Context source · CXF-S-E2F6E574D6E0

Emergency motion to exclude Schmidt and spouse property from May 22 receivership order

SHA-256 e2f6e574d6e00c5bd838…10 pages · 278 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

Cyberlux and Schmidt move to modify, correct or reform the May 22, 2025 receivership order to exclude Schmidt, his wife and their property,

Cyberlux and Schmidt move to modify, correct or reform the May 22, 2025 receivership order to exclude Schmidt, his wife and their property, relying on an asserted January 16 bench ruling. The motion is filed June 3, 2025 at 4:56 PM and bears Pennetti’s /s/ signature for defendants.

Read the anchor · page 1

72170/228509 - 34108023.2 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’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY. CORRECT, OR REFORM ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER TO EXCLUDE MARK D. SCHMIDT, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S JANUARY 16, 2025 RULING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Defendants Cyberlux Corporation (“Cyberlux”) and Mark D. Schmidt, Individually (collectively “Defendants”) and file this Emergency Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (“Receivership Order” or “Order”) to Exclude Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property (collectively “Schmidt”) from the imposition of the Order, pursuant to the Court’s January 16, 2025 ruling, and would respectfully show the Court the following: A. Legal Authorities Supporting Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform The Court has authority to grant a Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. See T EX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) (“Each such motion shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney and shall specify the respects in which the judgment should be modified, corrected, or reformed.”). Here, the written order does not comport with the Court’s ruling, as the parties agreed—and the Court ordered—that no receivership relief was to be rendered against Schmidt. See Cook v. Cook, 888 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex. App. 1994) (“If the written order 6/3/2025 4:56 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101577441 By: Regina Anders Filed: 6/3/2025 4:56 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The ten-page supplied file contains the motion and service pages, but not the April 5 letter, full hearing transcript, supporting declaratio

Read the anchor · page 3

- 3 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 “Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order greatly exceeds what is shown in the record and statutory authority. It defines ‘Judgment Debtors’ as the Defendants and then purports to appoint a receiver as to ‘Debtor,’ which is not defined, making the Proposed Order impermissibly ambiguous on its face, especially because this Court expressly declined to appoint a receiver as to Defendant Mark Schmidt.” (Cyberlux’s Counsel’s letter of April 5, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1). Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs’ representations that they sought an order only against the company, and the Court’s clear direction to exclude Schmidt from Plaintiffs’ proposed order, Plaintiffs submitted an order that included Schmidt. The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs’ proposed order on May 22, 2025, and that order is contrary to the Court’s specific ruling at the hearing of January 16, 2025. Dialogue between the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel during the Hearing expressly shows that Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a turnover order against Schmidt—and that the Court expressly excluded Schmidt from receivership—and that Plaintiffs presented no evidence that would support such relief against Schmidt: “THE COURT: So we talked a little bit about what specifically the turnover needs to apply to just so we don’t have an issue on its face. In terms of -- she did raise a point regarding Mr. Schmidt. We didn’t have anything on Mr. Schmidt; is that right? MR. VARGO [Counsel for Plaintiffs]: The turnover is just against the company. It’s not against Mr. Schmidt. THE COURT: Okay. So he’s going to be removed? MR. VARGO: Yes. . THE COURT: So they’re only seeking a turnover regarding the company. So in the amended order he’ll be removed.” (Reporter’s Record, January 16, 2025, p. 127, ln. 3-16, Exhibit 2 (emphasis added)).1 1 See also Exhibit 3, Declaration of A. Pennetti, attesting to record attached as Exhibit 2. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Defendants invoke Texas Rule 329b(g) and cited cases to argue a written order must conform to rendition. They assert plaintiffs withdrew ind

Defendants invoke Texas Rule 329b(g) and cited cases to argue a written order must conform to rendition. They assert plaintiffs withdrew individual relief and offered no evidence supporting receivership against Schmidt. These are the motion’s legal and factual contentions, not a newly adjudicated holding.

