Company seeks counterclaim damages in excess of $15,000,000 from Greg Ehlers
Company responds to Greg Ehlers Lawsuit against former employer
COMES NOW Defendant/Counterclaimant Boxabl Inc. (“Boxabl”), by and through its counsel at the law firm of GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, and hereby asserts the following counterclaims against Gregory Ehlers (“Plaintiff”), and in support thereof, alleges and asserts as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Gregory Ehlers is a resident of Clark County Nevada.
2. Boxabl Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Nevada, with a license to do business in Nevada, and a principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada.
3. The counterclaims arise from the same transaction and occurrence that is the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4. Defendant specifically incorporates into this Counterclaim its responses to the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint and its Affirmative Defenses to same as if fully set forth herein.
5. Boxabl Inc. is a start-up company, with the goal of manufacturing affordable housing using modern assembly line techniques to reduce construction time and costs. Boxabl
Inc.’s manufacturing facilities, which are located in North Las Vegas, cover 300,000 square feet and currently employ over 150 men and women from the surrounding community, including over 100 factory workers.
6. Boxabl Inc.’s current housing product, the Casita, has roughly 400 square feet of living space. Boxabl Inc. currently is able to manufacture one Casita every four hours.
7. Two years ago, Boxabl Inc.’s manufacturing facilities did not exist. Two years ago, Boxabl Inc. employed only a handful of people. It was through the initial efforts of that handful of people, including the founders, Paolo and Galiano, as well as the later efforts of Boxabl Inc.’s manufacturing and administrative employees, who have created this
major employer and contributor to the community and society.
8. Plaintiff did not contribute in any material way to creating Boxabl Inc., its Casita product or its manufacturing facilities. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s tenure at Boxabl Inc. was marked by substantial diversions of Boxabl Inc.’s time, effort and money to address
Plaintiff’s failure to perform his job in a competent and professional manner, as well as to address his actions directed at injuring Boxabl Inc. and its reputation.
9. Plaintiff became acquainted with Boxabl Inc. when a friend of a friend introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Galiano.
10. Plaintiff represented that he had wide-ranging and extensive experience that would materially assist in the growth of Boxabl Inc. as a start-up manufacturing company, including legal experience regarding contracts, employment and corporate structures, as well as expertise in financial matters, management, software services and security and other experience that would assist Boxabl Inc. with its growth. Plaintiff represented in particular that he had gone to law school and indicated that he had fulfilled the course requirements to become a member of the bar, asserting that he was not admitted to law practice simply because he did not want to take the bar. These representations were intentionally false and were material to Boxabl Inc.’s decision to hire Plaintiff.
11. Plaintiff presented a resume to Boxabl Inc. that was material in Boxabl Inc.’s decision to hire Plaintiff. That resume omits employments of Plaintiff and misstates in at least one instance the duration of employment at one firm to mask a period of unemployment.
Plaintiff never advised Boxabl Inc. of these employments or the period of unemployment. These omissions and misrepresentations were material to inducing Boxabl Inc. to hire plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff began his relationship with Boxabl Inc. in approximately November 2020 when he began acting as a consultant and the interim Chief Operations Officer, a title which Plaintiff chose for himself as embodying the experience and capabilities that he could provide an industrial manufacturing company such as Boxabl Inc.
13. Plaintiff’s relationship with Boxabl Inc. was later formalized by way of an employment agreement, with Plaintiff working under his Chief Operations Officer (“COO”) title.
14. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was terminated on September 27, 2021.
15. Plaintiff’s six-ten month tenure with Boxabl Inc. was marred by his errors in judgment, mismanagement, insubordination, lack of sophistication, inability to complete tasks, and to do the required work, repeatedly overstepping his authority, strange behavior and abrasiveness to other members of the Boxabl Inc. team and actions damaging to the business and reputation of Boxabl Inc.
