of the same receiver order and stay denial, docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV.
Page 2 — Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV.
CLM-001
Claim
Judgment Already Satisfied
Relators claim the underlying judgment has been satisfied, making the receiver appointment unnecessary or improper.
Page 2 — requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied
CLM-002
Claim
Operational Harm from Receivership
Cyberlux Corporation asserts it is struggling to operate with the receiver order in effect, suffering business harm.
Page 2 — Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect
CLM-003
Claim
Schmidt Improperly Included
Mark D. Schmidt claims he should not have been included in the receiver appointment order.
Page 2 — Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
5 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Court Authorization for Trial Proceedings
Appellate court explicitly states trial court may continue proceedings despite pending emergency motion.
Page 2 — nothing in this order should be construed as preventing the trial court from conducting further proceedings, including proceedings to determine whether the judgment has been satisfied and how monies should be disbursed
TLL-001
Tell
Response Deadlines Imposed
Court requires real parties in interest to file responses by specific deadlines: emergency motion response by noon June 30, 2025, and mandamus response by July 21, 2025.
Page 2 — The Court requests Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025.
TEN-001
Tension
Stay Denial Despite Emergency Claims
Appellate court declines to stay trial court proceedings despite relators' emergency motion claiming judgment satisfaction and operational harm.
Page 2 — At this time while the Emergency Motion is pending, nothing in this order should be construed as preventing the trial court from conducting further proceedings
QST-001
Question
Judgment Satisfaction Status Unknown
Whether the underlying judgment has actually been satisfied remains unresolved, with appellate court directing trial court to determine this issue.
Page 2 — the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied... including proceedings to determine whether the judgment has been satisfied
QST-002
Question
Real Parties Identity Unclear
The order references 'Real Parties in Interest' requiring responses but does not identify who these parties are in this proceeding.
Page 2 — The Court requests Real Parties in Interest file a response
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
4 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Implicit Skepticism of Satisfaction Claim
By explicitly authorizing trial court to continue determining judgment satisfaction while emergency motion pending, appellate court appears skeptical of relators' satisfaction claim or finds it requires factual development.
Page 2 — nothing in this order should be construed as preventing the trial court from conducting further proceedings, including proceedings to determine whether the judgment has been satisfied
INF-002
Inference
Dual Appellate Strategy Employed
Filing both mandamus petition and interlocutory appeal of same order suggests relators pursuing multiple procedural paths for expedited review or increased likelihood of relief.
Page 2 — Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV.
OMI-001
Omission
No Substantive Analysis of Emergency Grounds
Order does not engage with merits of relators' emergency motion arguments about judgment satisfaction, operational harm, or Schmidt's inclusion, deferring to response briefing.
Page 2 — The Court requests Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025
OMI-002
Omission
Underlying Dispute Facts Absent
Order provides no information about the nature of the underlying case, the judgment amount, the parties' relationship, or reasons for original receiver appointment.
Page 2 — Trial court case number: 2024-48085
Extracted text
2 pages · 1688 charactersFiling Header
Unofficial Copy Office of marilyn Burgess District Clerk
EXHIBIT 7
PORT OF De TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ORDER
Appellate case name:
In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
Appellate case number:
01-25-00455-CV
Trial court case number:
2024-48085
Trial court:
129th District Court of Harris County
Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator's Emergency. Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1
Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay ("Emergency Motion)), requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order.
The Court requests Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. At this time while the Emergency Motion is pending, nothing in this order should be construed as preventing the trial court from conducting further proceedings, including proceedings to determine whether the judgment has been satisfied and how monies should be disbursed.
It is so ORDERED.
Judge's signature: /s/ Andrew Johnson
Acting individually
Date: June 24, 2025
1
Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV.
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-121327618.pdf
- Source UID
- source:36bf49eaeff44179c7dbf9c3cec1f1bd093637d72fecab63a4d3ee41ccf8f5b9
- Full SHA-256
- 36bf49eaeff44179c7dbf9c3cec1f1bd093637d72fecab63a4d3ee41ccf8f5b9