|
|
| (31 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Consumers have sued over the same defect.''' On February 13, 2026, a putative consumer class action, ''Berdner v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.'', was filed in Sonoma County, California, and later removed to federal court.<ref name="berdner">''Berdner v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.'', No. 3:26-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal.), removed April 30, 2026 from Sonoma County Superior Court No. 26CV01247. [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73278488/berdner-v-dragonfly-energy-holdings-corp/ Docket via CourtListener].</ref> In Dragonfly's own words, in its annual report, the plaintiffs ''"allege that the products share a uniform design defect related to the positive terminal connection that can result in overheating, premature failure, and safety risk."''<ref name="10k2025">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315226013635/form10-k.htm |title=Form 10-K (fiscal year 2025), Legal Proceedings and Note on Warranty Obligations |publisher=Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2026-03-30 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref><ref name="10q2026">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315226023103/form10-q.htm |title=Form 10-Q (quarter ended March 31, 2026), Legal Proceedings |publisher=Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2026-05-14 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> That is a separate set of plaintiffs, represented by separate counsel, describing the same positive-terminal failure on the same battery line that Prowse described.
| | probe [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2023/84679.html x] {{ombox|type=notice|text=t}} |