observationobservation
Temporary stay30June2025; emergency-response date14July; separate mandamus-response date21July.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 10 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 590
Context source · CXF-S-8E309FDDEF94
30 June2025 Texas appellate temporary receivership stay
SHA-256
8e309fddef9410721bc0…3 pages · 109 KBDISTILLATES
What the source contains
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Texas First District appeal01-25-00455-CV, trial2024-48085 in129thDistrict HarrisCounty, order dated30June2025 /s/AndrewJohnson acting indiv
Texas First District appeal01-25-00455-CV, trial2024-48085 in129thDistrict HarrisCounty, order dated30June2025 /s/AndrewJohnson acting individually; reproduced as EDVA41-10 filed4August2025. Related interlocutory appeal01-25-00454-CV is separately docketed.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 10 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 590
claimallegation
Cyberlux and Schmidt seek mandamus concerning22May receivership appointment and12June oral denial of emergency suspension; their stated grou
Cyberlux and Schmidt seek mandamus concerning22May receivership appointment and12June oral denial of emergency suspension; their stated grounds include alleged satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt inclusion. Court recites these as allegations rather than deciding them.
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
claimallegation
24June request set emergency-response deadline noon30June and mandamus-response deadline21July. Receiver RobertBerleth sought14days on28June
24June request set emergency-response deadline noon30June and mandamus-response deadline21July. Receiver RobertBerleth sought14days on28June; relators opposed29June. Order extends emergency responses to14July2025. It does not expressly extend21July mandamus deadline.
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
claimallegation
Court stays enforcement, utilisation or action under22May receivership order by receiver or others while emergency motion is pending. Receiv
Court stays enforcement, utilisation or action under22May receivership order by receiver or others while emergency motion is pending. Receiver/parties may continue participating in trial-court proceedings, including satisfaction, disbursement and termination issues.
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
entityobservation
Mark D. Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
entityobservation
Robert Berleth
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
entityobservation
Andrew Johnson
Read the anchor · page 3
May 22, 2025 Order by the Receiver or any other persons or entities . The Receiver and parties may continue to participate i n, and the trial court conduct, proceedings in the trial court, including proceedings to determine whether the subject judgment has been satisfied, how monies should be disbursed, and whether the receivership should be terminated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: __/s/ Andrew Johnson____ Acting individually Date: ___June 30, 2025___ Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 592
eventattribution
Temporary stay and response extension ordered.
Read the anchor · page 3
May 22, 2025 Order by the Receiver or any other persons or entities . The Receiver and parties may continue to participate i n, and the trial court conduct, proceedings in the trial court, including proceedings to determine whether the subject judgment has been satisfied, how monies should be disbursed, and whether the receivership should be terminated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: __/s/ Andrew Johnson____ Acting individually Date: ___June 30, 2025___ Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 592
eventattribution
Emergency-motion responses due; historical deadline only.
Read the anchor · page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt Appellate case number: 01-25-00455-CV Trial court case number: 2024-48085 Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County Relators Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trial court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and June 12, 2025 oral denial of Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Order Appointing Receiver.1 Relators have also filed a Motion for Expedited Appeal and Request for Emergency Temporary Stay (“Emergency Motion”) , requesting we stay the May 22, 2025 Order because the subject judgment has allegedly been satisfied, Cyberlux Corporation is struggling to operate with the order in effect, and Mark D. Schmidt never should have been included in the order. On June 24, 2025, the Court requested Real Parties in Interest file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before noon on Monday June 30, 2025 and file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Monday July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2025, the Receiver, Robert Berleth, filed a motion requesting an extension of 14 days to file his response to the Emergency motion. On June 29, 2025, Relators filed a response opposing the motion for extension. We EXTEND the deadline for response s to the Emergency Motion, with the responses, if any, now being due on or before July 14, 2025. We also GRANT a stay of the May 22, 2025 Order while the Emergency Motion is pending, staying enforcement, utilization, or the taking actions under the authority of the 1 Relators also filed an interlocutory appeal of the same order and denial, which we have docketed as Case Number 01-25-00454-CV. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 591
inferenceinference
Temporary restriction on enforcement is not dissolution of receivership or a finding that judgment is satisfied; express continued-proceedin
Temporary restriction on enforcement is not dissolution of receivership or a finding that judgment is satisfied; express continued-proceedings permission must accompany any account of the stay.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 3-page source reviewed at SHA-256 8e309fddef9410721bc0bb3d471ed6754c4ebfb18a729f92dc7e472d9ea52e84. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 3-page source reviewed at SHA-256 8e309fddef9410721bc0bb3d471ed6754c4ebfb18a729f92dc7e472d9ea52e84. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own exact SHA256 8e309fddef9410721bc0bb3d471ed6754c4ebfb18a729f92dc7e472d9ea52e84 verified; complete own-source text and all rendered pages read. Page-level corrections explicitly attributed; no absent document or performed act inferred.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 10 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-10 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 590
questionquestion
What later order disposed of the emergency motion or changed the stay, and what did the trial court decide on satisfaction and termination?
distillateattribution
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
24June request set emergency-response deadline noon30June and mandamus-response deadline21July. Receiver RobertBerleth sought14days on28June; relators opposed29June. Order extends emergency responses to14July2025. It does not expressly extend21July mandamus deadline.supportsWhat later order disposed of the emergency motion or changed the stay, and what did the trial court decide on satisfaction and termination?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Court stays enforcement, utilisation or action under22May receivership order by receiver or others while emergency motion is pending. Receiver/parties may continue participating in trial-court proceedings, including satisfaction, disbursement and termination issues.supportsWhat later order disposed of the emergency motion or changed the stay, and what did the trial court decide on satisfaction and termination?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux and Schmidt seek mandamus concerning22May receivership appointment and12June oral denial of emergency suspension; their stated grounds include alleged satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt inclusion. Court recites these as allegations rather than deciding them.supportsTemporary restriction on enforcement is not dissolution of receivership or a finding that judgment is satisfied; express continued-proceedings permission must accompany any account of the stay.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Court stays enforcement, utilisation or action under22May receivership order by receiver or others while emergency motion is pending. Receiver/parties may continue participating in trial-court proceedings, including satisfaction, disbursement and termination issues.supportsTemporary restriction on enforcement is not dissolution of receivership or a finding that judgment is satisfied; express continued-proceedings permission must accompany any account of the stay.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Court stays enforcement, utilisation or action under22May receivership order by receiver or others while emergency motion is pending. Receiver/parties may continue participating in trial-court proceedings, including satisfaction, disbursement and termination issues.supportsWhat did this order actually stop?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Temporary restriction on enforcement is not dissolution of receivership or a finding that judgment is satisfied; express continued-proceedings permission must accompany any account of the stay.supportsWhat did this order actually stop?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux and Schmidt seek mandamus concerning22May receivership appointment and12June oral denial of emergency suspension; their stated grounds include alleged satisfaction, operational difficulty and Schmidt inclusion. Court recites these as allegations rather than deciding them.supportsWhat did this order actually stop?
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.