Orders

CAUSE NO. 24-0702-CC5 ARAMCOR, INC., Plaintiff v. TRI MARSH RETAIL LLC, Defendant IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRADITIONAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On this day, the Court heard Aramcor, Inc.'s motion for traditional summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Tri Marsh Retail LLC. After considering the motion and Tri Marsh's response, the Court GRANTS Aramcor's motion for summary judgment. Aramcor is awarded judgment for liquidated damages in the amount of $44,658.57, attorney's fees in the amount of $28,929.12 and post-judgment interest. This disposes of all claims and all parties and is a final appealable judgment. SIGNED on March 7, 2025. _______________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE

Complete — one page.

CAUSE NO. 24-0702-CC5 ARAMCOR, INC., Plaintiff v. TRI MARSH RETAIL LLC, Defendant IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT On this day, the Court heard Aramcor, Inc.'s motion for no-evidence summary judgment on Tri Marsh Retail LLC's affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction, lack of consideration, lack of contractual privity, and the Statute of Frauds. After considering the motion and Tri Marsh's response, the Court GRANTS Aramcor's motion and finds that there is no evidence to support Tri Marsh Retail LLC's affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction, lack of consideration, lack of contractual privity, and Statute of Frauds. SIGNED on March 7, 2025. _______________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE

Complete — one page.

CAUSE NO. 24-0702-CC5 ARAMCOR, INC., Plaintiff v. TRI MARSH RETAIL LLC, Defendant IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE On this day, the Court heard Aramcor, Inc.'s objection to the summary judgment evidence submitted by Tri Marsh Retail LLC with its summary judgment response. The Court finds that the declaration of Bo Avery contradicts the discovery responses previously provided by Tri Marsh, including in its initial disclosures and interrogatory responses. Further, the Avery declaration is conclusory and does not provide any underlying facts with respect to any alleged breach by Aramcor. For both reasons, the statements in the Avery declaration concerning any breach by Aramcor are struck and inadmissible. The Court also finds that the declaration of Kevin Wiley is conclusory and does not provide any underlying facts with respect to billing entries or the reasonableness or necessity of attorney fees. The statements in the Wiley declaration concerning the reasonableness or necessity of attorney fees are struck and inadmissible. SIGNED on March 7, 2025. _______________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE

Complete — one page.

CAUSE NO. 2016CV02672 UNITED BIOLOGICS, LLC d/b/a UNITED ALLERGY SERVICES, Plaintiff v. SANTAN HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS DEFAULT JUDGMENT On 1/12/17, Plaintiff, UNITED BIOLOGICS, LLC d/b/a UNITED ALLERGY SERVICES moved for default judgment after Defendant SANTAN HEALTH SERVICES, LLC failed to file an answer in this case. At the hearing, Plaintiff appeared through its attorney. Defendant, SANTAN HEALTH SERVICES, LLC did not appear. The court determined that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this proceeding. After considering the pleadings, the papers on file in this case, and the evidence Plaintiff presented on liability and damages, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The court hereby RENDERS judgment for Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff recover damages from Defendant SANTAN HEALTH SERVICES, LLC in the sum of $69,761.43, pre-judgment interest in the sum of $20,101.70 and post-judgment interest on the total sum at the annual rate of 18%, attorney fees of $1,500.00, and court costs. The court finds the following: 1. Defendant was served with citation and a copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition on September 15, 2016. 2. The citation and proof of service were on file with this court for at least ten days before the judgment was rendered. 3. The deadline for Defendant to file an answer was October 10, 2016. Defendant was required to file an answer the following Monday after 20 days from the date of service of citation and Plaintiff’s amended petition; however, Defendant did not file an answer or any other pleading constituting an answer. 4. Defendant’s last known address is 2181 East Pecos Road, Suite 1, Chandler, Arizona 85225. 5. The damages claimed in Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition were proven by the affidavits and other evidence presented by Plaintiff. 6. This judgment disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable. SIGNED ON 1/12/17. _______________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING

Complete — two pages, both reproduced here. The judge wrote the date in by hand in two places and signed above JUDGE PRESIDING on page 2.

