Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Filed 1 April 2024 as SDCA17-3 in3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET, this declaration supports Cyberlux and Schmidt’s opposition to voluntary dismissal.
Filed 1 April 2024 as SDCA17-3 in3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET, this declaration supports Cyberlux and Schmidt’s opposition to voluntary dismissal. Watts identifies himself as Cyberlux special counsel, licensed in North Carolina, and signs under penalty of perjury at Charlotte on1April. The cover’s15April hearing date is not the execution date.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
Gabe P. Wright (SBN 208647)
Trevor S. Locko (SBN 323313)
One America Plaza
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.810.4300
Facsimile: 619.810.4301
gwright@hahnlaw.com
tlocko@hahnlaw.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
JEFFREY N. BROWN, CSB 105520
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: 310.282.2500 / Fax: 310.282.2501
EDWARD W. GRAY, JR. (SBN 80966)
egray@thompsoncoburn.com
1909 K Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: 202.585.6967 / Fax: 202.585.6969
ALLEN CHESSON
DOUGLAS GRIMES (pro hac vice application to be filed)
dgrimes@allenchesson.com
505 N. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: 704.755.6012
Attorneys for Defendants CYBERLUX
CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, SECURE COMMUNITY,
LLC, a Virginia limited Liability
company, and STRIKEPOINT
CONSULTING, LLC, a Virginia
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF CHARLES
WATTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS CYBERLUX
CORPORATION AND MARK D.
SCHMIDT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
COMPLAINT
Date: April 15, 2024
Time: 8:30
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.464 Page 1
of 3
claimallegation
Watts states Cyberlux was served12January2024 and Schmidt23January2024, and that the company retained Thompson Coburn, Allen Chesson and Hah
Watts states Cyberlux was served12January2024 and Schmidt23January2024, and that the company retained Thompson Coburn, Allen Chesson and Hahn Loeser in response to threatened litigation and the complaint. He claims personal knowledge; the declaration does not attach service returns or retainer records.
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
CYBERLUX CORPORATION; and
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Counterclaimants,
v.
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC; SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants.
I, Charles Watts, declare:
1. I am the special counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”), of which Mark D. Schmidt (“Schmidt”) is the Chief Executive Officer.
I am an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing in North Carolina and am
located in North Carolina. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the
following facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On January 12, 2024, Cyberlux was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. On January 23, 2024, Mr. Schmidt was served with Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
4. In response to threats of litigation and the filing of the Complaint in this
action, Cyberlux retained the law firms of Thompson Coburn LLP, Allen Chesson,
and Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP to represent its interests and those of Mr. Schmidt.
5. Prior to Cyberlux and Mr. Schmidt’s removal of this case to federal court
on January 30, 2024, neither Cyberlux nor Schmidt were served with nor informed
that Substitutions of Counsel had been filed replacing Mr. Ozols and Ms. Shulz.
6. Cyberlux and Schmidt were also never informed by Atlantic Wave, Mr.
Welter, or their attorneys at any time that they intended to dismiss their Complaint
prior to January 30, 2024. Cyberlux and Schmidt were never served with a dismissal
of the Complaint. I was also never told, in any manner, by Atlantic Wave, Mr. Welter,
or their attorneys, that the filing of the Complaint was in any way erroneous,
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.465 Page 2
of 3
claimallegation
He states that before30January2024 removal neither defendant had been served with or informed of substitutions replacing Ozols and Shulz. Th
He states that before30January2024 removal neither defendant had been served with or informed of substitutions replacing Ozols and Shulz. This establishes his declared notice position, not the absence of substitutions in the court file or their legal effect.
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
CYBERLUX CORPORATION; and
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Counterclaimants,
v.
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC; SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants.
I, Charles Watts, declare:
1. I am the special counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”), of which Mark D. Schmidt (“Schmidt”) is the Chief Executive Officer.
