throbber
Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Alex Spiro (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
`51 Madison Ave 22nd floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone:
`(212) 849-7000
`Facsimile:
`(212) 849-7100
`
`Michael T. Lifrak (Bar No. 210846)
`michaellifrak@quinnemanuel.com
`Joseph C. Sarles (Bar No. 254750)
`josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com
`Alex Bergjans (Bar No. 302830)
`alexbergjans@quinnemanuel.com
`Aubrey L. Jones (Bar No. 326793)
`aubreyjones@quinnemanuel.com
`865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone:
`(213) 443-3000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-3100
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Elon Musk, X
`Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`WILLIAM HERESNIAK, on behalf of
`himself and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., X
`HOLDINGS II, INC., and TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`
`DEFENDANTS X HOLDINGS I, INC.
`AND X HOLDINGS II, INC.’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT AND STAY DISCOVERY
`
`Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
`Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor
`
`Hearing Date: December 2, 2022
`Time: 10 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I., INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1        
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................5
`
`I.
`
`THE ACTION WAS FILED IN THE WRONG FORUM ....................................................5
`
`A.
`
`Twitter’s Bylaws Mandate That This Action Be Litigated In Delaware
`Chancery Court ........................................................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Forum-Selection Clauses In Bylaws Are Enforceable Against
`Shareholders ...................................................................................................6
`
`Plaintiff’s First Claim Falls Within The Bylaws’ Forum-Selection
`Clause .............................................................................................................6
`
`The Bylaws’ Forum-Selection Clause Is Valid and Enforceable ...................7
`
`The Public Interest Weighs In Favor Of Enforcement ...................................8
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Dismiss The Entire Action .......................................................9
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE DERIVATIVE ......................................................................9
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR AIDING AND ABETTING ..................10
`
`PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Cannot Enforce An Agreement To Which He Is Not A Party ............10
`
`Plaintiff’s Request For Declaratory Relief Is Not Justiciable ............................11
`
`V.
`
`ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD STAY DISCOVERY ................................12
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Stay Discovery Pending Resolution Of Related
`Actions .....................................................................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A Discovery Stay Would Promote The Orderly Course Of Justice .............13
`
`Plaintiff Will Not Be Damaged By A Stay ..................................................13
`
`Defendants Will Suffer Considerable Hardship Absent A Stay ..................14
`
`B.
`
`Alternatively, Discovery Should Be Stayed Pending Pleading Motion
`Practice ....................................................................................................................14
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................15
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Arris Enterprises LLC v. Sony Corp.,
` No. 17-CV-02669-BLF, 2017 WL 3283937 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2017) ............................. 14
`
`Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas,
` 571 U.S. 49 (2013) ................................................................................................... 5, 7, 8, 9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
` 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 10
`
`Benerofe v. Cha,
` 1998 WL 83081 (Del. Ch. Feb. 20, 1998) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Boilermakers Loc. 154 Ret. Fund v. Chevron Corp.,
` 73 A.3d 934 (Del. Ch. 2013) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`City of S. Lake Tahoe v. California Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency,
` 625 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1980) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
` 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Cont’l Grain Co. v. The FBL-585,
` 364 U.S. 19 (1960) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`Crispo v. Musk et. al.,
` C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM .................................................................................................. 5
`
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid Printing Sols. L.L.C.,
` 248 F. Supp. 3d 570 (D. Del. 2017) ................................................................................... 10
`
`Fortis Advisors LLC v. Medicines Co., & Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.,
` 2019 WL 7290945 (Del. Ch. Dec. 18, 2019) ..................................................................... 11
`
`Fuller v. Amerigas Propane, Inc.,
` No. 09-2616 TEH, 2009 WL 2390358 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) ...................................... 13
`
`Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Assocs.,
