you will be fine. But dont sell your case short. Go in STRONG and confidentThe trial is going to be a remote hearing over Zoom. In the 1 page instruction document they gave me, they state that all evidence must be submitted electronically and provide a link. I'm assuming if I don't upload the evidence, it wouldn't be considered by the judge during the trial. I was planning on submitting the following evidence:
1) My chat log with the service center regarding the issue and their suggesting on upgrading the infotainment system for over $2K.
2) Proof that my car is still under warranty.
3) Short video showing my screen locked up and unresponsive.
4) Maybe the owner's manual.
My concern is that they never flat out stated in the chat log that they acknowledge the issue and that the only way to fix it was with the upgrade. They kind of talk around it and say that the "user experience" would be "enhanced" by the upgrade. It was during my phone call with the service center supervisor where he acknowledged that the current MCU could not properly run the current software and it would require a hardware upgrade to prevent it from locking up. Anyways, I'm just trying to be prepared as much as possible in case someone from Tesla does attend.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
How to sue Tesla over historical claims
- Thread starter gearchruncher
- Start date
Looks like you have some good evidence here. The video of it locking up should do a lot. I also found it easy to show that the voice commands don't work at all.
You can also poke around the internet and find many people (me included) describing how this is not a one-off issue.
One thing to bring: the NHTSA recall (NEF-104aa) that says the screen locking up is a safety issue because the screen is the backup cam, turn signal noises, and defog controls. Just in case the Judge or Tesla argues that a rebooting MCU is just an "entertainment" device.
Oh, also, make sure you write [email protected] and ask them to fix this issue. It will help to show that you followed the exact process Tesla asks you to in the MVPA, and they completely failed to respond to your concern so you had to take them to court to get a resolution.
And hey, sharing is caring, so here's the relevant snippets from my convo with Tesla, feel free to try and use them if appropriate:
This is not a magic ticket. You need your own complaint and issue.
What is your car not doing that was described in the user manual or pre-purchase descriptions of the product? What resolution steps have you taken with Tesla? Why do you believe Tesla owes you a free upgrade?
In my case, my car was under warranty (which no AP1 car has been for 3 years) and my voice commands didn't work anymore. You will have your own situation.
What is your car not doing that was described in the user manual or pre-purchase descriptions of the product? What resolution steps have you taken with Tesla? Why do you believe Tesla owes you a free upgrade?
In my case, my car was under warranty (which no AP1 car has been for 3 years) and my voice commands didn't work anymore. You will have your own situation.
TunaBug
Member
I've never taken Tesla on, but I've helped my wife with multiple real-estate small claims cases. When sending electronically, I would not assume the judge will be able to navigate a zip file full of random document types. Instead, convert everything to a single PDF file, and put page numbers in there. That way you can tell the judge "And on page 15...".
Remember that judges are people, too, and asking them to do a bunch of tedious crap can be irritating. Don't have him flip from page 15 to 2 to 28 to 7. Instead try to organize that PDF file so that you can go through it linearly. That's at least for the documentation directly supporting your case. I also prefer to bring other backup documentation "just in case", that ends up as pages at the end, and jumping randomly to those may be unavoidable.
If you can assemble all your PDFs into a single one using a tool that produces a clickable table of contents, then +1. Although the judge may be working from hardcopy, I don't know.
In Washington (at least Kitsap and King counties) small claims judges usually start by verifying that the defendant was properly served. I put proof of that at the very beginning. In your case I would also bring along the secretary of state documentation that the agent is in New York, although I might consider that backup information to be tossed at the end.
Practice navigating your PDF file and have the index/table of contents on hardcopy or in a separate window so that you can refer to it instantly while scrolling elsewhere in the document. Basically, if the judge asks you "where was that screenshot of X?" it's best to tell him quickly, not make him watch you flip through your PDF.
Also, only put evidence in your evidence. Don't argue your case there. We have to share evidence with the defendant in addition to the judge, and you can only hurt yourself by telling the defendant in advance how you will argue your case.
To be clear, none of what I just wrote is about the merits of the case. This is all just basic stuff to keep things running smoothly, not irritate the judge, and help give the impression that you have your act together.
(I'm the OP of this whole thread) Things may have changed. When I went to King County District court, they specifically rejected my evidence that was submitted electronically beforehand. Only evidence accepted was on the day of court.
The registered agent for Tesla in WA is in Olympia. They do not accept out of state registered agents in WA.
In my case, the first meeting was over zoom to prove proper service, and for the parties to go to mediation. When Tesla didn't show, and I could prove they were properly served, then we moved to a second date where evidence was shared.
This is all different in different states.
That I fully agree with. Both my judges were shocked that I had actually served a massive corporation properly, and that I then had evidence and a simple explanation of my case that was coherent and based in actual law and had easy to define damages. They get a lot of crazy stuff, and it doesn't take much to be way more prepared than the average plantiff.
My favorite line from my group of cases: "What, I have to serve the defendant? I didn't know they needed to be here" This was despite them mailing you a one page letter that says "we don't serve the defendant for you. Here's how you do it. Seriously. Do this.". Plus, you know, the whole way the judicial system works.
thanks, i am also not the orginal purchaser of the car. When i bought it, it was under warranty....
If you believe your claim is that they did not honor a warranty that they should have, you would need to have made a claim during the warranty period.
