Context source · CXF-S-7D1F58E7B065

November reconsideration response — Virginia proceedings and documented hearing-date reversal

SHA-256 7d1f58e7b0654d8ebe9e…27 pages · 691 KB

DISTILLATES

What the source contains

Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.

claimallegation

The November 7, 2024 response in Harris County 2024-48085 asks denial of plaintiffs’ November 1 reconsideration motion and retention of a th

Read the anchor · page 1

- 1 - CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, § § Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § CYBERLUX CORPORATION and § MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants file this brief response to correct various misrepresentations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and made through the Declaration of Federico Zablah. INTRODUCTION On October 28, 2024, this Court properly granted a thirty-day stay of any collection efforts concerning the Virginia judgment by the Plaintiffs. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ motion is based, in part, on unfounded claims that Cyberlux and its counsel made various misrepresentations to the Court and engaged in dilatory tactics. The motion also rests on Plaintiffs’ incorrect claim that Cyberlux is not challenging the Virginia judgment.1 Plaintiffs are wrong, and therefore this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs insist that the Court should lift the stay because Defendants’ counsel represented that the Virginia court had issued a stay. This is flat wrong. At the October 28, 2024 hearing, the 1 In a single sentence in the background of their motion, Plaintiffs state that “Defendant has evasively moved assets to avoid payment of the Judgment.” Plaintiffs present no evidence of this, and they presented no evidence of this when they made the same argument at the October 28, 2024 hearing. 11/7/2024 2:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 94054206 By: C Ougrah Filed: 11/7/2024 2:40 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

On October 31 the court offers November 19 at 12:30 if all are available. Robinson says he has a trial and insufficient briefing time and se

Read the anchor · page 14

2 Direct Dial: (571) 459-2520 Email: fjz@petersenfirm.com Fax: (571) 459-2307 ATTENTION: The content contained in this email may include information which is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If you come into contact with this information accidentally, please notify the sender and discard the message immediately. Thank you. From: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 10:27 AM To: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Johnson, Alicia Roberts <alicia.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) Good morning Federico- Cyberlux has the following dates/times available for a hearing on Atlantic Wave’s Summary Judgment Motion before Judge Cardwell. Apr 21 at 10:00 Apr 28 at 9:00 Best, JfR Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. | Ogletree Deakins Riverfront Plaza - West Tower, 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 | Richmond, VA 23219 | Telephone: 804-663-2336 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio From: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 9:34 AM To: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <Jimmy.Robinson@ogletreedeakins.com> Cc: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com>; Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) [Caution: Email received from external source] Apr 21 at 10:00 Apr 25 at 9:00 Apr 28 at 9:00 Apr 29 at 9:00 (30 minutes) Apr 30 at 9:00 (30 minutes) UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Zablah’s October 31 reply rejects April, alleges discovery and deposition failures, says ordinary settlement payments have not reached Atlan

Read the anchor · page 13

1 From: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 11:37 AM To: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. Cc: Chap Petersen; Sandra Luevano; Patrick R Corish; Gills, Sandy D.; Johnson, Alicia Roberts Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) [Caution: Email received from external source] Mr. Robinson, Thank you for your email. I cannot agree to set this matter for April or anytime later next year as this is a time sensitive matter as any relief for temporary injunctive relief is. It strains reason why one would file a complaint for preliminary injunction and want to wait almost 1 year before the first hearing takes place, unless the sole purpose of that filing was for delay. If your complaint and request for injunctive relief is warranted, there is no reason to wait to resolve this matter and it is in all our clients’ best interest to get this resolved as soon as possible. As a preliminary matter, you filed this injunction matter in July, have failed to set the injunction for hearing, failed to respond to discovery, failed to show for the deposition of your plaintiff client (or set it for a replacement date), refused to set the motion to compel for hearing or taken any steps to comply with the rules of the Court. Additionally, as it concerns the injunction you have requested and summary judgment, I have clear indications that no payment on the settlement agreement has been received in almost a year to Atlantic Wave, besides the garnishments, which were almost all consumed by interest and attorney's fees. Given this, I think it is in our mutual interest to have this matter set as soon as possibly. The Court has been very accommodating to give us November 19, 2025. I suggest we make this date work. You stated you are in trial on that date. Is that trial definitely going to proceed? Perhaps your co-counsel can cover the hearing on November 19? While we are on the subject of clearing dates, we need discuss your recent objection to our garnishments (which you did not send to us despite indicating the certificate of service). I am aware that you are using this matter to delay collection on the judgment in this and other jurisdictions. Given that you have put forth objections based on this pending case, it makes it paramount that we resolve these objections and this matter to determine the propriety of your objections. Accordingly, we are again requesting the deposition of Mark Schmidt and Cyberlux in this matter. Please provide available dates for a deposition in November. Lastly I would also like to set our Motion for Turnover for Hearing in CL22003882-00. Can you confirm if you or your colleague are available one hour in November? Once we have those I will be able to coordinate with Court in that case. I am happy to have a call with you to go over this and meet and confer on these issues. Best, Federico J. Zablah, Esq. Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Robinson’s declaration says the parties still have not fixed a first hearing after withdrawal of the March setting. The response’s statement

