Richard J. Tornetta v. Elon Musk ( 2024 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734
July 22, 2024
Gregory V. Varallo William M. Lafferty
Glenn R. McGillivray Susan W. Waesco
Daniel E. Meyer Ryan D. Stottmann
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ Miranda N. Gilbert
BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Jacob M. Perrone
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 MORRIS, NICHOLS,
Wilmington, DE 19801 ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor
Peter B. Andrews Wilmington, DE 19801
Craig J. Springer
David M. Sborz Rudolf Koch
Andrew J. Peach John D. Hendershot
Jackson E. Warren Kevin M. Gallagher
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC Andrew L. Milam
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
Wilmington, DE 19807 One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
David E. Ross Wilmington, DE 19801
Garrett B. Moritz
Thomas C. Mandracchia David S. Eagle
ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP Sally E. Veghte
1313 North Market St., Suite 1001 KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY
Wilmington, DE 19801 BRANZBURG LLP
919 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
Catherine A. Gaul Wilmington, DE 19801
Randall J. Teti
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. Anthony A. Rickey
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor MARGRAVE LAW LLC
Wilmington, DE 19801 3411 Silverside Road
Baynard Building, Suite 104
John L. Reed Wilmington, DE 19810
Ronald N. Brown, III
Caleb G. Johnson Theodore A. Kittila
Daniel P. Klusman HALLORAN FARKAS + KITTILA LLP
DLA PIPER LLP (US) 5722 Kennett Pike
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19807
Wilmington, DE 19801
C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM
July 22, 2024
Page 2 of 4
Christine M. Mackintosh Daniel A. Griffith
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON LLC
123 Justison Street 600 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Richard J. Tornetta v. Elon Musk, et al.,
C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM
Dear Counsel:
This letter addresses the two motions for leave to participate as amicus curiae
in this action filed by non-parties the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America and Professor Charles M. Elson, respectively.1 Both motions are granted.
Amicus briefs are permitted at the court’s discretion.2 “The historic role of an
amicus curiae, to ensure ‘a full and complete presentation on questions of either
general or public interest that were at issue in the proceedings before the court,’
continues to be the ‘primary function’ of a person seeking leave to serve as a ‘friend
of the court.’”3 The purpose of an amicus curiae is to “supplement[] the efforts of
counsel . . . in a case of general public interest” or raise “broader legal or policy
1 C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 376 (“Chamber Mot.”); Dkt. 329 (“Elson
Mot.”).
2 Louisiana Mun. Police Empls.’ Ret. Sys. v. Hershey Co., 2013 WL 1776668, at *1
(Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2013); Turnbull v. Fink, 644 A.2d 1322, 1324 (Del. 1994) (“The
privilege to be heard as an amicus curiae, as well as the manner and extent of
participation, rests within the discretion of the court.”).
3 Hershey, 2013 WL 1776668, at *1 (quoting Giammalvo v. Sunshine Min. Co., 644
A.2d 407, 409 (Del. 1994)).
C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM
July 22, 2024
Page 3 of 4
implications that might otherwise escape its consideration in the narrow context of a
specific case.”4
The Chamber’s motion accomplishes both goals. All parties can agree this is a
case of general public interest. The Chamber’s motion addresses the legal and policy
implications of the issues at hand.5 The Chamber’s reputation and ability speaks for
itself. The motion is unopposed. It is granted.
Professor Elson’s brief also assists the court by supplementing discussion on
the impact of the Telsa stockholder’s June 13, 2024 vote on this action.6 His brief too
addresses the legal and policy implications of the issues at hand. He is highly
reputable.
Tesla opposes Professor Elson’s motion on two bases. First, Tesla argues that
Professor Elson’s motion does not “concern any matter currently at issue in this
action.”7 Relatedly, Tesla argues that the motion is “procedurally improper and
untimely.”8 At the time that Professor Elson filed his motion, on May 13, 2024, Tesla
was correct to note that “[n]o party to this action, however, has asked [the court] to
determine the legal impact of the [stockholder] vote.”9 But Tesla had already taken
the position, through a letter filed on April 17, that a successful stockholder vote was
4 Giammalvo, 644 A.2d at 409.
5 Chamber Mot. at 12–26.
6 Elson Mot. Ex. A.
7 Dkt. 334 (“Tesla Opp. Br.”) at 1 (emphasis added).
8 Id. at 8.
9 Id. at 7.
C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM
July 22, 2024
Page 4 of 4
likely to “impact” this action.10 Also on April 17, Tesla filed its preliminary proxy
describing the stockholder vote as “ratification” and previewed its legal theories.11
So, the issues had been teed up by May 13. In all events, the issue is now squarely
before the court due to the defendants’ June 28, 2024 motion.12 It cannot be disputed
that, currently, Professor Elson’s motion speaks to an issue “included in the opening
brief” of a party.13
Second, Tesla argues that Elson’s purpose in filing his motion was “plainly to
cast aspersions on Tesla and its Board in advance of the . . . stockholder vote.”14 But
the brief addresses complicated legal and policy issues presented by the parties. The
court infers no improper motivation in the filing of the motion, and the court
welcomes the thoughts of Professor Elson, a leading authority on Delaware law who
previously assisted the court in this action.15 Professor Elson’s motion is granted.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
10 Dkt. 306 (Letter to The Honorable Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick dated April 17,
2024 from John L. Reed enclosing copy of Nominal Defendant, Tesla, Inc.’s
Preliminary Proxy).
11 See id. at Ex. A (Preliminary Proxy) at 6, 7, 9, 75; see also id. at 2.
12 Dkt. 396 (Defs.’ Mot. to Revise) at 13–14.
13 Cf. Jarden LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 5296824, at *1 (Del. Nov. 10, 2021).
14 Tesla Opp. Br. at 8–9.
15 See Dkt. 266.