` 98 Cal. App. 4th 1388 (2002) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. S’holder Derivative Priv. Litig.,
` 367 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................... 2, 6, 7, 8
`
`In re Pattern Energy Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig.,
` No. CV 20-275-MN-JLH, 2022 WL 263312 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2022),
` report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 20-275 (MN) (JLH),
` 2022 WL 957761 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2022) ....................................................................... 6-7
`
`In re Rh S’holder Derivative Litig.,
` No. 18-CV-02452-YGR, 2019 WL 580668 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2019) ....................... 13, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`In re STEC, Inc. Derivative Litig.,
` No. CV 10-00667-JVS MLGX, 2012 WL 8978155 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012) ................. 14
`
`In re: CytRx Corp. S’holder Derivative Litig.,
` No. CV146414GHKPJWX, 2015 WL 9871275 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015) ..................... 6, 8
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
` 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Lee v. Fisher,
` 34 F.4th 777 (9th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`Little v. City of Seattle,
` 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Lockman Found. v. Evangelical All. Mission,
` 930 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,
` 407 U.S. 1 (1972) ............................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Malpiede v. Townson,
` 780 A.2d 1075 (Del. 2001) ............................................................................................. 7, 10
`
`McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. New York State Common Ret. Fund, Inc.,
` 339 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Minghong Inv., Inc. v. Felix Chac Chuo,
` No. 2:21-CV-05979-SB-PD, 2022 WL 2189365 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022) ........................ 9
`
`Moretti v. Hertz Corp.,
` No. C 13-02972 JSW, 2014 WL 1410432 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014) ................................. 8
`
`Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff Co.,
` 344 U.S. 237 (1952) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Rasella v. Musk,
` S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:22-cv-03026 ....................................................................................... 5
`
`Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.,
` 845 A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, et al.,
` C.A. No. 2022-0613 KSJM .............................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`Vance v. Google LLC,
` No. 5:20-CV-04696-BLF, 2021 WL 534363 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) ............... 12, 13, 14
`
`Yei A. Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc.,
` 901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 5, 7, 8
`
`Yiren Huang v. Futurewei Techs., Inc.,
` No. 18-CV-00534-BLF, 2018 WL 1993503 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018) ............................ 15
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on December 2, 2022,1 or as soon thereafter as the
`
`matter may be heard, defendants X Holdings I, Inc. and X Holdings II, Inc. (“Holding
`
`Companies”) will hereby move the above entitled Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
`
`Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. 7) and for a discovery stay pending the resolution of related actions
`
`pending in other courts, including Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613 KSJM, or the
`
`resolution of pleadings motions, pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), 23.1, and the Court’s inherent authority.
`
`The motion asks the Court to (1) dismiss the FAC in its entirety under the doctrine of
`
`forum non conveniens, (2) dismiss the FAC in its entirety pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1
`
`because its claims are derivative and fail to comply with Rule 23.1, (3) dismiss the first cause of
`
`action for failure to state a claim, (3) dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
`
`for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, and (4) stay discovery.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff has filed this action in the wrong Court, in violation of a mandatory forum-
`
`selection clause, seeking a declaration and injunction regarding a contract he has no standing to
`
`enforce, and asserting a claim against the Holding Companies based on a single conclusory
`
`allegation that they took unidentified “actions” constituting aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
`
`duty. Plaintiff’s defective First Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety and
`
`discovery should be stayed.
`
`As a threshold matter, the Court need not reach the FAC’s many substantive deficiencies.
`
`Instead, it can and should simply dismiss the action pursuant to forum non conveniens. Plaintiff, a
`
`Twitter shareholder residing in Virginia, filed this putative class action alleging the Holding
`
`Companies and Elon Musk aided and abetted two Twitter directors’ breach of fiduciary duties to
`
`the company. But Twitter’s Bylaws contain a mandatory forum-selection clause, binding on
`
`
`1 Before they were assigned to this Court, the parties entered and Judge Kim granted a
`scheduling stipulation which provided that “any hearing on any motion to dismiss will be noticed for
`November 21, 2022 or as soon thereafter as the parties and the Court are available.” (Dkt. 20 at 2.)
