Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
USD 1,430,551.30 alleged at 31 December 2024; 25% requested receiver fee and at least USD 500 legal fee remain distinct.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
AWH and Secure Community apply in Harris County cause 2024-48085 for turnover and a receiver against Cyberlux and Mark Schmidt. The filing s
AWH and Secure Community apply in Harris County cause 2024-48085 for turnover and a receiver against Cyberlux and Mark Schmidt. The filing stamp is 9 January 2025 1:58 PM, envelope 96044101; automated entries are SENT at 1:58:23 PM with a 2:53 PM CST snapshot. Grady signs and certifies opposition after conference and email/first-class service to Pennetti. These records do not show recipient opening.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The application describes a 28 June 2023 judgment, 30 July 2024 Texas foreign-judgment petition, 23 August vacatur motion and 31 October den
The application describes a 28 June 2023 judgment, 30 July 2024 Texas foreign-judgment petition, 23 August vacatur motion and 31 October denial. Its phrase that the June judgment was recovered in this Court under this cause is retained despite the later foreign-judgment description. It asserts $1,430,551.30 unpaid as at 31 December 2024; no payoff ledger is attached.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The creditors allege unanswered post-judgment discovery and refusals to schedule depositions, citing August and December notices and August/
The creditors allege unanswered post-judgment discovery and refusals to schedule depositions, citing August and December notices and August/January quash motions. They contend ordinary collection was unsuccessful. The referenced discovery Exhibit A is absent from this six-page physical file.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
Respondents’ Motion to Vacate. As of December 31, 2024, there remains a total amount due and
owing of $1,430,551.30 on the Judgment. Said judgment is in all respects, final, valid, and
subsisting. Applicants are the owners and holders of said judgment.
III. Collection Efforts/ Necessity of Receiver
The appointment of a receiver is justified to aid the Court in the performance of specific
duties which a sitting court cannot undertake. A receiver will conserve the resources of the Court
on routine post judgment matters, including locating and liquidating property.
Applicants have made a good faith effort to collect the judgment but has been unsuccessful
prior to filing this application by serving Respondents with Post-Judgment Written Discovery,
including Requests for Production and Requests for Admissions (See Exhibit A). Respondents
have failed to respond to Applicants’ discovery requests.
On August 14 and December 31, 2024, Applicants served Respondent Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) with notices of depositions of Cyberlux’s corporate representatives and
officers to discover assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment. On August 20, 2024, and
January 6, 2025, Cyberlux filed motions to quash the notices of depositions in both instances.
Cyberlux has refused to reasonably schedule depositions.
On January 6, 2025, Applicants filed a letter to the writ of execution against Respondents.
Respondents owe a balance in the amount of $1,430,551.30 on the judgment.
Applicants also discovered that Respondents’ only government contract was canceled and
that Respondents attempted to sell their business.
Additionally, in April 2024, Cyberlux sold the receivables from the drone contract to
Legalist, a factoring company, giving the lender full rights to payments from the Drone contract.
Legalist secured its position with a UCC lien, ensuring that any money owed would bypass
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The motion alleges cancellation of the only government contract, an attempted business sale, April 2024 receivables assignment to Legalist a
The motion alleges cancellation of the only government contract, an attempted business sale, April 2024 receivables assignment to Legalist and an October HII document directing payments to Legalist while the amount owed was unknown. It characterises Cyberlux’s revenue recognition as misleading. These are creditor assertions; cash assignment alone does not establish improper accounting, and no contract, assignment or accounting ledger is supplied.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
Respondents’ Motion to Vacate. As of December 31, 2024, there remains a total amount due and
owing of $1,430,551.30 on the Judgment. Said judgment is in all respects, final, valid, and
subsisting. Applicants are the owners and holders of said judgment.
III. Collection Efforts/ Necessity of Receiver
The appointment of a receiver is justified to aid the Court in the performance of specific
duties which a sitting court cannot undertake. A receiver will conserve the resources of the Court
on routine post judgment matters, including locating and liquidating property.