I am an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing in North Carolina and am
located in North Carolina. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the
following facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On January 12, 2024, Cyberlux was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. On January 23, 2024, Mr. Schmidt was served with Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
4. In response to threats of litigation and the filing of the Complaint in this
action, Cyberlux retained the law firms of Thompson Coburn LLP, Allen Chesson,
and Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP to represent its interests and those of Mr. Schmidt.
5. Prior to Cyberlux and Mr. Schmidt’s removal of this case to federal court
on January 30, 2024, neither Cyberlux nor Schmidt were served with nor informed
that Substitutions of Counsel had been filed replacing Mr. Ozols and Ms. Shulz.
6. Cyberlux and Schmidt were also never informed by Atlantic Wave, Mr.
Welter, or their attorneys at any time that they intended to dismiss their Complaint
prior to January 30, 2024. Cyberlux and Schmidt were never served with a dismissal
of the Complaint. I was also never told, in any manner, by Atlantic Wave, Mr. Welter,
or their attorneys, that the filing of the Complaint was in any way erroneous,
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.465 Page 2
of 3
claimallegation
Watts says neither defendant was told before removal that Atlantic Wave, Welter or counsel intended dismissal, that no dismissal was served,
Watts says neither defendant was told before removal that Atlantic Wave, Welter or counsel intended dismissal, that no dismissal was served, and that he personally was not told the filing was erroneous, unintended or unauthorised. The last assertion concerns communications to him; it does not prove the filing was authorised or what opposing counsel privately intended.
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
CYBERLUX CORPORATION; and
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Counterclaimants,
v.
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC; SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants.
I, Charles Watts, declare:
1. I am the special counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”), of which Mark D. Schmidt (“Schmidt”) is the Chief Executive Officer.
I am an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing in North Carolina and am
located in North Carolina. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the
following facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On January 12, 2024, Cyberlux was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. On January 23, 2024, Mr. Schmidt was served with Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
4. In response to threats of litigation and the filing of the Complaint in this
action, Cyberlux retained the law firms of Thompson Coburn LLP, Allen Chesson,
and Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP to represent its interests and those of Mr. Schmidt.
5. Prior to Cyberlux and Mr. Schmidt’s removal of this case to federal court
on January 30, 2024, neither Cyberlux nor Schmidt were served with nor informed
that Substitutions of Counsel had been filed replacing Mr. Ozols and Ms. Shulz.
6. Cyberlux and Schmidt were also never informed by Atlantic Wave, Mr.
Welter, or their attorneys at any time that they intended to dismiss their Complaint
prior to January 30, 2024. Cyberlux and Schmidt were never served with a dismissal
of the Complaint. I was also never told, in any manner, by Atlantic Wave, Mr. Welter,
or their attorneys, that the filing of the Complaint was in any way erroneous,
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.465 Page 2
of 3
claimallegation
The caption includes claims and counterclaims involving Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint. No dismissal order or disposition o
The caption includes claims and counterclaims involving Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint. No dismissal order or disposition of the counterclaims appears in these three pages; the declaration’s position is not the outcome of the motion.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
Gabe P. Wright (SBN 208647)
Trevor S. Locko (SBN 323313)
One America Plaza
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.810.4300
Facsimile: 619.810.4301
gwright@hahnlaw.com
tlocko@hahnlaw.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
JEFFREY N. BROWN, CSB 105520
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: 310.282.2500 / Fax: 310.282.2501
EDWARD W. GRAY, JR. (SBN 80966)
egray@thompsoncoburn.com
1909 K Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: 202.585.6967 / Fax: 202.585.6969
ALLEN CHESSON
DOUGLAS GRIMES (pro hac vice application to be filed)
dgrimes@allenchesson.com
505 N. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: 704.755.6012
Attorneys for Defendants CYBERLUX
CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, SECURE COMMUNITY,
LLC, a Virginia limited Liability
company, and STRIKEPOINT
CONSULTING, LLC, a Virginia
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF CHARLES
WATTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS CYBERLUX
CORPORATION AND MARK D.
