Plea in Intervention and Motion to Deposit Funds - Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
Original sourcedocument
Metadata only
The original file isn’t published in this edition.
The record remains visible so the reader can see that it exists without mistaking metadata for access to the underlying document.
SHA-256 7fa4a41db58a42ef992f…0 pages · 212 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.
quotationattribution
Plaintiffs acknowledge that their First Judgment has been satisfied.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
observationobservation
Harris County cause 2024-48085; separate domestication cause 2026-35985.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
observationobservation
Paragraphs 3 and 8 acknowledge satisfaction; paragraph 10 and footnote 3 address priority and offsets.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC filed their plea in intervention and motion to deposit funds in Harris County cause 20
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC filed their plea in intervention and motion to deposit funds in Harris County cause 2024-48085 on June 3, 2026. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt individually are captioned defendants.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The plaintiffs expressly state that their First Judgment has been satisfied through collection and payment to them. Their requested continue
The plaintiffs expressly state that their First Judgment has been satisfied through collection and payment to them. Their requested continued participation instead rests on a claimed Second Judgment and UCC security interest; satisfaction of the first judgment does not resolve the second claim or receiver fees.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The motion says Robert Berleth was appointed receiver on May 22, 2025 and now holds funds to close the receivership. Plaintiffs describe pro
The motion says Robert Berleth was appointed receiver on May 22, 2025 and now holds funds to close the receivership. Plaintiffs describe proposed fees to the receiver’s firm and the remainder to Legalist; they take no position on the fee amount and expect a surplus. Neither an approved fee amount nor the surplus balance appears here.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Plaintiffs assert that on May 28, 2026 they domesticated a Second Virginia Judgment in cause 2026-35985 in the same court, with $6 million p
Plaintiffs assert that on May 28, 2026 they domesticated a Second Virginia Judgment in cause 2026-35985 in the same court, with $6 million principal plus fees and interest. Their footnote references Exhibit A, but that judgment and enforcement petition are not attached in this seven-page source.
Read the anchor · page 2
captured non-exempt funds of Defendant Cyberlux Corporation, and distribute them to his firm to
pay the Receivership fee and expense, and return the remainder to Legalist. Plaintiffs and
Intervenors take no position on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded but based on the
Receivers’ motion expect there to be a surplus.
5. On May 28, 2026, Intervenors domesticated another Virginia judgment against
Defendants/Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt, in Cause No. 2026-
35985, in the principal amount of $6 million, plus attorney’s fees and interest (“Second
Judgment”).1
The domestication of the Second Judgment is also before this Court.
6. Plaintiffs and Intervenors also have a UCC lien which attaches to the funds held by
the Receivership, as they are non-exempt funds of Cyberlux Corporation (“UCC Lien”).
2
As such,
Plaintiffs and Intervenors assert a claim to these funds, based on the Second Judgment and the
UCC Lien.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Intervenors can intervene in this action to protect its rights and interests.
7. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]ny party may intervene by
filing a pleading,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. Third parties are generally allowed to intervene in postjudgment proceedings when their property interests are at stake. See M&E Endeavors LLC v. Air
Voice Wireless LLC, No. 01-18-00852-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6906, 2020 WL 5047902, at
*8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. Op.). Intervention is a
recognized option for any party seeking to protect its interest in property that is the subject of a
turnover motion or order. See Mitchell v. Turbine Res. Unlimited, Inc., 523 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Tex.
1 See Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, with copy of Virgina Judgment, attached as Exhibit A.
2 See UCC-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Plaintiffs assert a UCC security interest in Cyberlux nonexempt funds and approximately $6,025,000 secured debt superior to Legalist’s claim
Plaintiffs assert a UCC security interest in Cyberlux nonexempt funds and approximately $6,025,000 secured debt superior to Legalist’s claim. The referenced UCC-1 Exhibit B is absent; this is a pleaded priority position rather than an adjudication of ownership or priority.
Read the anchor · page 2
captured non-exempt funds of Defendant Cyberlux Corporation, and distribute them to his firm to
pay the Receivership fee and expense, and return the remainder to Legalist. Plaintiffs and
Intervenors take no position on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded but based on the
Receivers’ motion expect there to be a surplus.
5. On May 28, 2026, Intervenors domesticated another Virginia judgment against
Defendants/Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt, in Cause No. 2026-
35985, in the principal amount of $6 million, plus attorney’s fees and interest (“Second
Judgment”).1
The domestication of the Second Judgment is also before this Court.
