IP HII EDVA 00483 Doc. 0163 Main

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Plaintiff

Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG

V.

CYBERLUX CORP., et. al.,

Defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), Mr. Bilal Maadarani ("Mr. Maadarani"), through his undersigned counsels, humbly moves this court to allow him to intervene as a matter of right, or in the alternative to allow him to intervene permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b).

Mr. Maadarani is a shareholder of the defendant, Cyberlux Corp. ("Cyberlux") and also its former Chief Revenue Officer. Pursuant to Mr. Maadarani's contract with Cyberlux d/b/a Datron World Communications, he is owed $1,062,576.98 from the monies deposited by HII in the court registry. These monies are due to Mr. Maadarani from Cyberlux, in large part, as commissions and expenses for work done on the Model K8 Aircraft ("drone") subcontract. Mr. Maadarani's actions, consultancy and contacts were paramount in securing and ultimately fulfilling for Cyberlux the HII subcontract that is the subject of this litigation. Mr. Schmidt admitted as much via email dated July 2, 2025 (exhibit 1). Mr. Maadarani, to his detriment,

relied on Mr. Schmidt's promises. Mr. Schmidt is the self-certified, President, CEO and Chairman and Director of Cyberlux d/b/a Datron World Communications ("Datron") (exhibit 2). Datron is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cyberlux. Cyberlux and Datron are used interchangeably by Mr. Schmidt. Despite repeated demands, Mr. Schmidt has blocked Mr. Maadarani from being able to sell his shares in Cyberlux.

On November 19, 2025, Mr. Maadarani filed a four-count suit against Datron in California State Court (exhibit 3). On December 23, 2025, the Clerk of the Superior Court in California issued a clerk default against Datron for its failure to respond to the suit despite having been served (exhibit 4).

Mr. Maadarani seeks to intervene as a matter of right or in the alternative permissively. In support of this motion Mr. Maadarani submits this memorandum of law with attached exhibits and proposed complaint in intervention (exhibit 5).

Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides for intervention as of right when a party "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." See also, Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 259, 260-61 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that intervention as of right proper where "the applicant can demonstrate: (1) an interest in the subject matter of the action; (2) that the protection of this interest would be impaired because of the action; and (3) that the

applicant's interest is not adequately represented by existing parties to the litigation."). As set forth below, Mr. Maadarani satisfies all of the requirements for intervention as of right.

"Although the movant bears the burden of establishing its right to intervene, Rule 24 is to be liberally construed. '[T]he inquiry under Rule 24(a)(2) is a flexible one, which focuses on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each application,' and 'intervention of right must be measured by a practical rather than technical yardstick.' Courts should allow intervention 'where no one would be hurt and greater justice could be attained."" Jurisich Oysters, LLC v. US Army Corps of Eng'rs, 2024 US Dist. LEXIS 137081.

Since the court's analysis is necessarily fact specific, the court will accept "the proposed intervenor's 'factual allegations as true' in ruling on a motion to intervene." Jurisich Oysters, LLC v. US Army Corps of Eng'rs, 2024 US Dist. LEXIS 176731. See also, McClenny Moseley & Assocs., P.L.L.C. v. Equal Access Just. Fund, L.P., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 13995 (5th Cir. June 7, 2024).

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Cyberlux owes Mr. Maadarani commissions, expenses and contractual obligations from the monies deposited by HII in the court registry. Cyberlux's CEO, Mr. Schmidt, has admitted as much via email (exhibit 1). Thus, it is undeniable that Mr. Maadarani has a significantly protectable interest in the litigation and that Mr. Maadarani is entitled to collect from said monies. It was Mr. Maadarani's work that directly resulted in the sale of the drones that fulfilled the subcontract with HII. Without Mr. Maadarani's expertise and efforts Cyberlux would not have been able to fulfill the subcontract. Mr. Maadarani was hired in anticipation of the subcontract with HII and he was promised payment from the

monies that came from the fulfillment of that contract. Mr. Maadarani reasonably relied on Mr. Schmidt's assurances that Mr. Maadarani would be paid from said monies.

Mr. Maadarani's interests would be impaired if he is not permitted to intervene, Specifically, if the court awards all or substantial parts of the interpleaded funds to other parties or intervenors, Mr. Maadarani's contractual rights to compensation from those monies could be completely extinguished. Cyberlux would be in the inequitable position to use such a decision to continue to frustrate Mr. Maadarani's attempts to enforce his contract with Cyberlux. This would be a windfall for Mr. Schmidt and Cyberlux in the short term. Over the long term, such a decision would so degrade Cyberlux's reputation so as to exacerbate many of the concerns highlighted by other parties and intervenors in this litigation. So long as there is "sufficient doubt" that the existing representation is adequate, and the other elements are met, the court should allow intervention. Trbovich v. UMW, 404 U.S. 528, 538 (1972).

