Khalid v. Twitter, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, § § Proposed Intervenor Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § TWITTER, INC., § § Plaintiff and Counterclaim- § Defendant Below, Appellee, § § and § § ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, § INC., and X HOLDINGS II, INC., § § Defendants and Counterclaim- § Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. § No. 463, 2022 Court Below—Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C.A. No. 2022-0613 Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: June 7, 2023 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the court’s letter decisions dated November 15, 2022, and November 28, 2022. This expedited litigation was dismissed under Court of Chancery Rule 41(a)(1)(ii). Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) renders a pending motion to intervene moot.1 Whether the motion to intervene was filed before or after the stipulated dismissal is irrelevant.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice 1 See, e.g., Silber v. Airbnb, Inc., 2019 WL 3997098, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2019) (dismissing motion to intervene as of right, which was filed approximately three weeks before the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), as moot). 2 See id. (“The timing of the motion to intervene, either before or after the stipulated dismissal, is irrelevant.”). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
