Tesla & Musk File Brief after Aaron Greenspan Appeals Anti-SLAPP Victory
Musk and Tesla are asking the California Court of Appeal to uphold their anti-SLAPP victory, and award them attorneys’ fees for defending it on appeal.
Elon Musk and Tesla filed their Respondents’ Brief on Monday in Greenspan v. Musk, the latest development in Aaron Greenspan’s years-long harassment and litigation campaign targetting Musk, Tesla, myself, and others.
The brief asks California’s First District Court of Appeal to affirm the San Francisco Superior Court’s decision granting Musk and Tesla’s anti-SLAPP motion against Greenspan. Musk’s attorneys are also asking the court to award their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred defending the ruling on appeal.
You can read the full brief here.
How we got here
This litigation has a long history.
Greenspan previously sued Musk, Tesla, myself and my company Smick Enterprises in federal court in 2020. His federal claims were ultimately dismissed with prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment in 2024.
Greenspan subsequently brought another lawsuit containing a 155-page, 20-count amended complaint against Musk, Tesla, their attorneys, myself and others.
After the remaining state-law claims returned to San Francisco Superior Court, Musk and the other defendants represented by Quinn Emanuel filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Judge Joseph Quinn granted that motion in November 2025, finding that the challenged claims arose from protected activity and that Greenspan failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing.
Greenspan appealed. This new filing is Musk and Tesla’s response.
Musk: the anti-SLAPP ruling should stand
The brief argues that Greenspan’s appeal fails both procedurally and on the merits.
One of Greenspan’s arguments concerns whether the anti-SLAPP motion was filed in time. Musk’s attorneys argue that the July 17, 2025 remand from federal court created a new 60-day period to file an anti-SLAPP motion. Their initial motion was filed September 10, within that window.
They additionally argue that even if the motion were considered late, California law gave the trial court discretion to hear it anyway.
Another dispute involves Greenspan’s attempts to voluntarily dismiss certain defendants and claims around the time the anti-SLAPP motion was being filed.
The brief points to an email in which Greenspan told defense counsel that if he dismissed certain defendants “without prejudice for now,” they would “still have no anti-SLAPP motion.”
The trial court ultimately found that some of Greenspan’s dismissals were intended to avoid an imminent adverse ruling.
Protected speech
The heart of the case concerns California’s anti-SLAPP law, which provides a mechanism for defendants to challenge lawsuits arising from protected speech and petitioning activity.
Musk’s attorneys argue that the conduct Greenspan challenged falls principally into two categories: public statements concerning Tesla’s products, technology, stock and performance; and conduct associated with litigation and regulatory proceedings.
The brief argues that both are protected activities under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
It then argues that Greenspan cannot establish the required “minimal merit” for the challenged claims, citing several independent defenses including claim preclusion from his earlier federal litigation, California’s litigation privilege, statutes of limitations and failures to establish essential elements of individual claims.
The brief directly addresses my relationship with Tesla
One section is particularly relevant to my own involvement in the litigation.
Greenspan has repeatedly attempted to characterize me as an agent of Musk or Tesla and use statements I made online as a basis for imposing liability on them.
Musk and Tesla explicitly reject that theory in their new brief.
Their attorneys note that the Tesla Early Access Program agreement cited by Greenspan itself disclaimed an agency relationship. More importantly, they argue that Greenspan produced no evidence that Musk or Tesla had the right to control my statements about him.
As the brief puts it:
“Nothing Greenspan identifies shows that Musk or Tesla had the right to control Qazi’s statements about Greenspan.”
The brief also notes that the federal court in the earlier Greenspan v. Qazi litigation twice concluded that Greenspan had failed to plausibly allege an agency relationship.
That issue is significant because Greenspan’s defamation theory against Musk and Tesla depends in part on attempting to hold them vicariously liable for statements that I made.
Greenspan’s allegations about AI
There is also an unusual AI-related issue in the appeal.
Greenspan has attacked errors in the trial court’s written anti-SLAPP order and speculated that artificial intelligence may have played a role in drafting it.
Musk’s attorneys argue that this doesn’t establish reversible error.
Their position is that California procedure allows a prevailing party to prepare a proposed order, Greenspan had opportunities to object and seek reconsideration, and—most importantly—the Court of Appeal reviews the anti-SLAPP decision independently.
In other words, whatever caused any alleged drafting or citation errors in the trial court’s written order, Greenspan still has to demonstrate that an error actually affected the outcome.
What’s next
Musk and Tesla conclude by asking the Court of Appeal to affirm the anti-SLAPP order and award them their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the appeal.
My attorney is preparing a separate brief addressing the issues applicable to me. I expect that brief to be filed soon, and I’ll publish it when it is available.
For now, Musk and Tesla’s complete filing is available below.
Thank you to everyone who has supported me through this horrible decade long harassment campaign orchestrated by Tesla short sellers like Aaron Greenspan.
Read the full 73-page Musk & Tesla Respondents’ Brief — Greenspan v. Musk, No. A175747