Press & public information — Houston, Texas
Garcia v. Bayport Laboratories
Case summary page for Milagros Garcia and Giselle Garcia.
Federal case No. 4:25-cv-03676 is filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Related Harris County matters include No. 2025-41725 and No. 2026-05597.
Case Overview
Milagros Garcia and Giselle Garcia v. Bayport Laboratories, LLC, BL Holdings LLC, Yaumara Camacho, and Angle D. Camacho
This overview summarizes publicly reported facts related to the captioned matters in federal and state court. The intent is to provide a clear, factual framework for readers and media, without asserting legal conclusions.
Courts & Case Numbers
Federal: 4:25-cv-03676, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division .
State: No. 2025-41725, Harris County District Court.
State (Camacho): No. 2026-05597, Harris County District Court.
Case Type
- employment retaliation
- whistleblower protection
- malicious prosecution
- insurance bad faith
- civil conspiracy
- defamation/IIED
- third-party retaliation (doxing of sex trafficking survivor)
Parties
Plaintiffs: Milagros Garcia and daughter who was never employed and owes no duty to Bayport.
Defendants: Bayport Laboratories, LLC (Houston, Texas), BL Holdings LLC, Yaumara Camacho, and Angle D. Camacho. Bayport Laboratories is identified as a Houston-based company; BL Holdings LLC is described as the ownership entity for Bayport.
Employment note: The overview states that Milagros Garcia was terminated after alleged misconduct that Nationwide internally reviewed as unsubstantiated.
Key Facts (Reported Assertions)
Employment period: The summary states that Milagros Garcia was employed at Bayport from February 10 to June 8, 2025.
Termination basis: The materials report that she was terminated for alleged misconduct.
Internal review: The summary further states that Nationwide specialist Natasha Mertz admitted in a signed TDI response that the charges were internally reviewed and not substantiated.
Post-termination filings: The materials allege that Bayport and the Camachos filed retaliatory counterclaims in federal court and a separate state action after the termination.
Personal information disclosure: The summary asserts that those filings exposed personal information of Giselle Garcia, described here as a sex trafficking survivor who never worked at Bayport.
Corporate Ownership Chain (Undisclosed)
The summary alleges that Bayport sits within a multinational structure that was not fully disclosed in the Rule 7.1 Certificate of Interested Persons (Doc. 13, filed 9/17/2025). It states the certificate listed only nine names while at least 18 additional entities and individuals with direct financial interests were omitted.
Listed omitted interests (as reported in the summary):
- Cornell Capital (CC KDC Co-Invest LP), including Henry Cornell and 499 Park Avenue, New York.
- CDPQ, described as having board observer rights.
- KKR & Co., with Felix Gernburd joining the KDC/One board in 2022.
- Upper Invest Ltd. / Barkis Trust, controlled by Clare Thorpe with Timothy Thorpe on the board.
The basis cited for these details is KDC/One’s SEC S-1 Registration Statement (CIK 1846055), filed July 12, 2021 and prepared by Goldman Sachs and eight other underwriters. The summary states that the S-1 named Bayport in the Related Party Transactions section with $2.0M in purchases in FY2021, and that the IPO was later withdrawn via Form RW on October 19, 2021.
These items are presented as reported allegations or assertions from the provided summary, not as adjudicated findings.
Public / Media Statement
Public / Media Statement
This page centralizes publicly available information about the matter known as Garcia v. Bayport Laboratories for public understanding, media review, and industry awareness. It is intended to provide a clear, neutral overview of the case and its stated subject matter.
The page summarizes reported allegations concerning retaliation, public filings, and corporate disclosure issues, and includes references to publicly cited materials such as a Rule 7.1 Certificate of Interested Persons and KDC/One SEC filings.
The matter involves allegations described in filings and related materials, including retaliation, whistleblower protection, malicious prosecution, insurance bad faith, civil conspiracy, defamation/intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and third-party retaliation. These references are presented as allegations and case topics, not as findings of fact.
The purpose is organized public understanding and media review, not adjudication, and sensitive personal information is handled with care in the presentation.
“We are committed to transparent, accurate reporting of case information and to protecting vulnerable individuals by presenting facts with care.”
For additional context, please review the frequently asked questions below.
FAQ
Common questions about this case page
These answers are written for clarity and newsroom use. They summarize the purpose of this page without interpreting legal outcomes.