Tesla, Inc. v. Martin Tripp (civil)

LEGAL STATUS

CIVIL, closed. Stipulated judgment Nov 30, 2020 (ECF 235): Tesla recovers $400,000 in damages under a settlement agreement plus $25,000 in previously awarded sanctions. Case administratively closed Dec 1, 2020.¹

AS OF 2026-10-20

Timeline

2018-06-20Tesla files complaint (ECF 1), D. Nev. No. 3:18-cv-00296²
2018-07-31Tripp files answer and counterclaim (ECF 25), per stipulated judgment¹
2020-08-14By agreement of the parties, court orders Tripp to pay $25,000 in sanctions for protective-order violations (ECF 211)¹
2020-09-17Court grants Tesla summary judgment on Tripp's counterclaim (ECF 217)¹
2020-11-30Stipulated judgment filed (ECF 235)¹
2020-12-01Case administratively closed³

Verified facts

In the stipulated judgment, Tripp acknowledges violating the court's protective order. He "does not contest" Tesla's contentions that he violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act, his Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, his fiduciary duties, and the Nevada Computer Crimes Law.¹
Tripp further acknowledges that his counterclaims were funded by Cable Car Capital, short seller of Tesla stock.¹
Tripp takes nothing on his counterclaim. The parties will not publicly disparage each other, and Tripp is enjoined from contacting, harassing, or disparaging Tesla or its executives or employees, and from discussing his employment at Tesla.¹

Editorial notes

"Does not contest" is not a criminal finding. Use the judgment's exact language.

Timeline

Verified facts

Editorial notes

Sources