claimallegation
Plaintiffs' False Statement in SSMJA Petition
Cyberlux alleges that plaintiffs falsely stated under oath in their SSMJA petition that no action based on the sister state judgment was pending in California, when in fact AW I was still pending at the time of filing.
Read the anchor · page 3
Despite AW I still pending, Plaintiffs filed a petition falsely asserting, under oath, that "no action based on the sister state judgment is currently pending in any court in this state." (Doc No. 1-5, § 9.)
claimallegation
Judgment Subject to Payment Plan
Cyberlux claims that the Virginia judgment is subject to a payment plan established in a settlement agreement, with which Cyberlux asserts it is complying, and that plaintiffs omitted reference to this payment plan in their enforcement petition.
Read the anchor · page 2
Plaintiffs claim in their petition that Cyberlux owes $1,149,866.85. In doing so, they omit any reference to the fact that the judgment balance is to be paid pursuant to a payment plan set out in the parties' settlement agreement... Plaintiffs asserting, inter alia, that Plaintiffs are prohibited from enforcing the Virginia judgment because it was entered pursuant to a settlement agreement with a payment plan with which Cyberlux is complying.
claimallegation
SSMJA Petition Constitutes Removable Civil Action
Cyberlux argues that the streamlined SSMJA petition procedure constitutes a 'civil action' under federal law for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal, citing the Weiner v. Blue Cross of Maryland precedent that state procedural enactments should not alter federal removal rights.
Read the anchor · page 6
The District of Maryland confronted a virtually identical scenario when it held that an action to enforce a foreign judgment was removable as a "civil action." Weiner v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc. 730 F. Supp. 674 (D. Md. 1990)... Since the judgment debtor would be entitled to remove to federal court an independent action to enforce a judgment that satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the adoption by a state of an act merely to streamline the procedure should not alter the right of removal which was created by Congress.
claimallegation
Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000
Cyberlux asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds the diversity jurisdiction requirement because plaintiffs seek to enforce a judgment claiming over $1.1 million, and whether Cyberlux must pay this amount or can have the judgment vacated constitutes a genuine controversy.
Read the anchor · page 9
Plaintiffs claim in their petition that Cyberlux owes $1,149,866.85... In its Motion, Cyberlux has disputed Plaintiffs' right to domesticate the judgment and has raised grounds to vacate the judgment. (Doc. No. 9-1.) If Cyberlux prevails, the judgment will remain worthless in California. If it does not, Plaintiffs may be entitled to take over $1 million of Cyberlux's California property. This is a controversy, and the amount satisfies the diversity jurisdictional requirement.
claimallegation
Grounds to Vacate Judgment
Cyberlux argues that the Virginia judgment should be vacated because it is not final and unconditional and was procured with fraud, including plaintiffs' intentional omission of the settlement agreement and its payment terms despite its incorporation in the consent judgment.
Read the anchor · page 4
Moreover, because Cyberlux is afforded the same defenses in responding to the petition as though Plaintiffs had filed a complaint, it also argues that the judgment should be vacated because it is not final and unconditional, and was procured with fraud, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' intentional omission of the settlement agreement and its payment terms despite its incorporation in the consent judgment.
entityobservation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, is one of two plaintiffs seeking to enforce a Virginia judgment against Cyberlux in California.
Read the anchor · page 1
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a Virginia limited Liability company, Plaintiffs
entityobservation
Secure Community, LLC
Secure Community, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, is one of two plaintiffs seeking to enforce a Virginia judgment against Cyberlux in California.
Read the anchor · page 1
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a Virginia limited Liability company, Plaintiffs
entityobservation
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
The current federal action in the Southern District of California, removed from state court by Cyberlux, concerning enforcement of a Virginia judgment.
Read the anchor · page 1
Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET DEFENDANT CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
entityobservation
Case 3:34-cv-00196-RBM-VET (AW I)
The first attempt by Atlantic Wave Holdings to enforce the Virginia judgment in California, filed initially in San Diego Superior Court on December 13, 2023, removed to federal court on January 30, 2024, and ultimately dismissed without prejudice.
