2:26-cv-04572 Kendra Gilliams v. Karl Exantus
Notice to Counsel Re: Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge - optional html form ( 8
Information regarding the case Thomas, Individually and on behalf of Irissie Thomas v. L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. et al is currently unavailable. The court and docket number for this matter are also not specified. Without access to the case filings or a detailed summary, it is impossible to determine the nature of the claims or the current status of the litigation.
Latest development
Order · April 26, 2026
The court issued an order.
description View filingCourt
D.N.J.
District of New Jersey · 3rd Circuit · NJ
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
2:26-cv-04572 Kendra Gilliams v. Karl Exantus
Other · May 06, 2026
Coverage
4 articles
3 sources tracked
Participants
2 Defendants, 2 Plaintiffs
7 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
This case is tied to District of New Jersey, a federal district court in NJ.
The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 06, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes L'Oreal USA Products, Inc, Karl Exantus, 1:26-cv-04572 Thomas, Individually and on behalf of Irissie Thomas and others.
Press monitoring has found 4 related articles from 3 distinct sources.
Thomas, Individually and on behalf of Irissie Thomas v. L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. et al is an active multidistrict litigation matter in District of New Jersey under docket 26-cv-04572.
The dispute currently identifies 1:26-cv-04572 Thomas, Individually and on behalf of Irissie Thomas and 2:26-cv-04572 Kendra Gilliams on one side and Karl Exantus and L'Oreal USA Products, Inc on the other.
The case is currently organized around Current docket activity and next procedural step, Habeas review and custody challenges, Coordination of related cases and pretrial management, Injunctive relief and immediate court intervention.
The available docket gives enough signal to track the case, but not enough to overstate the merits. This page will become more useful as filings, orders, hearings, and party appearances add detail.
On May 6, 2026, the docket recorded a other: A notice was filed in the case of Kendra Gilliams v. Karl Exantus, which is a separate case from Thomas v. The notice informs counsel that they have the option to consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge.
This is a procedural. On April 27, 2026, the docket recorded a order: The court issued an order. On April 22, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted a motion to dismiss the case Thomas, Individually and on behalf of Irissie Thomas v. et al, effectively ending the lawsuit. The plaintiff's claims against L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. were dismissed due to lack of.
The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.
District of New Jersey (D.N.J.) is a federal district court in the 3rd Circuit, NJ.
A notice was filed in the case of Kendra Gilliams v. Karl Exantus, which is a separate case from Thomas v. L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. The notice informs counsel that they have the option to consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge. This is a procedural step that allows the parties to choose how their case will be handled.
The court issued an order.
The court issued an order.
The court granted a motion to dismiss the case Thomas, Individually and on behalf of Irissie Thomas v. L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. et al, effectively ending the lawsuit. The plaintiff's claims against L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. were dismissed due to lack of evidence. This decision has significant implications for the plaintiff's ability to pursue further action.
Notice to Counsel Re: Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge - optional html form ( 8
Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order
Temporary Restraining Order ( 2
Sources tracked
3 outlets · 4 articles
Timeline events
4 records on file
Last updated
7 hours, 20 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.