Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
The six-page answer is filed in Durham25-CV-004246-310, ARG Group against Cyberlux, with7July2025 2:23PM filing stamp. Page5visibly says7Jul
The six-page answer is filed in Durham25-CV-004246-310, ARG Group against Cyberlux, with7July2025 2:23PM filing stamp. Page5visibly says7July2022, while page6certifies first-class mailed service on7July2025. The conflicting year is a source defect, not an inferred2022filing. Doug Grimes signs /s/ as J.Douglas Grimes for Allen, Chesson & Grimes; Christian Lunghi is listed for ARG.
Read the anchor · page 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CV-004246-310
ANSWER
The ARG Group, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cyberlux Corporation,
Defendant
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") responds to Plaintiffs
Complaint as follows:
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. Admitted.
4, Defendant admits that it develops, manufactures, and sells UAS
products including hardware and software solutions. Except as admitted, Paragraph 4
is denied.
5. Defendant admits that its products include certain drone hardware,
software operating platforms, and related hardware. Except as admitted, Paragraph 5
is denied.
6. Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
Electronically Filed Date: 7/7/2025 2:23 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
JG
claimallegation
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platform
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platforms, with remaining allegations denied. Paragraph3is simply admitted without reproducing the complaint. The second response also refers to paragraph1in the actual image; that cross-reference defect is not silently repaired.
Read the anchor · page 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CV-004246-310
ANSWER
The ARG Group, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cyberlux Corporation,
Defendant
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") responds to Plaintiffs
Complaint as follows:
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. Admitted.
4, Defendant admits that it develops, manufactures, and sells UAS
products including hardware and software solutions. Except as admitted, Paragraph 4
is denied.
5. Defendant admits that its products include certain drone hardware,
software operating platforms, and related hardware. Except as admitted, Paragraph 5
is denied.
6. Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
Electronically Filed Date: 7/7/2025 2:23 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
JG
claimallegation
Cyberlux admits entering a Distributer Partner Agreement with ARG on or about28February2022, says its contents speak for themselves and deni
Cyberlux admits entering a Distributer Partner Agreement with ARG on or about28February2022, says its contents speak for themselves and denies inconsistent remainder allegations. This admits the relationship’s existence, not all disputed contractual terms, breach or debt.
Read the anchor · page 2
7. Paragraph 7 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
8. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
9. Defendant admits that on or about February 28, 2022, Defendant and
Plaintiff entered into a Distributer Partner Agreement, the contents of which speak
for themselves. Except as admitted, Paragraph 9 is denied.
10. Defendant admits that the contents of contract speak for themselves.
Except as admitted, and to the extent Paragraph 10 is inconsistent with said
contractual terms, Paragraph 10 is denied.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Denied.
14. Denied.
15. Denied.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Denied.
20. Denied.
21. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
claimallegation
The answer denies11–20,22–30,32–37,39–44and46–57, with incorporation paragraphs21,31,38and45. Paragraphs6and7are treated as legal conclusion
The answer denies11–20,22–30,32–37,39–44and46–57, with incorporation paragraphs21,31,38and45. Paragraphs6and7are treated as legal conclusions. The underlying complaint/contract is absent from this file, so bare numbered denials cannot be converted into resolved allegations.
Read the anchor · page 2
7. Paragraph 7 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
8. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
9. Defendant admits that on or about February 28, 2022, Defendant and
Plaintiff entered into a Distributer Partner Agreement, the contents of which speak
for themselves. Except as admitted, Paragraph 9 is denied.
10. Defendant admits that the contents of contract speak for themselves.
Except as admitted, and to the extent Paragraph 10 is inconsistent with said
contractual terms, Paragraph 10 is denied.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Denied.
14. Denied.
15. Denied.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Denied.
20. Denied.
21. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
claimallegation
The sole labelled affirmative defence invokes North Carolina Rule12(b)(6), failure to state a claim. The prayer seeks dismissal with prejudi
The sole labelled affirmative defence invokes North Carolina Rule12(b)(6), failure to state a claim. The prayer seeks dismissal with prejudice, costs against plaintiff, a jury and further appropriate relief. These are requested outcomes, not an order granting dismissal.
