Greenspan v. Musk
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-04647
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Greenspan v. Musk, Judge Chesney denied plaintiff’s sur-reply motion and vacated hearings on defendants’ motions.
Aaron Jacob Greenspan and the defendants whose motions to strike or dismiss were scheduled for hearing, including Elon Musk, X Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company, LLC, Tesla, Inc., and the other defendants listed in the order.
What happened
In Greenspan v. Musk, defendants filed three motions seeking to strike or dismiss claims in Aaron Jacob Greenspan’s amended complaint. Greenspan opposed the motions in a combined filing and then sought permission to file a sur-reply.
The opinion does not decide the defendants’ motions to strike or dismiss. Instead, the court determined those matters could be resolved from the written submissions and canceled the hearings scheduled for January 17, 2025.
Judge Maxine Chesney denied Greenspan’s administrative motion for permission to file a sur-reply. The court cited his decision to file one opposition to multiple motions and noted that his additional filing was not authorized under the applicable local rule.
The detailed version
- Greenspan v. Musk · No. 3:24-cv-04647
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 20, 2024
Background
The court considered three motions filed on September 30, 2024:
- X Corp.’s motion to strike or, alternatively, dismiss Greenspan’s claims against it in the amended complaint; - Morgan Stanley & Company, LLC’s special motion to strike and dismiss the first amended complaint; and - a motion by Elon Musk, Tesla, Inc., the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003, Excession, LLC, Jared Birchall, Singer Cashman LLP, Allison Huebert, Adam S. Cashman, Adam G. Mehes, and Alex Spiro to strike or, alternatively, dismiss Greenspan’s claims.
Greenspan filed an “Omnibus Opposition” and a corrected version. The moving defendants filed separate replies. Greenspan later filed an administrative motion seeking permission to file a sur-reply, which is an additional response after a reply brief.
Rulings
The court denied Greenspan’s administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply. It explained that the requested relief was based on Greenspan’s choice to file one opposition responding to multiple motions. The court also noted that Greenspan’s unauthorized reply supporting the administrative motion sought to bring a recently decided judicial opinion to the court’s attention, but the opinion text provided does not include the remainder of the court’s discussion after that point.
The court vacated the hearings scheduled for January 17, 2025. After reading and considering the parties’ written submissions, it deemed the motions appropriate for decision without a hearing.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The provided opinion does not state whether any defendant’s motion to strike or dismiss was granted or denied. It only denies the request to file a sur-reply and vacates the hearings on those motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.