FILED

Electronically
CV19-02115
2019-10-29 04:41:21 PM
Jacqueline Bryant
Daniel R. Watkins Clerk of the Court
1 Nevada State Bar No. 11881 Transaction # 7562628 : csulezic
dw@wl-llp.com
2 Joseph M. Ortuno
Nevada State Bar No. 11233
3 jortuno@wl-llp.com
WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP
4 8215 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 265
Las Vegas, NV 89123
5 Office:(702) 901-7553; Fax: (702) 974-1297
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lynn Thompson
6
7
8 DISTRICT COURT

9 WASHOE COUNTY

10
LYNN THOMPSON, Case No.:
11 Dept. No.:
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
TESLA MOTORS, INC; ELON MUSK,
14 ONQGLOBAL, INC., DOES 1-50, and ROE
CORPORATIONS 1-50.
15
Defendants.
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
17
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Lynn Thompson (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”) and files this civil
18
action against Defendants, and each of them, and hereby complains and alleges as follows:
19
1. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that defendant TESLA MOTORS, INC.
20
(hereinafter “TESLA”) is a foreign corporation qualified to do business in Washoe County,
21
Nevada.
22
2. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that at all relevant times defendant ELON
23
MUSK (hereinafter “MUSK”) is a California resident and was the Chief Executive Officer of
24
TESLA.
25
3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that ONQGLOBAL, INC. (hereinafter
26
ONQGLOBAL) is an Arizona Corporation qualified to do business in Nevada.
27
//
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-1-
 1 4. PLAINTIFF was at all relevant times mentioned herein was an employee of
2 defendant, ONQGLOBAL., and resided in Washoe County, Nevada.
3 5. PLAINTIFF alleges that this is the proper court because the violations of Nevada
4 law took place at or near the property owned by TESLA, located at 1 Electric Avenue, Sparks,
5 Nevada 89434 (hereinafter, “GIGAFACTORY”).
6 6. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
7 corporate, associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 50 and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-50,
8 inclusive. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously
9 named Defendants are in some way responsible for, or participated in, or contributed to, the
10 matters and things complained of herein, and are legally responsible in some manner. PLAINTIFF
11 will seek leave to amend this Complaint when the true names, capacities, participation and
12 responsibilities have been ascertained.
13 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
14 mentioned, the defendants named in this action, as well as the fictitiously named defendants, and
15 each of them, were agents and employees of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things
16 hereinafter complained of, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or
17 employment and with the knowledge and consent of the remaining defendants.
18 STATEMENT OF FACTS
19 8. PLAINTIFF is a former employee of ONQ GLOBAL, INC. (hereinafter “ONQ”).
20 9. PLAINTIFF entered into a contract titled, “Personal Service Agreement” with ONQ
21 on or about March 22, 2018 (hereinafter “PSA”) for PLAINTIFF to work as an Electrical
22 Superintendent on the night shift at the TESLA GIGAFACTORY. The PSA stated that services
23 would start on March 19, 2018, and continue in three months increments until mutually agreed or
24 one party provided at least 10 days written notice to the other party. PLAINTIFF would be paid
25 bimonthly at a base rate of $18,000 per month plus overtime for time worked in excess of 60 hours
26 per week at $85 per hour.
27 10. PLAINTIFF worked as negotiated at the GIGAFACTORY. Part of PLAINTIFF’s
28 duties were to report suspicious activity including theft occurring at the GIGAFACTORY.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-2-
 1 11. PLAINTIFF observed thefts occurring at the GIGAFACTORY.
2 12. The first observation PLAINTIFF noticed was independent contractors on the Helix
3 yard measuring and cutting copper wire and shipping them off site. PLAINTIFF was informed by
4 TESLA and ONQ that theft of copper wire was occurring on site and was asked to investigate.
5 13. PLAINTIFF noticed, by his estimation, millions of dollars of copper wire being
6 measured and cut, put onto pallets, and wrapped for delivery. These pallets were then loaded onto
7 fork lifts and subsequently onto big rigs and hauled off site. Union Contractors were then
8 reporting theft of their copper wire, something that the non-union contractors were not
9 complaining of.
10 14. On multiple occasions, starting in April of 2018, PLAINTIFF reported the theft of
11 the copper wire to Senior Management at TESLA, including but not limited to: Gustavo Herrera,
12 Electrical Superintendent; Jack Griffin, Lead Construction Superintendent; Basile Deplante, Senior
13 Project Manager; and Josh Bronitsky, Senior Construction Operations (collectively, “Senior
14 Management”); and MUSK, CEO of TESLA. Prior to informing Senior Management at TESLA,
15 PLAINTIFF also informed his own supervisor at ONQ, Mike Shutt.
16 15. PLAINTIFF requested for video surveillance of the areas that the theft was
17 occurring but his request was refused by Senior Management.
18 16. Gustavo Herrera and Josh Bronitsky initially informed PLAINTIFF that the activity
19 regarding the copper wire was permitted at TESLA and to stop investigating further. PLAINTIFF
20 kept reporting up the chain of command until Jack Griffin, Lead Construction Superintendent,
21 disputed that the removal of copper wire was being permitted by TESLA. However, and
22 unexpectedly, Senior Management changed their tune, informing PLAINTIFF that the copper wire
23 was being shipped to a recycling facility and unless he catches people actually stealing copper wire
24 red-handed, that he would be terminated for inquiring further.
25 17. PLAINTIFF also noticed while working at TESLA that the company was awarding
26 contracts to non-union vendors (violating a 60% - 40% contract with the State of Nevada), for
27 services worth approximately $65,000.00 to $75,000.00, at a disproportionate percentage.
28 //

