The June 10 trial date for the lawsuit challenging Michigan's so-called "anti-Tesla law" has been adjourned indefinitely by the court.
U.S. District Judge Janet NEFF said an unrelated criminal jury trial is "likely" to begin that day so she adjourned Tesla's future court dates without setting a new date, according to an order entered Wednesday.
Tesla and the state have until May 15 to provide a list of potential trial dates between "now and the end of the year."
Tesla alleges Michigan's 2014 law created from HB 5606, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers from selling directly to a customer other than through franchised dealers, violates the due process, equal protection and dormant commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. (See "Tesla Files Suit To Get Dealership In Michigan,")
Both sides outlined their evidence and witnesses in a November pre-trial report.
Since then, the state filed a motion, which is still pending, to exclude "constitutionality irrelevant" evidence, including a trial subpoena for former Sen. Joe HUNE.
This Court should not allow Tesla to turn this case into an exhibition of why Tesla is unique or entitled to some unique legal test or remedy," the state defendants' court filing reads.
In a court filing that includes redactions, Tesla countered that the state is trying to "erase the history of the anti-Tesla amendment" by asking the court to ignore that it was "written by and for local franchised dealers and auto manufacturers, quietly slipped into unrelated legislation by a senator in the pocket of the auto-dealer lobby, and passed by the Legislature in what the dealers' lobbyist called a (redacted) on Tesla."
HB 5606 initially protected car dealers' ability to charge customers certain fees, but Tesla argues that on Oct. 1, 2014, Hune -- "who counts the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association among his top contributors, and whose wife lobbies for Michigan-based vehicle manufactures -- introduced a floor substitute (the "Anti-Tesla Amendment") that added language to bar manufacturer direct sales."
The amended HB 5606 was passed one day later "with no debate or public scrutiny," Tesla alleges.
A portion of Tesla's response is sealed.
U.S. District Judge Janet NEFF said an unrelated criminal jury trial is "likely" to begin that day so she adjourned Tesla's future court dates without setting a new date, according to an order entered Wednesday.
Tesla and the state have until May 15 to provide a list of potential trial dates between "now and the end of the year."
Tesla alleges Michigan's 2014 law created from HB 5606, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers from selling directly to a customer other than through franchised dealers, violates the due process, equal protection and dormant commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. (See "Tesla Files Suit To Get Dealership In Michigan,")
Both sides outlined their evidence and witnesses in a November pre-trial report.
Since then, the state filed a motion, which is still pending, to exclude "constitutionality irrelevant" evidence, including a trial subpoena for former Sen. Joe HUNE.
This Court should not allow Tesla to turn this case into an exhibition of why Tesla is unique or entitled to some unique legal test or remedy," the state defendants' court filing reads.
In a court filing that includes redactions, Tesla countered that the state is trying to "erase the history of the anti-Tesla amendment" by asking the court to ignore that it was "written by and for local franchised dealers and auto manufacturers, quietly slipped into unrelated legislation by a senator in the pocket of the auto-dealer lobby, and passed by the Legislature in what the dealers' lobbyist called a (redacted) on Tesla."
HB 5606 initially protected car dealers' ability to charge customers certain fees, but Tesla argues that on Oct. 1, 2014, Hune -- "who counts the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association among his top contributors, and whose wife lobbies for Michigan-based vehicle manufactures -- introduced a floor substitute (the "Anti-Tesla Amendment") that added language to bar manufacturer direct sales."
The amended HB 5606 was passed one day later "with no debate or public scrutiny," Tesla alleges.
A portion of Tesla's response is sealed.