SCHMIDT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
COMPLAINT
Date: April 15, 2024
Time: 8:30
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.464 Page 1
of 3
entityobservation
Charles Watts
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
CYBERLUX CORPORATION; and
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Counterclaimants,
v.
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC; SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants.
I, Charles Watts, declare:
1. I am the special counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”), of which Mark D. Schmidt (“Schmidt”) is the Chief Executive Officer.
I am an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing in North Carolina and am
located in North Carolina. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the
following facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On January 12, 2024, Cyberlux was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. On January 23, 2024, Mr. Schmidt was served with Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
4. In response to threats of litigation and the filing of the Complaint in this
action, Cyberlux retained the law firms of Thompson Coburn LLP, Allen Chesson,
and Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP to represent its interests and those of Mr. Schmidt.
5. Prior to Cyberlux and Mr. Schmidt’s removal of this case to federal court
on January 30, 2024, neither Cyberlux nor Schmidt were served with nor informed
that Substitutions of Counsel had been filed replacing Mr. Ozols and Ms. Shulz.
6. Cyberlux and Schmidt were also never informed by Atlantic Wave, Mr.
Welter, or their attorneys at any time that they intended to dismiss their Complaint
prior to January 30, 2024. Cyberlux and Schmidt were never served with a dismissal
of the Complaint. I was also never told, in any manner, by Atlantic Wave, Mr. Welter,
or their attorneys, that the filing of the Complaint was in any way erroneous,
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.465 Page 2
of 3
inferenceinference
The declaration supplies an opposing account of notice and reliance before removal. Its strongest scope is what Watts and the defendants say
The declaration supplies an opposing account of notice and reliance before removal. Its strongest scope is what Watts and the defendants say they received, not opposing counsel’s authority or private intent.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 3-page source reviewed at SHA-256 c88657046877a6f165a7fc17cb1e7a67efe3f53756633439420b4973d416a0ef. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 3-page source reviewed at SHA-256 c88657046877a6f165a7fc17cb1e7a67efe3f53756633439420b4973d416a0ef. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Full 3-page reading of version_23349205f0454d2ab4f9b1a5a77bff29, SHA256 c88657046877a6f165a7fc17cb1e7a67efe3f53756633439420b4973d416a0ef; source bytes and original extraction preserved.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF CHARLES WATTS
3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
Gabe P. Wright (SBN 208647)
Trevor S. Locko (SBN 323313)
One America Plaza
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.810.4300
Facsimile: 619.810.4301
gwright@hahnlaw.com
tlocko@hahnlaw.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
JEFFREY N. BROWN, CSB 105520
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: 310.282.2500 / Fax: 310.282.2501
EDWARD W. GRAY, JR. (SBN 80966)
egray@thompsoncoburn.com
1909 K Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: 202.585.6967 / Fax: 202.585.6969
ALLEN CHESSON
DOUGLAS GRIMES (pro hac vice application to be filed)
dgrimes@allenchesson.com
505 N. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: 704.755.6012
Attorneys for Defendants CYBERLUX
CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, SECURE COMMUNITY,
LLC, a Virginia limited Liability
company, and STRIKEPOINT
CONSULTING, LLC, a Virginia
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF CHARLES
WATTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS CYBERLUX
CORPORATION AND MARK D.
SCHMIDT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
COMPLAINT
Date: April 15, 2024
Time: 8:30
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 17-3 Filed 04/01/24 PageID.464 Page 1
of 3
questionquestion
What dated service returns, substitution filings and communications confirm or rebut the asserted absence of pre-removal notice?
questionquestion
What entered order resolved dismissal and preserved or disposed of the counterclaims?
distillateobservation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Keithly says he contacted defendants’ counsel February 15, 2024 to stipulate to dismissal of a complaint he calls incorrectly filed by prior counsel in case 00196. He says defendants refused, prompting a Rule 41 motion; he reports that motion and plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion against counterclaims were fully briefed and awaiting decisions. His prediction of disposing of counterclaims is not a ruling.qualifiesWatts says neither defendant was told before removal that Atlantic Wave, Welter or counsel intended dismissal, that no dismissal was served, and that he personally was not told the filing was erroneous, unintended or unauthorised. The last assertion concerns communications to him; it does not prove the filing was authorised or what opposing counsel privately intended.