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-3-
 1 18. PLAINTIFF further noticed that the contract amounts were significantly higher than
2 their value, for amounts in the range of $900,000.00. Thus, TESLA was over paying over
3 approximately $800,000.00 per contract and was violating their agreements with the State of
4 Nevada.
5 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes that on June 5, 2018, TESLA had an internal
6 meeting that included their Corporate Executive Officer, Defendant MUSK, their Chief Financial
7 Officer, Deepak Ahuja, and TESLA’s Director of Global Security, Jeff Jones. During the meeting,
8 MUSK revealed that from January 1, 2018 to June 5, 2018, there was $37 million dollars’ worth of
9 unaccounted for and possibly stolen construction materials that belonged to TESLA. This included
10 copper wire, stainless steel, machined aluminum and other manufactured parts used in the
11 manufacturing process for the TESLA’s Model 3.
12 20. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that the June 5, 2018 meeting specifically
13 discussed the same copper wire that PLAINTIFF had witnessed being removed from the
14 GIGAFACTORY.
15 21. PLAINTIFF was unaware that the June 5, 2018 meeting occurred until after his
16 termination.
17 22. On or about June 6, 2018, around 11:30pm to June 7, 2018 at 12:30am,
18 PLAINTIFF witnessed a few individuals loading copper wire onto a truck. PLAINTIFF reported
19 the incident to TESLA security who called local law enforcement. PLAINTIFF requested that his
20 report remain anonymous as he feared that certain members of management at TESLA might
21 retaliate against him. PLAINTIFF was worried about TESLA management in general but was also
22 specifically worried about Gustavo Herrera and Josh Bronitsky.
23 23. The Storey County Sherriff’s department arrived at the scene and arrested the
24 individuals, requiring PLAINTIFF to sign a witness statement. PLAINTIFF informed the officer
25 that he could lose his job but law enforcement still requested a witness statement as he personally
26 observed the theft.
27 24. Around 9:00 am on June 7, 2018, PLAINTIFF was informed by TESLA’s Senior
28 Management that he was not permitted back at the GIGAFACTORY. Subsequently, Mike Shutt

