Crispo v. Musk

Full title: Luigi Crispo v. Elon R. Musk et al.,

Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware

Date published: Oct 13, 2022

C. A. 2022-0666-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 13, 2022)

Opinion

C. A. 2022-0666-KSJM

10-13-2022

Luigi Crispo v. Elon R. Musk et al.,

Michael Hanrahan, Esquire Samuel L. Closic, Esquire John G. Day, Esquire Robert B. Lackey, Esquire Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. Edward B. Micheletti, Esquire Lauren N. Rosenello, Esquire Ryan M. Lindsay, Esquire Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor

Michael Hanrahan, Esquire

Samuel L. Closic, Esquire

John G. Day, Esquire

Robert B. Lackey, Esquire

Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.

Edward B. Micheletti, Esquire

Lauren N. Rosenello, Esquire

Ryan M. Lindsay, Esquire

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor

Dear Counsel:

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff Luigi Crispo filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of statements made by Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc. ("Defendants") in Twitter Inc. v. Elon R. Musk, et al., C. A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.¹ The following day, I issued a Memorandum Opinion largely granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss² while identifying one area that warranted supplemental briefing.³

1 C. A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM, Docket ("Dkt.") 40.

2 See Dkt. 15, 18, 25, and 35.

3 Dkt. 41.

I believe that my decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss rendered Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice largely moot. If Plaintiff believes that his Motion for Judicial Notice is not moot, he may advance those arguments in the supplemental briefing requested in my October 11 decision.

Sincerely,