Robinson’s declaration says the parties still have not fixed a first hearing after withdrawal of the March setting. The response’s statement that the court accepted the earlier date and the later absence of a setting describe successive stages, not necessarily inconsistent accounts.

Read the anchor · page 3

- 3 - The Stipulated Judgment was not a judgment on the merits. It did not find, nor recite, any findings of legal liability. See Exhibit 7 to Defendants’ Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay. The Stipulated Judgment was attached as an exhibit to the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Id. In other words, all parties to the Settlement Agreement knew that the Stipulated Judgment was intended as a vehicle for use if—and only if—Cyberlux breached the Settlement Agreement. See id. The representations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration are incorrect. Cyberlux is challenging use of the Stipulated Judgment and, alternatively, seeking reformation of the Stipulated Judgment. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶¶ 8, 9, 17. The remainder of Plaintiffs’ motion rests on Cyberlux’s supposed stonewalling and alleged failure to prosecute claims in Virginia. However, Plaintiffs’ representation to the Court that Defendants’ “first date of availability” for hearings in Cyberlux’s Virginia injunction action was not until April 2025 is patently false. Since September 12, 2024, the parties have been attempting to schedule a hearing in the Virginia injunction action. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 12, Exhibit A. For more than six weeks, the parties worked with the Court to try to schedule a 30-minute hearing on Atlantic Wave’s motion to compel. Id. Then, by agreement, the parties decided to instead schedule a 1-hour hearing to address Atlantic Wave’s motion for summary judgment. Id. The parties and the Court could not find any mutually available date for a hearing in 2024. So, on October 30, 2024, they agreed to set a hearing on Atlantic Wave’s motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2025. Id.4 The Court accepted this agreed setting. Id. Counsel for Atlantic Wave has since canceled the agreed setting. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 13. Cyberlux immediately obtained—and offered—April 21, 2025, which was the Court’s 4 10/30/2024 3:19 p.m. e-mail correspondence from Zablah, counsel for Atlantic Wave, to S. Ceruti, Circuit Court Judges Office: “Ms. Ceruti, Thank you for you [sic] assistance with this mater [sic]. I can confirm that we have agreed to March 27, 2025 at 10am . . .” UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Clark certifies service November 7. Automated eService identifies envelope 94054206 and Frankie Huff for Katherine Clark, with 2:40:17 PM SE

Clark certifies service November 7. Automated eService identifies envelope 94054206 and Frankie Huff for Katherine Clark, with 2:40:17 PM SENT rows and 4:01 PM CST report. Duplicate Grady and Martin rows do not add distinct recipient acknowledgements.

Read the anchor · page 5

- 5 - Dated: November 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark Katharine Battaia Clark State Bar No. 24046712 Alexander J. Pennetti State Bar No. 24110208 THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (972) 629-7171 kclark@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com COUNSEL FOR CYBERLUX CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 7, 2024, I had this document served on all counsel of record via electronic service. /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark Katharine Battaia Clark UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The response says counsel initially believed, but was unsure, that Virginia had entered a stay; plaintiffs corrected that at the hearing, an