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-4-
 1 of ONQ confirmed to PLAINTIFF that he was no longer to report to the GIGAFACTORY. Mike
2 Shutt told Mr. Thompson that he would move him to a new site under a new contract.
3 PLAINTIFF never received a new job site from ONQ.
4 25. Since this time, Mr. Thompson has learned that TESLA and MUSK pressured ONQ
5 to stop allowing him on the worksite and subsequently end his work at TESLA because of the
6 outside reporting to law enforcement and internal reporting to Senior Management. TESLA was
7 afraid of the information that PLAINTIFF learned and wanted to prevent the information from
8 being disclosed to the media and shareholders.
9 COUNT I - INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
10 (Against TESLA, MUSK, DOES 1-50, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-50)
11 26. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Complaint as
12 though fully set forth herein.
13 27. The PSA between PLAINTIFF and ONQ was a valid and enforceable contract.
14 28. Defendants had actual knowledge of the contract between PLAINTIFF and ONQ.
15 29. Defendants TESLA and MUSK engaged in intentional acts including pressuring
16 ONQ to terminate their contract with PLAINTIFF.
17 30. ONQ breached their contract with PLAINTIFF because of the acts caused by
18 Defendants.
19 31. The breach of the PSA resulted in damage to PLAINTIFF.
20 32. PLAINTIFF was damaged by the conduct of Defendants in an amount in excess of
21 Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
22 33. PLAINTIFF requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
23 COUNT II- INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
24 (Against TESLA, MUSK, DOES 1-50, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-50)
25 34. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as
26 though fully set forth herein.
27 35. The PSA entered into between PLAINTIFF and ONQ would automatically renew
28 every three months for the remainder of the TESLA project that ONQ had with TESLA.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-5-
 1 36. Defendants knew of the prospective contractual relationship PLAINTIFF had with
2 ONQ. Specifically, that PLAINTIFF would work until the project was completed.
3 37. Defendants intended to harm PLAINTIFF by pressuring ONQ to terminate their
4 contract with PLAINTIFF.
5 38. Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing damage to the PLAINTIFF.
6 39. PLAINTIFF was damaged by the conduct of Defendants in an amount in excess of
7 Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
8 40. PLAINTIFF requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
9
COUNT III- BREACH OF CONTRACT
10 (Against ONQGLOBAL, DOES 1-50, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-50)
11 41. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint as
12 though fully set forth herein.
13 42. PLAINTIFF was an employee of ONQGLOBAL.
14 43. PLAINTIFF and ONQGLOBAL entered into a valid contract for employment (i.e.
15 the PSA) that entitled PLAINTIFF to overtime pay for time worked in excess of 60 hours per week
16 at $85 per hour.
17 44. PLAINTIFF worked in excess of 60 hours per week during his employment.
18 45. PLAINTIFF was not compensated for overtime for the hours worked in excess of
19 60 hours per week during his employment.
20 46. PLAINTIFF was damaged by the conduct of Defendant in an amount in excess of
21 Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
22 47. PLAINTIFF requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
23
COUNT IV- BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF
24
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
25 (Against ONQGLOBAL, DOES 1-50, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-50)

26 48. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint as

27 though fully set forth herein.

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-6-
 1 49. PLAINTIFF and ONQGLOBAL entered into a valid contract for employment (i.e.
2 the PSA).
3 50. PLAINTIFF justifiably expected to receive the benefits of the PSA and its periodic
4 renewal.
5 51. PLAINTIFF did all, or substantially all, of the things the PSA required of him.
6 52. ONQGLOBAL deliberately and unfairly interfered with PLAINTIFF’s right to
7 receive the benefits of the PSA when they terminated him.
8 53. ONQGLOBAL’s breach damaged PLAINTIFF in an amount in excess of Fifteen
9 Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
10 54. PLAINTIFF requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that this Court grant the following relief:
13 A. General and special damages in amounts according to proof and applicable statutes.
14 B. Punitive damages.
15 C. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost of suit incurred herein; and,
16 D. Further relief as the court deems just and proper.
17
18 DATED this 29th day of October, 2019 WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

19 /s/ Daniel R. Watkins

20 By: ____________________________
Daniel R. Watkins
21 Joseph M. Ortuno
8215 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 265
22 Las Vegas, NV 89123
23 Attorneys for Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-7-