Applicants have made a good faith effort to collect the judgment but has been unsuccessful
prior to filing this application by serving Respondents with Post-Judgment Written Discovery,
including Requests for Production and Requests for Admissions (See Exhibit A). Respondents
have failed to respond to Applicants’ discovery requests.
On August 14 and December 31, 2024, Applicants served Respondent Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) with notices of depositions of Cyberlux’s corporate representatives and
officers to discover assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment. On August 20, 2024, and
January 6, 2025, Cyberlux filed motions to quash the notices of depositions in both instances.
Cyberlux has refused to reasonably schedule depositions.
On January 6, 2025, Applicants filed a letter to the writ of execution against Respondents.
Respondents owe a balance in the amount of $1,430,551.30 on the judgment.
Applicants also discovered that Respondents’ only government contract was canceled and
that Respondents attempted to sell their business.
Additionally, in April 2024, Cyberlux sold the receivables from the drone contract to
Legalist, a factoring company, giving the lender full rights to payments from the Drone contract.
Legalist secured its position with a UCC lien, ensuring that any money owed would bypass
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The creditors quote Watts’s declaration that certain Texas property is owned by and held for the US Government, then argue the declaration o
The creditors quote Watts’s declaration that certain Texas property is owned by and held for the US Government, then argue the declaration omits other assets. They allege a delay strategy and predict receivership will reduce expense. The quotation is their incorporation of an absent Exhibit B, not a title adjudication or proof of motive.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
Cyberlux entirely. These financial maneuvers were not disclosed to Applicants. By October 2024,
HII Defense, who awarded the Drone contract to Cyberlux, filed a document confirming that it did
not know how much it owed to Cyberlux and that payments could only be sent to Legalist, rather
than the company. Cyberlux nonetheless misleadingly booked this as “revenue,” further
disguising its true financial condition.
On January 6, 2025, Defendants filed motions to quash Plaintiffs’ notices of depositions,
attaching a declaration of Charles Watts, Jr., in which he states that “Cyberlux is in possession of
certain personal property in Texas, which is owned by and being held for the United States
Government.” (See Exhibit B). The declaration fails to address other assets of Defendants,
including furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Defendants have an affirmative responsibility to
advise Applicant of any and all changes concerning the Drone contract status.
Simply stated, Respondents are employing a strategy, forcing Applicants to spend tens of
thousands of dollars on meritless motions, hoping that Applicants will abandon their collection
efforts. Applicants have attempted every possible avenue short of Receivership. However, it
appears that there is no other alternative. Appointment of a receiver will result in the need for
fewer hearings, lower attorneys’ fees, and protect the economic interests of both the debtor and
creditor. Good cause exists to appoint a Receiver.
IV. Property
Respondents own property, including present and future rights to property, that cannot be
attached or levied on by ordinary legal processes and which is not exempt from attachment,
execution, or seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities. In fact, Respondents have admitted such by
failing to respond to post-judgment discovery, including Requests for Admissions, and refusing to
cooperate in the identification of assets and the collection of said judgment.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The application asserts non-exempt debtor property and treats discovery nonresponse as an admission. It specifically says respondents own a
The application asserts non-exempt debtor property and treats discovery nonresponse as an admission. It specifically says respondents own a 21,450-square-foot facility at 21631 Rhodes Road in Spring. It provides no deed or lease establishing real-property ownership and no ruling deeming every assertion admitted.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
Cyberlux entirely. These financial maneuvers were not disclosed to Applicants. By October 2024,
HII Defense, who awarded the Drone contract to Cyberlux, filed a document confirming that it did
not know how much it owed to Cyberlux and that payments could only be sent to Legalist, rather
than the company. Cyberlux nonetheless misleadingly booked this as “revenue,” further
disguising its true financial condition.