Inability to Perform or Complete Tasks
16. As a start-up industrial manufacturing company, Boxabl Inc. needed to fit out a factory, from scratch, with the capability to manufacture housing on an assembly line basis. This required selection and purchase of a vast amount of industrial equipment to assist in manufacturing, as well as the raw materials used in the housing.
17. An essential predicate to the purchase of the required equipment and materials is to negotiate and prepare written contracts with a large number of equipment vendors and materials suppliers. Additionally, this had to be accomplished on an urgent basis, since Boxabl Inc.’s initial customer had ordered over 150 Casitas, and at the time of the order the facilities for their manufacture did not exist.
18. Consistent with his represented legal training and expertise, Plaintiff was assigned responsibility for the negotiation and preparation of the legal documents required to procure the equipment and materials for building out Boxabl Inc.’s factory, starting Casita production and fulfilling the initial customer order.
19. Plaintiff proved generally incapable of carrying out these responsibilities, manifesting a lack of ability that was inconsistent with his professed expertise and experience.
20. In addition to procuring equipment and materials, Boxabl Inc. needed to negotiate and prepare a large number of financial-related contracts, as well as interface with governmental authorities to meet regulatory requirements.
21. Consistent with his represented legal training and expertise, Plaintiff was assigned responsibility for the negotiation and preparation of the requisite financial-related contracts, and interfacing with governmental authorities.
22. Here too, Plaintiff proved generally incapable of carrying out these responsibilities, manifesting a lack of ability that was inconsistent with his professed expertise and experience.
23. For example, in August, 2021, Paolo emailed Plaintiff advising him that he had not seen any progress on implementing various loans, insurance, or identifying opportunities to assist Boxabl Inc. customers in financing or purchasing its products.
24. Paolo also requested a status update regarding issuance of a permit related to the roadway into the Boxabl Inc. facility. Paolo specifically admonished Plaintiff that Boxabl Inc.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 needed “more than identifying an odd resource here or there we need it not only fully scoped out with all available and best resources, but also it has to be fully implemented and integrated into the Boxabl Inc. experience.”
25. All of these tasks remained incomplete at the time of Plaintiff’s termination in September despite this admonishment.
26. Galiano requested Plaintiff to schedule a calendar notification for the board members of Boxabl Inc. regarding the Regulation C filing deadlines of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
27. This task was never completed.
28. Paolo asked Plaintiff to create a draft sales contract.
29. This was never done.
30. Consistent with his represented legal training and expertise in employment matters, Galiano asked Plaintiff to draft a form employee offer letter.
31. Plaintiff presented Galiano with a form employee offer letter that was insufficient.
32. Plaintiff refused to edit the form employee offer letter that he had presented, despite previously professing to have the skill to do so.
33. Consistent with his represented expertise in software services, Plaintiff was given responsibility for managing Boxabl Inc.’s accounting software. Plaintiff thereupon made the decision to purchase Netsuite accounting software.
34. Despite the software expertise that he represented he had, Plaintiff struggled with incorporating NetSuite accounting software into Boxabl Inc. Plaintiff’s failed efforts caused Boxabl Inc. substantial time and money to correct. Plaintiff eventually was relieved of any responsibility for implementing this software.
35. During the short period of time that Plaintiff was tasked with HR, and despite his professed employment expertise upon which Boxabl Inc. initially depended in reliance upon his representations, Plaintiff authorized hiring a number of employees that did not possess the abilities or temperament required in the positions for which they were hired. The people Plaintiff was authorized to hire were ineffectual, disruptive and unsatisfactory and subsequently left Boxabl Inc. within the weeks prior to Plaintiff being terminated.
36. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Plaintiff was tasked with following up with Thorton Associates by Galiano. Thorton Associates who was tasked with securing grants on behalf of Boxabl Inc. on a commission-only basis.
37. Plaintiff ignored Galiano’s directive, and never followed up with Thorton Associates.
38. Further, when he was authorized to hire work crews, he both fired and rehired them over the course of a few days, resulting in significant waste of money and time to Boxabl Inc.
