June 24 appellate response order preserves further trial-court proceedings
Original sourceSigned Texas First District appellate scheduling order in mandamus proceeding; no merits determination or stay granted in this document.
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Exhibit 7 contains the June 24, 2025 order signed /s/ Andrew Johnson acting individually, in mandamus 01-25-00455-CV concerning Harris Count
Exhibit 7 contains the June 24, 2025 order signed /s/ Andrew Johnson acting individually, in mandamus 01-25-00455-CV concerning Harris County case 2024-48085. The footnote separately identifies interlocutory appeal 01-25-00454-CV. These are distinct appellate docket numbers.
The order recites Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt’s challenge to the May 22 receiver appointment and June 12 oral denial of an emer
The order recites Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt’s challenge to the May 22 receiver appointment and June 12 oral denial of an emergency stay. It attributes alleged judgment satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt’s asserted improper inclusion to the relators; it does not find those contentions true.
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The court requests real parties’ emergency-motion response by noon Monday June 30, 2025 and mandamus response by Monday July 21, 2025. These
The court requests real parties’ emergency-motion response by noon Monday June 30, 2025 and mandamus response by Monday July 21, 2025. These are historical response dates, not evidence the responses were filed or live deadlines now.
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
While the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedi
While the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedings, including determining whether the judgment has been satisfied and how money should be disbursed. This order does not grant the requested stay or decide satisfaction, disbursement or termination.
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Mark D. Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Andrew Johnson
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
129th District Court of Harris County
Read the anchor · page 2
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, n othing 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.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference
This order is evidence against reading the pending emergency request itself as a universal bar on further trial-court proceedings. Its expre
This order is evidence against reading the pending emergency request itself as a universal bar on further trial-court proceedings. Its express reservation remains bounded to this order and time; later orders or different jurisdictional issues must be examined separately.
omissiongap
The petitions, responses, challenged receiver order and subsequent rulings are not attached to this two-page exhibit.
What subsequent appellate orders and trial-court proceedings determined the stay request, satisfaction, disbursement and eventual receiversh
What subsequent appellate orders and trial-court proceedings determined the stay request, satisfaction, disbursement and eventual receivership termination?
distillatequestion
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
The 33-page federal Exhibit 8 comprises a divider, a 20-page order signed by Michael Gomez on May 22, 2025, an 11-page Exhibit A and clerk certification dated May 23, certified document 120719480 for 31 underlying pages. The April 1 filing stamp on its first page is separate from the May 22 judicial signature and August 4 federal filing.supportsThe order recites Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt’s challenge to the May 22 receiver appointment and June 12 oral denial of an emergency stay. It attributes alleged judgment satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt’s asserted improper inclusion to the relators; it does not find those contentions true.
May22 receiver appointment is the challenged instrument identified by the June24 appellate order; no inference challenge succeeded.
Berleth says the extended production time expires Tuesday July 1, 2025 barring an appellate ruling on the response-brief due date, which he calls highly unlikely. He asks counsel to plan production by July 1. The extension and operative production order are not attached, and this email does not establish whether an appellate ruling or production followed.supportsWhile the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedings, including determining whether the judgment has been satisfied and how money should be disbursed. This order does not grant the requested stay or decide satisfaction, disbursement or termination.
Consistent with proceedings not automatically stopped by June24 order; that order does not independently establish this production extension.
While the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedings, including determining whether the judgment has been satisfied and how money should be disbursed. This order does not grant the requested stay or decide satisfaction, disbursement or termination.qualifiesAt 9:49 AM Berleth disputes payment in full, cites Cyberlux objections to disbursement and says the receivership remains. He predicts September or October as the earliest termination hearing and asserts the appeal prevents setting it meanwhile. These are counsel’s legal and procedural assertions; no docket or order establishes them here. He interprets Priddy’s email as instructions to proceed without Legalist.
June24 order expressly preserves satisfaction and disbursement proceedings; June27 Berleth asserts no termination hearing until appeal resolved. Different scope prevents treating this as a complete legal refutation, but broad suspension inference is unsupported.
While the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedings, including determining whether the judgment has been satisfied and how money should be disbursed. This order does not grant the requested stay or decide satisfaction, disbursement or termination.supportsWhat subsequent appellate orders and trial-court proceedings determined the stay request, satisfaction, disbursement and eventual receivership termination?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit 7 contains the June 24, 2025 order signed /s/ Andrew Johnson acting individually, in mandamus 01-25-00455-CV concerning Harris County case 2024-48085. The footnote separately identifies interlocutory appeal 01-25-00454-CV. These are distinct appellate docket numbers.supportsThis order is evidence against reading the pending emergency request itself as a universal bar on further trial-court proceedings. Its express reservation remains bounded to this order and time; later orders or different jurisdictional issues must be examined separately.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
While the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedings, including determining whether the judgment has been satisfied and how money should be disbursed. This order does not grant the requested stay or decide satisfaction, disbursement or termination.supportsDid this appellate order stop the trial court from addressing satisfaction or disbursement?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court requests real parties’ emergency-motion response by noon Monday June 30, 2025 and mandamus response by Monday July 21, 2025. These are historical response dates, not evidence the responses were filed or live deadlines now.supportsDid this appellate order stop the trial court from addressing satisfaction or disbursement?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court requests real parties’ emergency-motion response by noon Monday June 30, 2025 and mandamus response by Monday July 21, 2025. These are historical response dates, not evidence the responses were filed or live deadlines now.supportsWhat subsequent appellate orders and trial-court proceedings determined the stay request, satisfaction, disbursement and eventual receivership termination?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order recites Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt’s challenge to the May 22 receiver appointment and June 12 oral denial of an emergency stay. It attributes alleged judgment satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt’s asserted improper inclusion to the relators; it does not find those contentions true.supportsThe petitions, responses, challenged receiver order and subsequent rulings are not attached to this two-page exhibit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court requests real parties’ emergency-motion response by noon Monday June 30, 2025 and mandamus response by Monday July 21, 2025. These are historical response dates, not evidence the responses were filed or live deadlines now.supportsThe petitions, responses, challenged receiver order and subsequent rulings are not attached to this two-page exhibit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit 7 contains the June 24, 2025 order signed /s/ Andrew Johnson acting individually, in mandamus 01-25-00455-CV concerning Harris County case 2024-48085. The footnote separately identifies interlocutory appeal 01-25-00454-CV. These are distinct appellate docket numbers.supportsThe petitions, responses, challenged receiver order and subsequent rulings are not attached to this two-page exhibit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
While the emergency motion is pending, the order expressly says nothing in it should be construed as preventing further trial-court proceedings, including determining whether the judgment has been satisfied and how money should be disbursed. This order does not grant the requested stay or decide satisfaction, disbursement or termination.supportsThis order is evidence against reading the pending emergency request itself as a universal bar on further trial-court proceedings. Its express reservation remains bounded to this order and time; later orders or different jurisdictional issues must be examined separately.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order recites Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt’s challenge to the May 22 receiver appointment and June 12 oral denial of an emergency stay. It attributes alleged judgment satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt’s asserted improper inclusion to the relators; it does not find those contentions true.supportsWhat subsequent appellate orders and trial-court proceedings determined the stay request, satisfaction, disbursement and eventual receivership termination?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
Explained weighting
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
No published WEIGH run
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.