Evidence Record
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Judgment-Debtors’ Motion to Extend Stay of Execution
1. On October 28, 2024, the court heard Defendants' Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay Execution.
DISTIL analysis
DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
Legal Opposition Brief
Total Nodes
29
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
Legal Opposition Brief Plaintiffs' Counsel (Law Firm of Shawn M. Grady, PLLC) Post-Judgment Collection Enforcement, Harris County District Court 2024-10-28 to 2024-12-02
judgment_enforcementstay_litigationcredibility_challengewaiver_claimspayment_default
Analytical Frame
Creditor opposition to extension of execution stay amid allegations of debtor delay tactics
Analytical Summary
This opposition brief filed by judgment-creditors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC challenges debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt's motion to extend a stay of execution in Harris County's 129th Judicial District Court (Cause No. 2024-48085). Plaintiffs assert that defendants have failed to provide court documentation evidencing a stay of the underlying Virginia judgment within the 30-day period granted by the court on October 28, 2024. The brief alleges that defense counsel has repeatedly misrepresented facts, including false claims about a Virginia stay, the nature of Virginia litigation, and payment compliance. Plaintiffs contend no payments have been made since June 2024 despite partial payments from October 2023 through May 2024, and that the Final Judgment contains waivers of appeal, reconsideration, and bankruptcy discharge rights. The creditors characterize the debtor's motions as frivolous delay tactics designed to impede legitimate collection actions.
Key Points
- Court granted 30-day stay on October 28, 2024 for debtors to provide Virginia stay documentation
- Debtors failed to file any court document evidencing Virginia stay within 30-day deadline
- Defense counsel allegedly misrepresented existence of Virginia stay and nature of Virginia complaints
- No payments made by debtors since June 2024; only partial payments October 2023 through May 2024
- Final Judgment contains waivers of appeal, reconsideration, and bankruptcy discharge rights
- Virginia court allowed collection activity to continue and released garnished funds in August 2024
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
18 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff and judgment-creditor seeking to enforce judgment against Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt in Harris County District Court.
Page 1 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC ("Plaintiffs") and files this Reply to Defendants
ENT-002
Entity
Secure Community, LLC
Co-plaintiff and judgment-creditor pursuing collection enforcement alongside Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC.
Page 1 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC ("Plaintiffs")
ENT-003
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Defendant and judgment-debtor subject to collection enforcement efforts in Harris County and Virginia.
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT'S ("Defendants") Opposition to Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Extend Stay of Execution
ENT-004
Entity
Mark Schmidt
Individual defendant and judgment-debtor named alongside Cyberlux Corporation in collection proceedings.
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment-Debtors.
ENT-005
Entity
Law Firm of Shawn M. Grady, PLLC
Houston-based law firm representing plaintiffs/judgment-creditors in collection enforcement actions.
Page 3 — LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC By: /s/ Shawn MCGrady Shawn M Grady SBN 24076411 Shawn@Gradycollectionlaw.Com 2100 West Loop South, Ste. 805 Houston, Texas 77027
ENT-006
Entity
Thompson Coburn LLP
Dallas-based law firm representing defendants/judgment-debtors in the Harris County litigation.
Page 4 — Katherine Battaia Clark State Bar No. 24046712 THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201
ENT-007
Entity
129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
Court with jurisdiction over the judgment enforcement proceedings between Atlantic Wave Holdings/Secure Community and Cyberlux/Schmidt.
Page 1 — IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
EVT-001
Event
October 28, 2024 Court Hearing
Court hearing on defendants' Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay Execution, resulting in denial of Motion to Vacate but granting of 30-day stay conditioned on providing Virginia stay documentation.
Page 1 — On October 28, 2024, the court heard Defendants' Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay Execution. The court denied Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Vacate but granted a thirty (30) day stay so that Judgment-Defendants could provide the court with documentation evidencing a Stay of the Virginia judgment.
EVT-002
Event
Filing of Opposition Brief (December 2, 2024)
Plaintiffs filed opposition to judgment-debtors' motion to extend stay of execution, asserting defendants failed to meet 30-day deadline for Virginia stay documentation.