39. Specifically, he was tasked with clearing out a yard of debris next to the original factory.
40. This task took two months to complete and two separate work crews quit because of
Plaintiff’s yelling and abrasive behavior.
41. Ultimately, Paolo hired a small work crew who completed this task over the span of a weekend.
42. Aside from the acts of incompetence above, Plaintiff also was tricked by fraudsters into buying giftcards and also compromised company data by entering his password and email into spoofed websites.
43. Throughout his tenure at Boxabl Inc., Plaintiff would overstep his authority.
44. Consistent with his represented expertise, Plaintiff was assigned to manage Boxabl Inc.’s HR function in about March 2021.
45. Plaintiff initially hired a human resources manager who had a long standing drug and alcohol problem.
46. Plaintiff failed to conduct a background check or engage in any due diligence regarding this first human resources manager.
47. This first human resources manager was eventually terminated when her drug and alcohol abuse impaired her ability to function as an employee of Boxabl Inc.
48. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 In May, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to unilaterally hire a replacement human resources manager, going so far as to secure her signature on an offer letter from Boxabl Inc. This attempted hiring was made without appropriate authority from his superiors at Boxabl Inc. The replacement human resources manager was ultimately not brought onto Boxabl Inc.
49. Plaintiff also made numerous errors of judgment in his HR role. Accordingly, in about May 20, 2021 Plaintiff was relieved of any HR responsibility, a management directive of which Plaintiff was advised.
50. Despite being relieved of any HR in late May 2021, Plaintiff ignored Boxabl Inc.’s management directive and continued to assume responsibility for and interfere with Boxabl Inc.’s HR function through at least August 2021, causing staff disruption and diverting management resources.
51. Boxab Inc.’s email policy is consistent with applicable law, including United States Supreme Court precedent, points of information within the professed expertise and alleged education of Plaintiff. Despite this, in August, 2021 Plaintiff unilaterally directed the Boxabl Inc. employee responsible for its computers to disable the ability to monitor employee email communications for both Paolo and Galiano.
52. In response to Plaintiff again overstepping his authority, Galiano further reprimanded Plaintiff to not change Boxabl Inc.’s policy without first checking.
53. Rather than accept his own error, Plaintiff doubled down and claimed that Boxabl Inc.’s email policy presented legal risk. The email monitoring was ultimately re-implemented despite Plaintiff’s baseless protests.
54. Also in August, 2021, Plaintiff authorized issuance of a purchase order for a significant amount of steel in excess of Boxabl Inc.’s current need, particularly given that the product design was undergoing revision which could change its material requirements.
55. Purchases of this magnitude were required to be authorized by Paolo or Galiano.
56. This steel purchase was not authorized by either Paolo or Galiano.
57. On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff requested Galiano to remit a 25% down payment on the purchase order. When Galiano questioned about it, Plaintiff falsely claimed “I spoke directly before moving forward on this purchase.”
58. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 During his tenure as COO, Plaintiff requested permission for Boxabl Inc. to hire an intern. That request was denied. Plaintiff nonetheless hired an intern, notwithstanding his request to do so being previously denied.
59. When tasked with managing contracts, Plaintiff had to be continuously reminded by Paolo to make governing law Nevada.
60. In one instance, Plaintiff completely refused a directive from Paolo to make this request to the Boxabl Inc.’s auditors in their contract.
61. Exasperated, Paolo asked and the governing law was changed with no issue.
62. Galiano had retained a Theon Capital Corporation, a commission-only investment bank, on behalf of Boxabl Inc. Plaintiff without authorization cancelled their services. When asked the rationale for this cancellation, Plaintiff conclusorily asserted that he did so because he perceived them to be “clowns.”
63. Aside from these examples, Plaintiff improperly countermanded Paolo and Galiano in other ways including instructing the Production Manager to move material between factories that he had explicitly been told to keep elsewhere; instructing the Production Manager to dispose of materials that he had been instructed to keep; and otherwise
issuing contrasting production orders.