On January 6, 2025, Defendants filed motions to quash Plaintiffs’ notices of depositions,
attaching a declaration of Charles Watts, Jr., in which he states that “Cyberlux is in possession of
certain personal property in Texas, which is owned by and being held for the United States
Government.” (See Exhibit B). The declaration fails to address other assets of Defendants,
including furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Defendants have an affirmative responsibility to
advise Applicant of any and all changes concerning the Drone contract status.
Simply stated, Respondents are employing a strategy, forcing Applicants to spend tens of
thousands of dollars on meritless motions, hoping that Applicants will abandon their collection
efforts. Applicants have attempted every possible avenue short of Receivership. However, it
appears that there is no other alternative. Appointment of a receiver will result in the need for
fewer hearings, lower attorneys’ fees, and protect the economic interests of both the debtor and
creditor. Good cause exists to appoint a Receiver.
IV. Property
Respondents own property, including present and future rights to property, that cannot be
attached or levied on by ordinary legal processes and which is not exempt from attachment,
execution, or seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities. In fact, Respondents have admitted such by
failing to respond to post-judgment discovery, including Requests for Admissions, and refusing to
cooperate in the identification of assets and the collection of said judgment.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
It requests power to possess and sell all non-exempt debtor assets, reach financial accounts and require documents referenced in absent Exhi
It requests power to possess and sell all non-exempt debtor assets, reach financial accounts and require documents referenced in absent Exhibit C. It requests receiver compensation of 25% of recoveries plus related expenses, and at least $500 additional legal fees. These requested terms are not an entered appointment or automatic entitlement to 25% of any expected payment.
Read the anchor · page 4
4
In particular, Respondents own a 21,450 square foot manufacturing facility as an asset,
which is located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas 77388, which is non-exempt property.
V. Authority/Compensation of Receiver
Applicants request the Court to appoint a receiver with power and authority to take
possession and sell all non-exempt assets of Respondents (and all documents related thereto),
including but not limited to, cash and contents in all accounts of all financial institutions and to
apply the proceeds to satisfy the judgment and all amounts due under the receivership. Applicants
request that Receiver have broad powers in enforcing this order, including but not limited to,
ordering the production of documents, including but not limited to, the documents set forth in
Exhibit C of this application and order.
Applicants request that Respondents be ordered to pay Receiver 25% of the recoveries, as
compensation to the Receiver, and that such compensation (and out of pocket expenses directly
related to the recovery) be paid, as taxable court costs, in addition to the amount owed to Plaintiff.
VI. Additional Costs
Applicants request that Respondents be ordered to pay additional and reasonable attorney’s
fees of at least $500.00 for preparing and urging this Application, as authorized by Chapter 31.002,
Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
VII. Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicants pray that Respondents be cited to
answer and appear herein and that upon final hearing hereof, the Court grant the relief requested
in this Application and for all further relief, at law or in equity, to which the Applicants may be
justly entitled.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The supplied file has the five-page application and one automated service certificate only. Exhibits A–C, the original judgment, detailed as
The supplied file has the five-page application and one automated service certificate only. Exhibits A–C, the original judgment, detailed asset proof and any granting order remain separate records. The twelve visible dispatch entries all say SENT; the display does not establish delivery or reading.
Read the anchor · page 5
5
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC
By: /s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
State Bar No. 24076411
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Suite 805
Houston, Texas 77027
(832) 692- 4542 – Telephone
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that he conferred with counsel for Respondents, and Respondents
are opposed to this application.
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Application for
Appointment of Turnover after Judgment and Appointment of Receiver was duly served on
Counsel for Respondents, via electronic mail and first-class mail on this the 9
th day of January,
2025 as follows:
Alexander J. Pennetti
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, Texas 75201
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
MARK SCHMIDT
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Shawn M. Grady
Read the anchor · page 5
5
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC
By: /s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
State Bar No. 24076411
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Suite 805
Houston, Texas 77027
(832) 692- 4542 – Telephone
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that he conferred with counsel for Respondents, and Respondents
are opposed to this application.
