Context source · CXF-S-6E59D7A026BB
6e59d7a026bb55ccc499…3 pages · 126 KBDISTILLATES
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
The court determined that its prior ruling regarding the Consent Final Order was valid and should stand without modification
Upon reviewing the parties' current filings, the Court ORDERS that its prior ruling STANDS.
Plaintiff entity in Circuit Court Case No. CL24-3910
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC. AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC. Plaintiff,
Co-plaintiff entity in Circuit Court Case No. CL24-3910
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC. AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC. Plaintiff,
Defendant entity in Circuit Court Case No. CL24-3910
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHIMIDT, individually Defendants.
Individual defendant in Circuit Court Case No. CL24-3910
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK SCHIMIDT, individually Defendants.
Attorney representing defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schimidt
Jimmy Robinson, Esq., representing the Defendants.
Attorney representing plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
Charles Gavin, Esq., representing the Plaintiffs.
Virginia state court adjudicating Case No. CL24-3910, located in John Marshall Courts Building
In the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, John Marshall Courts Building
On January 2, 2026, defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schimidt, through counsel Jimmy Robinson, filed an Emergency Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Consent Final Order and To Suspend Execution Pending the Court's Ruling
On January 2, 2026 Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schimdt, by counsel, filed an "Emergency Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Consent Final Order and To Suspend Execution Pending the Court's Ruling."
Plaintiffs' counsel Charles Gavin filed a Response in Opposition to Motion to Reconsider on behalf of Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
Plaintiffs' counsel for Atlantic Wave Holding, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC, subsequently filed a "Response in Opposition to Motion to Reconsider."
The court denied defendants' request to file a reply brief in response to plaintiffs' opposition
The Court DENIED Defendants' request to file a Reply.
The court denied defendants' Motion to Reconsider and ordered that the prior ruling stands
Upon reviewing the parties' current filings, the Court ORDERS that its prior ruling STANDS. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Reconsider
The court terminated the suspension of the Consent Final Order that had been in place pending the motion to reconsider
the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and TERMINATES the suspension of the "Consent Final Order."
The court ordered the Consent Final Order effective as of the entry date of this order
The Court ORDERS the "Consent Final Order" effective as of the entry date of this Order.
The court vacated and released the previously scheduled hearing set for February 24, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. and denied the parties' request for a hearing
Pursuant to Rule 4:15(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of Virgina, the Court hereby DENIES the parties' request for a hearing, and further VACATES AND RELEASES the previously scheduled hearing set for February 24, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.
The exact title of the motion filed by defendants on January 2, 2026
Emergency Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Consent Final Order and To Suspend Execution Pending the Court's Ruling
The exact title of the response filed by plaintiffs' counsel
Response in Opposition to Motion to Reconsider
CONNECT
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
No public CONNECT relationships are attached to this source.
WEIGH
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.