Update: a lot of new details, all bad, have come out due to a PDF redaction failure. See below.
Discovery has finally concluded in the "funding secured" class-action suit, In re: Tesla Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-4865, N.D.Cal.. The lead plaintiff says the evidence is indisputable as to key questions in the case, and therefore those questions should be decided by the judge at a hearing on March 10, rather than be put to a jury at the trial in June.
Accordingly, yesterday the lead plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the elements of falsity, scienter, and reliance. Most all of the new information that came out in discovery is redacted (at least for now) (but not effectively, see updates below), but it seems not to have been too helpful for Tesla. Plaintiff summarizes the situation as this:
> From August 7, 2018 to August 17, 2018, Musk’s tweets that he had a fully funded proposal to take Tesla private at $420 per share with confirmed investor support roiled the market for Tesla stock and other securities. No part of this unconventional announcement was true: Musk had not secured funding to take Tesla private at $420 per share nor confirmed investor support. Furthermore, Musk knew that, as of August 7, 2018 when he impulsively tweeted to over 22 million followers, his going private proposal was little more than a preliminary, half-baked concept. When the truth about the haphazard and misleading nature of the statements was revealed, Tesla’s investors lost billions of dollars. Based on the evidentiary record in this case, no reasonable juror could conclude that the August 7 and August 13, 2018 statements were not materially false and misleading, that Musk did not make those statements with scienter, and that class members did not rely on those statements. Partial summary judgment should be entered in Plaintiff’s favor.
The brief includes this blast-from-the-past contemporary reaction to the tweets by JP Morgan, before the world understood that Elon Musk is a fully post-truth CEO:
> As surprising to us as these developments are, and as lacking as the statements are in any details regarding who is expected to provide the required amount of financing and on what terms, they are nevertheless declarative statements from the CEO
... keep reading on reddit ➡Maybe just me but it seems like so many judges are just not ruling on motions for summary judgment lately. We recently had a case go to trial last month where the judge didn't rule on one until 4 days before trial. We have another case set for trial in 1 month with all our pre-trial briefing, MILs, etc. due this week and we've had a MSJ pending for months. You would think judges would want to rule on these and get them off their dockets or at least rule early enough for attorneys to avoid trial prep work that may not be necessary on certain issues.
^(Because Samsung opted to largely repeat its earlier cross-motion, Samsung’s opposition brief does not engage meaningfully with Netlist’s arguments or evidence in support of summary judgment. Samsung does not contest that (1) the JDLA was an enforceable contract, (2) Netlist need not prove damages in order to obtain partial summary judgment, and (3) Netlist properly followed the JDLA’s termination provisions. See Br. §§ IV(A), (D) (F). And as to the remaining elements of Netlist’sclaim—Netlist’s performance, Samsung’s breach, and the materiality thereof—none of the points raised for the first time in Samsung’s opposition brief provide any basis to deny Netlist’s motion.)
Unable to confront the JDLA’s straightforward language, Samsung’s opposition leapfrogs past the contract fully executed by both parties and proceeds straight to extrinsic evidence, including preliminary and superseded negotiation history. According to Samsung, “the only way to interpret the supply provision in Section 6.2 is to look at the MOU.” Opp. 8; see also id. (referring to negotiation history as “the only relevant data points for interpreting Section 6.2.”). No legal authority is cited for that remarkable assertion because none exists. As New York’s highest court has explained, “extrinsic and parol evidence is not admissible to create ambiguity” and “may not be considered” in the interpretation of a contract that “is complete and clear and unambiguous upon its face.” S. Road Assocs., LLC v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 272, 278 (2005). Having failed to identify any ambiguity in Section 6.2, Samsung’s argument fails as a matter of law.2
Link Below
This folder contains Tax support documents, supply support documents, emails , and internal Samsung emails.
Some of Samsung’s arguments flatly contradict the JDLA. Some improperly rely on flagrantly mischaracterized parol evidence while ignoring inconvenient facts that put the lie to Samsung’s fictions. Some contradict positions Samsung took last month when moving for judgment on the pleadings. And some improperly seek to resuscitate arguments this Court resolved when denying that same motion. All told, the Motion is just Samsung’s latest attempt to rewrite history and the parties’ contract.
Netlist opposition to Samsungs Motion for Summary Judgement or Partial Summary Judgement
I'm NOT asking for legal advice, just persuasion tips. I think I have demonstrated in pleadings every element of the cause of action is met and there is no genuine issue of material fact. Some of you experienced Gods, share your wisdom with a newbie.
I need a little bit of help on calendaring. I know that the last possible date of MSJ to be heard is going to be 30 calendar days before hearing but what if the trial is set on a holiday, let's say December 31, 2021?
State is CA