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Application for
Appointment of Turnover after Judgment and Appointment of Receiver was duly served on
Counsel for Respondents, via electronic mail and first-class mail on this the 9
th day of January,
2025 as follows:
Alexander J. Pennetti
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, Texas 75201
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Alexander J. Pennetti
Read the anchor · page 5
5
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC
By: /s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
State Bar No. 24076411
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Suite 805
Houston, Texas 77027
(832) 692- 4542 – Telephone
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that he conferred with counsel for Respondents, and Respondents
are opposed to this application.
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Application for
Appointment of Turnover after Judgment and Appointment of Receiver was duly served on
Counsel for Respondents, via electronic mail and first-class mail on this the 9
th day of January,
2025 as follows:
Alexander J. Pennetti
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, Texas 75201
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Legalist
Read the anchor · page 2
2
Respondents’ Motion to Vacate. As of December 31, 2024, there remains a total amount due and
owing of $1,430,551.30 on the Judgment. Said judgment is in all respects, final, valid, and
subsisting. Applicants are the owners and holders of said judgment.
III. Collection Efforts/ Necessity of Receiver
The appointment of a receiver is justified to aid the Court in the performance of specific
duties which a sitting court cannot undertake. A receiver will conserve the resources of the Court
on routine post judgment matters, including locating and liquidating property.
Applicants have made a good faith effort to collect the judgment but has been unsuccessful
prior to filing this application by serving Respondents with Post-Judgment Written Discovery,
including Requests for Production and Requests for Admissions (See Exhibit A). Respondents
have failed to respond to Applicants’ discovery requests.
On August 14 and December 31, 2024, Applicants served Respondent Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) with notices of depositions of Cyberlux’s corporate representatives and
officers to discover assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment. On August 20, 2024, and
January 6, 2025, Cyberlux filed motions to quash the notices of depositions in both instances.
Cyberlux has refused to reasonably schedule depositions.
On January 6, 2025, Applicants filed a letter to the writ of execution against Respondents.
Respondents owe a balance in the amount of $1,430,551.30 on the judgment.
Applicants also discovered that Respondents’ only government contract was canceled and
that Respondents attempted to sell their business.
Additionally, in April 2024, Cyberlux sold the receivables from the drone contract to
Legalist, a factoring company, giving the lender full rights to payments from the Drone contract.
Legalist secured its position with a UCC lien, ensuring that any money owed would bypass
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Recorded filing and dispatch, not appointment.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference
The motion’s own government-property quotation makes debtor title and scope central to any later turnover authority; a request to sell non-e
The motion’s own government-property quotation makes debtor title and scope central to any later turnover authority; a request to sell non-exempt debtor assets does not encompass Government property merely through co-location.
inferenceinference
The dated balance, requested 25% recovery fee and at-least-$500 application fee are separate proposed accounting elements, not an already ap
The dated balance, requested 25% recovery fee and at-least-$500 application fee are separate proposed accounting elements, not an already approved aggregate.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 468dd86abc17c4544f510438c7617e33aea8ff04757f32470ac6bbae78744721. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 468dd86abc17c4544f510438c7617e33aea8ff04757f32470ac6bbae78744721. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. No unexamined later court outcome is inferred.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER AFTER
JUDGMENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff-in-Judgment, (hereinafter called “Applicants”), and makes this Application for Turnover
after Judgment And For Appointment Of Receiver as herein stated with respect to the non-exempt
property of Defendants-in-Judgment, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT
(hereinafter called “Respondents”), and as grounds therefore, Applicants would show unto this
Court the following:
I. Service
Respondents, CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHMIDT may be served by
delivering the same to Respondents’ counsel as stated on the below Certificate of Service.