CAUSE NO. 11-1187-C368 ROUND ROCK BUSINESS PARK, L.P., Plaintiff v. ELECTRONIC POLYMERS, INC., ELECTRONIC POLYMERS NEWCO, INC., and CARDIGAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants IN THE DISTRICT COURT WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AGREED FINAL JUDGMENT On February 7, 2012, the Court heard Plaintiff Round Rock Business Park, L.P. and Defendants Electronic Polymers, Inc. and Electronic Polymers Newco, Inc.'s Joint Motion for Agreed Judgment. The parties appeared before the Court for the hearing on the motion. No jury was demanded by either party. After considering the pleadings, motions, responses, evidence on file, and arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court hereby RENDERS judgment for Plaintiff Round Rock Business Park, L.P. against Defendants Electronic Polymers, Inc. and Electronic Polymers Newco, Inc. 1. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Round Rock Business Park, L.P. recover damages from Defendants Electronic Polymers, Inc. and Electronic Polymers Newco, Inc., jointly and severally, in the sum of $208,045.41, attorney fees in the amount of $12,131.29 post-judgment interest at the annual rate of 10%, and court costs. [Paragraph 2 is struck through on the face of the order and initialled in the margin. It read: "The Court ORDERS that all provisions of the Compromise and Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreed Final Judgment, unless specifically modified by this Agreed Final Judgment."] [Paragraph 3 is struck through on the face of the order. It read: "The Court ORDERS that the Compromise and Settlement Agreement is enforceable."] 4. This judgment is final, disposes of all claims and all parties, and is appealable. 5. The Court orders execution to issue for this judgment. SIGNED ON February 8, 2012. _______________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE [Page 3] AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE: _______________________________ THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. HENRY, P.C. John P. Henry, State Bar No. 24055655 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF _______________________________ TED SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC Theodore D. "Ted" Smith, Jr., State Bar No. 18753800 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ELECTRONIC POLYMER, INC., AND ELECTRONIC POLYMERS NEWCO, INC.

Complete — three pages, all reproduced here. Paragraphs 2 and 3 were struck through by hand before signing and initialled in the margin; they are shown struck below, as they appear on the order. Page 3 carries the signatures of counsel for both sides.

CAUSE NO. 11-0982-CC4 SOUTHWESTERN RETAIL PROPERTIES, L.P., Plaintiff v. MARIACHIS DE JALISCO, INC., JAIME FERNANDEZ, TOM GROSZEK, ANA GROSZEK, REYNALDO LEON, ANATALIA VILLEGAS, AND FRANCISCO REYES, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, Defendants IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT After considering Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the pleadings, the affidavits, and arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Ana Groszek. Because the unliquidated damages were proved by affidavit, Plaintiff is awarded damages of $61,207.41. SIGNED ON February 7, 2012. /s/ John B. McMaster PRESIDING JUDGE [Second instrument, same cause and same day] DEFAULT JUDGMENT On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff, SOUTHWESTERN RETAIL PROPERTIES, L.P., moved for default judgment after defendant failed to file an answer in this case. At the hearing, Plaintiff appeared through its attorney. Defendant, ANA GROSZEK did not appear. The court determined it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this proceeding. After considering the pleadings, the papers on file in this case, and the evidence Plaintiff presented on liability and damages, the court grants Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court hereby RENDERS judgment for Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff recover damages from Defendant in the sum of $61,207.41 and post judgment interest on the total sum at the annual rate of 5%, attorney fees of $3,375.00, and court costs. The court finds the following: 1. Defendant was served with citation and a copy of Plaintiff's Original Petition on November 17, 2011. 2. The citation and proof of service were on file with this court for at least ten days before the judgment was rendered. 3. The deadline for Defendant to file an answer was December 12, 2011. Defendant was required to file an answer by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday first following the expiration of 20 days from the date of service of citation and Plaintiff's petition; however, Defendant did not file an answer or any other pleading constituting an answer. 4. Defendant's last known address is 915 North Commerce Street, Stockton, California, 95202. 5. Defendant is not a member of the United States military. 6. The damages claimed in Plaintiff's Original Petition were proven by the affidavits and other evidence presented by Plaintiff. 7. This judgment does not dispose of all claims and all parties. SIGNED ON February 7, 2012. /s/ John B. McMaster PRESIDING JUDGE

Complete — three pages, all reproduced here. Two instruments signed the same day: the order granting the motion, and the judgment itself. Both carry the conformed signature of Judge John B. McMaster and the County Clerk’s file stamp. Finding 7 is the point of the exhibit: the judgment expressly does not dispose of all claims and all parties.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION In re: ARGDOWNTOWN, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 22-31529-SGJ AGREED ORDER DISMISSING THE DEBTOR'S CHAPTER 11 CASE Signed June 29, 2023. The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described. Upon consideration of the Agreed Motion for Entry of an Order Pursuant to Sections 105(a), 305(a), and 1112(b) Authorizing Dismissal of the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case ("Motion") of ARGDOWNTOWN, LLC, the debtor and debtor-in-possession ("Debtor") of the above-captioned Chapter 11 Case and the Declaration of Richard Ellman in Support of the Motion; and the Court having subject matter jurisdiction to consider and determine the Motion, and grant the requested relief in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; and consideration of the Motion being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and it appearing that due and sufficient notice of the Motion has been given; and upon the record of the hearings on the Motion and all of the proceedings had before this Court; and all objections to the Motion having been withdrawn, resolved, or overruled; and the Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Motion is granted to the extent set forth herein. 2. Pursuant to sections 305(a) and 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Chapter 11 Case is hereby dismissed. 3. The Debtor is authorized and empowered to take any and all steps necessary and appropriate to effectuate the terms of this Order, including payment of all creditor claims and administrative claims. 4. Notwithstanding the applicability of any Bankruptcy Rules, the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry. 5. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Chapter 11 Case, this Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to any matters, claims, rights, or disputes arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, or enforcement of this or any other Order of this Court entered in the Chapter 11 Case. ### END OF ORDER ### [Page 3] Respectfully submitted by: /s/ John P. Henry John P. Henry (SBT: 24055655) JOHN HENRY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Attorney for Debtor Agreed to by: /s/ Ryan E. Manns Ryan E. Manns, Michael C. Berthiaume NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP — and — David A. Rosenzweig (admitted pro hac vice) NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Attorneys for AT&T Services, Inc.