Read the anchor · page 4
42. Denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied.
45. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
46. Denied.
47. Denied.
48. Denied.
49. Denied.
50. Denied.
51. Denied.
52. Denied.
53. Denied.
54. Denied.
55. Denied.
56. Denied.
57. Denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted, in
whole or in part, and therefore should be dismissed pursuant to North Carolina Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
claimallegation
The certificate states mailing to Lunghi at Anderson Jones, POBox60978,Raleigh,North Carolina20248. The displayed postal code20248is preserv
The certificate states mailing to Lunghi at Anderson Jones, POBox60978,Raleigh,North Carolina20248. The displayed postal code20248is preserved as source text; this review does not silently substitute a plausible Raleigh code or establish mailing/receipt from a certificate alone.
Read the anchor · page 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that copy of the foregoing document has
been served by mailing true copy thereof, through the United States Mail, first
class, postage prepaid, on this the 7th day of July, 2025, properly addressed as follows:
Christian Lunghi ANDERSON JONES, PLLC
Post Office Box 60978 Raleigh, North Carolina 20248 Phone: (919) 277-2541
clunghi@andersonjones.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Doug Grimes Doug Grimes
entityobservation
The ARG Group, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CV-004246-310
ANSWER
The ARG Group, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cyberlux Corporation,
Defendant
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") responds to Plaintiffs
Complaint as follows:
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. Admitted.
4, Defendant admits that it develops, manufactures, and sells UAS
products including hardware and software solutions. Except as admitted, Paragraph 4
is denied.
5. Defendant admits that its products include certain drone hardware,
software operating platforms, and related hardware. Except as admitted, Paragraph 5
is denied.
6. Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
Electronically Filed Date: 7/7/2025 2:23 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
JG
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CV-004246-310
ANSWER
The ARG Group, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cyberlux Corporation,
Defendant
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") responds to Plaintiffs
Complaint as follows:
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. Admitted.
4, Defendant admits that it develops, manufactures, and sells UAS
products including hardware and software solutions. Except as admitted, Paragraph 4
is denied.
5. Defendant admits that its products include certain drone hardware,
software operating platforms, and related hardware. Except as admitted, Paragraph 5
is denied.
6. Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
Electronically Filed Date: 7/7/2025 2:23 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
JG
entityobservation
J. Douglas Grimes
Read the anchor · page 5
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that:
1. Plaintiff have and recover nothing from Defendant and that Plaintiffs
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
2. That the costs of this action be taxed against Plaintiff;
3. That all issues of fact be tried before jury; and
4. For all such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
This the 7th day of July, 2022.
ALLEN, CHESSON & GRIMES PLLC
/s/ Doug Grimes
J. Douglas Grimes, NC Bar #32699
505 N. Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone: 704.755.6010 dgrimes@allenchesson.com
Counsel for Defendant
entityobservation
Christian Lunghi
Read the anchor · page 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that copy of the foregoing document has
been served by mailing true copy thereof, through the United States Mail, first
class, postage prepaid, on this the 7th day of July, 2025, properly addressed as follows:
Christian Lunghi ANDERSON JONES, PLLC
Post Office Box 60978 Raleigh, North Carolina 20248 Phone: (919) 277-2541
clunghi@andersonjones.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Doug Grimes Doug Grimes
entityobservation
ALLEN, CHESSON & GRIMES PLLC
Read the anchor · page 5
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that:
1. Plaintiff have and recover nothing from Defendant and that Plaintiffs
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
2. That the costs of this action be taxed against Plaintiff;
3. That all issues of fact be tried before jury; and
4. For all such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
This the 7th day of July, 2022.
ALLEN, CHESSON & GRIMES PLLC
/s/ Doug Grimes
J. Douglas Grimes, NC Bar #32699
505 N. Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone: 704.755.6010 dgrimes@allenchesson.com
Counsel for Defendant
entityobservation
ANDERSON JONES, PLLC
Read the anchor · page 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that copy of the foregoing document has
been served by mailing true copy thereof, through the United States Mail, first
class, postage prepaid, on this the 7th day of July, 2025, properly addressed as follows:
Christian Lunghi ANDERSON JONES, PLLC
Post Office Box 60978 Raleigh, North Carolina 20248 Phone: (919) 277-2541
clunghi@andersonjones.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Doug Grimes Doug Grimes
eventattribution
Court stamp and service certificate use2025; pleading signature line instead prints2022.
