AIThis consolidated stockholder derivative action, filed in September 2016 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, challenged Tesla Motors' $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity Corporation as a conflicted transaction that amounted to a bailout of a struggling company at Tesla shareholders' expense. The central allegation was that Elon Musk, who held a significant stake in both Tesla and SolarCity and whose cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive ran SolarCity, orchestrated the merger to rescue SolarCity from financial distress while using Tesla as the vehicle to do so. Plaintiffs alleged that Musk and the Tesla board members who approved the deal breached their fiduciary duties to Tesla shareholders.
The litigation proceeded through years of discovery and motion practice before proceeding to a ten-day trial before Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III in July 2021. The trial featured extensive testimony and expert analysis on whether SolarCity was financially distressed at the time of the acquisition, whether the deal price was fair, and whether Tesla's board acted independently given Musk's influence over it. Key witnesses included financial experts debating the valuation of SolarCity and the terms of the transaction.
Vice Chancellor Slights issued his post-trial decision in April 2022, ruling that while Musk was a conflicted controlling stockholder, the acquisition was entirely fair to Tesla shareholders and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court in May 2022.
AIKeith Johnson filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New York in June 2022 against Elon Musk, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), and Tesla, Inc., alleging that the defendants operated a cryptocurrency pyramid scheme through Dogecoin. The complaint asserted that Musk used his companies and his massive social media following to promote Dogecoin while secretly planning to profit from its eventual collapse, causing retail investors to lose billions of dollars. Eight named plaintiffs ultimately joined the action, including Colby Gorog, Joshua Flint, Louis Robinson, James Duong, Fernando Uriza, Michael Twomey, Jessica Calkins, and Michael Lerro, each claiming losses from purchasing Dogecoin in reliance on the defendants' alleged promotions.
The case proceeded through multiple amended complaints, culminating in a Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed in December 2022 that refined the claims against Musk, Tesla, and the Dogecoin Foundation, Inc. SpaceX was dropped from the operative pleading in the final amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss in March 2023 before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.
A stipulation of voluntary dismissal was filed on May 26, 2023, ending the litigation, which was accompanied by a motion to stay and supporting brief. The case was dismissed before the court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss.
AIThe United States Department of Justice, acting through its Civil Rights Division's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), filed an application in the Central District of California in January 2021 to enforce Investigatory Subpoena Number 2021S00001 against Space Exploration Technologies Corp. d/b/a SpaceX. IER enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits employment discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin.
IER opened an investigation of SpaceX on May 29, 2020, to determine whether SpaceX had engaged in individual violations or a pattern or practice of: (1) citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1); and/or (2) requesting more or different documents than are required to establish employment eligibility, or rejecting facially valid documents based on citizenship status or national origin (unfair documentary practices), in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(6). IER obtained an administrative subpoena from an OCAHO Administrative Law Judge on October 7, 2020, requiring SpaceX to produce documents by October 22, 2020. SpaceX received the subpoena on October 12, 2020 but failed to comply.
The application, filed by Special Litigation Counsel C. Sebastian Aloot and Trial Attorneys Lisa Sandoval and Sejal Jhaveri, asked the district court to order SpaceX to comply with the subpoena, arguing it was enforceable and not overbroad or unduly burdensome. A hearing was requested for on or after February 25, 2021.
AIStacey Rapp filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court in September 2023 against X Corp. (doing business as X Corp., a Nevada corporation), Twitter, Inc., Space Exploration Technologies Corp. d/b/a SpaceX, and Elon Musk, represented by Quintana Hanafi, LLP and the Law Offices of Traci M. Hinden. Rapp alleged 18 causes of action arising from the mass layoffs and workplace conditions that followed Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in 2022, during which SpaceX employees were alleged to have been integrated into Twitter operations.
The causes of action included: violation of the California WARN Act (Labor Code §§ 1400–1408) for failure to provide adequate notice of layoffs; breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional misrepresentation and false promise (Civil Code §§ 1710, 1572); negligent misrepresentation; discrimination, harassment, and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12940); retaliation under Government Code § 12940(h), Labor Code § 98.6, and Labor Code § 1102.5; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; violation of the California Equal Pay Act (Labor Code § 1197); failure to pay overtime wages and all wages (Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 204); failure to maintain accurate wage statements (Labor Code § 1174); and failure to pay all wages upon termination (Labor Code §§ 201–203).
Rapp demanded a jury trial on all causes of action. The case was assigned case number CGC-23-609338.
AIAnatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group S.A., and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. — Moldovan investors who had obtained a large international arbitration award against the Republic of Kazakhstan — filed a motion in the Central District of California in March 2020 to compel Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) to comply with an amended subpoena duces tecum and an amended deposition subpoena, both dated August 22, 2019 and served on SpaceX on August 28, 2019. The petitioners were represented by King & Spalding LLP.
The subpoenas sought documents and deposition testimony from SpaceX in connection with the Statis' efforts to enforce their international arbitration award. SpaceX was not a party to the underlying Kazakhstan arbitration but was targeted as a third party believed to hold relevant information, likely in connection with Elon Musk's financial dealings or assets that the petitioners sought to trace in their judgment enforcement proceedings against Kazakhstan. The motion was filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 and 69 and Central District Local Rules 37-1, 37-2, 45-1, and 69-1.
AISpace Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) filed a bid protest complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims on April 28, 2014 against the United States, challenging the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) contract with United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. SpaceX alleged that the Air Force awarded ULA an unlawful, sole-source, multi-year block purchase contract for rocket launches worth hundreds of millions of dollars without competitive bidding, in violation of federal procurement law. SpaceX further alleged the contract funneled American taxpayer money to Russia's military-industrial complex — including potentially to individuals on U.S. sanctions lists — because ULA's Atlas V rocket relied on Russian RD-180 engines.
The complaint traced the origins of the EELV Program to 1995, recounted how Boeing's theft of Lockheed's confidential pricing documents led not to renewed competition but to the formation of the ULA monopoly, and projected that the resulting cost overruns would drive the EELV Program's total cost to $70 billion through 2030, making it the fourth largest program in the U.S. defense budget. SpaceX argued the Air Force was legally required to compete any launch opportunity that more than one U.S. provider could fulfill, and that SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket was certified or capable of being certified for national security launches.
SpaceX sought no monetary advantage, only the opportunity to compete for Air Force launch contracts. The case was a watershed moment in the commercialization of the U.S. space launch market, ultimately contributing to SpaceX's entry into the national security launch sector.
AICurtis Adler filed a pro se complaint in the Central District of California in October 2021 against Elon Musk and SpaceX. Adler alleged that beginning in late August 2020, Musk — who Adler claimed was furious over a secret relationship between Adler and Claire Boucher (the musician Grimes, who was Musk's partner) — used SpaceX satellites to surveil Adler at confidential locations, intercept his phone calls, texts, and emails, and harass and persecute him. The complaint further alleged that Musk sent unknown individuals to follow Adler and made threats involving guns and weapons, causing Adler depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
Adler's complaint invoked a mix of federal statutes including 18 U.S.C. § 245 (federally protected activities), 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (video voyeurism), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (wiretapping), and 47 U.S.C. § 1038 (false information and hoaxes), as well as two self-described statutes Adler created — "Deprivation of seclusion with satellite" and "Deprivation of confidentiality with satellite" — which Adler noted were necessary because existing federal codes were "inadequate when describing satellite use." Adler also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and requested to proceed in forma pauperis. The case was dismissed.
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
United States C Corporation
Date Filed
Last Name
ND
< 5
5–10
10–50
50–500
≥ 500
