August 12, 2025
Mlazgar Wins Key Ruling in Focal Point Lawsuit
Court finds Focal Point liable under rep law but rejects parts of Mlazgar’s broader case
Minnesota’s rep-protection law is arguably the toughest in the country, requiring manufacturers to show good cause, give 90 days’ notice, and allow a chance to fix alleged shortcomings before cutting ties. Those unusually rigid safeguards are now at the center of a drawn-out commercial dispute that takes place in the Upper Midwest’s lighting market, pulling in competing agencies, high-value manufacturer lines, and a trail of internal emails labeled “The Plan.”
For those just tuning back in, this dispute began in 2022 when Focal Point, a Chicago-based lighting manufacturer owned by Legrand, cut ties with Minnesota rep agency R.L. Mlazgar Associates in the Eastern Wisconsin and Upper Peninsula territory. Mlazgar cried foul, claiming the termination wasn’t legal under Minnesota’s unusually rigid rep-protection law — and accusing Focal Point of sharing its confidential sales data with rival agent JTH Lighting, the same competitor that had siphoned away seven of Mlazgar’s employees a year earlier.
Court records show that after those defections, Mlazgar lost contracts in Wisconsin with several non-Legrand manufacturers named in “The Plan” correspondence, including Bega, Kelvix, Hubbell Lighting (now Current), Luminii and Structura.
This week’s federal court order marks the most significant development since the lawsuit was filed, narrowing the battlefield and setting the stage for trial.
How We Got Here
The chain reaction started in late 2020, when Mlazgar bought the assets of Wisconsin rep Elan Lighting and, with it, relationships with more than 100 manufacturer lines, including Focal Point. A year later, seven former Elan employees — by then on Mlazgar’s payroll — left to help form JTH Lighting Alliance Wisconsin. According to internal emails later revealed in court, this was part of a coordinated “Plan” developed by a JTH principal and a Legrand vice president.
The JTH-Legrand correspondence outlined the hiring of the seven employees, the pursuit of multiple manufacturer lines in the territory, and the delivery of a $250,000 “market development” payment.
In March 2021, Mlazgar and Focal Point renewed their partnership with a new rep agreement. But by February 2022, Focal Point notified Mlazgar that it was “entertaining a new course of direction” — thirty days before replacing Mlazgar with JTH. Under Minnesota law, that short timeline, lack of “good cause,” and absence of a cure period are big problems if the statute applies. And the court just confirmed that it does.
August 11 Ruling: What Survives
In a 49-page decision, the court ruled that Focal Point violated the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act (MTSRA) and is liable on that claim. The amount of damages will be left to a jury. The judge also refused to dismiss Mlazgar’s breach of contract claim over the alleged disclosure of confidential sales order forms to JTH, meaning both liability and damages on that claim will also go to trial.
It wasn’t a clean sweep for Mlazgar. The court tossed its trade secret claims under both state and federal law, finding no evidence that Focal Point or Legrand misappropriated protected information. Several other tort claims — civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference — also didn’t survive.
On the flip side, Focal Point saw all four of its remaining counterclaims dismissed, including breach of contract and trademark infringement.
Mlazgar Claims vs. Focal Point / Legrand |
|
|---|---|
| Claim | Status |
| Count I — MTSRA (Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act) | Summary judgment in favor of Mlazgar. Damages to be decided by jury. |
| Trade Secrets — MUTSA (Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act) | Dismissed: no qualifying trade secrets found |
| Trade Secrets — DTSA (Defend Trade Secrets Act) | Dismissed: no qualifying trade secrets found |
| Breach of Contract (confidentiality provision) | Survives: jury to decide liability and damages |
| Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty | Dismissed: insufficient evidence |
| Civil Conspiracy | Dismissed: insufficient evidence |
| Tortious Interference with Contract | Dismissed: insufficient evidence |
Focal Point Counterclaims vs. Mlazgar |
|
|---|---|
| Counterclaim | Status |
| Breach of Contract | Dismissed on summary judgment in favor of Mlazgar |
| Breach of Fiduciary Duty | Dismissed on summary judgment in favor of Mlazgar |
| Unjust Enrichment | Dismissed on summary judgment in favor of Mlazgar |
| Conversion (wrongful taking of property) | Dismissed on summary judgment in favor of Mlazgar |
Legrand did not immediately respond to a request for comment before press time; we will update if one is received.
“All of Focal Point’s counterclaims against Mlazgar have been dismissed and the Court has held Focal Point liable for violating the sales representative statute and also allowed Mlazgar to proceed with its claim that Focal Point breached its contract with Mlazgar. We are happy with how the matter is progressing. “
- Mark Mlazgar, CEO, Mlazgar Associates
What Happens Next
If the case makes it to trial, it will be limited to two questions:
- How much should Mlazgar receive for Focal Point’s MTSRA violation?
- Did Focal Point breach the contract’s confidentiality clause, and if so, what are the damages?
The stakes could be significant. Minnesota’s law allows damages for both wrongful termination and wrongful non-renewal, and the jury could hear evidence on lost commissions beyond the one-year renewal period — though the court hasn’t decided if that will be allowed.
And while this case inches toward trial, Mlazgar remains locked in a similar battle with Current (formerly Hubbell Lighting), also tied to JTH’s expansion into Wisconsin. Different manufacturer, some similar core allegations: abrupt termination, commissions in dispute, and accusations of back-channel deals.
In the world of Upper Midwest lighting representation, the cast list doesn’t seem to change much — only the script and the set.