Keithly alleges February 15 notice, whereas Watts denies pre-January 30 notice; these dated propositions can coexist and do not establish a direct contradiction.
Watts states Cyberlux was served12January2024 and Schmidt23January2024, and that the company retained Thompson Coburn, Allen Chesson and Hahn Loeser in response to threatened litigation and the complaint. He claims personal knowledge; the declaration does not attach service returns or retainer records.supportsThe declaration supplies an opposing account of notice and reliance before removal. Its strongest scope is what Watts and the defendants say they received, not opposing counsel’s authority or private intent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The caption includes claims and counterclaims involving Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint. No dismissal order or disposition of the counterclaims appears in these three pages; the declaration’s position is not the outcome of the motion.supportsWhat entered order resolved dismissal and preserved or disposed of the counterclaims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He states that before30January2024 removal neither defendant had been served with or informed of substitutions replacing Ozols and Shulz. This establishes his declared notice position, not the absence of substitutions in the court file or their legal effect.supportsDoes Watts’s lack of notice prove the original complaint was authorised?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Watts says neither defendant was told before removal that Atlantic Wave, Welter or counsel intended dismissal, that no dismissal was served, and that he personally was not told the filing was erroneous, unintended or unauthorised. The last assertion concerns communications to him; it does not prove the filing was authorised or what opposing counsel privately intended.supportsDoes Watts’s lack of notice prove the original complaint was authorised?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Watts says neither defendant was told before removal that Atlantic Wave, Welter or counsel intended dismissal, that no dismissal was served, and that he personally was not told the filing was erroneous, unintended or unauthorised. The last assertion concerns communications to him; it does not prove the filing was authorised or what opposing counsel privately intended.supportsThe declaration supplies an opposing account of notice and reliance before removal. Its strongest scope is what Watts and the defendants say they received, not opposing counsel’s authority or private intent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Filed 1 April 2024 as SDCA17-3 in3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET, this declaration supports Cyberlux and Schmidt’s opposition to voluntary dismissal. Watts identifies himself as Cyberlux special counsel, licensed in North Carolina, and signs under penalty of perjury at Charlotte on1April. The cover’s15April hearing date is not the execution date.supportsWhat entered order resolved dismissal and preserved or disposed of the counterclaims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Watts states Cyberlux was served12January2024 and Schmidt23January2024, and that the company retained Thompson Coburn, Allen Chesson and Hahn Loeser in response to threatened litigation and the complaint. He claims personal knowledge; the declaration does not attach service returns or retainer records.supportsWhat dated service returns, substitution filings and communications confirm or rebut the asserted absence of pre-removal notice?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He states that before30January2024 removal neither defendant had been served with or informed of substitutions replacing Ozols and Shulz. This establishes his declared notice position, not the absence of substitutions in the court file or their legal effect.supportsWhat dated service returns, substitution filings and communications confirm or rebut the asserted absence of pre-removal notice?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Watts says neither defendant was told before removal that Atlantic Wave, Welter or counsel intended dismissal, that no dismissal was served, and that he personally was not told the filing was erroneous, unintended or unauthorised. The last assertion concerns communications to him; it does not prove the filing was authorised or what opposing counsel privately intended.supportsWhat dated service returns, substitution filings and communications confirm or rebut the asserted absence of pre-removal notice?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He states that before30January2024 removal neither defendant had been served with or informed of substitutions replacing Ozols and Shulz. This establishes his declared notice position, not the absence of substitutions in the court file or their legal effect.supportsThe declaration supplies an opposing account of notice and reliance before removal. Its strongest scope is what Watts and the defendants say they received, not opposing counsel’s authority or private intent.
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.