Pirc v. Upgrade, Inc. et al

A stipulation without a proposed order is the only public record in Pirc v. Upgrade, Inc. et al, docket 26-cv-02521.

The filing, entered April 20, 2026, suggests the parties reached some early procedural agreement — likely on a response deadline or service waiver — but did not ask the court to sign off on anything. That is either routine housekeeping or a sign the parties are moving carefully before a judge is even assigned.

No judge has been assigned as of this writing. The court is not identified in the available docket data, and the filing date for the complaint itself is not yet public. That combination — no judge, no court, no complaint date — means this case is in its earliest possible stage.

The case name puts an individual plaintiff, Pirc, against Upgrade, Inc. and unnamed additional defendants. is a San Francisco-based consumer lending company that offers personal loans and a credit card product.

Cases against consumer lenders at this stage typically involve claims under the Truth in Lending Act, state consumer protection statutes, or arbitration disputes. Nothing in the current record confirms which theory Pirc is pursuing.

The stipulation at docket entry 19 is the only substantive signal available. A stipulation filed that early in a case — before judge assignment, before any scheduling order — usually covers one of two things: an extension of time for a defendant to respond to the complaint, or an agreement about how service was accomplished.

Neither tells you much about the merits. What it does tell you is that counsel on both sides are already talking, which sometimes means early settlement discussions are running in parallel.