Read the anchor · page 1

- 1 - CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, § § Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § CYBERLUX CORPORATION and § MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants file this brief response to correct various misrepresentations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and made through the Declaration of Federico Zablah. INTRODUCTION On October 28, 2024, this Court properly granted a thirty-day stay of any collection efforts concerning the Virginia judgment by the Plaintiffs. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ motion is based, in part, on unfounded claims that Cyberlux and its counsel made various misrepresentations to the Court and engaged in dilatory tactics. The motion also rests on Plaintiffs’ incorrect claim that Cyberlux is not challenging the Virginia judgment.1 Plaintiffs are wrong, and therefore this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs insist that the Court should lift the stay because Defendants’ counsel represented that the Virginia court had issued a stay. This is flat wrong. At the October 28, 2024 hearing, the 1 In a single sentence in the background of their motion, Plaintiffs state that “Defendant has evasively moved assets to avoid payment of the Judgment.” Plaintiffs present no evidence of this, and they presented no evidence of this when they made the same argument at the October 28, 2024 hearing. 11/7/2024 2:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 94054206 By: C Ougrah Filed: 11/7/2024 2:40 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Jimmy F. Robinson, Richmond office managing shareholder and lead counsel for Cyberlux/Schmidt, signs a declaration under penalty of perjury

Read the anchor · page 7

CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, § § Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § CYBERLUX CORPORATION and § MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF JIMMY F. ROBINSON 1. My name is Jimmy F. Robinson . I am over the age of twenty -one (21) years, of sound mind, and otherwise competent to make this declaration. The facts and statements contained in this declaration are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. 2. I submit this Declaration in support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). 3. I am the Office Managing Shareholder of the Richmond, Virginia office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC. 4. I am lead counsel for Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (collectively, “Cyberlux”) in four active cases pending in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia (the “Virginia litigation”). 5. On November 1, 2024, I was apprised of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration filed in this case. I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and the Declaration of Federico Zablah. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The response and declaration characterise the Virginia litigation as challenges to use/validity of the stipulated judgment and alternatively

Read the anchor · page 2

- 2 - parties and the Court discussed this issue, at which time counsel for Plaintiffs informed the Court that no formal stay had in fact been issued in Virginia. 2 In other words, the Court was correctly informed that no stay had been entered in Virginia at the time it decided to stay this action for a period of thirty days. Further, Plaintiffs’ motion and the supporting Declaration by Zablah falsely claim that Defendants have not challenged the Virginia judgment.Cyberlux is challenging the validity of the Stipulated Judgment and Cyberlux seeks to reform or modify the Stipulated Judgment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, as modified. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 8. Cyberlux is challenging the Virginia judgment in three separate legal proceedings pending in Virginia.3 Id. In Cause No. CL22003882-00, the original action from which the Settlement Agreement between the parties arose, Cyberlux is opposing Plaintiffs’ illegal attempts to enforce the Stipulated Judgment. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 8(a). In Cause No. CL24002919-00, an action for injunctive relief brought by Cyberlux, Cyberlux seeks injunctive relief to (1) enjoin Atlantic Wave and Secure Community from their illegal attempts to use the Stipulated Judgment under false pretenses; or (2) to reform the Stipulated Judgment. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 8(b). In Cause No. CL24002960-00, Cyberlux’s declaratory judgment action for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community’s breach of the Settlement Agreement, Cyberlux is asking the Court to, among other things, declare the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the Stipulated Judgment considering the parties’ modification of the Settlement Agreement. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 8(c). 2 Defendants’ counsel indicated to the Court that he believed—but was unsure—that a stay had been entered. Plaintiffs informed the Court that no formal stay was in effect. Defendants’ counsel reiterated Defendants’ contention that a stay in Virginia is not required for a stay of this action. All that is required is that Cyberlux is challenging the judgment in Virginia, which it is. 3 There is a fourth proceeding, CL24003910-00, which is a breach of contract action recently filed by the Plaintiffs in this action against Defendants. On November 4, 2024, Cyberlux filed a demurrer in that action. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at 8(d). UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Robinson disputes Zablah’s delay account, describes a six-week effort changing from a thirty-minute compel hearing to a one-hour summary-jud

Robinson disputes Zablah’s delay account, describes a six-week effort changing from a thirty-minute compel hearing to a one-hour summary-judgment hearing, and attributes failure to find dates to court and counsel availability. He says November 18–19 labour arbitration and December 27 travel prevented those dates. These personal-calendar explanations are testimony.

