Elon Musk’s lawyers respond to motion to oust Tesla team in Dogecoin case: ‘Waste of this court’s time’

Lawyers representing Elon Musk and Tesla asked a United States District Court judge to file a motion to clear them of an alleged conflict of interest in a $258 billion lawsuit accusing Musk related to the Dogecoin cryptocurrency. Was accused of participating in an illegal racketeering scheme.

In a July 6 filing, Musk and Tesla’s team react June 25 offer filed by Evan Spencer, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case against Musk.

Spencer referred to the defendants’ attorneys in his filing as “yes-sayers” and asked the judge to declare it a conflict of interest for the team representing both Musk and Tesla. “The defense attorneys are acting as concurrent representatives of both defendants in this case,” the complaint states, “while their actual loyalty is to Elon Musk alone.”

RELATED: Elon Musk accuses Mark Zuckerberg of cheating: Twitter vs Threads

The legal team representing Musk and Tesla didn’t say a word in their response, let alone describing Spencer’s proposal as “unproven” and “frivolous” three times in the table of contents.

According to representatives of the defendants, there is no conflict of interest under New York law. They claim that the law provides for legal teams to represent executives of the companies they also represent, except in situations where the two entities are legal rivals. According to the July 6 filing:

“Spencer’s motion (…) is a grave abuse of process, yet another work of fiction fancied by Spencer in a long series of such arguments, a waste of the time of this Court, and the undersigned’s counsel, respected members is an insult to the Bar of this Court and has recently been accepted pro hac vice by the Court.”

The filing addresses allegations by Spencer that Tesla’s legal team leaked a letter to the New York Post allegedly denouncing Spencer’s flouting with Rule 11 — essentially, the letter sued Spencer. He was alleged to have a history of filing frivolous motions to delay procedures.

Spencer’s petition for a motion to clear the defendant’s team claims that this action has polluted the jury pool.

Musk and Tesla’s attorneys dispute the allegation that they leaked the letter, and counter in their filing by arguing that it was Spencer who caused the jury to publicly docket the letter and via a June 25 motion. Introduced in the pool.