Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	10. Contingencies On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside against us, certain of our executive officers (together, the “Company Defendants”), Edward R. Monfort, our former Chief Technology Officer and former director, and the two underwriters of our offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017. This complaint alleges that documents related to our offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that we and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection therewith. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i) certification of a class under California substantive law and procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has subsequently filed a first amended complaint, a second amended complaint, and a third amended complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class representative. On October 25, 2019, we answered the third amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead Securities (together the “Underwriters”) filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for the Company’s initial public offering (the “Underwriting Agreement”). On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the Underwriters’ cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020 we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort’s cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On April 6, 2020, the Company Defendants, Mr. Monfort, and Plaintiff Electric Drivetrains engaged in mediation. The Underwriters declined to participate in the mediation. The mediation did not result in settlement. On April 16, 2020, Electric Drivetrains requested that defendants stipulate to Electric Drivetrains’ filing a fourth amended complaint. A status conference is set for May 11, 2020. We believe that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On June 19, 2019, Alan K. Brooks, an ADOMANI investor, filed a complaint, captioned Alan K. Brooks v. ADOMANI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-CV-349153 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain of the Company’s executive officers and directors, one of the underwriters (the “Underwriter”) of the Company’s offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017, and certain of the Underwriter’s personnel, among others. The complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants breached the terms of an agreement between Mr. Brooks and the Company by refusing to release 1,320,359 shares of ADOMANI, Inc. stock to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks seeks damages of $13,500,000.00 plus interest and attorney’s fees. On September 20, 2019, Mr. Brooks filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) reasserting his breach of contract claim and alleging five additional claims for (i) violations of Cal. Corp. Code Section 25401, (ii) fraud, (iii) negligent misrepresentation, (iv) elder abuse, and (v) unfair competition. We answered the FAC on November 12, 2019, generally denying the allegations in the FAC and asserting affirmative defenses. On January 9, 2020, the Underwriter filed a notice of related case, notifying the court of Mollik v. ADOMANI, et al., described above. On January 31, 2020, the Underwriter filed a motion to stay proceedings. The motion to stay is set for hearing on May 21, 2020. A case management conference is scheduled in this matter for June 9, 2020. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On April 13, 2020, the Company filed a complaint against Ebus, Inc., Anders B. Eklov and Carol J. Eklov, Case No. 20ST-CV14275, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles seeking to recover the remainder of the assets acquired by the Company through a credit bid in the amount of $582,000 at a foreclosure sale initiated by the Company following Ebus’s default in its obligations to the Company under a related promissory note. The complaint, among other things, seeks possession of the remainder of the assets and alleges that Ebus and the other defendants improperly converted or used certain of the assets. The Company continues to vigorously pursue such action and continues to evaluate several paths to obtaining the remaining assets that were purchased from Ebus at the foreclosure sale.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. Contingencies

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside against us, certain of our executive officers (together, the “Company Defendants”), Edward R. Monfort, our former Chief Technology Officer and former director, and the two underwriters of our offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017. This complaint alleges that documents related to our offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that we and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection therewith. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i) certification of a class under California substantive law and procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has subsequently filed a first amended complaint, a second amended complaint, and a third amended complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class representative. On October 25, 2019, we answered the third amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead Securities (together the “Underwriters”) filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for the Company’s initial public offering (the “Underwriting Agreement”). On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the Underwriters’ cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020 we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort’s cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On April 6, 2020, the Company Defendants, Mr. Monfort, and Plaintiff Electric Drivetrains engaged in mediation. The Underwriters declined to participate in the mediation. The mediation did not result in settlement. On April 16, 2020, Electric Drivetrains requested that defendants stipulate to Electric Drivetrains’ filing a fourth amended complaint. A status conference is set for May 11, 2020. We believe that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

On June 19, 2019, Alan K. Brooks, an ADOMANI investor, filed a complaint, captioned Alan K. Brooks v. ADOMANI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-CV-349153 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain of the Company’s executive officers and directors, one of the underwriters (the “Underwriter”) of the Company’s offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017, and certain of the Underwriter’s personnel, among others. The complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants breached the terms of an agreement between Mr. Brooks and the Company by refusing to release 1,320,359 shares of ADOMANI, Inc. stock to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks seeks damages of $13,500,000.00 plus interest and attorney’s fees. On September 20, 2019, Mr. Brooks filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) reasserting his breach of contract claim and alleging five additional claims for (i) violations of Cal. Corp. Code Section 25401, (ii) fraud, (iii) negligent misrepresentation, (iv) elder abuse, and (v) unfair competition. We answered the FAC on November 12, 2019, generally denying the allegations in the FAC and asserting affirmative defenses. On January 9, 2020, the Underwriter filed a notice of related case, notifying the court of Mollik v. ADOMANI, et al., described above. On January 31, 2020, the Underwriter filed a motion to stay proceedings. The motion to stay is set for hearing on May 21, 2020. A case management conference is scheduled in this matter for June 9, 2020. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

On April 13, 2020, the Company filed a complaint against Ebus, Inc., Anders B. Eklov and Carol J. Eklov, Case No. 20ST-CV14275, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles seeking to recover the remainder of the assets acquired by the Company through a credit bid in the amount of $582,000 at a foreclosure sale initiated by the Company following Ebus’s default in its obligations to the Company under a related promissory note. The complaint, among other things, seeks possession of the remainder of the assets and alleges that Ebus and the other defendants improperly converted or used certain of the assets. The Company continues to vigorously pursue such action and continues to evaluate several paths to obtaining the remaining assets that were purchased from Ebus at the foreclosure sale.