August 7, 2025
Mlazgar vs. Current: Partial Dismissal & Subpoena Tussle
Five claims are out, but trade secrets and tortious interference remain. Plus, Cooper Lighting pushes back.
In the multi-year legal saga pitting Minnesota lighting rep R.L. Mlazgar Associates against major manufacturers formerly under the Hubbell Lighting umbrella, a new federal ruling has narrowed, but not derailed, the expansive list of claims against the defendants. The August 5, 2025, court order trims the case slightly, but leaves a large portion intact, especially against HLI Solutions and Litecontrol, which now operate under the Current brand.
The case centers on events in 2020, when Mlazgar pivoted to represent Cooper Lighting in the Upper Midwest without first initiating a termination with Current. That strategic maneuver triggered a cascade of fallout. Current terminated the contract, and Mlazgar fired back with a barrage of claims, including breach of contract, unpaid commissions, trade secret theft, and civil conspiracy. The agency alleges a coordinated effort by the manufacturers, a rival rep (JTH Lighting), and former employees to undercut its business.
The dispute bears striking similarities to Mlazgar’s earlier lawsuit against Focal Point and its parent company Legrand — another case rooted in terminated rep agreements, withheld commissions, and allegations of misconduct following a shift to JTH Lighting.
A Cascade of Accusations
Mlazgar’s Second Amended Complaint spans 18 counts, accusing Current, Litecontrol, Progress Lighting, and Hubbell Inc. of misconduct ranging from garden-variety breach of contract to weightier accusations like fraud, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
In its latest ruling, the U.S. District Court in South Carolina dismissed five claims against Progress Lighting and Hubbell Inc. — most notably those grounded in fraud and misrepresentation. The court found that Mlazgar failed to plead with the specificity required to keep those allegations alive.
But it wasn’t a sweeping win for the defense. Eight of the 18 claims remain active against both Progress and Hubbell, including the most serious allegations: trade secrets violations, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment.
“The Court order states that 12 of our claims against HLI survived dismissal, as did 8 of our claims against Litecontrol and Progress,” said Mark Mlazgar, CEO of Mlazgar Associates. “We like the way things are progressing.”
Current, which generally does not comment on ongoing litigation, did not offer a statement when reached.
Cooper Lighting Drawn In. Subpoena Transferred.
Minor subplot: A related skirmish has unfolded in Georgia, where Current served a subpoena on Cooper Lighting, requesting documents tied to Mlazgar’s 2020 switch to Cooper and its acquisition of Elan Lighting. Cooper, headquartered in Peachtree City, refused to comply and filed a motion to quash.
On the same day as the partial dismissal, a Georgia federal judge ruled that the subpoena dispute would be transferred to South Carolina, where the main case is being tried. The court cited “judicial efficiency” and the risk of inconsistent rulings, effectively placing all major discovery disputes under one roof.
Understanding the Players
- Current (HLI Solutions & Litecontrol): The central defendants and primary targets of Mlazgar’s allegations. Both were part of Hubbell Lighting before being acquired by Current in 2022.
- Litecontrol: Although a Current brand today, Litecontrol remains a separately incorporated entity and distinct defendant, likely due to its legacy as an employee-owned company (ESOP) when Hubbell acquired it in the 2010s.
- Progress Lighting: A former Hubbell business not acquired by Current. Now owned by a California-based private equity firm, Progress remains a co-defendant but is fighting the case on its own legal footing.
- Hubbell Inc.: No longer affiliated with Current or its former lighting division, but still named in the lawsuit for its alleged role in the events prior to divestiture.
- Cooper Lighting: Mlazgar's main lighting partner. Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant but drawn into discovery due to its 2020 alignment with Mlazgar. The subpoena seeks details about that transition and the Elan Lighting acquisition.
Bigger Picture
What began as a messy territory transition has grown into a drawn-out commercial dispute that pulls together rival reps, corporate reorganizations, and aggressive legal posturing. The August 5 ruling pared back some of the claims but did little to slow the case’s momentum.
With discovery heating up and trial preparation underway, this lawsuit continues to spotlight the complex — and sometimes fragile — relationships between lighting manufacturers and their regional sales agents.
A year ago, the presiding judge set jury selection for August 8, 2025. That deadline, like most in this case, has quietly slipped. Delays have piled up — more than a freight backlog at a fixture factory short on drivers and drivers. With discovery still inching toward the finish line and court-ordered mediation queued up next, a trial or settlement may not materialize before 2026.
More to come.