II. Judgment Information
On June 28, 2023, Applicant in this Court under this cause, recovered judgment against
Respondents of which part of the judgment amount is unpaid at this time. On July 30, 2024,
Applicants filed the Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Texas. On August 23, 2024,
Respondents filed a Motion to Vacate. On October 31, 2024, the Court entered its Order denying
1/9/2025 1:58 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 96044101
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 1/9/2025 1:58 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
questionquestion
What judgment ledger and payment credits establish the 31 December balance and any later change?
questionquestion
What deed, lease, inventory and ownership documents distinguish the premises, fixtures, debtor equipment and Government property?
questionquestion
What discovery exhibits, service records and entered appointment order establish the actual nonresponse, findings, authority and compensatio
What discovery exhibits, service records and entered appointment order establish the actual nonresponse, findings, authority and compensation?
distillateallegation
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 application asserts non-exempt debtor property and treats discovery nonresponse as an admission. It specifically says respondents own a 21,450-square-foot facility at 21631 Rhodes Road in Spring. It provides no deed or lease establishing real-property ownership and no ruling deeming every assertion admitted.referencesBerleth says he took physical possession of the Spring facility on May 23, changed locks and secured the premises. He says he or staff observed inventory and shipping and the final truck left May 30. These are his direct descriptions of operational acts, not independently verified inventory, title or delivery acceptance records.
Alleged ownership of the Spring facility and later receiver description of physical possession are distinct; possession does not prove fee title.
The application describes a 28 June 2023 judgment, 30 July 2024 Texas foreign-judgment petition, 23 August vacatur motion and 31 October denial. Its phrase that the June judgment was recovered in this Court under this cause is retained despite the later foreign-judgment description. It asserts $1,430,551.30 unpaid as at 31 December 2024; no payoff ledger is attached.referencesThe motion recounts enforcement, removals, remands and a May 22 receiver appointment. It calls Rosenthal Chief Judge, whereas the signed opinion identifies Senior United States District Judge; it gives a July 7, 2024 enforcement filing and a Virginia cause label 23-07422 that require comparison with original records. The repeated historical narrative is not independently established by this motion.
Application says July30 Texas enforcement petition; receiver narrative says July7. Preserve conflicting accounts pending the original petition stamp.
The application describes a 28 June 2023 judgment, 30 July 2024 Texas foreign-judgment petition, 23 August vacatur motion and 31 October denial. Its phrase that the June judgment was recovered in this Court under this cause is retained despite the later foreign-judgment description. It asserts $1,430,551.30 unpaid as at 31 December 2024; no payoff ledger is attached.supportsWhat judgment ledger and payment credits establish the 31 December balance and any later change?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It requests power to possess and sell all non-exempt debtor assets, reach financial accounts and require documents referenced in absent Exhibit C. It requests receiver compensation of 25% of recoveries plus related expenses, and at least $500 additional legal fees. These requested terms are not an entered appointment or automatic entitlement to 25% of any expected payment.supportsThe dated balance, requested 25% recovery fee and at-least-$500 application fee are separate proposed accounting elements, not an already approved aggregate.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied file has the five-page application and one automated service certificate only. Exhibits A–C, the original judgment, detailed asset proof and any granting order remain separate records. The twelve visible dispatch entries all say SENT; the display does not establish delivery or reading.supportsDoes this application authorise a receiver to take Government property or collect 25%?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It requests power to possess and sell all non-exempt debtor assets, reach financial accounts and require documents referenced in absent Exhibit C. It requests receiver compensation of 25% of recoveries plus related expenses, and at least $500 additional legal fees. These requested terms are not an entered appointment or automatic entitlement to 25% of any expected payment.supportsThe motion’s own government-property quotation makes debtor title and scope central to any later turnover authority; a request to sell non-exempt debtor assets does not encompass Government property merely through co-location.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The creditors quote Watts’s declaration that certain Texas property is owned by and held for the US Government, then argue the declaration omits other assets. They allege a delay strategy and predict receivership will reduce expense. The quotation is their incorporation of an absent Exhibit B, not a title adjudication or proof of motive.supportsWhat deed, lease, inventory and ownership documents distinguish the premises, fixtures, debtor equipment and Government property?