As for me and some others, I will be remaining in the class.It has been my experience that the legal industry will gin up any excuse to procrastinate. It is all in the name of "zealous representation." One side pushes, and the other side pulls back. Rinse and repeat. The excuse du jour the past twelve months has been COVID. Now that most of the country is experiencing better numbers, using COVID as an excuse is becoming trite. What will be their new excuse to see them through the next six to nine months?
Since most of us have had our battery capacities restored to very near the levels before the effluent hit the fan, will this fact become moot? How will this amelioration affect the suit?
And Tesla has stated that the Supercharging speed reduction is just TS--tough situation.
There might not much meat left on this bone for us peasants. Many of the claims have more to do with statutory violations of various consumer laws. Since I am not a lawyer, I don't know how conceding or settling these sorts of claims would affect us.
Tesla just announced that they earned a $101 million profit on their bitcoin investment. Perhaps Elon Musk will deign to peel off a few of those millions and settle this lawsuit equitably for all sides. Then he can spend some petty cash and hire a PR firm to spin it.
Same here, and I could blame it on my Covid lifestyle, but it has gotten worse just this year.My range has been all over the place lately. The car can sit for days and gets Level 2 charged a few times a week. I've seen it yo-yo between 230 and 246 miles on the battery charging slider. 2 years/40K miles ago, 256mi was the consistent range when full (near full). The car still works fine for us, but the battery and range is always something I'm concerned about.
Any bets on another extension?
WHEREAS, the parties had a mediation on July 24, 2020 with the Hon. Daniel Weinstein and Cathy Yanni of JAMS, Inc.; WHEREAS, this Court previously continued the stay of this litigation to facilitate the parties’ continuing discussions (ECF No. 41); WHEREAS, the parties are continuing their discussions in good faith and require additional time to complete them; WHEREAS, the parties desire to preserve the status quo and prevent the parties and the Court from unnecessarily expending resources pending mediation; THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, the parties agree and stipulate as follows: The parties will report to the Court with an update on May 31, 2021. This matter shall be stayed until that date, and all other case deadlines shall be vacated.
I contacted the NHTSA about this, what a mess that is, and I just got word that the report is correct; that it has been closed, and that they should be updating the site with additional documents soon. Assuming that the person understood everything correctly, and relayed the information to me correctly, that means that the defect petition was denied. (Or we would have seen a formal investigation opened.)It has been a while since I looked through the NHTSA reports, so I went digging today and I found this information in the January report:
View attachment 657589
So if this report is accurate NHTSA closed the defect petition over 3 months ago. And they don't show that they have opened a formal investigation about this issue.
But if you check the recall search tool it shows that this DP is still open. So maybe it is a mistake, notice that the close date is the same as DP19-004, but it hasn't been listed in the last two monthly reports. (So their two systems are in conflict on the status.)
@DJRas Do you know if your lawyer has received any communication about NHTSA closing the defect petition?