top of page

Boxabl Responds to Greg Ehlers Lawsuit against former employer

Updated: Sep 29, 2022

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:


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