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
No comments:
Post a Comment