64. Plaintiff impermissibly forwarded Boxabl Inc. emails to his personal email account, despite having no authority to do so.
65. Plaintiff also was impermissibly conducting business through his personal cell phone.
Plaintiff advised Galiano that he often communicated via cell phone in “code” based on a mistaken belief that this would make his communications not discoverable in a lawsuit.
66. Plaintiff would impermissibly record cell phone communications, asserting that this was legal in Nevada.
Unsettling Behavior, Abrasive Conduct
67. Aside from overstepping his authority and not completing tasks, Plaintiff exhibited unsettling behavior and abrasive conduct.
68. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Plaintiff and other employees of Boxabl Inc. attended a TinyFest Festival in California in May 2021, an exhibit for promoting housing of small square footage. During the proceedings, Plaintiff was observed to start yelling very loudly, for no apparent reason. One Boxabl Inc. employee reported the incident to Paolo, who agreed that it was very unsettling.
69. Plaintiff from time to time was disrespectful and harassing toward other Boxabl Inc. employees. As one example of Plaintiff’s disrespectful and harassing conduct, on or about August 11, 2021 Plaintiff screamed at one of the Boxabl Inc.’s buyers to “do your f**king job!” Boxabl Inc. has an open concept workspace and all the employees present overheard Plaintiff’s tirade and unprofessional remarks.
70. As another example of disrespectful and harassing conduct, at least one employee described Plaintiff commenting “tell those yellow people to get my shit.” This statement was made to a Boxabl Inc. employee of Asian descent.
71. On a building walk through with an electronic security vendor Plaintiff became very hostile with the estimator, at one point yelling “Yeah, I’m that f**king guy!”
Plaintiff engaged from time to time in making alarming statements. At one point, he told an individual, “…don’t go back to college, someone will probably show up with a gun and shoot up the place…” In another instance, an employee described Plaintiff joking
that someone was going to “shoot up” the Boxabl Inc. facility.
72. Numerous employees described an incident where Plaintiff stepped outside the Boxabl Inc. facility and began to inarticulately scream at the top of his lungs.
73. Plaintiff’s strange and unsettling behavior and abusive conduct was not limited to Boxabl Inc. employees.
74. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Another non-employee contact indicated that during a visit with various officials in Washington DC in September 2021 as part of a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce effort, Plaintiff had engaged in behavior that was inappropriate for a business gathering of this nature, including aggressive questioning of U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto during her remarks to the Las Vegas contingent during a day session, and inappropriately monopolizing the conversation with his own political opinions during a private dinner with a former U.S. Congressman and several other guests. This behavior was embarrassing and to the detriment of the Las Vegas community generally and Boxabl Inc.
75. After this meeting, an executive with the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce described
Plaintiff as “delusional.”
76. Plaintiff’s embarrassing conduct before others was also manifested when Plaintiff attended a Rotary Club event. Following the event, Galiano was advised by an attendee that Plaintiff was “something else”, which was understood to mean that Plaintiff had been a general embarrassment to Boxabl Inc. at the Rotary Club event.
77. Plaintiff encouraged and perpetuated amongst other Boxabl Inc. employees the baseless notions that Paolo and Galiano were illegally spying on them; that Paolo and Galiano were deleting their emails; and that Paolo and Galiano were altering their emails.
78. These baseless assertions resulted in dissention amongst the Boxabl Inc. employees.
Plaintiff’s Efforts to Disrupt and Damage Boxabl Inc. 79. Starting in 2021, Boxabl Inc. was seeking permission to offer securities to investors under SEC Regulation A. This request to issue securities was to enable Boxabl Inc. to
raise funds for its manufacturing needs. At times throughout his tenure following the filing of this request with the SEC, Plaintiff stated that the termination of any officer of Boxabl Inc. would require Boxabl Inc. to report this to the SEC, which would result in delay in obtaining SEC qualification of the offering and delay in Boxabl Inc. obtaining needed funds. Plaintiff further asserted that if termination of any officer occurred while Boxabl Inc. was offering its securities, the offering would need to be halted. Apart from Paolo, Plaintiff was the only Boxabl Inc. officer.