Read the anchor · page 1

72170/228509 - 34108023.2 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’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY. CORRECT, OR REFORM ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER TO EXCLUDE MARK D. SCHMIDT, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S JANUARY 16, 2025 RULING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Defendants Cyberlux Corporation (“Cyberlux”) and Mark D. Schmidt, Individually (collectively “Defendants”) and file this Emergency Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (“Receivership Order” or “Order”) to Exclude Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property (collectively “Schmidt”) from the imposition of the Order, pursuant to the Court’s January 16, 2025 ruling, and would respectfully show the Court the following: A. Legal Authorities Supporting Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform The Court has authority to grant a Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. See T EX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) (“Each such motion shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney and shall specify the respects in which the judgment should be modified, corrected, or reformed.”). Here, the written order does not comport with the Court’s ruling, as the parties agreed—and the Court ordered—that no receivership relief was to be rendered against Schmidt. See Cook v. Cook, 888 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex. App. 1994) (“If the written order 6/3/2025 4:56 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101577441 By: Regina Anders Filed: 6/3/2025 4:56 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The motion says plaintiffs submitted a proposed order April 1 that included Schmidt despite the January hearing, and quotes defendants’ Apri

Read the anchor · page 2

- 2 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 does not comport with the judgment rendered, the parties are entitled to have the order reformed to accurately reflect the action taken by the trial court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g).”); See also Burrows v. Burrows , 1998 WL 35277038, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, writ denied) (A judge’s intent to sign the decree in the future goes to its entry and not to its rendition. See S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. 1995) (“words used by the trial court must clearly indicate the intent to render judgment at the time the words are expressed”).). Failing to amend or modify the written order would constitute error because no evidence was adduced to support receivership relief against Schmidt, and because Plaintiffs expressly withdrew their Application as to Schmidt during the January 16, 2025 hearing and—immediately after—the Court orally ruled that Schmidt would not be subject to its forthcoming order. Simply put, the written Order must be corrected because it grants relief on an issue about which the Court received no evidence and was abandoned by Plaintiffs. Additionally, there are several grammatical phrasing errors in the Order that make the relief granted vague and ambiguous. B. The May 22, 2025, Receivership Order Mistakenly Imposed The Receivership and Turnover on Defendant Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property During the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Application for Turnover and Receivership (the “Hearing”), Plaintiffs requested relief against Cyberlux, but withdrew their claims against Schmidt and conceded they provided no evidence against Schmidt. Accordingly, this Court ruled from the bench that turnover and receivership relief would be granted against Cyberlux, but not Schmidt. Notwithstanding that ruling and Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of those claims, on April 1, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Order Appointing Receiver that included turnover and receivership relief against Schmidt. Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order, stating in part: UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The quoted January 16 reporter’s record page 127, lines 3–16 attributes to Vargo that turnover is only against the company and that Schmidt

Read the anchor · page 3

- 3 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 “Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order greatly exceeds what is shown in the record and statutory authority. It defines ‘Judgment Debtors’ as the Defendants and then purports to appoint a receiver as to ‘Debtor,’ which is not defined, making the Proposed Order impermissibly ambiguous on its face, especially because this Court expressly declined to appoint a receiver as to Defendant Mark Schmidt.” (Cyberlux’s Counsel’s letter of April 5, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1). Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs’ representations that they sought an order only against the company, and the Court’s clear direction to exclude Schmidt from Plaintiffs’ proposed order, Plaintiffs submitted an order that included Schmidt. The Court inadvertently signed Plaintiffs’ proposed order on May 22, 2025, and that order is contrary to the Court’s specific ruling at the hearing of January 16, 2025. Dialogue between the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel during the Hearing expressly shows that Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a turnover order against Schmidt—and that the Court expressly excluded Schmidt from receivership—and that Plaintiffs presented no evidence that would support such relief against Schmidt: “THE COURT: So we talked a little bit about what specifically the turnover needs to apply to just so we don’t have an issue on its face. In terms of -- she did raise a point regarding Mr. Schmidt. We didn’t have anything on Mr. Schmidt; is that right? MR. VARGO [Counsel for Plaintiffs]: The turnover is just against the company. It’s not against Mr. Schmidt. THE COURT: Okay. So he’s going to be removed? MR. VARGO: Yes. . THE COURT: So they’re only seeking a turnover regarding the company. So in the amended order he’ll be removed.” (Reporter’s Record, January 16, 2025, p. 127, ln. 3-16, Exhibit 2 (emphasis added)).1 1 See also Exhibit 3, Declaration of A. Pennetti, attesting to record attached as Exhibit 2. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The proposed correction would construe every Debtor or Debtors reference in the May 22 order as Cyberlux only and expressly decline receiver

