July 15, 2026
Current, Mlazgar Near Jury Trial After Most Claims Dismissed
The court tossed 14 of Mlazgar's claims, leaving a much smaller fight for jurors
Three and a half years and 677 docket entries after Mlazgar Associates filed suit against its former lighting partner, the case is set for a jury in Greenville, South Carolina next month, and the fight that reaches trial looks nothing like the one that started it.
For lighting people who lost track of this one somewhere around document 300, a refresher. Mlazgar, a Minnesota agency, spent years representing Hubbell Lighting across Minnesota, the Dakotas and Northwest Wisconsin. In late 2020, the agency took on Cooper Lighting Solutions in that same territory rather than walking away from Hubbell Lighting first. Hubbell Lighting, which became HLI Solutions after Current's 2022 acquisition and now does business under the Current name, eventually terminated the relationship.
Mlazgar sued in December 2022, alleging breach of contract, fraud and misuse of confidential data, and claiming it was owed commissions. Current countersued, arguing Mlazgar broke the deal by taking on a competing line without permission. Progress Lighting, a former Hubbell sister brand now under private equity ownership, was pulled in as a defendant, along with parent company Hubbell Incorporated.
What the Sealed Order Says, According to the Lawyers
We have not seen the actual summary judgment order. Nobody outside this case has. It was entered under seal in November 2025 and remains confidential. What we do know comes from the way both sides describe it in more recent, unsealed filings, including a defense motion filed in late June arguing to exclude expert testimony.
According to those references, the court dismissed 14 of Mlazgar's 15 tort claims against Current. Those dismissed claims involved allegations such as fraud, conspiracy and misuse of confidential information. Separate contract disputes over the sales agreement remain headed to trial.
The one tort claim survived? Aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, tied to allegations that Current knew former Mlazgar employees had taken confidential data with them to rival agency JTH Lighting Alliance. Current's subsequent motion argues Mlazgar has no direct evidence Current knew anything of the sort, only the say-so of two witnesses who happen to work for Mlazgar. That fight over expert testimony, along with a stack of contract-damages disputes, is what remains for jurors to sort out.
Contract claims and counterclaims between Mlazgar and Current, separate from the dismissed tort counts, are also headed to trial. Current's counterclaim argues Mlazgar breached the sales agreement first, by taking on Cooper Lighting without the written approval the contract required, after Current had spent years funding the agency's growth through guaranteed commissions and employee subsidies.
Trial in August, If It Gets There
Court scheduling documents point to jury selection on August 10 and trial running from August 17 through September 4 before Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, in a courthouse a short drive from Current's own headquarters. Current is based in Greenville and counts among the larger employers in the Upstate.
By late June, the parties had filed more than twenty motions seeking to limit what jurors would hear. Whether the case actually reaches a verdict or settles first, as many disputes like this eventually do, is its own open question.
The trajectory here is a familiar one for readers who have followed Mlazgar's other litigation. The agency has a similar suit pending against Focal Point and Legrand in Minnesota federal court, involving overlapping claims about the same group of former employees and their move to JTH. That case is reportedly on a trial track of its own later this year. Two juries, two states, one set of underlying facts about who left Mlazgar, who they took with them and who is supposed to answer for it.
For lighting people watching the agency side of this business, the lesson is less about any single ruling and more about duration. A dispute over territory rights and a handful of departing employees has now consumed the better part of four years and hundreds of filings. Whatever a jury decides in Greenville, the bigger question is whether either side considers that outcome worth what it cost to get there.