Read the anchor · page 2
Their prior attempt commenced on December 13, 2023, when Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in San Diego Superior Court, which was subsequently removed to this Court on January 30, 2024, captioned Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation (Case No. 3:34-cv-00196-RBM-VET) ("AW I'').
eventattribution
Filing of First California Enforcement Action (AW I)
On December 13, 2023, Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community filed their first complaint in San Diego Superior Court seeking to enforce their Virginia judgment through judicial foreclosure, injunctive relief, and appointment of a receiver. The case was removed to federal court on January 30, 2024.
Read the anchor · page 2
Their prior attempt commenced on December 13, 2023, when Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in San Diego Superior Court, which was subsequently removed to this Court on January 30, 2024, captioned Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation (Case No. 3:34-cv-00196-RBM-VET) ("AW I'').
eventattribution
Court Order for Forum Non Conveniens in AW I
On July 1, 2024, the federal court in AW I ordered parties to show cause why defendants' amended counterclaims should not be dismissed under forum non conveniens for litigation in Virginia pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. On July 10, 2024, the court stayed AW I and then dismissed it without prejudice.
Read the anchor · page 2
In AW I, on July 1, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why Defendants' Amended Counterclaims should not be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non convenience for litigation in Virginia pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. (AW I Doc. No. 31.) On July 10, 2024, the Court stayed AW I to give Defendants an opportunity to file their claims in Virginia. (Id., No. 34.) This Court then dismissed AW I without prejudice.
eventattribution
Filing of SSMJA Petition (Second Enforcement Attempt)
On March 5, 2024, while AW I was still pending, plaintiffs filed a petition in California state court under the Sister-State Money-Judgment Act (SSMJA) to enforce their Virginia judgment. The petition claimed Cyberlux owed $1,149,866.85 and stated under oath that no action based on the judgment was pending in California.
Read the anchor · page 3
Well before the dismissal of AW I, on March 5, 2024, Plaintiffs initiated a second attempt to enforce their judgment in California by availing themselves of the procedures pursuant to section 1710.252 of the California Code of Civil Procedure ("Application")... Despite AW I still pending, Plaintiffs filed a petition falsely asserting, under oath, that "no action based on the sister state judgment is currently pending in any court in this state."
eventattribution
Removal to Federal Court
Cyberlux removed the SSMJA petition case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking to contest plaintiffs' right to domesticate and enforce the judgment, which Cyberlux claims violates the settlement agreement.
Read the anchor · page 3
Cyberlux, therefore, returned the dispute to this Court with a timely removal based on diversity jurisdiction so that it may contest Plaintiffs' right to domesticate and enforce the judgment, which violates the settlement agreement.
eventattribution
Court Order to Show Cause on Jurisdiction
On February 27, 2025, the federal court issued an order requiring Cyberlux to show cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction, questioning whether the case presents an Article III case or controversy and whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
Read the anchor · page 2
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation ("Cyberlux") submits this Response to Order to Show Cause Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction as directed by the Court in its February 27, 2025, Order ("Order"). (Doc. No. 33.)
eventattribution
Virginia Litigation Regarding Settlement Agreement
Following the dismissal of AW I, the parties initiated multiple proceedings in Virginia Circuit Court regarding the settlement agreement and its relationship to the judgment, including cases CL24002960-00, CL24002919-00, and CL2403910-00.
Read the anchor · page 3
The parties are in litigation over the settlement agreement and its relationship to the judgment in Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt v. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC, Virginia Circuit Court, County of Richmond, Case No. CL24002960-00 and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt v. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC, Virginia Circuit Court, County of Richmond, Case No. CL24002919-00... Atlantic Wave has initiated its own Virginia lawsuit, captioned Atlantic Wave Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, Virginia Circuit Court, County of Richmon, Case No. CL2403910-00.
observationobservation
Chief Justice Marshall on 'Suit' Definition
Chief Justice Marshall's definition of 'suit' from Weston v. City Council of Charleston is quoted as foundational authority for defining civil action: 'The term is certainly a very comprehensive one and is understood to apply to any proceeding in a court of justice, by which an individual pursues that remedy in a court of justice, which the law affords him.'
Read the anchor · page 6
The term is certainly a very comprehensive one and is understood to apply to any proceeding in a court of justice, by which an individual pursues that remedy in a court of justice, which the law affords him. The modes of proceeding may be various, but if a right is litigated between parties in a court of justice, the proceeding by which the decision of the court is sought, is a suit.
distillateallegation