This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/26/2021 at 17:27:17 (UTC).


Case Summary

On October 4, 2021, Joseph Waldman (“Waldman”) and Malkeil Godron (“Gordon”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Davoodi Natan Esq., filed a personal injury lawsuit against Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla” or “Defendant”), seeking punitive and actual damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, and other relief for Defendant's alleged failure to comply with its obligations and breach of its express and implied warranty. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the California - Los Angeles County Superior Courts in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.


Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that Defendants’ alleged conduct of knowingly failing to honor the factory warranties and knowingly failing to repair the defective battery packs and drivetrain exhibits show that Defendants knowingly caused unnecessary delay and knowingly lied about the characteristics, uses, and benefits of the Defendants’ goods and services. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were, thereby, depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. Plaintiffs alleged further that Defendants were engaged in despicable conduct that subjected the Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in accordance with Civil Code §3294.


In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “Pursuant to the automobile's express warranties, TESLA undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the automobile or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. The automobile has and has had serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, failure in utility and performance in that it would not perform as per spec and the defects described above. Pursuant to the automobile's express warranty, TESLA, undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the automobile or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance.”


Plaintiffs also alleged that, “Because the automobile was sold to PLAINTIFF with a defect that manifested itself within the period of the implied warranty and which substantially reduces its safety and performance, each automobile (1) would not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, (2) was and is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, (3) was not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled, and (4) did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.”


Further, Plaintiffs alleged that, “At all times herein mentioned, TESLA and DOES 1-100 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that if the automobile was not properly designed, manufactured, tested, distributed, sold, inspected, repaired, marketed, constructed, and labeled, for the use and purpose for which the automobile was intended, the automobile was likely to cause injuries to owners, passengers, and users of the automobile.”


There are four claims for relief laid down by Plaintiffs. The first claim for relief is for violation of express warranty under Lemon Law. The second claim for relief is for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The third claim for relief is for negligent repair and the fourth claim for relief is for misrepresentation.


In the prayer for relief, Plaintiffs have requested the court to pass a judgment for general, punitive, and actual damages together with rescission of the automobile’s purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended by Plaintiffs’ towards such contract including civil penalty under the California Lemon Law equal to twice Plaintiffs’ general and actual damages and prejudgment interest. Further, Plaintiffs requested the court for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees at the rate of $605 per hour plus costs and any further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 


This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California


Party Details






Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney



Court Documents


10/4/2021: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

10/4/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/4/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet


10/4/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT


Docket Entries

  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JOSEPH WALDMAN (Plaintiff); MALKIEL GRADON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by JOSEPH WALDMAN (Plaintiff); MALKIEL GRADON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JOSEPH WALDMAN (Plaintiff); MALKIEL GRADON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where Tesla Inc is a litigant