Read the anchor · page 3

- 3 - The Stipulated Judgment was not a judgment on the merits. It did not find, nor recite, any findings of legal liability. See Exhibit 7 to Defendants’ Motion to Vacate and Motion to Stay. The Stipulated Judgment was attached as an exhibit to the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Id. In other words, all parties to the Settlement Agreement knew that the Stipulated Judgment was intended as a vehicle for use if—and only if—Cyberlux breached the Settlement Agreement. See id. The representations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration are incorrect. Cyberlux is challenging use of the Stipulated Judgment and, alternatively, seeking reformation of the Stipulated Judgment. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶¶ 8, 9, 17. The remainder of Plaintiffs’ motion rests on Cyberlux’s supposed stonewalling and alleged failure to prosecute claims in Virginia. However, Plaintiffs’ representation to the Court that Defendants’ “first date of availability” for hearings in Cyberlux’s Virginia injunction action was not until April 2025 is patently false. Since September 12, 2024, the parties have been attempting to schedule a hearing in the Virginia injunction action. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 12, Exhibit A. For more than six weeks, the parties worked with the Court to try to schedule a 30-minute hearing on Atlantic Wave’s motion to compel. Id. Then, by agreement, the parties decided to instead schedule a 1-hour hearing to address Atlantic Wave’s motion for summary judgment. Id. The parties and the Court could not find any mutually available date for a hearing in 2024. So, on October 30, 2024, they agreed to set a hearing on Atlantic Wave’s motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2025. Id.4 The Court accepted this agreed setting. Id. Counsel for Atlantic Wave has since canceled the agreed setting. See Declaration of J. Robinson, at ¶ 13. Cyberlux immediately obtained—and offered—April 21, 2025, which was the Court’s 4 10/30/2024 3:19 p.m. e-mail correspondence from Zablah, counsel for Atlantic Wave, to S. Ceruti, Circuit Court Judges Office: “Ms. Ceruti, Thank you for you [sic] assistance with this mater [sic]. I can confirm that we have agreed to March 27, 2025 at 10am . . .” UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The email chain begins September 12 with Zablah requesting a thirty-minute hearing on a motion to compel deposition and saying that motion i

Read the anchor · page 24

12 <image001.png> Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC Direct Dial: (571) 459-2520 Email: fjz@petersenfirm.com Fax: (571) 459-2307 ATTENTION: The content contained in this email may include information which is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If you come into contact with this information accidentally, please notify the sender and discard the message immediately. Thank you. From: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 2:26 PM To: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com>; SANDY.GILLS@OGLETREE.COM; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) Judge Cardwell has nothing available on the 30th and the next two weeks are criminal dates. She then has a 7-day jury trial and the next available date is Oct 31 at 2:00 p.m. Sandra Ceruti, Judicial Assistant Office of the Honorable Claire G. Cardwell John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 646-6511 (Office) (804) 646-7818 (Fax) From: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 2:07 PM To: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com>; SANDY.GILLS@OGLETREE.COM; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) CAUTION: This message is from an external sender - Do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender's address and know the content is safe. Thank you. If possible, could you also provide available dates in the following week? (Week of September 30th) Best, You don't often get email from fjz@petersenfirm.com. Learn why this is important UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

On September 30 Zablah seeks November dates; October 1 court options are November 19, 20 and December 16. On October 30 he apologises for de

Read the anchor · page 21

9 Mar 27 at 10:00 Mar 28 at 9:00 Sandra Ceruti, Judicial Assistant Office of the Honorable Claire G. Cardwell John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 646-6511 (Office) (804) 646-7818 (Fax) From: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 2:51 PM To: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov>; Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) CAUTION: This message is from an external sender - Do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender's address and know the content is safe. Good afternoon Ms. Ceruti- Thank you for the dates. Can you provide dates in February as well. We are holding the week of January 27th for another matter and have conflicts on earlier dates. Thank you, JfR Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. | Ogletree Deakins Riverfront Plaza - West Tower, 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 | Richmond, VA 23219 | Telephone: 804-663-2336 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio From: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 2:48 PM To: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <Jimmy.Robinson@ogletreedeakins.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

On October 30 the court supplies February 28, March 27 and March 28. Robinson offers March 27 at 10 AM at 3:07 PM; Zablah confirms agreement

Read the anchor · page 17

5 From: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 3:48 PM To: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com>; Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) Thanks. Sandra Ceruti, Judicial Assistant Office of the Honorable Claire G. Cardwell John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 646-6511 (Office) (804) 646-7818 (Fax) From: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 3:43 PM To: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com>; Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) CAUTION: This message is from an external sender - Do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender's address and know the content is safe. Agreed. Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. | Ogletree Deakins Riverfront Plaza - West Tower, 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 | Richmond, VA 23219 | Telephone: 804-663-2336 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio From: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 3:32 PM To: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov>; Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <Jimmy.Robinson@ogletreedeakins.com> UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

