Kate Claassen's name also fits, and she has a work background at Merrill Lynch (as does Birchall), but unlike Corcoran, she still appears to be employed at Morgan Stanley.
Just a guess... But it appears that Kyle Corcoran is the Morgan Stanley Managing Director who helped Elon Musk manipulate the market to amass his Twitter stake.
The name lines up.
And so does the timing. It looks like Morgan Stanley likely fired him in 2023 when this came up in discovery.
Kate Claassen's name also fits, and she has a work background at Merrill Lynch (as does Birchall), but unlike Corcoran, she still appears to be employed at Morgan Stanley.
I have to say, I don't fully understand why Elon decided to release this video. In my view it proves, or at least strongly supports, the case against him that the WSJ (or the Tesla Board via WSJ?) was trying to make.
Elon did not respond. I sent his attorneys two polite warnings about default. He still did not respond. His attorneys also did not respond (they're also cross-defendants), which is consistent with what they previously told me: they believe there is no lawsuit at all.
As described above, they believe there is no lawsuit because the court lacks jurisdiction given that they dismissed their claims voluntarily on May 1, 2023. I didn't file a cross-complaint until May 3. By their logic, the court had no authority to issue summonses on that cross-complaint because it was filed after.
Well, I thought about it. And I realized that even if you agree with Elon's lawyers' reasoning, he's still wrong. That's because California law bends space-time.
There's this thing called California Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).
It says anything electronically served gives the other side two extra days to respond. So basically, filing two days later is like filing on the same day—or maybe even earlier on the same day.
Guess who served the request for voluntarily dismissal electronically?
Now guess who got two extra days to respond?
And guess who responded exactly two days later?
(Answers: Elon, me, and me.)
Suffice it to say that Elon's strategy here is interesting.
He filed the initial [CA state] lawsuit, which means that there was no need to serve a summons on him for the cross-complaint. He was served the Cross-Complaint electronically on May 3rd and the First Amended Cross-Complaint electronically on May 15th.
After his lawyers received the Cross-Complaint they tried to revoke their agreement to receive e-mail service, but as I pointed out, that was unethical, a violation of California law, a violation of State Bar Rules, and a violation of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Alameda County.
Oops.
And then I added a claim for abuse of process involving those violations (and others) to the First Amended Cross-Complaint, and served that on Elon via his Hardcore Litigation Department on the 15th.
They get 30 days + 2 for electronic service (because California law makes no sense).
So May 15 + 30 days = June 14 + 2 days = June 16 = tomorrow.
Normally when someone has a jurisdictional argument like the one Elon's lawyers are now making they file that in a motion to dismiss, or in California, a "demurrer" as they call it.
Will they file anything? Or is there no need because the case is so closed and the summonses are invalid and the service is inapplicable and no court can contain the great Elon Musk and I'm so hopelessly wrong and in need of legal counsel as they keep reminding me?
We shall see!
(One hint: under California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41, if you intend to file a demurrer, you have to "meet and confer" "in person or by telephone" at least five days before. They haven't done that, and have expressed no interest in doing so. Last time they had to it didn't go so well.)
Reply
X Corp. v. Media Matters for America et al, Texas Northern District Court Case No. 4:23-cv-01175-O
Get E-Mail Alerts