80. Plaintiff knew that the delay and/or halting of any securities offering after commencement could jeopardize the future of Boxabl Inc. Plaintiff’s statements were made unjustifiably and without basis, and upon information and belief, were made contrary to the interests of his employer Boxabl Inc. and Plaintiff’s duties to Boxabl Inc., and were made in an effort by Plaintiff to falsely inflate his own importance to the company and thereby discourage Boxabl Inc. from taking remedial action in response to
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Plaintiff’s actions.
81. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by mid-August 2021, Plaintiff’s lack of abilities and unsettling behavior led Boxabl Inc. management to consider how to remedy the problem.
82. In particular, as of August 20, 2021 Plaintiff was reduced to an administrative role within Boxabl Inc.
83. On August 21, 2021, Paolo advised Boxabl Inc.’s HR manager that he was considering offering Plaintiff “a sideways move” to another position “where hopefully he can do well.” Paolo further advised Boxabl Inc.’s HR manager to “put discreet feelers out for a COO centered around Manufacturing and Logistics.”
84. On or about August 21, 2021 Plaintiff was advised or had concluded that his position within Boxabl Inc. was in jeopardy.
85. Upon learning that his position was in jeopardy, Plaintiff began to engage in a series of actions in a manner calculated to discourage Boxabl Inc. from terminating him and/or lay the foundation for a claim of retaliatory termination if it did, and more broadly divert management resources, disrupt Boxabl Inc.’s efforts to raise capital and damage Boxabl
86. Consistent with his efforts to falsely assert that his own termination would impair Boxabl
Inc.’s request to offer securities to investors under SEC Regulation A, Plaintiff proceeded to assert in substance that the departure of other employees also could have the same disruptive effect.
87. In particular, following the resignation of Boxabl Inc.’s Controller on August 27, 2021, on August 31, 2021 Plaintiff wrote Boxabl Inc.’s Board of Directors, calling for Boxabl Inc. to retain legal counsel to review the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to determine if the resignation impacted Boxabl Inc.’s efforts to raise funds, and recommending that the Board’s action on how to proceed be both “unanimous and documented.”
88. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Likewise, upon the resignation of Boxabl Inc.’s Director of Manufacturing on September 20, 2021, Ehlers wrote Boxabl Inc.’s Board of Directors, again calling for Boxabl Inc. to retain legal counsel to review the rules of the SEC, to determine if the resignation
impacted Boxabl Inc.’s efforts to raise funds.
89. Plaintiff raised these matters knowing that they were without basis.
90. Plaintiff raised these matters in a manner calculated to divert management resources, disrupt Boxabl Inc.’s efforts to raise capital, to damage Boxabl Inc., and to lay the foundation for a claim of retaliatory termination given his knowledge that his position in Boxabl Inc. was in jeopardy.
91. On September 13, 2021, still believing that Plaintiff would fulfill his obligations to Boxabl Inc. to act on its behalf, Paolo gave Plaintiff responsibility to talk to a Boxabl Inc. customer supplying Boxabl Inc. products to the U.S. Navy.
92. After unsatisfactory performance, Plaintiff was removed from this responsibility after less than a week had passed.
93. Despite being removed from speaking with the customer, on September 19, 2021 Plaintiff contacted a number of individuals at the customer to broadcast his removal from the relationship. The lead individual at the customer emailed Plaintiff back stating, inter alia,
“we will of course adapt as we must to the change”.
94. The next day, on September 20, 2021 Plaintiff emailed Boxabl Inc.’s Board of Directors to demand that a “risk assessment” be made by all parties “to assess the condition of this contract”, and to assert that removing “known familiar parties” could impact deliveries requiring reporting to the SEC. Plaintiff went on to assert that the customer “could be demanding an explanation when made aware of the changes”.