Read the anchor · page 4

- 4 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants ’ Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. Defendants respectfully show the Court that without this modification and correction, Schmidt would remain subject to the restriction and obligations of the Order Appointing Receiver and Mr. Schmidt ’s property, which he shares with his spouse, would remain in jeopardy, resulting in irreparable harm with no adequate remedy by appeal. Defendants suggest the Court correct the Order Appointing Receiver by signing an amendment that states in substance: “It is Ordered that any and all references to ‘Debtor’ or ‘Debtors’ in the Order Appointing Receiver signed on May 22, 2025, shall be construed and understood to refer only to Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and not to Mark D. Schmidt, individually, and that this Order expressly declines to impose a receiver or a turnover order as to Mark D. Schmidt.” Further, Exhibit A to the Order sets forth numerous disclosure requirements. Exhibit A to the Order requires production of records of “defendant” without identifying whether that applies to Cyberlux, Schmidt, or both. Many paragraphs of the 43 paragraphs in Exhibit A imply information must be supplied and/or documents must be produced whether held by a “defendant” a spouse, family member, or persons who have any “co” or joint interest. The language of the categories of documents set forth in Exhibit A indicate that documents from Schmidt might be required to be disclosed. These include the following: 1. The Definition in ¶ 2, p. of the Order provides: “Defendant(s)” or “Judgment Debtor(s)”, collectively and individually refers to the following Debtors: (referring to Cyberlux and “Mark D. Schmidt (individually)). This section refers to “Debtors.” 2. Other provisions refer to “Debtor” which makes it unclear whether Cyberlux and Schmidt are both referred to when that term is used. See ¶ 7, p. 3. 3. ¶ 8, p. 4 refers to “Debtors” and their leviable property. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Defendants list thirty-two examples of potentially ambiguous order provisions: debtor definitions, liens, asset possession, community proper

Read the anchor · page 4

- 4 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants ’ Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. Defendants respectfully show the Court that without this modification and correction, Schmidt would remain subject to the restriction and obligations of the Order Appointing Receiver and Mr. Schmidt ’s property, which he shares with his spouse, would remain in jeopardy, resulting in irreparable harm with no adequate remedy by appeal. Defendants suggest the Court correct the Order Appointing Receiver by signing an amendment that states in substance: “It is Ordered that any and all references to ‘Debtor’ or ‘Debtors’ in the Order Appointing Receiver signed on May 22, 2025, shall be construed and understood to refer only to Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and not to Mark D. Schmidt, individually, and that this Order expressly declines to impose a receiver or a turnover order as to Mark D. Schmidt.” Further, Exhibit A to the Order sets forth numerous disclosure requirements. Exhibit A to the Order requires production of records of “defendant” without identifying whether that applies to Cyberlux, Schmidt, or both. Many paragraphs of the 43 paragraphs in Exhibit A imply information must be supplied and/or documents must be produced whether held by a “defendant” a spouse, family member, or persons who have any “co” or joint interest. The language of the categories of documents set forth in Exhibit A indicate that documents from Schmidt might be required to be disclosed. These include the following: 1. The Definition in ¶ 2, p. of the Order provides: “Defendant(s)” or “Judgment Debtor(s)”, collectively and individually refers to the following Debtors: (referring to Cyberlux and “Mark D. Schmidt (individually)). This section refers to “Debtors.” 2. Other provisions refer to “Debtor” which makes it unclear whether Cyberlux and Schmidt are both referred to when that term is used. See ¶ 7, p. 3. 3. ¶ 8, p. 4 refers to “Debtors” and their leviable property. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The motion reports Charles Schwab notified Schmidt June 2 that his accounts were restricted, possibly including personal brokerage and secur