6. Plaintiffs and Intervenors also have a UCC lien which attaches to the funds held by
the Receivership, as they are non-exempt funds of Cyberlux Corporation (“UCC Lien”).
2
As such,
Plaintiffs and Intervenors assert a claim to these funds, based on the Second Judgment and the
UCC Lien.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Intervenors can intervene in this action to protect its rights and interests.
7. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]ny party may intervene by
filing a pleading,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. Third parties are generally allowed to intervene in postjudgment proceedings when their property interests are at stake. See M&E Endeavors LLC v. Air
Voice Wireless LLC, No. 01-18-00852-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6906, 2020 WL 5047902, at
*8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. Op.). Intervention is a
recognized option for any party seeking to protect its interest in property that is the subject of a
turnover motion or order. See Mitchell v. Turbine Res. Unlimited, Inc., 523 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Tex.
1 See Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, with copy of Virgina Judgment, attached as Exhibit A.
2 See UCC-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Plaintiffs invoke Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and cited intervention decisions, seek a hearing and intervention, and request deposit of
Plaintiffs invoke Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and cited intervention decisions, seek a hearing and intervention, and request deposit of surplus into the court registry until rightful ownership is decided. Their requested preservation of disputed funds is not an immediate award of those funds to themselves.
Read the anchor · page 2
captured non-exempt funds of Defendant Cyberlux Corporation, and distribute them to his firm to
pay the Receivership fee and expense, and return the remainder to Legalist. Plaintiffs and
Intervenors take no position on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded but based on the
Receivers’ motion expect there to be a surplus.
5. On May 28, 2026, Intervenors domesticated another Virginia judgment against
Defendants/Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt, in Cause No. 2026-
35985, in the principal amount of $6 million, plus attorney’s fees and interest (“Second
Judgment”).1
The domestication of the Second Judgment is also before this Court.
6. Plaintiffs and Intervenors also have a UCC lien which attaches to the funds held by
the Receivership, as they are non-exempt funds of Cyberlux Corporation (“UCC Lien”).
2
As such,
Plaintiffs and Intervenors assert a claim to these funds, based on the Second Judgment and the
UCC Lien.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Intervenors can intervene in this action to protect its rights and interests.
7. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]ny party may intervene by
filing a pleading,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. Third parties are generally allowed to intervene in postjudgment proceedings when their property interests are at stake. See M&E Endeavors LLC v. Air
Voice Wireless LLC, No. 01-18-00852-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6906, 2020 WL 5047902, at
*8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. Op.). Intervention is a
recognized option for any party seeking to protect its interest in property that is the subject of a
turnover motion or order. See Mitchell v. Turbine Res. Unlimited, Inc., 523 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Tex.
1 See Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, with copy of Virgina Judgment, attached as Exhibit A.
2 See UCC-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Footnote 3 states that recovery in the Virginia interpleader reduces or offsets the surplus claim and vice versa. The motion recognises a cr
Footnote 3 states that recovery in the Virginia interpleader reduces or offsets the surplus claim and vice versa. The motion recognises a cross-proceeding offset, but supplies no payment ledger or calculation of the remaining balance.
Read the anchor · page 3
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied).
8. Here, Plaintiffs and Intervenors seek to have the funds captured by the Receiver
which are not ordered to be disbursed to the Receiver, or the surplus, be deposited into the Court
Registry. Plaintiffs make this request as parties and Judgment Creditors to this lawsuit. In
addition, since Plaintiffs claims or the First Judgment has been satisfied, Plaintiffs also assert this
Plea in Intervention, based on its status as Judgment Creditor of the Second Judgment, in the
separate domestication action.
9. Intervenors have a justiciable interest related to the litigation, as they have an
interest in property held by the Receivership which belongs to Defendant Cyberlux and is subject
to execution or recovery of the Second Judgment. If the funds are released to Legalist, as proposed
by the Receiver, then Intervenors will be harmed, as they have an interest to this property. As
such, Intervenors request that the Court order that the surplus funds be deposited in the Court
Registry, until the rightful owners of the funds can be determined.