At 4:49 PM that same October 30, Zablah apologises and says March 27 will not work because of a trial in another jurisdiction, then asks for

Read the anchor · page 16

4 [Caution: Email received from external source] I’ll squeeze it in on Nov 19 at 12:30 if everyone is available. Sandra Ceruti, Judicial Assistant Office of the Honorable Claire G. Cardwell John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 646-6511 (Office) (804) 646-7818 (Fax) From: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 4:49 PM To: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov>; Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com> Cc: Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) CAUTION: This message is from an external sender - Do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender's address and know the content is safe. Ms. Ceruti, I apologize, I was informed that March 27, 2025 at 10am will not work for us as we have a trial scheduled on that date in another jurisdiction. Are there any other available dates in November for even for a 30 minute hearing? Once I have that, I will confer with opposing counsel on a new date and get back to you. Since this is a preliminary injunction matter, I believe this is a time sensitive matter. Thank you. Best, Federico J. Zablah, Esq. <image001.png> Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC Direct Dial: (571) 459-2520 Email: fjz@petersenfirm.com Fax: (571) 459-2307 ATTENTION: The content contained in this email may include information which is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If you come into contact with this information accidentally, please notify the sender and discard the message immediately. Thank you. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Katharine Battaia Clark

Read the anchor · page 5

- 5 - Dated: November 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark Katharine Battaia Clark State Bar No. 24046712 Alexander J. Pennetti State Bar No. 24110208 THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (972) 629-7171 kclark@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com COUNSEL FOR CYBERLUX CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 7, 2024, I had this document served on all counsel of record via electronic service. /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark Katharine Battaia Clark UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Jimmy F. Robinson

Read the anchor · page 7

CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, § § Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § CYBERLUX CORPORATION and § MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF JIMMY F. ROBINSON 1. My name is Jimmy F. Robinson . I am over the age of twenty -one (21) years, of sound mind, and otherwise competent to make this declaration. The facts and statements contained in this declaration are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. 2. I submit this Declaration in support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). 3. I am the Office Managing Shareholder of the Richmond, Virginia office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC. 4. I am lead counsel for Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (collectively, “Cyberlux”) in four active cases pending in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia (the “Virginia litigation”). 5. On November 1, 2024, I was apprised of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration filed in this case. I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and the Declaration of Federico Zablah. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Federico J. Zablah

Read the anchor · page 13

1 From: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 11:37 AM To: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. Cc: Chap Petersen; Sandra Luevano; Patrick R Corish; Gills, Sandy D.; Johnson, Alicia Roberts Subject: RE: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) [Caution: Email received from external source] Mr. Robinson, Thank you for your email. I cannot agree to set this matter for April or anytime later next year as this is a time sensitive matter as any relief for temporary injunctive relief is. It strains reason why one would file a complaint for preliminary injunction and want to wait almost 1 year before the first hearing takes place, unless the sole purpose of that filing was for delay. If your complaint and request for injunctive relief is warranted, there is no reason to wait to resolve this matter and it is in all our clients’ best interest to get this resolved as soon as possible. As a preliminary matter, you filed this injunction matter in July, have failed to set the injunction for hearing, failed to respond to discovery, failed to show for the deposition of your plaintiff client (or set it for a replacement date), refused to set the motion to compel for hearing or taken any steps to comply with the rules of the Court. Additionally, as it concerns the injunction you have requested and summary judgment, I have clear indications that no payment on the settlement agreement has been received in almost a year to Atlantic Wave, besides the garnishments, which were almost all consumed by interest and attorney's fees. Given this, I think it is in our mutual interest to have this matter set as soon as possibly. The Court has been very accommodating to give us November 19, 2025. I suggest we make this date work. You stated you are in trial on that date. Is that trial definitely going to proceed? Perhaps your co-counsel can cover the hearing on November 19? While we are on the subject of clearing dates, we need discuss your recent objection to our garnishments (which you did not send to us despite indicating the certificate of service). I am aware that you are using this matter to delay collection on the judgment in this and other jurisdictions. Given that you have put forth objections based on this pending case, it makes it paramount that we resolve these objections and this matter to determine the propriety of your objections. Accordingly, we are again requesting the deposition of Mark Schmidt and Cyberlux in this matter. Please provide available dates for a deposition in November. Lastly I would also like to set our Motion for Turnover for Hearing in CL22003882-00. Can you confirm if you or your colleague are available one hour in November? Once we have those I will be able to coordinate with Court in that case. I am happy to have a call with you to go over this and meet and confer on these issues. Best, Federico J. Zablah, Esq. Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Sandra Ceruti

