• Elon Musk’s lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the $258 billion racketeering lawsuit related to his tweets and mentions of Dogecoin (DOGE).
• The lawsuit accused Musk of promoting a pyramid scheme and intentionally driving up the price of DOGE before it crashed, despite knowing that it had no intrinsic value.
• The plaintiffs are seeking compensation of around $258 billion.
Elon Musks’s Lawyers File Motion to Dismiss $258B Lawsuit
Background
A class action racketeering lawsuit was filed against Elon Musk and his companies on June 16, 2022 by plaintiff Keith Johnson. The lawsuit accused Musk of promoting a pyramid scheme and intentionally driving up the price of Dogecoin (DOGE) before it crashed, despite knowing that it had no intrinsic value. The investors claim that Musk and the Dogecoin Foundation profited from this scheme to the tune of billions. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation of around $258 billion.
Musk’s Response
Musk’s lawyers have now filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it is based on „innocuous and often silly tweets“ made by Musk over the years and thus holds no merit in court. They added that the plaintiffs have not explained how Musk intended to defraud anyone or what risks he concealed through these tweets. Furthermore, they rejected the plaintiffs‘ claim that DOGE is a security in their filing.
Court Decision Pending
The judge has yet to make a decision on whether or not this case will be dismissed or proceed further in court.
Implications
If Elon Musk is successful in getting this case dismissed then he would be able to avoid paying out any potential damages associated with this class action lawsuit, which could amount up to billions of dollars. However, if this case does proceed further then we could see more evidence being presented as well as more arguments from both sides before a final decision is made by the judge presiding over this case.
Conclusion
At present, Elon Musk’s lawyers have filed an official motion for dismissal for this class action lawsuit but whether or not it will be accepted remains unclear until we hear from the presiding judge in New York’s Southern District Court regarding their decision on this matter.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.