Read the anchor · page 7

- 7 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 would be removed from the Order. It appears that inadvertently did not occur. Id. Therefore, the Order must be corrected to comport with the Court’s January 16, 2025 ruling. C. The Impact of the Order’s Inadvertent Inclusion of Schmidt Because the Order currently permits the Receiver to take custody of the assets of Schmidt, the Receiver is currently acting to obtain custody of Schmidt’s assets. On June 2, 2025, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”) provided notice to Schmidt that Schmidt’s accounts with Schwab, which may encompass his personal brokerage, securities, and related accounts, have been restricted.2 Thus, even though Atlantic Wave conceded it produced no evidence of turnover with respect to Schmidt, the parties agreed—and the Court ordered—that Schmidt would not be subject to the Turnover Order, the Turnover Order has caused Schwab to restrict Schmidt’s accounts. The Turnover Order must be modified or corrected to remove Schmidt. D. Conclusion Wherefore, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant the relief requested above and all other relief to which Defendants are entitled. (signature on following page) 2 A copy of the Schwab notice is attached as Exhibit 4. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

Pennetti certifies that on June 2 he notified receiver Berleth and plaintiffs’ counsel Walton of the planned motion and received no response

Pennetti certifies that on June 2 he notified receiver Berleth and plaintiffs’ counsel Walton of the planned motion and received no response. This is not evidence they consented. He separately certifies service on all counsel June 3.

Read the anchor · page 8

- 8 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Douglas S. Lang State Bar No. 11895500 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 dlang@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On June 2, 2025, the undersigned advised Mr. Berleth, the Receiver appointed by this Court, and Mr. Walton, counsel for Plaintiffs, of its intent to file this Motion. The undersigned did not receive a response. /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Alexander J. Pennetti CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 3, 2025. /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Alexander J. Pennetti UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

claimallegation

The automated eService certificate identifies envelope 101577441, filing by Linda Carranza for Alex Pennetti, and June 3, 2025 4:56:37 PM tr

The automated eService certificate identifies envelope 101577441, filing by Linda Carranza for Alex Pennetti, and June 3, 2025 4:56:37 PM transmissions with SENT statuses, reported as of June 4 at 10:08 AM CST. The 31 displayed rows contain repeated names; they are not 31 independent recipients or acknowledgements of reading.

Read the anchor · page 9

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Linda Carranza on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lcarranza@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101577441 Filing Code Description: Motion to Modify Filing Description: Defendants' Emergency Motion to Correct, etc. the Order Appointing Receiver Status as of 6/4/2025 10:08 AM CST Case Contacts Name David A.Walton LaDonna Arey Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Bernadette Martin Records Department Hannah Petrea Michael Poynter Laurie DeBardeleben Micah Jackson Sheli Davis Lena Brasher Frankie Huff Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Hannah Fischer Greg Nieman Jemisha Gandhi BarNumber Email dwalton@bellnunnally.com LArey@bellnunnally.com smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com Records@bellnunnally.com hpetrea@bellnunnally.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com gnieman@bellnunnally.com jgandhi@bellnunnally.com TimestampSubmitted 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM 6/3/2025 4:56:37 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Alexander J. Pennetti

Read the anchor · page 8

- 8 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Douglas S. Lang State Bar No. 11895500 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 dlang@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On June 2, 2025, the undersigned advised Mr. Berleth, the Receiver appointed by this Court, and Mr. Walton, counsel for Plaintiffs, of its intent to file this Motion. The undersigned did not receive a response. /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Alexander J. Pennetti CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 3, 2025. /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Alexander J. Pennetti UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