TunaBug
Member
That's inconsistent with my experience, but I don't doubt you. I do wonder what is behind the variations. Maybe different courthouse staffs are different? Maybe judges? The legal system is wonky enough that if somebody told me it was random I wouldn't be shocked.
It's been a couple of years since I have done it in Kitsap, but the last time they required showing up with three copies of everything on paper: one for you, one for the opposition, one for the judge. Her most recent King County experience requires sending the opposition any evidence by a certain date, but I don't recall whether the court/judge needs a copy. It varies.
@TunaBug - According to the King Country District Court's website, evidence is only delivered at either the actual trial, or the pre-trial hearing. Nothing has to be sent to the defendant ahead of time (outside of service of course):
TunaBug
Member
That's kind funny, or frustrating, because it directly contradicts what we were recently told. I don't recall exactly what it was, but I think the requirement was to send evidence to the other party three weeks before the court date. But we may mention this.@TunaBug - According to the King Country District Court's website, evidence is only delivered at either the actual trial, or the pre-trial hearing. Nothing has to be sent to the defendant ahead of time (outside of service of course):
I just wanted to give an update on my case and post some useful information and resource I found for cases in California.
I filed the case on Feb 24 and served Tesla by registered mail to CT Corporation Systems at their address in NY which I found the California SOS business search. After 3 weeks, I still have not received confirmation of receipt of service. At this point I decided to look into other methods for service. While doing this, I found a useful resource. There is a free legal aid advocate service (I think non-profit): Small Claims Advisors - Community Legal Aid SoCal
I spoke with one of the advisors and they informed me that I need to serve the agent in California. The address for CT Corporation Systems in California is: 330 N Brand Blvd. Suite 700 Glendale, CA 91203. When you do the SOS search, CT Corporation System shows up as the registered agent with the NY address. However, below that it will list individuals agents in California. All the individuals have the Glendale address. My guess it that they are all CT Corporation Systems employees in Glendale California.
Two takeaways from this message: 1) Serve CT Corporation Systems at the Glendale California address NOT the NY address. 2) Call the legal aid advocates above for any procedure questions. Here is their number for reference: 714-571-5277
I filed the case on Feb 24 and served Tesla by registered mail to CT Corporation Systems at their address in NY which I found the California SOS business search. After 3 weeks, I still have not received confirmation of receipt of service. At this point I decided to look into other methods for service. While doing this, I found a useful resource. There is a free legal aid advocate service (I think non-profit): Small Claims Advisors - Community Legal Aid SoCal
I spoke with one of the advisors and they informed me that I need to serve the agent in California. The address for CT Corporation Systems in California is: 330 N Brand Blvd. Suite 700 Glendale, CA 91203. When you do the SOS search, CT Corporation System shows up as the registered agent with the NY address. However, below that it will list individuals agents in California. All the individuals have the Glendale address. My guess it that they are all CT Corporation Systems employees in Glendale California.
Two takeaways from this message: 1) Serve CT Corporation Systems at the Glendale California address NOT the NY address. 2) Call the legal aid advocates above for any procedure questions. Here is their number for reference: 714-571-5277
Last edited:
Well, not literally every reason... Protected classes and all.
But while Tesla can refuse to sell you a new car, it's up to them to track that and block the sale, and they can't stop you from buying a used car, nor get out of servicing that car per the warranty or other policies.
Speaking of lack of USS, I purchased EAP with my car in December 2022, and thus far, Tesla has delivered 0 of the 3 EAP features that are "temporarily limited or inactive" "for a short period of time." The features were promised to be restored "in the near future," but legally, what does that mean? I'm actually willing to give Tesla some leeway here, but if more than a year goes by without those features being restored, at what point am I likely to be able to argue my case and sue for a refund of a portion or all of the EAP price of $6000? Or will I never have legal ground because "short period of time" and "in the near future" are open to interpretation? Here's the text from the notice I had to accept before taking delivery:
I wouldn't think you could get a refund for all of it, as a majority of EAP has been delivered.
Here are the EAP features:
- Navigate on Autopilot
- Auto Lane Change
- Autopark
- Summon
- Smart Summon
You might get a small refund for the features that weren't available, amortized over the life of the vehicle. (I think a prior class action law suit for delivering similar features late resulted in refunds of ~$200, but they didn't have the open ended time stated on them.)
You have legal ground- no reasonable consumer would interpret "short period of time" on a car purchase to be 10 years for instance. But would a judge call 1 year "short"? That's the unknown.
However, we do have Contra proferentem:
This means that Tesla is the one that left ambiguity in the contract. This actually goes against them, as they could have listed a much more definite timeframe. Because they left it ambiguous, if you disagree with them and it ends up in court, one method that can be used to decide is that because Tesla wrote the contract, they should bear the impact of it being poorly written.
The thing is defining damages.
Here's one method: Say Tesla has not delivered 3 of the 5 EAP features in 2 years. Well, let's say a car lasts about 10 years. So you can amortize your $6K to 600 a year. But you got 40% of the features, so 60% a year is $360. So your damages might be $720 after two years.
Ouch, the amortization really kills it then. Sounds like it's probably not worth the hassle unless I still own the car like 10 years from now and Tesla somehow never delivers the features.
Similar threads