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The creditors quote Watts’s declaration that certain Texas property is owned by and held for the US Government, then argue the declaration omits other assets. They allege a delay strategy and predict receivership will reduce expense. The quotation is their incorporation of an absent Exhibit B, not a title adjudication or proof of motive.supportsDoes this application authorise a receiver to take Government property or collect 25%?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The application asserts non-exempt debtor property and treats discovery nonresponse as an admission. It specifically says respondents own a 21,450-square-foot facility at 21631 Rhodes Road in Spring. It provides no deed or lease establishing real-property ownership and no ruling deeming every assertion admitted.supportsWhat deed, lease, inventory and ownership documents distinguish the premises, fixtures, debtor equipment and Government property?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied file has the five-page application and one automated service certificate only. Exhibits A–C, the original judgment, detailed asset proof and any granting order remain separate records. The twelve visible dispatch entries all say SENT; the display does not establish delivery or reading.supportsThe dated balance, requested 25% recovery fee and at-least-$500 application fee are separate proposed accounting elements, not an already approved aggregate.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The application asserts non-exempt debtor property and treats discovery nonresponse as an admission. It specifically says respondents own a 21,450-square-foot facility at 21631 Rhodes Road in Spring. It provides no deed or lease establishing real-property ownership and no ruling deeming every assertion admitted.supportsThe motion’s own government-property quotation makes debtor title and scope central to any later turnover authority; a request to sell non-exempt debtor assets does not encompass Government property merely through co-location.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The application describes a 28 June 2023 judgment, 30 July 2024 Texas foreign-judgment petition, 23 August vacatur motion and 31 October denial. Its phrase that the June judgment was recovered in this Court under this cause is retained despite the later foreign-judgment description. It asserts $1,430,551.30 unpaid as at 31 December 2024; no payoff ledger is attached.supportsThe dated balance, requested 25% recovery fee and at-least-$500 application fee are separate proposed accounting elements, not an already approved aggregate.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It requests power to possess and sell all non-exempt debtor assets, reach financial accounts and require documents referenced in absent Exhibit C. It requests receiver compensation of 25% of recoveries plus related expenses, and at least $500 additional legal fees. These requested terms are not an entered appointment or automatic entitlement to 25% of any expected payment.supportsWhat discovery exhibits, service records and entered appointment order establish the actual nonresponse, findings, authority and compensation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied file has the five-page application and one automated service certificate only. Exhibits A–C, the original judgment, detailed asset proof and any granting order remain separate records. The twelve visible dispatch entries all say SENT; the display does not establish delivery or reading.supportsWhat discovery exhibits, service records and entered appointment order establish the actual nonresponse, findings, authority and compensation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It requests power to possess and sell all non-exempt debtor assets, reach financial accounts and require documents referenced in absent Exhibit C. It requests receiver compensation of 25% of recoveries plus related expenses, and at least $500 additional legal fees. These requested terms are not an entered appointment or automatic entitlement to 25% of any expected payment.supportsDoes this application authorise a receiver to take Government property or collect 25%?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The creditors quote Watts’s declaration that certain Texas property is owned by and held for the US Government, then argue the declaration omits other assets. They allege a delay strategy and predict receivership will reduce expense. The quotation is their incorporation of an absent Exhibit B, not a title adjudication or proof of motive.supportsThe motion’s own government-property quotation makes debtor title and scope central to any later turnover authority; a request to sell non-exempt debtor assets does not encompass Government property merely through co-location.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The creditors allege unanswered post-judgment discovery and refusals to schedule depositions, citing August and December notices and August/January quash motions. They contend ordinary collection was unsuccessful. The referenced discovery Exhibit A is absent from this six-page physical file.supportsWhat discovery exhibits, service records and entered appointment order establish the actual nonresponse, findings, authority and compensation?
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.