Read the anchor · page 7

- 7 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 would be removed from the Order. It appears that inadvertently did not occur. Id. Therefore, the Order must be corrected to comport with the Court’s January 16, 2025 ruling. C. The Impact of the Order’s Inadvertent Inclusion of Schmidt Because the Order currently permits the Receiver to take custody of the assets of Schmidt, the Receiver is currently acting to obtain custody of Schmidt’s assets. On June 2, 2025, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”) provided notice to Schmidt that Schmidt’s accounts with Schwab, which may encompass his personal brokerage, securities, and related accounts, have been restricted.2 Thus, even though Atlantic Wave conceded it produced no evidence of turnover with respect to Schmidt, the parties agreed—and the Court ordered—that Schmidt would not be subject to the Turnover Order, the Turnover Order has caused Schwab to restrict Schmidt’s accounts. The Turnover Order must be modified or corrected to remove Schmidt. D. Conclusion Wherefore, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant the relief requested above and all other relief to which Defendants are entitled. (signature on following page) 2 A copy of the Schwab notice is attached as Exhibit 4. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

entityobservation

Mark D. Schmidt

Read the anchor · page 1

72170/228509 - 34108023.2 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’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY. CORRECT, OR REFORM ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER TO EXCLUDE MARK D. SCHMIDT, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S JANUARY 16, 2025 RULING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Defendants Cyberlux Corporation (“Cyberlux”) and Mark D. Schmidt, Individually (collectively “Defendants”) and file this Emergency Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (“Receivership Order” or “Order”) to Exclude Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property (collectively “Schmidt”) from the imposition of the Order, pursuant to the Court’s January 16, 2025 ruling, and would respectfully show the Court the following: A. Legal Authorities Supporting Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform The Court has authority to grant a Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. See T EX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) (“Each such motion shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney and shall specify the respects in which the judgment should be modified, corrected, or reformed.”). Here, the written order does not comport with the Court’s ruling, as the parties agreed—and the Court ordered—that no receivership relief was to be rendered against Schmidt. See Cook v. Cook, 888 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex. App. 1994) (“If the written order 6/3/2025 4:56 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101577441 By: Regina Anders Filed: 6/3/2025 4:56 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

inferenceinference

The alleged harm turns on the gap between quoted oral company-only relief and written definitions potentially encompassing individual and ma

The alleged harm turns on the gap between quoted oral company-only relief and written definitions potentially encompassing individual and marital assets. Resolving that scope requires the actual transcript, entered order and later correction, not the motion’s proposed text alone.

omissiongap

Referenced Exhibits 1–4 and the complete order are not embedded in this ten-page motion-and-service file.

Read the anchor · page 2

- 2 - 72170/228509 - 34108023.2 does not comport with the judgment rendered, the parties are entitled to have the order reformed to accurately reflect the action taken by the trial court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g).”); See also Burrows v. Burrows , 1998 WL 35277038, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, writ denied) (A judge’s intent to sign the decree in the future goes to its entry and not to its rendition. See S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. 1995) (“words used by the trial court must clearly indicate the intent to render judgment at the time the words are expressed”).). Failing to amend or modify the written order would constitute error because no evidence was adduced to support receivership relief against Schmidt, and because Plaintiffs expressly withdrew their Application as to Schmidt during the January 16, 2025 hearing and—immediately after—the Court orally ruled that Schmidt would not be subject to its forthcoming order. Simply put, the written Order must be corrected because it grants relief on an issue about which the Court received no evidence and was abandoned by Plaintiffs. Additionally, there are several grammatical phrasing errors in the Order that make the relief granted vague and ambiguous. B. The May 22, 2025, Receivership Order Mistakenly Imposed The Receivership and Turnover on Defendant Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property During the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Application for Turnover and Receivership (the “Hearing”), Plaintiffs requested relief against Cyberlux, but withdrew their claims against Schmidt and conceded they provided no evidence against Schmidt. Accordingly, this Court ruled from the bench that turnover and receivership relief would be granted against Cyberlux, but not Schmidt. Notwithstanding that ruling and Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of those claims, on April 1, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Order Appointing Receiver that included turnover and receivership relief against Schmidt. Defendants promptly objected to inclusion of Schmidt in the proposed order, stating in part: UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

