Court Opinion

ID: 9400048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 12:04:02.255233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.867643
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID,               §
                                     §         No. 463, 2022
        Proposed Intervenor Below, §
        Appellant,                   §         Court Below—Court of
                                     §         Chancery of the State of
        v.                           §         Delaware
                                     §
  TWITTER, INC.,                     §         C.A. No. 2022-0613
                                     §
        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. §

                           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