`Because the Court hears civil motions on Fridays and the first Friday following November 21 is the
`day after Thanksgiving, December 2 appears to be the earliest date on which all parties are available.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, requiring that the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (“Chancery Court”) “be
`
`the sole and exclusive forum” for “any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed
`
`by, or otherwise wrongdoing by, any director.” This clause applies to Plaintiff’s aiding and
`
`abetting claim since an underlying breach of fiduciary duty by a director is a necessary element.
`
`Indeed, courts here and in Delaware have found that forum-selection clauses containing identical
`
`language cover aiding and abetting claims by shareholders. See e.g., In re Facebook, Inc. S'holder
`
`Derivative Priv. Litig., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Plaintiff—a Virginia
`
`resident asserting Delaware law claims and seeking to enforce a contract governed by Delaware
`
`law—lacks any credible argument under the Ninth Circuit’s forum non conveniens factors to
`
`prevent enforcement of the clause. It should be enforced and wasteful parallel litigation avoided.
`
`The FAC’s deficiencies extend beyond the incorrect forum. As explained in Mr. Musk’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss, which the Holding Companies join, the FAC should be dismissed because
`
`Plaintiff’s action is derivative in nature but was improperly brought as a direct action. Plaintiff
`
`seeks to enforce the Merger Agreement on Twitter’s behalf and seeks redress for injury—a
`
`reduction in stock price—suffered by Twitter as a whole and not the shareholders individually.
`
`Plaintiff’s individual causes of action also fail. Plaintiff asserts that the Holding
`
`Companies aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, which requires him to plead that they
`
`conspired with Twitter’s Board and directed (or participated) in its decisions with knowledge of
`
`their wrongdoing. Yet the only allegation against them is that they “took” some unidentified
`
`“actions at Musk’s direction to carry out his unlawful conduct.” (FAC ¶ 160.) Plaintiff’s second
`
`cause of action fares no better. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief related to the Merger
`
`Agreement, but has no standing to enforce it because he is neither a party or third-party
`
`beneficiary to it. And in any event, the declaration he seeks is too vague and indefinite to sustain a
`
`cause of action for declaratory relief. The FAC should be dismissed.
`
`Finally, the Court should stay discovery in this case pending the resolution of the Delaware
`
`Action, which is set for trial on October 17, and a first-filed securities action in the Southern
`
`District of New York asserting claims based on the same conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s unjust
`
`enrichment claim. Plaintiff seeks to enforce the Merger Agreement, the same relief Twitter is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`pursuing in Delaware, and his action will likely be moot if Twitter prevails. Proceeding with
`
`discovery would therefore be a waste of party and court resources and unnecessarily burden the
`
`Defendants, who are currently litigating these same issues in the Delaware Action. A brief
`
`discovery stay would not harm the Plaintiff and promote the orderly course of justice, as would a
`
`stay pending the action in New York. In the alternative, the Court should stay discovery pending
`
`resolution of the pleadings motions since they are likely to dispose of this entire action and do not
`
`require any discovery to be adjudicated.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1. Should the Court dismiss the FAC where Plaintiff filed this action in violation of the
`
`forum-selection clause in Twitter’s Bylaws?
`
`2. Should the Court dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with
`
`Rule 23.1 where Plaintiff, a Twitter shareholder, seeks to recover for harm suffered by Twitter, the
`
`corporation, instead of the stockholders individually and thus are derivative in nature?
`
`3. Should the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim
`
`where Plaintiff failed to allege the elements of that claim?
`
`4. Should the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s declaratory and injunctive relief claim where (1)
`
`Plaintiff is not a party or third-party beneficiary to the Merger Agreement, and (2) Plaintiff’s
`
`requested relief is vague and indefinite?
`
`5. Should the Court stay discovery pending the resolution of ongoing actions in other
`
`courts involving Defendants, arising from the same issues, and seeking the substantially similar
`
`relief as the FAC or, alternatively, stay discovery pending the resolution of all pleadings motions
`
`where the FAC is likely to be dismissed and no discovery is required to adjudicate the motions?