Page 1 — 12/2/2024 10:14 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 94814652 By: Chancesas Ougrah Filed: 12/2/2024 10:14 AM
EVT-003
Event
Virginia Court Release of Garnished Funds (August 2024)
Virginia court released garnished funds to plaintiffs in August 2024, indicating continuation of collection activity in Virginia jurisdiction.
Page 2 — Contrarily, the Virginia court has allowed collection activity to continue and released funds garnished in Virginia to plaintiffs in August.
EVT-004
Event
Payment History (October 2023 - June 2024)
Judgment-debtors made partial payments from October 2023 through May 2024, with no payments made since June 2024 according to plaintiffs.
Page 2 — Only partial payments were made from October 2023 through May 2024. No payments have been made since June 2024.
CLM-001
Claim
Failure to Provide Virginia Stay Documentation
Plaintiffs claim that 30 days have passed since the October 28, 2024 hearing and judgment-debtors have not filed any court document evidencing a stay of the Virginia litigation or judgment.
Page 1 — Thirty (30) days have past and Judgment-Debtors have not filed one court document evidencing a Stay of the Virginia litigation or judgment.
CLM-002
Claim
Court's Conditional Grant of 30-Day Stay
Court denied judgment-debtors' Motion to Vacate but granted a 30-day stay contingent on providing documentation evidencing a stay of the Virginia judgment.
Page 1 — The court denied Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Vacate but granted a thirty (30) day stay so that Judgment-Defendants could provide the court with documentation evidencing a Stay of the Virginia judgment.
CLM-003
Claim
Payment Default Since June 2024
Plaintiffs assert that judgment-debtors made only partial payments from October 2023 through May 2024, with no payments made since June 2024, contrary to defendants' representation of full payment compliance.
Page 2 — Now Counsel for Judgment-Debtors represent Within their Motion to Extend Stay that Judgment-Debtors have made all payments due. Only partial payments were made from October 2023 through May 2024. No payments have been made since June 2024.
CLM-004
Claim
No Virginia Stay Entered
Plaintiffs claim no stay was ever entered or contemplated in the Virginia litigation, and the Virginia court has allowed collection activity to continue, releasing garnished funds in August 2024.
Page 2 — No stay was ever entered in the Virginia litigation. No stay was even contemplated. Contrarily, the Virginia court has allowed collection activity to continue and released funds garnished in Virginia to plaintiffs in August.
CLM-005
Claim
Waiver of Appeal, Reconsideration, and Bankruptcy Rights
Plaintiffs assert that judgment-debtors waived all rights of appeal, reconsideration, and bankruptcy discharge as stated in Paragraph B of the Final Judgment.
Page 2 — Lastly, Judgment-Debtors waived all rights of appeal, reconsideration and bankruptcy, as permitted by law. Paragraph B of the Final Judgment states in part: "The parties agree that the final judgment shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy to the fullest extent permissible at law, and Defendants hereby waive all rights of reconsideration and appeal."
CLM-006
Claim
Misrepresentation About Virginia Litigation Nature
Plaintiffs claim defense counsel misrepresented that Virginia litigation attacks judgment validity or seeks reformation, when the actual complaints filed do not mention these issues.
Page 2 — Next, they represented that the Virginia litigation attacks the validity of the Judgment and asks for reformation of the Judgment. That is not true. Plaintiffs have provided the actual complaint filed by Defendants to Judgment-Debtors' Counsel. Those complaints do not mention the validity of the Judgment or reformation whatsoever.
CLM-007
Claim
Frivolous Delay Tactics Allegation
Plaintiffs characterize judgment-debtors' motions as frivolous, not supported by facts, and designed to delay and impede collection actions.
Page 2 — Judgment-Debtor continues to file frivolous motions, not supported by facts but rather designed to delay and impede Plaintiffs' collection actions.
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
7 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Final Judgment Waiver Language
Direct quotation from Final Judgment establishing waiver of appeal, reconsideration, and bankruptcy discharge rights by defendants.
Page 2 — Paragraph B of the Final Judgment states in part: "The parties agree that the final judgment shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy to the fullest extent permissible at law, and Defendants hereby waive all rights of reconsideration and appeal."