B. In addition, or alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the surplus funds in the
Receivership be deposited in the Court Registry
10. Plaintiffs possess a UCC Lien, which secures a debt owed to Plaintiffs in the
approximate amount of $6,025,000, which is superior to the ownership rights of Legalist, to the
funds held by the Receivership. Plaintiffs request that the Court order the Receiver to deposit the
surplus into the Court Registry, until the rightful owner of the funds can be determined.3
PRAYER
Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court set this motion for a hearing; grant this motion;
and order the Receiver to deposit any surplus funds into the Court Registry, and for such further
3 Plaintiffs note that efforts are being taken to collect in a Virginia Interpleader Action, and that any amounts recovered
from this action would offset or reduce Plaintiffs claim to the surplus funds, and vice versa.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Shawn M. Grady signs as counsel for plaintiffs/intervenors and certifies forwarding the motion to counsel under the Texas rules on June 3, 2
Shawn M. Grady signs as counsel for plaintiffs/intervenors and certifies forwarding the motion to counsel under the Texas rules on June 3, 2026.
Read the anchor · page 4
relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC
By: /s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
State Bar No. 24076411
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Suite 805
Houston, Texas 77027
(832) 692- 4542 – Telephone
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS AND
INTERVENORS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded
to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the 3rd day of June
2026.
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The automated service certificate lists 53 rows, all with status SENT and June 3, 2026 6:28:42 PM timestamps, with status reported as of Jun
The automated service certificate lists 53 rows, all with status SENT and June 3, 2026 6:28:42 PM timestamps, with status reported as of June 4 at 10:15 AM CST. Repeated names and multiple addresses prevent treating those rows as 53 unique recipients; SENT does not establish actual reading or receipt.
Read the anchor · page 5
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.
Shawn Grady on behalf of Shawn Grady
Bar No. 24076411
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
Envelope ID: 115712456
Filing Code Description: Counter Claim/Cross
Action/Interpleader/Intervention/Third Party
Filing Description: PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT
FUNDS INTO COURT REGISTRY
Status as of 6/4/2026 10:15 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name
Ashish Mahendru
Darren AndrewBraun
M. H. Cersonsky
Evan A.Moeller
Evan A.Moeller
Danielle Butler
LaDonna Arey
Linda Carranza
Elizabeth Myers
Tara Rollin
Robert W.Berleth
David A.Walton
Travis Vargo
Micah Jackson
Brice BBeale
Mary Jahn
Shawn Grady
Shawn Grady
Aaron McLeod
Jeff Brown
Paula Gentry
BarNumber Email
amahendru@thelitigationgroup.com
dbraun@thelitigationgroup.com
mhcersonsky@law-cmpc.com
evan.moeller@arlaw.com
evan.moeller@arlaw.com
dbutler@thelitigationgroup.com
LArey@bellnunnally.com
lcarranza@thompsoncoburn.com
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
tara.rollin@arlaw.com
rberleth@berlethlaw.com
dwalton@bellnunnally.com
tvargo@vargolawfirm.com
mjackson@berlethlaw.com
beale@hooverslovacek.com
mary.jahn@arlaw.com
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
aaron.mcleod@arlaw.com
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com
TimestampSubmitted
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
6/3/2026 6:28:42 PM
Status
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Secure Community, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Mark Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Robert W. Berleth
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Legalist
Read the anchor · page 2
captured non-exempt funds of Defendant Cyberlux Corporation, and distribute them to his firm to
pay the Receivership fee and expense, and return the remainder to Legalist. Plaintiffs and
Intervenors take no position on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded but based on the
Receivers’ motion expect there to be a surplus.
5. On May 28, 2026, Intervenors domesticated another Virginia judgment against
Defendants/Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt, in Cause No. 2026-
35985, in the principal amount of $6 million, plus attorney’s fees and interest (“Second
Judgment”).1
The domestication of the Second Judgment is also before this Court.
6. Plaintiffs and Intervenors also have a UCC lien which attaches to the funds held by
the Receivership, as they are non-exempt funds of Cyberlux Corporation (“UCC Lien”).
2
As such,
Plaintiffs and Intervenors assert a claim to these funds, based on the Second Judgment and the
UCC Lien.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Intervenors can intervene in this action to protect its rights and interests.
7. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]ny party may intervene by
filing a pleading,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. Third parties are generally allowed to intervene in postjudgment proceedings when their property interests are at stake. See M&E Endeavors LLC v. Air
Voice Wireless LLC, No. 01-18-00852-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6906, 2020 WL 5047902, at
*8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. Op.). Intervention is a
recognized option for any party seeking to protect its interest in property that is the subject of a
turnover motion or order. See Mitchell v. Turbine Res. Unlimited, Inc., 523 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Tex.