`
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`The FAC’s allegations against the Holding Companies. Plaintiff, a Virginia resident and
`
`purported Twitter shareholder (FAC ⁋ 26), filed this putative class action against Elon Musk,
`
`Twitter, and the Holding Companies seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
`
`relating to Mr. Musk’s offer to acquire Twitter. (See generally, FAC) The gist of Plaintiff’s FAC
`
`is that Mr. Musk aided and abetted Twitter directors Jack Dorsey and Egon Durban’s breaches of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`their fiduciary duties to Twitter in connection with the negotiation of the Merger Agreement
`
`governing the acquisition, wrongfully halted the completion of the transaction before closing,
`
`made disparaging statements about Twitter following the execution of the Merger Agreement, and
`
`damaged Plaintiff by causing Twitter’s stock price to decline. (FAC ⁋⁋ 155-69.) Plaintiff seeks
`
`damages, disgorgement, a declaration concerning “the parties’ respective rights and obligations”
`
`under the Merger Agreement, and unspecified injunctive relief. (Id. ⁋⁋ 162,165, 169.)
`
`As alleged in the FAC, the Holding Companies are Delaware corporations formed to
`
`effectuate the purchase of Twitter. (FAC ⁋ 29). X Holdings II is the “Acquisition Sub” and X
`
`Holdings I is its parent. (Id.) As of the date of this Motion, the proposed merger has not closed
`
`and the Holding Companies have not acquired Twitter.
`
`The FAC asserts two causes of action against the Holding Companies: (1) aiding and
`
`abetting breach of fiduciary duty and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the Merger
`
`Agreement. (FAC ⁋⁋ 155-165.) As to the first, the only allegation against the Holding Companies
`
`is that they are “controlled by Musk and took actions at Musk’s direction to carry out his unlawful
`
`conduct.” (Id. ⁋ 160.) The FAC does not plead any facts establishing Mr. Musk’s control over the
`
`Holding Companies or identify any purported “actions” they allegedly took at Mr. Musk’s
`
`direction. As to the second cause of action, the only allegations against the Holding Companies is
`
`that they signed the Merger Agreement. (Id. ⁋ 164.)
`
`Plaintiff is not a party to the Merger Agreement. The FAC alleges that on April 25, 2022,
`
`the Holding Companies, Twitter, and Mr. Musk executed the Merger Agreement. (FAC ⁋⁋ 86,
`
`164.) Plaintiff does not allege that he is a party to or a third-party beneficiary of the Merger
`
`Agreement—to the contrary, it alleges the Merger Agreement is between Defendants, not
`
`Plaintiff. (Id., ⁋⁋ 164-65.)
`
`The Twitter Bylaws contain a mandatory forum-selection clause. Twitter’s Bylaws
`
`include a forum-selection clause stating, in relevant part, “the Court of Chancery of the State of
`
`Delaware…shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for…any
`
`action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by, or otherwise wrongdoing by, any
`
`director…of the corporation to the corporation…“ (Sarles Ex. 4, Bylaws, Art. VIII.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`There are multiple related actions currently pending in Chancery Court and one in
`
`Southern District of New York. On July 12, 2022, Twitter sued Mr. Musk for specific
`
`performance in Chancery Court; Mr. Musk asserted counterclaims on August 4, 2022 and moved
`
`for leave to file amended counterclaims on August 29, 2022. (Sarles Ex. 4, Twitter, Inc. v. Musk,
`
`et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613 KSJM (“Delaware Action”).) Additionally, a shareholder class action
`
`was filed in the Chancery Court on July 29, 2022 seeking specific performance of the Merger
`
`Agreement. (Id., Ex. 5, Crispo v. Musk et. al., C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM.).
`
`On April 12, 2022, a shareholder class action was filed in the Southern District of New
`
`York against Mr. Musk asserting that he violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange
`
`Act by allegedly failing to timely file a Form 13 when he acquired a certain amount of Twitter
`
`stock—the same allegations giving rise to Plaintiff’s later-filed unjust enrichment claim.