Read the anchor · page 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CV-004246-310
ANSWER
The ARG Group, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cyberlux Corporation,
Defendant
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") responds to Plaintiffs
Complaint as follows:
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. Admitted.
4, Defendant admits that it develops, manufactures, and sells UAS
products including hardware and software solutions. Except as admitted, Paragraph 4
is denied.
5. Defendant admits that its products include certain drone hardware,
software operating platforms, and related hardware. Except as admitted, Paragraph 5
is denied.
6. Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
Electronically Filed Date: 7/7/2025 2:23 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
JG
inferenceinference
The2022signature-line year conflicts with the2025filing stamp and service certificate. Treat the filing as dated by its stamp while preservi
The2022signature-line year conflicts with the2025filing stamp and service certificate. Treat the filing as dated by its stamp while preserving the uncorrected source year and paragraph-reference/posted-address defects.
inferenceinference
Admitting a distribution agreement and business category is narrower than admitting the plaintiff’s claims; a bare12(b)(6)defence is likewis
Admitting a distribution agreement and business category is narrower than admitting the plaintiff’s claims; a bare12(b)(6)defence is likewise not a dismissal.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 53a9bb4d6ad5dd5b87d8d70788430508cfdc99f20015619f3b50c69bab4c978e. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 53a9bb4d6ad5dd5b87d8d70788430508cfdc99f20015619f3b50c69bab4c978e. 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
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CV-004246-310
ANSWER
The ARG Group, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cyberlux Corporation,
Defendant
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") responds to Plaintiffs
Complaint as follows:
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. Admitted.
4, Defendant admits that it develops, manufactures, and sells UAS
products including hardware and software solutions. Except as admitted, Paragraph 4
is denied.
5. Defendant admits that its products include certain drone hardware,
software operating platforms, and related hardware. Except as admitted, Paragraph 5
is denied.
6. Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, requires no
response.
Electronically Filed Date: 7/7/2025 2:23 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
JG
questionquestion
What complaint and executed distribution agreement supply the missing paragraph content and define the actually disputed contractual obligat
What complaint and executed distribution agreement supply the missing paragraph content and define the actually disputed contractual obligations?
questionquestion
Is there a corrected executed answer or service record resolving the signature-year, repeated paragraph1reference and displayed postal code?
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.
Admitting a distribution agreement and business category is narrower than admitting the plaintiff’s claims; a bare12(b)(6)defence is likewise not a dismissal.supportsDoes the answer prove ARG’s claimed debt or a dismissal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits entering a Distributer Partner Agreement with ARG on or about28February2022, says its contents speak for themselves and denies inconsistent remainder allegations. This admits the relationship’s existence, not all disputed contractual terms, breach or debt.supportsWhat complaint and executed distribution agreement supply the missing paragraph content and define the actually disputed contractual obligations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits entering a Distributer Partner Agreement with ARG on or about28February2022, says its contents speak for themselves and denies inconsistent remainder allegations. This admits the relationship’s existence, not all disputed contractual terms, breach or debt.supportsDoes the answer prove ARG’s claimed debt or a dismissal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sole labelled affirmative defence invokes North Carolina Rule12(b)(6), failure to state a claim. The prayer seeks dismissal with prejudice, costs against plaintiff, a jury and further appropriate relief. These are requested outcomes, not an order granting dismissal.supportsAdmitting a distribution agreement and business category is narrower than admitting the plaintiff’s claims; a bare12(b)(6)defence is likewise not a dismissal.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The six-page answer is filed in Durham25-CV-004246-310, ARG Group against Cyberlux, with7July2025 2:23PM filing stamp. Page5visibly says7July2022, while page6certifies first-class mailed service on7July2025. The conflicting year is a source defect, not an inferred2022filing. Doug Grimes signs /s/ as J.Douglas Grimes for Allen, Chesson & Grimes; Christian Lunghi is listed for ARG.supportsIs there a corrected executed answer or service record resolving the signature-year, repeated paragraph1reference and displayed postal code?