Lawyers representing billionaire Elon Musk and Tesla have requested a United States district court judge to dismiss a motion seeking sanctions against them. The motion was filed in a $258 billion lawsuit that accuses Musk of involvement in an illegal racketeering scheme related to the Dogecoin (DOGE) cryptocurrency. The legal team representing the plaintiffs in the case argued that there is a conflict of interest in Musk and Tesla sharing the same defense counsel.
Rebuttal Against Conflict of Interest Claims
In their response to the motion, filed on July 6, Musk and Tesla’s legal team strongly denied the allegations of conflicts of interest. They referred to the motion as “unsubstantiated” and “frivolous,” emphasizing their disagreement with the claims made by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Evan Spencer. The defense team argued that under New York law, it is permissible for legal teams to represent both the officers of a company and the company itself, as long as they are not legal adversaries.
Disputing Alleged Leak of Disparaging Letter
The defense team also addressed allegations made by Spencer that Tesla’s legal team leaked a letter to the New York Post, which allegedly disparaged his reputation. The letter accused Spencer of repeatedly filing frivolous motions to delay court procedures. Musk’s and Tesla’s lawyers firmly denied leaking the letter and contended that it was Spencer who introduced the letter to the jury pool by publicly docketing and introducing it through the June 25 motion.
Characterizing the Motion as an Abuse of Process
Furthermore, Musk and Tesla’s legal team described Spencer’s motion for sanctions as an abuse of process. They criticized it as another example of Spencer’s history of filing baseless motions and wasting the court’s time. The defense team expressed their frustration with Spencer’s repeated allegations and insinuated that they were an insult to the integrity of the court and their own professional reputation.
In summary, Elon Musk and Tesla are fighting back against allegations of conflicts of interest in the ongoing Dogecoin lawsuit. The defense team argues that there is no legal basis for the motion seeking sanctions and dismisses it as unsubstantiated and frivolous. They also dispute the claim of leaking a disparaging letter and assert that it was Spencer who introduced the letter to the jury pool. Overall, the defense team portrays Spencer’s motion as an abuse of process and a waste of the court’s time. The legal battle surrounding the Dogecoin allegations continues, with both sides vehemently defending their positions.