95. In making these statements to Boxabl Inc.’s Board, Plaintiff failed to disclose that Plaintiff had already informed the customer of his removal. In making these statements to Boxabl Inc.’s Board, Plaintiff failed to disclose that the customer had already told him that, “we will of course adapt as we must to the change”.
96. Plaintiff raised these matters knowing that they were without basis.
97. Plaintiff raised these matters an effort to divert management resources, disrupt Boxabl
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Inc.’s efforts to raise capital and to damage Boxabl Inc., and to lay the foundation for a claim of retaliatory termination given his knowledge that his position in Boxabl Inc. was in jeopardy.
98. Due to Plaintiff’s failings, Defendant has suffered damages in excess of $15,000.00 as a direct and proximate result.
99. Damages are believed to exceed $15,000,000 in total and continue to mount.
100. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Plaintiff, Defendant has been required to retain the services of legal counsel to prosecute this action, and Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs it has incurred in such regard.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud in the Inducement)
101. Defendant hereby repeats and realleges the foregoing and following paragraphs of this Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein.
102. At the commencement of Plaintiff’s relationship with Boxabl, he represented that he had skills, contacts, and connections sufficient to perform the duties associated with acting as the COO of Boxabl Inc.
103. Plaintiff further represented that he had extensive financial, management, and legal experience that would assist Boxabl Inc. with its growth and operations.
104. Plaintiff knew or should have known these representations were false at the time they were made.
105. Defendant justifiably relied on these false representations.
106. Defendant was induced to formally bring Plaintiff on as COO of Boxabl Inc. because of these false representations.
107. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of its reliance on these false representations. It has been necessary for Defendant to retain the services of an attorney to defend and bring this action, and therefore, Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to the law and equity.
108. Damages are believed to exceed $15,000,000 in total and continue to mount.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (Breach of Contract)
109. Defendant hereby repeats and realleges the foregoing and following paragraphs of this Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein.
110. That there existed an employment agreement between Plaintiff and Boxabl Inc. 111. Delineated therein were duties and obligations owed by Plaintiff to Boxabl Inc.
112. Plaintiff breached the terms of the employment by failing to perform his duties as COO of Boxabl Inc.
113. At all times the Defendant materially performed under the terms of the employment agreement.
114. Defendant suffered and continues to suffer monetary damages as a direct result of
Plaintiff’s breaches of the contract in an amount in excess of $15,000. Such damages are in excess of $15,000.00. Damages are believed to exceed $15,000,000 in total and continue to mount.
115. It has been necessary for Defendant to retain the services of an attorney to defend and bring this action, and therefore, Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to the law and equity.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
116. Defendant hereby repeats and realleges the foregoing and following paragraphs of this Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein.
117. That there existed an employment agreement between Plaintiff and Boxabl Inc.
118. Within all contracts there exists a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
119. As the COO of Boxabl Inc., Plaintiff owed a duty of reliance and fiduciary duty to Boxabl Inc.
120. Plaintiff performed under the terms of the Employment Agreement in a way that was unfaithful to the terms of the contract.
121. Defendant’s justified expectations were thusly denied.
122. At all times the Defendant materially performed under the terms of the employment agreement.
123. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Defendant suffered and continues to suffer monetary damages as a direct result of
Plaintiff’s breaches of the contract in an amount in excess of $15,000. Such damages re in excess of $15,000.00 and continue to mount. Damages are believed to exceed $15,000,000 in total and continue to mount.
124. It has been necessary for Defendant to retain the services of an attorney to defend and bring this action, and therefore, Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to the law and equity.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
125. Defendant hereby repeats and reallege the foregoing and following paragraphs of this Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein.
126. As the COO of Boxabl Inc., Plaintiff owed a duty of reliance and fiduciary duty to Boxabl Inc.
127. Defendant suffered and continues to suffer monetary damages as a direct result of
Plaintiff’s breaches of the contract in an amount in excess of $15,000. Such damages are
in excess of $15,000.00 and continue to mount. Damages are believed to exceed $15,000,000 in total and continue to mount.