Read the anchor · page 15

3 Sandra Ceruti, Judicial Assistant Office of the Honorable Claire G. Cardwell John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 646-6511 (Office) (804) 646-7818 (Fax) From: Robinson, Jr., Jimmy F. <jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 9:24 AM To: Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> Cc: Federico Zablah <fjz@petersenfirm.com>; Chap Petersen <jcp@petersenfirm.com>; Sandra Luevano <sl@petersenfirm.com>; Patrick R Corish <prc@petersenfirm.com>; Gills, Sandy D. <sandy.gills@ogletreedeakins.com>; Pollock, Emily - Circuit Court <Emily.Pollock@rva.gov> Subject: Re: Short Hearing Scheduling Request -CYBERLUX CORPORATION v ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS LLC (CL24002919-00) CAUTION: This message is from an external sender - Do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender's address and know the content is safe. Good morning Ms. Ceruti- Thank you for your patience with helping us find a date. Defendants are not available on November 19 inasmuch as we have a trial that day. Also it does not give us time to file our brief. If March 27 does not work now for Atlantic Wave we will have to find later dates. If you could provide us later dates (beyond March 27) we will discuss between each other and confirm a date so we do not clog up your email with the back and forward. And hopefully this time we will confirm a date that actually works for both parties before confirming with you that it does. JfR Please excuse all typos and grammatical errors inasmuch as this message was sent from my iPhone. Thank you. Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Riverfront Plaza - West Tower, 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 | Richmond, VA 23219 | Telephone: 804-663-2336 | Fax: 804-225-8641 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio On Oct 31, 2024, at 8:43 AM, Ceruti, Sandra A. - Circuit Court Judges Office <Sandra.Ceruti@rva.gov> wrote: UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

inferenceinference

The attached contemporaneous chain supports Robinson’s narrow account that a March setting was mutually agreed then withdrawn by opposing co

The attached contemporaneous chain supports Robinson’s narrow account that a March setting was mutually agreed then withdrawn by opposing counsel. It also documents constraints on both sides and court availability, so it does not establish a blanket conclusion that only Atlantic Wave caused delay.

inferenceinference

Pending proceedings about enforcement and settlement interpretation are different from a stay already entered or a successful judgment chall

Pending proceedings about enforcement and settlement interpretation are different from a stay already entered or a successful judgment challenge. The response’s corrected stay account and requested relief must remain separate from the existence of those cases.

omissiongap

The email’s referenced motion to compel is not embedded; the full October hearing, underlying Virginia pleadings and subsequent rulings are

The email’s referenced motion to compel is not embedded; the full October hearing, underlying Virginia pleadings and subsequent rulings are also outside this packet.

Read the anchor · page 1

- 1 - CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, § § Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § CYBERLUX CORPORATION and § MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants file this brief response to correct various misrepresentations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and made through the Declaration of Federico Zablah. INTRODUCTION On October 28, 2024, this Court properly granted a thirty-day stay of any collection efforts concerning the Virginia judgment by the Plaintiffs. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ motion is based, in part, on unfounded claims that Cyberlux and its counsel made various misrepresentations to the Court and engaged in dilatory tactics. The motion also rests on Plaintiffs’ incorrect claim that Cyberlux is not challenging the Virginia judgment.1 Plaintiffs are wrong, and therefore this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs insist that the Court should lift the stay because Defendants’ counsel represented that the Virginia court had issued a stay. This is flat wrong. At the October 28, 2024 hearing, the 1 In a single sentence in the background of their motion, Plaintiffs state that “Defendant has evasively moved assets to avoid payment of the Judgment.” Plaintiffs present no evidence of this, and they presented no evidence of this when they made the same argument at the October 28, 2024 hearing. 11/7/2024 2:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 94054206 By: C Ougrah Filed: 11/7/2024 2:40 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

otherattribution

Complete supplied 27-page source reviewed at SHA-256 7d1f58e7b0654d8ebe9e91f660996feeb71d179c66dc215b99b81122809887f1. Source assertions, or

Complete supplied 27-page source reviewed at SHA-256 7d1f58e7b0654d8ebe9e91f660996feeb71d179c66dc215b99b81122809887f1. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Full twenty-seven-page reading, including every email in the fourteen-page nested thread. Version version_3acd7606c0a24509b0f2911187253bad, SHA256 7d1f58e7b0654d8ebe9e91f660996feeb71d179c66dc215b99b81122809887f1; signature and pivotal confirmation/withdrawal images checked, original source and extraction retained.

