JPM Chase Discouraged in Telsa Case From Moving for Judgment on Elon Musk Tweet
Judge Gardephe said the case is not susceptible to judgment on the pleadings. Davis Polk may argue again in a week. But, conference in 90 days on discovery. Inner City Press will stay on the case(s)
By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book VLOG
BBC-Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN NY Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 4 – In JP Morgan Chase's lawsuit against Tesla, about Elon Musk's tweet saying he would take Tesla private, the bank asked to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On May 4 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul G. Gardephe convened an in-person proceeding, which Inner City Press attended and live tweeted it.
Judge Gardephe said, in essence, that Chase's claim is not susceptible to judgment on the pleadings. He is entering a case management plan and will meet again with the parties in 90 days - pending letter(s) from the parties. Inner City Press' live tweeted #MaximumMusk thread:
Judge Gardphe: Tesla has asserts a counter-claim. JPM Chase has filed a pre-motion letter seeking to file a motion for judgment on the pleading. I don't think the case is appropriate for that. Expert discovery will be needed.
Judge Gardephe: I asked JPM Chase to let me know if in a week if, despite what I've said, they desire to file the motion and why.
Judge Gardephe: The agreements do not define commercially-reasonable methods.... Musk tweeted, "Am considering taking Tesla private... funding secured."
[Funny to be transcribing this on Twitter, for which Musk also says, seemingly with basis, "funding secured"]
Judge Gardephe: Tesla published a blog post attributed to Musk reversing position. JPM Chase revised the strike price after the blog post, and gave Tesla notice of the adjustment. Tesla objected to both. Tesla seeks a declaration that JPM Chase violated its duty.
Judge Gardephe: JPM Chase says it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Assuming arguendo that the tweet constituted an "announcement event" under the agreement - I will focus on whether JPM Chase can show it was commercially reasonable as a matter of law
Judge Gardephe: Expert testimony on what is commercially reasonable in the industry is likely necessary. Tesla disputes the reasonableness of Chase's methodology.
Judge Gardephe: This issue not susceptible to judgment on the pleadings. [Citing a State Street case before the 2d Circuit in 2013]. Chase cited a case that does not turn on commercial reasonableness.
Judge Gardephe: I do not believe that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is productive. So I intend to answer a case management plan. I will meet with you again in about 90 days time to make sure discovery is proceeding. Chase's lawyer: I respectfully disagree
JPM Chase's lawyer [from David Polk] This is a unique case. Usually answers say very little, But here Tesla made counter claims, and so asserted facts. [Judge Gardephe has already read out his view, so it's not clear how effective this presentation is going to be Judge Gardephe: Sorry, we have a jury out, I got a note [in Hezbollah case of US v. Saab, which Inner City Press is covering here - as well as a Lebanese money laundering case with a proposed suretor from JPM Chase in Tampa, here
Tesla / Musk's lawyer from Quinn Emanuel : This case isn't subject to judgment on the pleadings. Full disclosure: Quinn Emanuel, pro bono, has written to UN (and emailed the US State Department ) seeking to get Inner City Press back into UN - no answer, video Q here.
Judge Gardephe: I haven't rule per se. I look for a letter from JPM Chase, the defense [Telsa] could put in a letter too. Inner City Press is tracking the docket. Watch this site.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.