otherattribution

Complete supplied 10-page source reviewed at SHA-256 e2f6e574d6e00c5bd83870ef83fd60e576aa17e789521e1ad134d6429c528834. Source assertions, or

Complete supplied 10-page source reviewed at SHA-256 e2f6e574d6e00c5bd83870ef83fd60e576aa17e789521e1ad134d6429c528834. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Complete ten-page reading of version_46ac891602d740ef833516a8c570896f, SHA256 e2f6e574d6e00c5bd83870ef83fd60e576aa17e789521e1ad134d6429c528834; signature/service image QA completed. Source and extraction retained.

Read the anchor · page 1

72170/228509 - 34108023.2 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’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY. CORRECT, OR REFORM ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER TO EXCLUDE MARK D. SCHMIDT, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S JANUARY 16, 2025 RULING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Defendants Cyberlux Corporation (“Cyberlux”) and Mark D. Schmidt, Individually (collectively “Defendants”) and file this Emergency Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (“Receivership Order” or “Order”) to Exclude Mark D. Schmidt, His Wife, and Their Property (collectively “Schmidt”) from the imposition of the Order, pursuant to the Court’s January 16, 2025 ruling, and would respectfully show the Court the following: A. Legal Authorities Supporting Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform The Court has authority to grant a Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Order Appointing Receiver. See T EX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) (“Each such motion shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney and shall specify the respects in which the judgment should be modified, corrected, or reformed.”). Here, the written order does not comport with the Court’s ruling, as the parties agreed—and the Court ordered—that no receivership relief was to be rendered against Schmidt. See Cook v. Cook, 888 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex. App. 1994) (“If the written order 6/3/2025 4:56 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101577441 By: Regina Anders Filed: 6/3/2025 4:56 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

questionquestion

What do the complete January transcript, May 22 order and any entered amendment establish about the individual scope?

questionquestion

What restrictions did Schwab actually impose, on whose property, and when were they changed?

distillatequestion

CONNECT

Reviewed relationships

The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.

Tabs 27–39 map emergency stay/bond requests, April letter brief, May order and June objections and receiver filings. The May 22 appointment order is mapped to 1184–1215; June 2 Schwab notice to 1216–1219; June 3 individual-exclusion motion to 1220–1642; June 11 final report/accounting/disbursement/termination motion to 1930–1942. Index naming does not prove termination was granted.supportsCyberlux and Schmidt move to modify, correct or reform the May 22, 2025 receivership order to exclude Schmidt, his wife and their property, relying on an asserted January 16 bench ruling. The motion is filed June 3, 2025 at 4:56 PM and bears Pennetti’s /s/ signature for defendants.

Tab 31 identifies the same dated individual-exclusion motion, but its 423-page designated span is a larger compilation than the ten-page motion-and-service source reviewed as item 47.

50%

Defendants list thirty-two examples of potentially ambiguous order provisions: debtor definitions, liens, asset possession, community property, disclosure, disposal restrictions, entity control, exemptions, mail, credit and utility records, third-party attendance, negotiable instruments, service, licence information, discovery restrictions and sale notices. Their concern is that company and individual scope are conflated, extending to spouses and jointly held property; the original order and its complete disclosure exhibit are not supplied.supportsThe alleged harm turns on the gap between quoted oral company-only relief and written definitions potentially encompassing individual and marital assets. Resolving that scope requires the actual transcript, entered order and later correction, not the motion’s proposed text alone.