TLL-001
Tell
Sequential Misrepresentation Pattern
Plaintiffs identify a pattern of alleged misrepresentations by defense counsel: first claiming a Virginia stay exists, then mischaracterizing the Virginia complaints, then asserting full payment compliance.
Page 2 — Counsel for Judgment-Debtors continues to misrepresent facts to the Court. First, Counsel represented to Court that a Stay had been entered in the Virginia litigation. That is not true. Next, they represented that the Virginia litigation attacks the validity of the Judgment and asks for reformation of the Judgment. That is not true.
TEN-001
Tension
Contested Factual Record: Payment Compliance
Direct conflict between defendants' assertion of full payment compliance and plaintiffs' counterclaim of partial payments through May 2024 with complete cessation since June 2024.
Page 2 — Now Counsel for Judgment-Debtors represent Within their Motion to Extend Stay that Judgment-Debtors have made all payments due. Only partial payments were made from October 2023 through May 2024. No payments have been made since June 2024.
TEN-002
Tension
Contested Virginia Stay Status
Fundamental disagreement about whether a stay exists or was contemplated in Virginia litigation, with plaintiffs pointing to August 2024 release of garnished funds as evidence of active collection.
Page 2 — First, Counsel represented to Court that a Stay had been entered in the Virginia litigation. That is not true... No stay was ever entered in the Virginia litigation. No stay was even contemplated. Contrarily, the Virginia court has allowed collection activity to continue and released funds garnished in Virginia to plaintiffs in August.
QST-001
Question
Scope and Content of Virginia Litigation
What specific claims and relief are actually sought in the Virginia litigation, given the parties' conflicting characterizations about judgment validity and reformation?
Page 2 — Next, they represented that the Virginia litigation attacks the validity of the Judgment and asks for reformation of the Judgment. That is not true. Plaintiffs have provided the actual complaint filed by Defendants to Judgment-Debtors' Counsel. Those complaints do not mention the validity of the Judgment or reformation whatsoever.
QST-002
Question
Payment Record Documentation
What objective documentation exists regarding payment amounts and dates from October 2023 forward to resolve the disputed payment compliance record?
Page 2 — Now Counsel for Judgment-Debtors represent Within their Motion to Extend Stay that Judgment-Debtors have made all payments due. Only partial payments were made from October 2023 through May 2024. No payments have been made since June 2024.
QST-003
Question
30-Day Deadline Calculation
What is the precise expiration date of the 30-day stay granted October 28, 2024, and what efforts, if any, did defendants make to comply before filing their extension motion?
Page 1 — On October 28, 2024, the court heard Defendants' Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay Execution. The court denied Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Vacate but granted a thirty (30) day stay so that Judgment-Defendants could provide the court with documentation evidencing a Stay of the Virginia judgment. Thirty (30) days have past and Judgment-Debtors have not filed one court document evidencing a Stay of the Virginia litigation or judgment.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
4 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Strategy of Procedural Delay
Plaintiffs infer defendants are pursuing a deliberate strategy of procedural delay through sequential misrepresentations and motions, rather than good-faith compliance with judgment obligations.
Page 2 — Judgment-Debtor continues to file frivolous motions, not supported by facts but rather designed to delay and impede Plaintiffs' collection actions.
INF-002
Inference
Jurisdictional Collection Activity Coordination
The simultaneous Virginia and Texas proceedings suggest coordinated multi-jurisdictional collection enforcement efforts by creditors, with Virginia garnishment activity proceeding independently of Texas stay litigation.
Page 2 — No stay was ever entered in the Virginia litigation. No stay was even contemplated. Contrarily, the Virginia court has allowed collection activity to continue and released funds garnished in Virginia to plaintiffs in August.
OMI-001
Omission
Absence of Defendants' Supporting Documentation
Plaintiffs emphasize complete absence of court documents from defendants supporting their representations about Virginia stay or litigation character, despite 30-day period to provide such documentation.
Page 1 — Thirty (30) days have past and Judgment-Debtors have not filed one court document evidencing a Stay of the Virginia litigation or judgment.
OMI-002
Omission
No Explanation for Payment Cessation
Brief does not provide defendants' explanation for cessation of payments after June 2024, or any justification for partial rather than full payment from October 2023 through May 2024.
