Friday, April 18, 2014

Consumer Shows Porsche a Thing...or Two


This is such a great video! It shows what it takes for a consumer to get a car baught back from these selfish manufacturers. As bad as this car is, Porsche still didn't want to refund his money. They offered him packages with Nick keeping the car. He refused. And then they demanded that he go to arbitration where consumers get screwed. In fact they offered him what they said he would likely get at arbitration - and it wasn't a refund. Nick held out - and along with a viral video - Porsche decided that world wide adverse publicity isn't good. It would be better to cave-in and give Nick a new car or refund. Without this video, Nick would have only received the Universal Shaft. Well done!

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT

Robert G. Montgomery Family Trust v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

April 15, 2014

It is disturbing that Tesla Motors, without basis in law or fact, accuses its customer of tampering with a fuse in order to gain advantage under the Wisconsin Lemon Law. This tactic is effective in social media where my client’s character has been brutally attacked.  However, in the courtroom, meritless allegations will be replaced by Tesla’s own confirmation of vehicle problems and 66 days in the repair shop.  Tesla knows this!

I expect to be called “a douchebag attorney”– people hate lawyers.  But when my client – a medical doctor who cared for U.S. soldiers in war – gets the same onslaught, that’s when the line is drawn.  After all, all he ever asked for was a refund for a bad car.

Tesla says, “we believe in lemon laws,” yet never responded to his three lemon law notices. Once he hires an attorney, however, he’s publically charged with intentionally causing the problems.

Tesla Motors is an innovative company.  But as with any auto manufacturer, things don’t always go as planned.  Recently Toyota was fined 1.2 Billion for covering up its unintended acceleration problem.  And GM is dealing with 13 deaths due to defective Cobalts.  Tomorrow, maybe Tesla will buy back a lemon.    

The following repairs were performed by Tesla on the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the Tesla WARRANTY and are documented on 14 separate Tesla Invoices:

12 V Battery replaced – 3 times; lower dash harness, left hand body harness, and main fuse box replaced; right side steering wheel controls found inoperative; replaced airbag assembly with control switches; fuse for contactor power blown; HV junction box and Master Charger installed per service support request; battery coolant pump #1 intermittently stopping, replaced coolant pump #1; per engineering, all 3 coolant pumps need replacing, all 3 replaced; replaced all door handles with Generation II handles; inspect Knuckle/Ball Joint Surfaces, install 4 Front Lower Control Arm Washers; Safety Recall: NEMA 14-50 adapter for Universal Mobile Connector (UMC) could overheat and result in increased risk of burn injury and/or fire; vehicle stopped charging at home, new UMC sent to customer for possible resolution; UMC reboots when using navigation, verified; engineering performed reset which did not resolve concern, verified result of firmware anomaly that would be resolved remotely once correction is installed.

For the above stated reasons, the Plaintiff, by his attorney Vince Megna, publically offers to settle this matter on the following terms.

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT OFFER

·      Tesla Motors will refund to the Plaintiff the sum of $108,600. Said sum includes purchase price, taxes, parcel shelf, paint armor, delivery, title and registration, 4 year service plan, tire replacement program, seat covers, Pivelli Winter tires and wheels, and floor  mats;

·      Upon receipt of said sum, the Plaintiff will return the 2013 Model S that is the subject of this action to a Chicago land Tesla Service Center, as instructed by Tesla;

·      Tesla Motors will pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs as determined by the court;

·      Upon receipt of all payments herein, the case will be dismissed on its merits, with prejudice; and

·      The plaintiff will not sign any type of confidentiality, hold harmless or indemnification agreement or provision.

This offer will be held open until April 22, 2014, 5:00 p.m. CST. If same is not accepted by such date, said offer will be withdrawn in its entirety and the case will continue.



                                                                              VINCE MEGNA
                                                                              Attorney for Plaintiff



Friday, April 11, 2014

Client's Response to Tesla's Blog Post

I am a medical doctor. I retired as a Colonel from the United States Army after 23 years of service. I served in Iraq, Kosovo, Nicaragua and South Korea providing medical care to soldiers and the local population. I was also a flight surgeon.


I am highly offended by Tesla’s allegation that I tampered with the fuse, and that the problems with the car are my fault. I have never tampered with my Model S or any part of it. The Blog post disappoints me because it is a clear attempt to transfer responsibility for a defective vehicle from Tesla to me.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Rebuttal to Tesla's Blog Post

April 10, 2014


Tesla Lemon Law suit

In Response to Tesla Blog:

In this case, Tesla ignored three lemon law demands from its customer. Tesla received the refund demands under Wisconsin’s Lemon Law on 11-25-13, 12-13-13 and 12-19-13.  All demands were sent by certified mail, delivered and verifiable on USPS.com.  Tesla erroneously states in its blog, “the customer did not make three demands for a buyback.”

Under the demands, Tesla was given 30 days to provide a refund. The vehicle was presented four times for the same nonconformity, and the vehicle was out of service for 66 days – 36 more than is allowed under the lemon law. Failure to provide a refund within the 30-day time period constitutes a violation of the Wisconsin lemon law.  Tesla did not provide the refund or respond in any way – no call, no letter, no blog post.

Service personal/auto mechanics do not have involvement in the decision to buy back a car.  That decision is made by the manufacturer – Tesla Motors, Inc.  In not responding to my client’s demand, Tesla’s decision was clear.  Tesla should not be “taken by surprise” with the suit, or claim it was “filed with no warning.”  The warning came last November.

Tesla may  “believe in lemon laws,” it just doesn’t know how they work.

Tesla takes the big corporation approach by attacking its customer, rather than addressing its own failures.  Diminish the person – make everything his fault. Blame your customer for problems that have “elusive origins.”  Or, allege foul play because a “fuse blew on three occasions,” and ”engineers were moved to consider the possibility that the fuse had been tampered with.”  Why not instead be moved to consider that Tesla has a problematic Model S that they just can’t fix?

It’s common on Tesla forums that door handles don’t work…that customers can’t get in their cars.  That is precisely that problem that has persisted in this case. Door handles not presenting is nothing new to Tesla.

My client filed a lawsuit against Tesla.  It remains obligated under the terms of the warranty to continue to repair defects with the Model S, not because of customer service, not because Tesla wants a happy customer, but because Tesla is required to by law.

I too find it “of interest” that more than one manufacturer rolls out a lemon now and then.  Just today Toyota recalled 6 Million vehicles, and in the past few months, GM recalled 5.1 Million.  Maybe tomorrow Tesla will buy back a lemon or two.

As a member of the “public” I appreciate your company taking the time to provide a Public Service Announcement that Lemon Laws can be “exploited by opportunistic lawyers.”

I too, have a Public Service Announcement: There are companies, great companies run by Billionaires, that force consumers to give up their Freedom of Speech and Right to Trial by Jury just for the opportunity to buy an electric car.

- Vince Megna