Complete — three pages, all reproduced here. Page 3 carries the signature of counsel for the debtor and the agreement of counsel for the objecting creditor.

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-24-000256 AUSTIN GARDENERS, LLC, Plaintiff v. KENNETH TUCK d/b/a SITE RITE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Defendant IN THE DISTRICT COURT TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 201st JUDICIAL DISTRICT AGREED ORDER TO ABATE On August 22, 2024, Defendant's Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration and Plea in Abatement was set for hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties announced that they had reached an agreement to mediate this matter and to proceed with AAA arbitration if mediation is unsuccessful. The parties agree to mediate no later than October 25, 2024. The Court orders that this matter is abated during the pendency of AAA Arbitration Case No. 01-24-0006-7102. The Court retains jurisdiction to render judgment on any arbitration award pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §171.081. _______________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE 459th DISTRICT COURT [Page 2] AGREED: _______________________________ Tom Murphy Attorney for Plaintiff Austin Gardeners _______________________________ John Henry Attorney for Defendant Ken Tuck

Complete — two pages, both reproduced here. The order carries no handwritten signing date, so the date of record is the clerk’s file stamp. The caption reads 201st Judicial District; the signature sits above a stamp reading MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, 459th DISTRICT COURT. Page 2 carries the agreement signatures of counsel for both parties.

CAUSE NO. 25-0131-C26 GREGG MURPHY and DAYLA MURPHY, Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC and THOMAS MCGRATH, Defendants IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS 26th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER GRANTING FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On January 21, 2026, the Court heard Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration. The Court considered the Plaintiffs' motion and the attached declaration of Gregg Murphy in support. The Court also considered Liberty Hill Construction's ("LHC") response and the attached declaration of Thomas McGrath in support. The Court finds that Plaintiffs substantially invoked the judicial process to LHC's detriment and prejudice and have waived their right to arbitration. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration is DENIED. The Court also heard LHC's Objections to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence. The Court SUSTAINS the objections and STRIKES all documents attached to the Gregg Murphy and Johnny Ramirez Declarations as unauthenticated hearsay. The Court also SUSTAINS the Defendants' objections to the Gregg Murphy Declaration. Gregg Murphy, as a homeowner, cannot provide competent summary judgment evidence concerning the alleged deficiencies in LHC's work and did not provide any foundation for the opinions. The Court also SUSTAINS Defendants' objection to the admission of the Johnny Ramirez Declaration in its entirety where it was untimely under the mandatory exclusion requirement of […] [Page 1 ends. Transcript continues on the following page of the order.]

Page 1 of the order, as published here. The order continues beyond the page reproduced.

CAUSE NO. 25-0131-C26 GREGG MURPHY and DAYLA MURPHY, Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC and THOMAS MCGRATH, Defendants IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS 26th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT CREDITOR LIBERTY HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC'S APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF POST-JUDGMENT RECEIVER On this day came on for consideration the Application for Turnover Order and Appointment of Post-Judgment Receiver (the "Application") filed by Judgment Creditor Liberty Hill Construction, LLC ("LHC") against Judgment Debtors Gregg Murphy and Dayla Murphy (the "Judgment Debtors") under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 31.002. The Court considered the Application, the Declaration of Thomas McGrath, the exhibits attached thereto, the response (if any) of the Judgment Debtors, the arguments of counsel, and the pleadings and papers on file in this cause. FINDINGS The Court FINDS as follows: 1. On March 4, 2026, the Court signed a Final Summary Judgment in favor of LHC and against the Judgment Debtors (the "Judgment"). The Judgment is final, is not dormant, and is not superseded. The Judgment Debtors have not posted a supersedeas bond or made any deposit in lieu of bond. The Judgment Debtors' motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on May 18, 2026. The Judgment remains wholly unsatisfied. 2. LHC is a judgment creditor; this Court is a court of appropriate jurisdiction; the relief sought is to obtain satisfaction of the Judgment; and the Judgment Debtors own nonexempt real and personal property, including the property identified in the Application and the Declaration of Thomas McGrath. 3. The Judgment Debtors are presently engaged in the dissipation of their estate, including by offering substantial personal property for sale on Facebook Marketplace under Gregg Murphy's name, by executing intra-family warranty deeds the day after the Judgment was signed, and by failing to respond in any manner to LHC's properly served post-judgment discovery. [Page 1 ends. Transcript continues on the following pages of the order.]

Page 1 of the order, as published here. The findings continue and the decretal paragraphs appointing the receiver follow on later pages.