Page 2 — Only partial payments were made from October 2023 through May 2024. No payments have been made since June 2024.
Extracted text
5 pages · 5990 charactersFiling Header
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor
V. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT, Individually,
Defendant/Judgment-Debtors.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§ § § § § § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§ § § § §
§ § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT-DEBTORS' MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF EXECUTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT:
Comes Now ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC ("Plaintiffs") and files this Reply to Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT'S ("Defendants") Opposition to Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Extend Stay of Execution:
1.
On October 28, 2024, the court heard Defendants' Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay Execution.
2.
The court denied Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Vacate but granted a thirty (30) day stay so that Judgment-Defendants could provide the court with documentation evidencing a Stay of the Virginia judgment.
3.
Thirty (30) days have past and Judgment-Debtors have not filed one court document evidencing a Stay of the Virginia litigation or judgment.
4.
Plaintiffs have provided the court with all the relevant court Orders, and Defendants' complaints in the Virginia litigation. 1
5.
Counsel for Judgment-Debtors continues to misrepresent facts to the Court. First, Counsel represented to Court that a Stay had been entered in the Virginia litigation. That is not true. Next, they represented that the Virginia litigation attacks the validity of the Judgment and asks for reformation of the Judgment. That is not true. Plaintiffs have provided the actual complaint filed by Defendants to Judgment-Debtors' Counsel. Those complaints do not mention the validity of the Judgment or reformation whatsoever.
6.
Now Counsel for Judgment-Debtors represent Within their Motion to Extend Stay that Judgment-Debtors have made all payments due. Only partial payments were made from October 2023 through May 2024. No payments have been made since June 2024.
7.
No stay was ever entered in the Virginia litigation. No stay was even contemplated. Contrarily, the Virginia court has allowed collection activity to continue and released funds garnished in Virginia to plaintiffs in August.
8.
Lastly, Judgment-Debtors waived all rights of appeal, reconsideration and bankruptcy, as permitted by law. Paragraph B of the Final Judgment states in part: "The parties agree that the final judgment shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy to the fullest extent permissible at law, and Defendants hereby waive all rights of reconsideration and appeal." A true and correct copy of the Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit A.
9.
Judgment-Debtor continues to file frivolous motions, not supported by facts but rather designed to delay and impede Plaintiffs' collection actions.
1
See Exhibit B (with attachments), Declaration of Federico J. Zablah, attached to Plaintiffs' Amended Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration filed with this court on November 12, 2024.
II. RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC pray that the Court denies Judgment-Debtors' Motion to Extend Stay of Execution and award Plaintiffs their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, and for such further relief as Plaintiffs may show itself is justly entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyfotbalo District Clerl
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC
By: /s/ Shawn MCGrady Shawn M Grady SBN 24076411 Shawn@Gradycollectionlaw.Com
2100
West Loop South, Ste. 805 Houston, Texas 77027 Phone (832) 692-4542 Fax (903) 416-821 shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the 2nd day of December, 2024.
Katherine Battaia Clark State Bar No. 24046712 THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Ph .: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (972) 329-7171 Email: kclark@thompsoncoburn.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
/s/ Shawn M. Grady Shawn M, Grady
Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk
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.
Shawn Grady on behalf of Shawn Grady Bar No. 24076411 shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com Envelope ID: 94814652
Filing Code Description: Answer/ Response / Waiver
Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Judgement-Debtors' Motion to Extend Stay of Execution Status as of 12/2/2024 10:49 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name
BarNumber
TimestampSubmitted
Status
Bernadette Martin
bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Bernadette Martin
bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Shawn Grady
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Shawn Grady
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Jeff Brown
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Katharine Clark
kclark@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Alex Pennetti
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Edward W.Gray, Jr.
EGray@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Sandra Meiners
smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Laurie DeBardeleben
Idebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Lena Brasher
Ibrasher@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Frankie Huff
fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
SENT
Hannah Fischer
hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com
12/2/2024 10:14:57 AM
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-117769247.pdf
- Source UID
- source:e037287d718284a2221e0369e1e124a0c220e1e8169e36f3f0499335542863e4
- Full SHA-256
- e037287d718284a2221e0369e1e124a0c220e1e8169e36f3f0499335542863e4