Read the anchor · page 1

- 1 - CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, § § Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § CYBERLUX CORPORATION and § MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, § § Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants file this brief response to correct various misrepresentations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and made through the Declaration of Federico Zablah. INTRODUCTION On October 28, 2024, this Court properly granted a thirty-day stay of any collection efforts concerning the Virginia judgment by the Plaintiffs. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ motion is based, in part, on unfounded claims that Cyberlux and its counsel made various misrepresentations to the Court and engaged in dilatory tactics. The motion also rests on Plaintiffs’ incorrect claim that Cyberlux is not challenging the Virginia judgment.1 Plaintiffs are wrong, and therefore this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs insist that the Court should lift the stay because Defendants’ counsel represented that the Virginia court had issued a stay. This is flat wrong. At the October 28, 2024 hearing, the 1 In a single sentence in the background of their motion, Plaintiffs state that “Defendant has evasively moved assets to avoid payment of the Judgment.” Plaintiffs present no evidence of this, and they presented no evidence of this when they made the same argument at the October 28, 2024 hearing. 11/7/2024 2:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 94054206 By: C Ougrah Filed: 11/7/2024 2:40 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

questionquestion

What did the complete October 28 transcript and entered stay/reconsideration orders establish about the corrected Virginia-stay statement an

What did the complete October 28 transcript and entered stay/reconsideration orders establish about the corrected Virginia-stay statement and Texas relief?

questionquestion

What later scheduling notices and rulings resolved the hearing and the four Virginia proceedings?

questionquestion

What discovery records and payment ledger test Zablah’s allegations beyond the scheduling exchange?

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.

Zablah characterises Cyberlux’s cases as compliance/enforcement challenges rather than attacks on judgment validity and alleges no affirmative prosecution, ignored discovery, missed deposition, refusal to confer and dilatory tactics. He reports opposing counsel’s March unavailability and later April dates without reproducing the scheduling chain. Printed March 27, 2024 and July 9 filing date differ from the surrounding future-2025 context and earlier July 8 date; retain them as source inconsistencies.qualifiesOn October 30 the court supplies February 28, March 27 and March 28. Robinson offers March 27 at 10 AM at 3:07 PM; Zablah confirms agreement at 3:19 PM; the court confirms a one-hour summary-judgment setting at 3:31 PM; Zablah accepts the duration at 3:32 and Robinson agrees at 3:43. These displayed communications substantiate a mutual setting rather than a unilateral April-only offer.

Zablah no-action account must be compared with displayed mutual March27 agreement and same-day withdrawal in53:C8/C9; no dishonest motive inferred.

50%

On October 30 the court supplies February 28, March 27 and March 28. Robinson offers March 27 at 10 AM at 3:07 PM; Zablah confirms agreement at 3:19 PM; the court confirms a one-hour summary-judgment setting at 3:31 PM; Zablah accepts the duration at 3:32 and Robinson agrees at 3:43. These displayed communications substantiate a mutual setting rather than a unilateral April-only offer.supportsOn October 30 the court supplies February 28, March 27 and March 28. Robinson offers March 27 at 10 AM at 3:07 PM; Zablah confirms agreement at 3:19 PM; the court confirms a one-hour summary-judgment setting at 3:31 PM; Zablah accepts the duration at 3:32 and Robinson agrees at 3:43. These displayed communications substantiate a mutual setting rather than a unilateral April-only offer.

Same embedded October 30 messages, read in both packets; repeated documentary support with no independence increment.

50%

Jimmy F. Robinson, Richmond office managing shareholder and lead counsel for Cyberlux/Schmidt, signs a declaration under penalty of perjury November 7, 2024. He identifies four Virginia proceedings: original CL22003882-00; injunction CL24002919-00 filed July 8 with August 1 answer; declaratory CL24002960-00 filed July 8 facing demurrer; and plaintiffs’ breach action CL24003910-00 with Cyberlux demurrer November 4.supportsPending proceedings about enforcement and settlement interpretation are different from a stay already entered or a successful judgment challenge. The response’s corrected stay account and requested relief must remain separate from the existence of those cases.