1 See Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, with copy of Virgina Judgment, attached as Exhibit A.
2 See UCC-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Shawn M. Grady
Read the anchor · page 4
relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC
By: /s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
State Bar No. 24076411
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Suite 805
Houston, Texas 77027
(832) 692- 4542 – Telephone
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS AND
INTERVENORS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded
to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the 3rd day of June
2026.
/s/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Creditor plea and deposit motion filed.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Motion reports Second Judgment domestication.
Read the anchor · page 2
captured non-exempt funds of Defendant Cyberlux Corporation, and distribute them to his firm to
pay the Receivership fee and expense, and return the remainder to Legalist. Plaintiffs and
Intervenors take no position on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded but based on the
Receivers’ motion expect there to be a surplus.
5. On May 28, 2026, Intervenors domesticated another Virginia judgment against
Defendants/Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt, in Cause No. 2026-
35985, in the principal amount of $6 million, plus attorney’s fees and interest (“Second
Judgment”).1
The domestication of the Second Judgment is also before this Court.
6. Plaintiffs and Intervenors also have a UCC lien which attaches to the funds held by
the Receivership, as they are non-exempt funds of Cyberlux Corporation (“UCC Lien”).
2
As such,
Plaintiffs and Intervenors assert a claim to these funds, based on the Second Judgment and the
UCC Lien.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Intervenors can intervene in this action to protect its rights and interests.
7. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]ny party may intervene by
filing a pleading,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. Third parties are generally allowed to intervene in postjudgment proceedings when their property interests are at stake. See M&E Endeavors LLC v. Air
Voice Wireless LLC, No. 01-18-00852-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6906, 2020 WL 5047902, at
*8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. Op.). Intervention is a
recognized option for any party seeking to protect its interest in property that is the subject of a
turnover motion or order. See Mitchell v. Turbine Res. Unlimited, Inc., 523 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Tex.
1 See Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, with copy of Virgina Judgment, attached as Exhibit A.
2 See UCC-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference
The asserted collection basis shifts from an acknowledged satisfied First Judgment to the Second Judgment and claimed security interest; con
The asserted collection basis shifts from an acknowledged satisfied First Judgment to the Second Judgment and claimed security interest; continued collection cannot be attributed to an unsatisfied First Judgment on this source alone.
inferenceinference
The registry request would preserve the contested fund while entitlement is resolved, and does not itself establish plaintiffs’ priority ove
The registry request would preserve the contested fund while entitlement is resolved, and does not itself establish plaintiffs’ priority over Legalist.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 7-page source reviewed at SHA-256 7fa4a41db58a42ef992f100b1e6c67d354edc89d2d1b967a390b5e9e44048123. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 7-page source reviewed at SHA-256 7fa4a41db58a42ef992f100b1e6c67d354edc89d2d1b967a390b5e9e44048123. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own complete native-text and page-image reading of all seven pages, including each service-certificate row. Clerk watermark does not prevent reading. Legal citations are recorded as advocacy, not independently verified propositions of law.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors §
§
V. § 129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendants/Judgment-Debtors. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC’S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC’S
PLEA IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO COURT
REGISTRY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs and Intervenors Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC (collectively “Intervenors”) herein, and file this Plea in Intervention and Motion
To Deposit Funds Into Court Registry, and would show unto the Court the following:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiffs have a valid Virginia judgment against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation
and Mark Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”) that was domesticated in Texas (the “First
Judgment”).
2. On May 22, 2025, the Court signed the Order Appointing Receiver, which
appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver (“Receivership”).
3. Subsequently, the First Judgment was satisfied via collection of payment to
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC.
4. The Receiver has obtained, and is holding funds, which are to be distributed in some
fashion, to close the Receivership, and end this matter. The Receiver proposes to disburse these
6/3/2026 6:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115712456
By: Adiliani Solis
Filed: 6/3/2026 6:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
questionquestion
What do the underlying Second Judgment, UCC filing and Legalist instruments establish about balance, collateral and competing entitlement?
questionquestion
What receiver ledger, fee order and Virginia recovery records reconcile the actual surplus and cross-proceeding offset?
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.