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platforms, with remaining allegations denied. Paragraph3is simply admitted without reproducing the complaint. The second response also refers to paragraph1in the actual image; that cross-reference defect is not silently repaired.supportsDoes the answer prove ARG’s claimed debt or a dismissal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platforms, with remaining allegations denied. Paragraph3is simply admitted without reproducing the complaint. The second response also refers to paragraph1in the actual image; that cross-reference defect is not silently repaired.supportsWhat complaint and executed distribution agreement supply the missing paragraph content and define the actually disputed contractual obligations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platforms, with remaining allegations denied. Paragraph3is simply admitted without reproducing the complaint. The second response also refers to paragraph1in the actual image; that cross-reference defect is not silently repaired.supportsIs there a corrected executed answer or service record resolving the signature-year, repeated paragraph1reference and displayed postal code?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sole labelled affirmative defence invokes North Carolina Rule12(b)(6), failure to state a claim. The prayer seeks dismissal with prejudice, costs against plaintiff, a jury and further appropriate relief. These are requested outcomes, not an order granting dismissal.supportsDoes the answer prove ARG’s claimed debt or a dismissal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The answer denies11–20,22–30,32–37,39–44and46–57, with incorporation paragraphs21,31,38and45. Paragraphs6and7are treated as legal conclusions. The underlying complaint/contract is absent from this file, so bare numbered denials cannot be converted into resolved allegations.supportsDoes the answer prove ARG’s claimed debt or a dismissal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The answer denies11–20,22–30,32–37,39–44and46–57, with incorporation paragraphs21,31,38and45. Paragraphs6and7are treated as legal conclusions. The underlying complaint/contract is absent from this file, so bare numbered denials cannot be converted into resolved allegations.supportsWhat complaint and executed distribution agreement supply the missing paragraph content and define the actually disputed contractual obligations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The certificate states mailing to Lunghi at Anderson Jones, POBox60978,Raleigh,North Carolina20248. The displayed postal code20248is preserved as source text; this review does not silently substitute a plausible Raleigh code or establish mailing/receipt from a certificate alone.supportsThe2022signature-line year conflicts with the2025filing stamp and service certificate. Treat the filing as dated by its stamp while preserving the uncorrected source year and paragraph-reference/posted-address defects.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits entering a Distributer Partner Agreement with ARG on or about28February2022, says its contents speak for themselves and denies inconsistent remainder allegations. This admits the relationship’s existence, not all disputed contractual terms, breach or debt.supportsAdmitting a distribution agreement and business category is narrower than admitting the plaintiff’s claims; a bare12(b)(6)defence is likewise not a dismissal.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The certificate states mailing to Lunghi at Anderson Jones, POBox60978,Raleigh,North Carolina20248. The displayed postal code20248is preserved as source text; this review does not silently substitute a plausible Raleigh code or establish mailing/receipt from a certificate alone.supportsIs there a corrected executed answer or service record resolving the signature-year, repeated paragraph1reference and displayed postal code?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platforms, with remaining allegations denied. Paragraph3is simply admitted without reproducing the complaint. The second response also refers to paragraph1in the actual image; that cross-reference defect is not silently repaired.supportsAdmitting a distribution agreement and business category is narrower than admitting the plaintiff’s claims; a bare12(b)(6)defence is likewise not a dismissal.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The six-page answer is filed in Durham25-CV-004246-310, ARG Group against Cyberlux, with7July2025 2:23PM filing stamp. Page5visibly says7July2022, while page6certifies first-class mailed service on7July2025. The conflicting year is a source defect, not an inferred2022filing. Doug Grimes signs /s/ as J.Douglas Grimes for Allen, Chesson & Grimes; Christian Lunghi is listed for ARG.supportsThe2022signature-line year conflicts with the2025filing stamp and service certificate. Treat the filing as dated by its stamp while preserving the uncorrected source year and paragraph-reference/posted-address defects.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux admits developing/manufacturing/selling UAS hardware/software and products including drone hardware and software operating platforms, with remaining allegations denied. Paragraph3is simply admitted without reproducing the complaint. The second response also refers to paragraph1in the actual image; that cross-reference defect is not silently repaired.supportsThe2022signature-line year conflicts with the2025filing stamp and service certificate. Treat the filing as dated by its stamp while preserving the uncorrected source year and paragraph-reference/posted-address defects.
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.