`
`(Compare FAC ⁋⁋ 46, 166 with Sarles Ex. 6, Rasella v. Musk, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:22-cv-03026
`
`(“S.D.N.Y. Action”).)
`
`I.
`
`THE ACTION WAS FILED IN THE WRONG FORUM
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under forum non conveniens, “a valid forum-selection clause should be given controlling
`
`weight in all but the most exceptional cases,” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist.
`
`of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 63 (2013), and “must [be] enforc[ed]…unless the contractually selected
`
`forum affords the plaintiffs no remedies whatsoever.” Yei A. Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare,
`
`Inc., 901 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2018). To determine whether to dismiss an action, courts
`
`consider (1) whether the lawsuit falls within the scope of the forum-selection clause, (2) whether
`
`the clause is valid and enforceable, and (3) whether public interest factors weigh against
`
`enforcement (they rarely do). See id. at 1086-88. Plaintiff “must bear the burden of showing
`
`why” the clause should not be enforced. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 63.
`
`The forum-selection clause in Twitter’s Bylaws is valid, enforceable, and requires that
`
`Plaintiff’s first cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty be pursued in
`
`Chancery Court. (Bylaws at Art. VIII.) The Court should enforce the forum-selection clause and
`
`dismiss this action.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Twitter’s Bylaws Mandate That This Action Be Litigated In Delaware
`
`Chancery Court
`
`1.
`
`Forum-Selection Clauses In Bylaws Are Enforceable Against Shareholders
`
`The Bylaws’ forum-selection clause is enforceable against Plaintiff, a Twitter shareholder.
`
`When Plaintiff purchased stock, he agreed to be bound by Twitter’s valid Bylaws—including the
`
`forum-selection clause. See Facebook, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (enforcing
`
`forum-selection clause in certificate of incorporation); Boilermakers Loc. 154 Ret. Fund v.
`
`Chevron Corp., 73 A.3d 934, 940 (Del. Ch. 2013) (“a forum selection clause adopted by a board
`
`with the authority to adopt bylaws is valid and enforceable under Delaware law to the same extent
`
`as other contractual forum selection clauses.”); In re: CytRx Corp. S'holder Derivative Litig., No.
`
`CV146414GHKPJWX, 2015 WL 9871275, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015). The selection clause
`
`is valid and enforceable against him here. See Lee v. Fisher, 34 F.4th 777, 779 (9th Cir. 2022)
`
`(affirming dismissal of shareholder suit due to forum selection clause in corporate bylaws).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s First Claim Falls Within The Bylaws’ Forum-Selection Clause
`
`The Bylaws’ forum-selection clause states that Delaware Chancery Court “shall…be the
`
`sole and exclusive forum for…any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by, or
`
`otherwise wrongdoing by, any director”. (Bylaws at Art. VIII.)2 Plaintiff asserts the Holding
`
`Companies and Mr. Musk aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by two of Twitter’s
`
`directors. (FAC ⁋⁋ 155-62.) The claim is covered by this clause. See Facebook, 367 F. Supp. 3d
`
`at 1120 (dismissing aiding and abetting claim in shareholder action pursuant to forum-selection
`
`clause covering “any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by, or other
`
`wrongdoing by, any director”); In re Pattern Energy Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 20-275-MN-
`
`JLH, 2022 WL 263312, at *9–10 n. 8 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2022), report and recommendation
`
`adopted by, No. CV 20-275 (MN) (JLH), 2022 WL 957761 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2022) (same).