128. It has been necessary for Defendant to retain the services of an attorney to defend and bring this action, and therefore, Defendant are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to the law and equity.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimant Boxabl Inc. prays for relief against Plaintiff as follows:
1. Compensatory and special damages against Plaintiff in an amount of excess of $15,000.00;
2. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
3. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
4. For such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2022.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
/s/ Robert E. Schumacher
ROBERT E. SCHUMACHER, ESQ.
Nevada State Bar No. 7504
JOHN F. SCHNERINGER, ESQ,
Nevada State Bar No. 14268 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorneys for Defendant,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of August, 2022, I served a true and correct
copy of BOXABL INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM via the
Court’s Electronic Filing/Service system upon those persons designated by the parties in the EService Matters List as follows:
Jason D. Guinasso, Esq.
David M. Doto, Esq.
Alex R. Velto, Esq.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, NV 89101 HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
10080 W. Alta Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 [email protected]@[email protected]Attorneys for Plaintiff,
/s/ Gayle Angulo
An employee of Gordon Rees Scully
NORTH LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — A state-of-the-art new way of building affordable housing is in the works. It’s a concept that could go global, and it’s all starting right in North Las Vegas. 13 Action News Anchor Todd Quinones had a chance to see the future site for Boxabl, a Nevada Built company breaking new ground.
HOME IN A BOX
Take everything you think you know about construction and forget it. Building a home is no longer measured in months. Now it can be done in less than a day.
That is the promise being made by the people at Boxabl. It’s a foldable home that comes in a box.
DELIVERED FOR FREE
“Unpacked in about an hour. You plug it in and you’re living. It’s very, very nice,” said Boxabl CEO Paolo Tiramani.
“And all for under 50-grand?” asked Todd.
“Yeah. $50,000, locally delivered for free,” said Tiramani.
This 400-square-foot single bath casita with full-sized appliances and nine-and-a-half foot ceilings may be a game-changer. Consider college students, people who’ve lost their homes to natural disasters or the people sent to help them.
And that is just the start.
“I mean, for everyone from a mother-in-law to, you know, affordable housing for low-income people and senior citizens,” said Todd.
“Right. So the configuration started out for the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) for the California market. And we thought, let’s configure that, let’s get some sales going, let’s learn our craft with this new technology. And then it absolutely blew up with the public,” said Tiramani.
Blew up to the tune of 20,000 orders and counting, according to Tiramani.
NORTH LAS VEGAS FACTORY
“This is an enormous space. I mean, it’s like three or four football fields in here at least,” said Todd.
“That’s right. That’s right. It’s an eighth of a mile long. And this is factory one,” said Tiramani.
The massive factory in North Las Vegas is set to go online by the end of the year, and the potential output is impressive. Think automotive assembly line meets home construction.
“Every 90 minutes we’ll be putting out a home from this facility,” said Tiramani.
With rising home prices, Boxabl COO Greg Ehlers sees a tremendous need.
“If you live in Stockton, California, and you get a universal basic income of $500 a month, you can afford a Boxabl. Those types of things are solving problems that our society says we need to be addressing right now, and we have that capability,” said Ehlers.
“The price of housing has gone up here just the past couple of years. That’s squeezing out a considerable amount of the population, a lot of them senior citizens,” said Todd.
“Absolutely.,” said Ehlers. “And so what we’ve been doing and working in my role is engaging with some of the local officials, engaging with some of the private companies that the local governments are utilizing, to create new master plans for communities.”
STYLE & QUALITY
The casitas can be stacked together to make larger homes or apartment buildings. Solving a need with the promise of style and quality, and it’s Nevada Built.
“We have a double-size sink. A window, if hopefully, you have a view. Lots of counter space and many, many knickknacks that we have here. So it’s fully detailed out because why not? It’s 2021,” says Tiramani. When that factory is up and running, the guys at Boxabl say they will have about 300 employees.