Tesla files motion for dismissal of Eberhard lawsuit
by Sam Abuelsamid on Jul 1st 2009 at 7:58AM 
And the battle goes on. Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk and his company are fighting back in court against ex-CEO Martin Eberhard. Tesla spokeswoman Rachel Konrad sent us copies of two motions filed on June 29 in California Superior Court in San Mateo. In short, the defendants are claiming that Eberhard's claims are utterly baseless. Tesla is proclaiming that Eberhard's action is a SLAPP suit (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and is an attempt to intimidate and silence a critic by burdening him with a costly, time-consuming legal defense.
Konrad goes on to explain:
"Please note that this isn't a "counter claim." Rather, Tesla is seeking an "anti-SLAPP motion" to get Eberhard's meritless lawsuit dismissed because:
- Eberhard's lawsuit is a personal attack full of false statements, and it paints a fictitious picture of Tesla's history that is sharply at odds with the truth.
- Eberhard's lawsuit seeks to stifle robust debate and create a "chilling effect" on the right to free speech. As the filing states, "His lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to curb open discourse on matters of importance to the public and to extract money from Tesla in the bargain. He also takes the extraordinary (and hypocritical) step of seeking an injunction that would prevent Musk from exercising his free speech rights in public or private."
Interestingly, the motions were filed and copies were sent to ABG before Eberhard had received them or they had been posted on the court web-site. You can read the two Tesla motions here and here.
[Source: Tesla Motors]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Yanquetino 9:35AM (7/01/2009)
Oops. Just couldn't resist taking another swing at the tar-baby, huh?
Yes, we're all for "free speech," but that does not give one license to publicly slander, libel, or lie.
Rachel: Did you forget to also send AutoblogGreen a scan of that physics diploma?
Reply
Yanquetino 11:01AM (7/02/2009)
The more I've thought about this motion, the more I've had to roll my eyes. The irony is so thick that you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw.
Musk asserts that Eberhard is trying to prevent him "from exercising his free speech rights in public or private."
Well... if Musk is now such a strong advocate of "free speech rights," he must have realized that the non-disparagement clause imposed upon Eberhard is null-and-void. right?
Can't have it both ways. Two-way street. Good for goose and gander.
Reply