Elon Musk Requests Judge’s Recusal in Tesla Lawsuit
Elon Musk is pushing for a Delaware judge to withdraw from a significant lawsuit involving Tesla. This follows accusations that the judge, Catherine St. J. McCormick, “supported” a LinkedIn post that poked fun at a $2 billion ruling against him in a different case in California.
Musk’s legal team has filed a motion in the Delaware Court of Chancery to remove McCormick from presiding over the consolidated shareholder lawsuit. They contend that her actions imply a “profit-making” agenda and present a “perceived bias” that could distort the legal proceedings.
The filing highlights McCormick’s engagement with a LinkedIn post that appeared after a jury in California ruled that Musk was liable for misleading tweets regarding his $44 billion purchase of Twitter.
The complaint includes images of posts made by Harry Plotkin, a jury consultant linked to the legal team that sued Musk for securities fraud in San Francisco. In one post, Plotkin sarcastically remarked, “Sorry, Elon. Sorry, Quinn Emanuel,” showing gratitude for the $2 billion ruling while congratulating the legal teams that opposed Musk.
It’s alleged that the post featured a banner indicating McCormick’s support. However, she has denied endorsing it, claiming she was unaware until notified by LinkedIn about her use of the “Support” icon, which she argues was possibly clicked by mistake. In a letter to her lawyer, she expressed disbelief that it could have been an accident.
Additionally, another post that criticized Musk drew attention because an account associated with McCormick’s chambers “liked” a comment calling Musk deeply ashamed of himself, further feeding the argument of bias.
Musk’s legal representatives assert that LinkedIn’s “Support” action, which requires a thoughtful selection from various options, represents a stronger endorsement than just a casual “Like.” They argue that such posts are incendiary and undermine judicial neutrality.
The filing claims that if the judge’s reactions raise questions about her impartiality, Delaware law mandates her recusal. A source close to Musk described the judge as “corrupt,” echoing his accusations in late 2024 regarding her handling of Tesla’s compensation disputes.
The tension is compounded by the overlap between the Delaware shareholders’ lawsuit and the earlier federal case. The plaintiffs in Delaware have already referenced the California verdict to bolster their claims, heightening concerns over potential favoritism from McCormick.
Lawyers contend that judges commenting on ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions violate established judicial conduct rules. McCormick is currently managing a lawsuit that questions Musk and Tesla’s board over alleged fiduciary breaches, particularly focusing on executive compensation practices.
This ongoing conflict with McCormick dates back to 2022 when she overseen the lawsuit that compelled Musk to finalize the Twitter acquisition. Her swift actions led to him completing the purchase just before a scheduled trial, after considerable pressure.
Musk has attributed the tensions to the Delaware court, stating he felt that the judge was biased against him and believed his chances of winning were slim.
Matters escalated in 2024 when McCormick nullified a massive Tesla pay package awarded to Musk, arguing that the approval process was flawed and influenced too heavily by him.
The Delaware Court of Chancery, along with McCormick, has been approached for comments regarding this unfolding situation.