The plaintiffs expressly state that their First Judgment has been satisfied through collection and payment to them. Their requested continued participation instead rests on a claimed Second Judgment and UCC security interest; satisfaction of the first judgment does not resolve the second claim or receiver fees.supportsDoes this filing establish that the plaintiffs own the receivership surplus?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The plaintiffs expressly state that their First Judgment has been satisfied through collection and payment to them. Their requested continued participation instead rests on a claimed Second Judgment and UCC security interest; satisfaction of the first judgment does not resolve the second claim or receiver fees.supportsThe asserted collection basis shifts from an acknowledged satisfied First Judgment to the Second Judgment and claimed security interest; continued collection cannot be attributed to an unsatisfied First Judgment on this source alone.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert that on May 28, 2026 they domesticated a Second Virginia Judgment in cause 2026-35985 in the same court, with $6 million principal plus fees and interest. Their footnote references Exhibit A, but that judgment and enforcement petition are not attached in this seven-page source.supportsWhat do the underlying Second Judgment, UCC filing and Legalist instruments establish about balance, collateral and competing entitlement?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs invoke Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and cited intervention decisions, seek a hearing and intervention, and request deposit of surplus into the court registry until rightful ownership is decided. Their requested preservation of disputed funds is not an immediate award of those funds to themselves.supportsThe registry request would preserve the contested fund while entitlement is resolved, and does not itself establish plaintiffs’ priority over Legalist.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert that on May 28, 2026 they domesticated a Second Virginia Judgment in cause 2026-35985 in the same court, with $6 million principal plus fees and interest. Their footnote references Exhibit A, but that judgment and enforcement petition are not attached in this seven-page source.supportsThe asserted collection basis shifts from an acknowledged satisfied First Judgment to the Second Judgment and claimed security interest; continued collection cannot be attributed to an unsatisfied First Judgment on this source alone.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert a UCC security interest in Cyberlux nonexempt funds and approximately $6,025,000 secured debt superior to Legalist’s claim. The referenced UCC-1 Exhibit B is absent; this is a pleaded priority position rather than an adjudication of ownership or priority.supportsThe asserted collection basis shifts from an acknowledged satisfied First Judgment to the Second Judgment and claimed security interest; continued collection cannot be attributed to an unsatisfied First Judgment on this source alone.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert that on May 28, 2026 they domesticated a Second Virginia Judgment in cause 2026-35985 in the same court, with $6 million principal plus fees and interest. Their footnote references Exhibit A, but that judgment and enforcement petition are not attached in this seven-page source.supportsDoes this filing establish that the plaintiffs own the receivership surplus?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert a UCC security interest in Cyberlux nonexempt funds and approximately $6,025,000 secured debt superior to Legalist’s claim. The referenced UCC-1 Exhibit B is absent; this is a pleaded priority position rather than an adjudication of ownership or priority.supportsThe registry request would preserve the contested fund while entitlement is resolved, and does not itself establish plaintiffs’ priority over Legalist.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert a UCC security interest in Cyberlux nonexempt funds and approximately $6,025,000 secured debt superior to Legalist’s claim. The referenced UCC-1 Exhibit B is absent; this is a pleaded priority position rather than an adjudication of ownership or priority.supportsWhat do the underlying Second Judgment, UCC filing and Legalist instruments establish about balance, collateral and competing entitlement?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Footnote 3 states that recovery in the Virginia interpleader reduces or offsets the surplus claim and vice versa. The motion recognises a cross-proceeding offset, but supplies no payment ledger or calculation of the remaining balance.supportsWhat receiver ledger, fee order and Virginia recovery records reconcile the actual surplus and cross-proceeding offset?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs invoke Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and cited intervention decisions, seek a hearing and intervention, and request deposit of surplus into the court registry until rightful ownership is decided. Their requested preservation of disputed funds is not an immediate award of those funds to themselves.supportsDoes this filing establish that the plaintiffs own the receivership surplus?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Plaintiffs assert a UCC security interest in Cyberlux nonexempt funds and approximately $6,025,000 secured debt superior to Legalist’s claim. The referenced UCC-1 Exhibit B is absent; this is a pleaded priority position rather than an adjudication of ownership or priority.supportsDoes this filing establish that the plaintiffs own the receivership surplus?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion says Robert Berleth was appointed receiver on May 22, 2025 and now holds funds to close the receivership. Plaintiffs describe proposed fees to the receiver’s firm and the remainder to Legalist; they take no position on the fee amount and expect a surplus. Neither an approved fee amount nor the surplus balance appears here.supportsWhat receiver ledger, fee order and Virginia recovery records reconcile the actual surplus and cross-proceeding offset?
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.