`
`
`2 The clause contains a narrow exception for cases in which the Chancery Court lacks
`jurisdiction. (Bylaws at Art. VIII.) The FAC includes no allegations suggesting such a bar exists.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty requires a finding that
`
`Directors Dorsey and Durban breached their fiduciary duties to Twitter and engaged in
`
`wrongdoing in connection with the acquisition. See Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1096
`
`(Del. 2001); (FAC ⁋⁋ 157-60.) To establish this, Plaintiff must prove that the directors owed and
`
`breached a fiduciary duty to Twitter. Id. (“the complaint must allege facts that satisfy the four
`
`elements of an aiding and abetting claim: ‘(1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) a breach
`
`of the fiduciary’s duty…’). It is axiomatic that aiding and abetting “assert[s] a claim of breach of
`
`fiduciary duty,” which is why courts in this District and in Delaware have found that language in
`
`forum-selection clauses identical to the one here apply to such claims. See Facebook, 367 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 1120; Pattern Energy, 2022 WL 263312, at * 10 n. 8. On top of all that, Plaintiff’s
`
`action also falls within the scope of the forum-selection clause because he alleges that Dorsey, a
`
`Twitter director, engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the merger (e.g., FAC ⁋ 78), which is
`
`also included in the clause.3
`
`3.
`
`The Bylaws’ Forum-Selection Clause Is Valid and Enforceable
`
`After establishing that the forum-selection clause applies to this action, the next step is to
`
`determine whether it is valid and enforceable. Forum selection clauses are “prima facie valid”
`
`M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972), and are enforced “unless
`
`extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a
`
`transfer.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 52. In the Ninth Circuit, courts analyze three principles to
`
`determine if extraordinary circumstances exist: (1) the clause is invalid due to “fraud or
`
`overreaching,” (2) “enforcement wou393 F.3d 1068ld contravene a strong public policy of the
`
`forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision,” or (3) “trial in
`
`the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [the litigant] will for all
`
`practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.” Yei A. Sun, 901 F.3d at 1088. No such
`
`circumstance exists here.
`
`
`3 As discussed in Section I(C), infra, because this claim is subject to the forum selection
`clause, the FAC’s other related claims—declaratory relief and unjust enrichment—should likewise
`be dismissed.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03074-CRB-SK
`X HOLDINGS I INC. AND X HOLDINGS II, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03074-CRB Document 39 Filed 09/09/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`First, Plaintiff has not alleged that the forum-selection clause is invalid due to fraud or
`
`overreaching, nor can he contend that it cannot be enforced against him. E.g., Lee, 34 F.4th at
`
`779; Boilermakers, 73 A.3d at 940. Second, there are no public policy justifications that override
`
`enforcement of the clause. Plaintiff asserts no federal claims: two of his causes of action are
`
`Delaware state claims and the third seeks declaratory relief regarding a contract governed by
`
`Delaware law; the company defendants are all Delaware corporations; plaintiff resides in Virginia;
`
`and the forum-selection bylaws promote public policy by helping to avoid “inefficient multi-
`
`forum” litigation. See Facebook, 367 F. Supp. 3d at 1120 citing CytRx, 2015 WL 9871275, at *5.
`
`Finally, the third principle is not implicated here. Plaintiff cannot show that he precluded from
`
`pursuing any of the same claims or remedies, all brought under Delaware law, in the contractual
`
`forum. See Yei A. Sun, 901 F.3d at 1092 (third Bremen principal does not bar enforcement of
`
`forum-selection clause provided there is a “basically fair court system in that forum that would
`
`allow the plaintiff to seek some relief”).
`
`4.
`
`The Public Interest Weighs In Favor Of Enforcement
`
`Courts may consider “public interest” factors—court congestion and administration
`
`concerns, local interest, and which forum is more “at home” with the law at issue—but they
`
`“rarely” defeat a motion. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 64. In fact, the factors weigh heavily in favor
`
`of dismissal. First, there are two actions in Chancery Court involving issues associated with the
`
`merger that overlap with Plaintiff’s claims. “Permitting [the] situation,” Plaintiff seeks, in which
`
`multiple cases about the same issues “are simultaneously pending in different…[c]ourts leads to
`
`the wastefulness of time, energy and money.” See Cont'l Grain Co

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket