Chris Watkins, Eric Day, Global Lease Group Inc., Prudhvi Samudrala, William Wilson, Karen Kyutukyan, Rajeev Talreja, Giorgio Petruzzielo, Drew Talreja, Kris Nathan, Eduard Chenette, Walid Yassir, and Varsha Luthra, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Elon R. Musk, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Elon Musk Revocable Trust Dated July 22, 2003, 786 F.Supp.3d 337

Plaintiffs purchased Tesla electric vehicles (EVs) and allege that Elon Musk and Tesla misrepresented the EVs’ driving ranges, inflating their value.
Plaintiffs seek damages for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection statutes, claiming they overpaid due to misleading range claims.
Plaintiffs sued Musk individually and as trustee of the Musk Trust, not Tesla, to avoid arbitration clauses in their purchase agreements.
All plaintiffs, except one, signed purchase agreements with binding arbitration clauses covering disputes with Tesla and its "affiliates."
Musk moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, to compel arbitration on claims against him individually, to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds as trustee, and for failure to state a claim.
The court partially granted and denied the motions: some claims were stayed for arbitration, some dismissed for lack of standing or jurisdiction, and the remainder motions were denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiffs’ Argument	Defendant’s (Musk) Argument	Held
Article III Standing	All plaintiffs have standing due to injury from overpayment	Some plaintiffs not injured (no real purchase or wrong EV model)	Dismissed Luthra (no purchase); others have standing
Compel Arbitration	Musk is not a signatory; arbitration clause doesn’t cover him	Musk is an affiliate/agent of Tesla; arbitration clauses apply	Arbitration compelled as to Musk individually
Musk Trust Jurisdiction	Musk’s actions as trustee tie him to Massachusetts attempts	No meaningful contacts as trustee with Massachusetts	No personal jurisdiction over Musk as trustee
Failure to State a Claim	Plausible fraud and consumer protection claims pleaded	Claims are meritless and should be dismissed	Denied as moot (not addressed due to other rulings)

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, 101 F.4th 90 (First Circuit standard for evaluating personal jurisdiction and standing)
Grand Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 748 F.3d 1 (federal rule protecting agents’ ability to enforce principal’s arbitration agreements)
Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, 876 F.3d 31 (arbitration clause enforcement by non-signatory under contract principles)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (personal jurisdiction requires purposeful availment)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (personal jurisdiction must be based on defendant’s forum contacts)