Evidence Record
Exhibit 10
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
Court Order - Appellate
Total Nodes
23
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 - Appellate Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston Mandamus proceedings concerning receivership order May 22, 2025 - June 30, 2025
emergency_motionstay_grantedreceivershipbusiness_operations
Analytical Frame
Procedural relief and emergency stay in business receivership dispute
Analytical Summary
This is an appellate court order from the Texas Court of Appeals, First District, granting emergency procedural relief in a mandamus proceeding. Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt challenged a trial court's May 22, 2025 receivership order, claiming the underlying judgment was satisfied and the receivership impaired business operations. The appellate court granted a stay of the receivership order while the emergency motion is pending, preventing the receiver from taking actions under the order's authority. However, the court preserved the trial court's authority to conduct proceedings to determine whether the judgment has been satisfied and whether the receivership should be terminated.
Key Points
- Court of Appeals granted stay of May 22, 2025 receivership order
- Relators claim underlying judgment has been satisfied
- Cyberlux Corporation alleges operational difficulties under receivership
- Mark D. Schmidt argues he should not have been included in the order
- Trial court retains jurisdiction to determine satisfaction of judgment and receivership termination
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
14 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Cyberlux Corporation, a relator in mandamus proceedings challenging a receivership order, claiming operational difficulties under the order.
Page 2 — Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus
ENT-002
Entity
Mark D. Schmidt
Mark D. Schmidt, individual relator in mandamus proceedings, arguing he should not have been included in the receivership order.
Page 2 — Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus
ENT-003
Entity
Robert Berleth
Robert Berleth, the court-appointed receiver whose authority has been stayed pending appellate review.
Page 2 — On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion.
ENT-004
Entity
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston
The appellate court issuing this order, reviewing mandamus petition challenging trial court receivership order.
Page 2 — COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ENT-005
Entity
129th District Court of Harris County
The trial court that issued the May 22, 2025 receivership order being challenged on appeal.
Page 2 — Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County
ENT-006
Entity
Judge Andrew Johnson
Acting judge who signed the appellate court order granting the stay.
Page 3 — /s/ Andrew Johnson Acting individually Date: June 30, 2025
EVT-001
Event
May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver
Trial court issued order appointing receiver on May 22, 2025, which is the subject of mandamus challenge.
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
EVT-002
Event
June 12, 2025 oral denial of stay motion
Trial court orally denied relators' emergency motion to stay or suspend the receivership order 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-003
Event
Filing of mandamus petition
Relators filed petition for writ of mandamus to appellate court challenging the receivership order and denial of stay.
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-004
Event
June 30, 2025 appellate order granting stay
Court of Appeals issued order on June 30, 2025 granting stay of the receivership order while emergency motion is pending.
Page 2 — We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the May 22, 2025 Order by the Receiver or any other persons or entities.
EVT-005
Event
Extension of response deadline to July 14, 2025
Appellate court extended deadline for responses to emergency motion to July 14, 2025, after receiver requested extension and relators opposed.
Page 2 — We EXTEND the deadline for responses to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025.
CLM-001
Claim
Judgment allegedly satisfied
Relators claim the subject judgment underlying the receivership has been satisfied.
Page 2 — requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied
CLM-002
Claim
Operational struggle under receivership
Cyberlux Corporation claims it is struggling to operate with the receivership order in effect.
Page 2 — Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect
CLM-003
Claim
Schmidt should not be included in order
Mark D. Schmidt claims he never should have been included in the receivership order.
Page 2 — Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
3 nodes
TEN-001
Tension
Competing interests in receivership stay
Tension between relators' need for operational freedom and receiver's need to respond to emergency motion, reflected in receiver's request for extension that relators opposed.
Page 2 — On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension.
QST-001
Question
Has the underlying judgment been satisfied?
Central question preserved for trial court determination: whether the judgment that formed the basis for the receivership has been satisfied.
Page 3 — The Receiver and parties may continue to participate in, and the trial court conduct, proceedings in the trial court, including proceedings to determine whether the subject judgment has been satisfied
QST-002
Question
Should the receivership be terminated?
Question explicitly reserved for trial court proceedings: whether the receivership should be terminated.
Page 3 — including proceedings to determine whether the subject judgment has been satisfied, how monies should be disbursed, and whether the receivership should be terminated
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
6 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Appellate court found sufficient merit for interim relief
By granting the stay, the appellate court implicitly found relators demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success or irreparable harm to warrant interim relief, though the order does not articulate specific findings.
Page 2 — We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending
INF-002
Inference
Parallel proceedings strategy
The existence of both mandamus proceeding (01-25-00455-CV) and interlocutory appeal (01-25-00454-CV) suggests relators are pursuing multiple procedural avenues simultaneously to challenge the receivership order.
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.
INF-003
Inference
Limited scope of stay preserves trial court authority
The stay is carefully crafted to prevent receiver action while preserving trial court's ability to conduct substantive proceedings, suggesting appellate court's intent to avoid substantive interference while protecting relators from enforcement.
Page 2, 3 — staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the May 22, 2025 Order by the Receiver or any other persons or entities. The Receiver and parties may continue to participate in, and the trial court conduct, proceedings in the trial court
OMI-001
Omission
No articulation of stay standard applied
The order does not articulate which legal standard was applied in granting the stay or make findings regarding likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or balance of equities.
Page 2 — We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending
OMI-002
Omission
Identity of real parties in interest not specified
The order references 'Real Parties in Interest' who were ordered to respond but does not identify who these parties are or their relationship to the underlying dispute.
Page 2 — On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion
OMI-003
Omission
Nature of underlying judgment not disclosed
The order does not specify what judgment formed the basis for the receivership, its amount, or the underlying claims.
Page 2 — the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied
Extracted text
3 pages · 2518 charactersEXHIBIT 10
ART OF DAIS
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.
On June 24, 2025, the Court requested 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.
On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension.
We EXTEND the deadline for responses to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025.
We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the
1
Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV.
May 22, 2025 Order by the Receiver or any other persons or entities. The Receiver and parties may continue to participate in, and the trial court conduct, proceedings in the trial court, including proceedings to determine whether the subject judgment has been satisfied, how monies should be disbursed, and whether the receivership should be terminated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b).
It is so ORDERED.
Judge's signature:
/s/ Andrew Johnson
Acting individually
Date:
June 30, 2025
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
- ip-hii-edva-00483-doc-0041-exhibit-10.pdf
- Source UID
- source:8e309fddef9410721bc0bb3d471ed6754c4ebfb18a729f92dc7e472d9ea52e84
- Full SHA-256
- 8e309fddef9410721bc0bb3d471ed6754c4ebfb18a729f92dc7e472d9ea52e84