Mr. Maadarani's Interest is not Adequately Represented by Existing Parties

The other parties and intervenors have no obligations to Mr. Maadarani. Cyberlux is the only party contractually obligated to compensate Mr. Maadarani. Furthermore, the other parties and intervenors have interests that are diametrically opposed to Mr. Maadarani's interests; specifically, their varying interests in the interpleaded monies. Cyberlux has already demonstrated an inability to represent its own interests let alone the interests of one of its former employees and officers. Any attempt to leave Mr. Maadarani's interests to Cyberlux to represent

would be unequitable and would ultimately result in a duplication of litigation and a waste of court resources.

In the alternative, Mr. Maadarani moves to be permitted to intervene permissively. Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), on timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

The timeliness inquiry is not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances. The timeliness inquiry has four subfactors:

a. The length of time during which the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in the case,

b. The extent of prejudice to the existing parties,

c. The extent of prejudice to the would be intervenor,

d. The unusual circumstances either for or against a determination that the application is timely.

See, Jurisich Oysters, LLC v. US Army Corps of Eng'rs, 2024 US Dist. LEXIS 137081

In the case at bar, the original interpleader suit was filed on June 24, 2025; and, over the course of the following several months, Cyberlux's creditors from around the country moved to intervene in this case; with the most recent order dated March 11, 2026 (document 154) which permitted ARG Group, LLC to intervene. During that same time period, Mr. Schmidt engaged in a campaign of subterfuge and deceit in his dealings with Mr. Maadarani in order to stall the situation. Specifically, Mr. Maadarani was repeatedly told his compensation and commission was forthcoming. This deceit includes the email from Mr. Schmidt dated July 2, 2025 (exhibit 1). Ultimately, Mr. Maadarani went several months without pay from Cyberlux and is entitled to

damages because of his reasonable reliance on Mr. Schmidt's statements and promises. Upon information and belief, other employees of Cyberlux are also not being paid. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Mr. Schmidt has directed Cyberlux's transfer company, Standard Registrar and Transfer Company, to stop the transfer of Mr. Maadarani's shares in Cyberlux. By the time Mr. Maadarani uncovered Mr. Schmidt's web of deceit, months had already passed. Mr. Maadarani then immediately hired the undersigned counsel and filed this motion.

Mr. Maadarani would suffer immensely if he is not allowed to intervene. His legal position would be substantially degraded as he was regulated to the sidelines of this litigation. However, the existing parties and intervenors would not be prejudiced if Mr. Maadarani is allowed to intervene. The deadline for summary judgment motions is not until April 15, 2026 and there is no trial date set. If this motion is granted, Mr. Maadarani will immediately serve his initial disclosures, and respond to interrogatory and discovery requests set forth in the joint discovery plan entered by the court. As mentioned above, as recently as March 11, 2026 the court ordered the intervention of another creditor.

As to the second prong, there are many common issues of law and fact in this case. For example, other intervenors come before this court expressing frustration that Cyberlux has refused to engage in litigation and has defaulted (e.g. Thin Air Gear, LLC, document 115). Another legal issue that will likely be discussed is Cyberlux's use of subsidiaries and d/b/a's to complicate their legal structure.

Most importantly, all the parties and intervenors, including Mr. Maadarani will have to grapple with the host of contract issues emanating from the various agreements. There are other Cyberlux shareholders involved in this litigation and issues of what duties existed and whether they were breached by Mr. Schmidt will also have to be litigated.

Mr. Maadarani was instrumental in fulfilling the requirements of the subcontract for the drones. Cyberlux's successes can be traced directly to Mr. Maadarani's efforts. Preventing Mr. Maadarani from participating in this action will immediately cause him prejudice and will needlessly complicate this case. Finally, Mr. Schmidt's admissions detailed in exhibit 1 will help to synthesize many of these legal issues for quick resolution.

In conclusion, Mr. Maadarani has a vested interest in this action. Cyberlux has admitted to owing Mr. Maadarani damages from the monies HII deposited in the court registry. Absent intervention, Mr. Maadarani's interests will not be protected. No other party to this action will be prejudiced by Mr. Maadarani's intervention. Accordingly, Mr. Maadarani respectfully requests that his motion be granted.

Dated: April 9, 2026 Pinellas County

Respectfully Submitted,

GAS

Mohamad A. Akbik, Esq.

(pending Pro Hac Vice admission)

FL Bar: 116366

Clearwater, FL 33756

Telephone:

727-223-3005

Facsimile:

727-223-3578

Email: akbiklaw@outlook.com

w /h

Keith A. Jaworski, Esq. (VSB #101178)

WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC 120 Garrett Street, Suite 304 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: 434-220-6825 Facsimile: 434-220-5687 Keith.Jaworski@woodsrogers.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 9th day of April, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via CM/ECF, upon all counsel of record.

Keith A. Jaworski, Esq. (VSB #101178) WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC 120 Garrett Street, Suite 304 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: 434-220-6825 Facsimile: 434-220-5687 Keith.Jaworski@woodsrogers.com