New Discovery deadline scheduled for Nio Lawsuit #5 – March 12, 2021

A New York lawyer has won the first of a lawsuit against Nio. The plaintiff, Thomas J. Dempster, claimed that Nio failed to make material and supportive statements of a non-exchange agreement when they sold his company, Nio USA, to Apollo Healthcare Corporation. Dempster, through his attorney, had sought and obtained a copy of this agreement. On March 14th, Dempster won his lawsuit against Nio USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. According to the complaint, Nio misrepresented to Dempster that they would create an Nio account once he sold his company to Apollo.

In February of next year, Dempster again had requested and obtained a copy of the Nio account agreement.

On March 14th, he again went to court to obtain discovery from Nio, but this time, Dempster received what he claimed was an electronic message sent by It’s counsel claiming that Nio intended to repay Mr. Dempster’s existing Nio account with a check for the amount of money that Nio had advanced to Apollo. According to Dempster, Nio sent the electronic message while negotiating the March 14th settlement date. According to Dempster, “Mr. Dempster repeatedly insisted that he had no understanding of or consent to the representations made by Nio.” Mr. Dempster was able to obtain discovery from Nio without his attorneys present because Nio failed to honor their legal obligations to provide discovery upon demand.

The plaintiff in the Nio lawsuit is now seeking damages on behalf of the consumers represented in the suit and all others similarly situated who did not advance funds to Nio in the form of a loan, depositary shares, equity loans or any other type of advance. The plaintiffs seek damages for breach of fiduciary, fraud, negligence and for breach of contract and conversion. Additionally, they seek an award for the actual damages incurred as well as punitive damages.

On March 9th, the lead plaintiff deadline has been reached.

If Nio LLC files a motion to extend the class period, it would have to issue new discovery requests until after the new class period expires. If no files a reply, it would have six months to either extend the class period or dismiss the lawsuit. This means that if Nio seeks extensions to the class period based on new discovery deadlines, Nio will be forced into a tight race with Apollo to file its defenses in time to get before the lead plaintiff deadline.

In addition to trying to extend the lead plaintiff deadline, Nio may also be attempting to resolve the claims in this litigation prior to the closing of the case. On March 4th, a scheduling conference call was issued in the case. During the call, counsel for Nio discussed possible new discovery deadlines and other matters. A scheduling conference call is typically an attempt to resolve issues or expedite a case in order to enable a closing date to occur. If It’s counsel does not attend the call, it could indicate that the claim will be postponed until after the conclusion of the case. However, if counsel does attend the call, it could indicate that there are other matters currently moving ahead in the case.

It should be noted that if Nio files a motion to renew the class action allege at any point during the course of this litigation, Nio must provide written notice of its intention to do so to the plaintiffs. If plaintiffs do not receive such notification, they could file a complaint in the county court challenging Who’s intention to renew the lawsuit. Alternatively, if plaintiffs receive such notification and do not object, Nio would have seven days from receipt of such notification to file an answer. Therefore, it is likely that on march 12th, the lawsuit will be delayed yet again, most likely making it even more difficult for innocent parties to seek redress for their injuries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *