A federal judge certified on Friday a class of Lucid shareholders suing the company and former CEO Peter Rawlinson over its 2022 production forecast, refusing Lucid’s request to apply a stricter damages test set by a federal appeals court in a case against Boeing.
United States District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted the motion in the Northern District of California, the court docket shows.
The class covers everyone who bought or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between November 15, 2021, and August 3, 2022.
Sweden’s state pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden, known as AP7, was appointed class representative, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check was named class counsel.
The ruling, first reported by Law360, moves the four and a half year-old case closer to trial or settlement.
Lucid announced on February 25, 2025 that Rawlinson would “transition to the role of Strategic Technical Advisor to the Chairman of the Board” while the company’s Chief Operating Officer, Marc Winterhoff, was appointed Interim CEO.
A Target Cut Twice
AP7 alleges Rawlinson told investors Lucid was on track to build tens of thousands of vehicles and implied only external factors could stop it, while knowing the company had “debilitating internal logistics problems.”
The complaint cites unreliable inventory systems, a warehouse running well over capacity and flaws in the Air sedan that required redesign after production had started, according to the order.
Rawlinson allegedly acknowledged internally in October or November 2021 that Lucid would build fewer than 10,000 vehicles in 2022.
“We remain confident in our ability to achieve 20,000 units in 2022,” he said in the company’s third-quarter results release on November 15, 2021.
That statement is one of four still in the case, all made by Rawlinson on November 15 and 16, 2021.
Twelve later statements were dismissed in May 2025, and former CFO Sherry House was dropped as a defendant in September 2024.
The Saudi-backed EV maker announced House’s departure on December 11, 2023.
Lucid cut its 2022 outlook to 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles on February 28, 2022, and to 6,000 to 7,000 on August 3, 2022, when it said “the limitations of our logistics system have compounded the challenge.”
It built 7,180 vehicles that year, above the reduced guidance but just over a third of the original 20,000 target.
The allegations have not been proven, and the order makes no finding on whether any statement was false.
Shares at Their Peak
The stock rose 23.7% to $55.52 on November 16, 2021, the day after the first two statements, its highest close during the class period.
It fell 13.8% after the February 2022 cut and 9.7% after the August 2022 cut.
Lucid did not dispute that all three moves were statistically significant, the order says, although the court relied on the plaintiff’s expert analysis rather than those daily percentages.
The shares closed at $3.90 on Monday resulting in a market cap value of $1.54 billion.
Lucid’s shares began trading after a one-for-10 reverse split on September 2, 2025, so Monday’s close equals $0.39 on the 2021 basis, about 99% below the November 2021 peak.
No Boeing Test
One of Lucid’s defences was that the November 2021 statements had no effect on the share price because they only repeated an existing target.
The judge disagreed, writing that “updates and estimates for project timelines are almost always new information.”
She also rejected Lucid’s argument that the guidance cuts did not correct the statements because they did not blame internal logistics.
On damages, Lucid asked the court to follow the Fourth Circuit, which in July reversed class certification for Boeing shareholders because their damages model was not specific enough.
That panel held that the standard “out-of-pocket” description of investor losses “is so general that it would apply in any securities fraud case” and is not a methodology.
“Certification orders are not like participation trophies that are handed out to everyone on the tee ball team,” Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. wrote for the panel.
The Boeing case involved 75 alleged misstatements over more than four years, according to the opinion, while four statements remain in the Lucid case.
The Boeing investors have asked the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case, Law360 reported on September 3, so that ruling could still be revisited.
Lucid’s lawyers filed that ruling with the court on August 12, the docket shows.
Martínez-Olguín said its “demanding requirements seem inconsistent” with Ninth Circuit precedent.
“Defendants’ argument ultimately reflects how they believe the Ninth Circuit ought to interpret Comcast, not how it previously has,” she wrote.
“The Court is unpersuaded and declines Defendants’ invitation.”
The judge also rejected Lucid’s argument that AP7 was an unsuitable class representative because it bought the shares through index-tracking strategies.
Mediation and Appeal
The two sides held a mediation session on July 24, according to court filings.
AP7 reported on the outcome on July 31, in a filing that is not publicly available, and the case went on to a ruling.
Lucid has until October 9 to ask the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal, under rules that allow 14 days after a class certification order.
The appeals court has turned down recent requests of that kind, including one from Wells Fargo in July 2025, according to law firm Cleary Gottlieb.
On August 26, it refused to hear Alphabet’s challenge to class certification in a shareholder case, over a dissent from Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, according to a copy AP7 filed in the Lucid case.
A separate question could reach the Supreme Court.
Zillow Group has asked the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling on how closely a company’s disclosure must match earlier statements for investors to sue, the Supreme Court docket shows.
Martínez-Olguín relied on that ruling in the Lucid order.
The petition was considered at the justices’ conference on Monday, and no decision had been posted as of publication time.
Lucid also faces a separate securities suit filed this year over the Gravity SUV, which alleges the company concealed a 29-day delivery halt in early 2026.
