Elon Musk is demanding a Delaware judge step aside from a high-stakes Tesla case after she allegedly “supported” a LinkedIn post mocking a $2 billion verdict against him in a separate California case.
Lawyers for Musk and Tesla filed a motion in Delaware’s Court of Chancery seeking the recusal of Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick from overseeing consolidated shareholder lawsuits, arguing her conduct “create[s] a perception of bias” that taints the proceedings.
The explosive filing centers on activity tied to McCormick’s LinkedIn account following a federal jury verdict in California that found Musk liable over tweets he posted in 2022 about his $44 billion Twitter deal.
The complaint includes a screenshot of a LinkedIn post by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California-based jury consultant who worked with the legal team that sued Musk for securities fraud in San Francisco federal court.
“Sorry, Elon. Sorry, Quinn Emanuel,” Plotkin wrote, referring to Musk and the law firm that represented him.
“Thanks $2 billion for your help in this trial. It was a pleasure working against you. Congratulations to the trial team at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Bottini Law for standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The filing alleges the post was promoted by McCormick’s account, with a banner above it reading: “Katie McCormick supports this.”
McCormick has denied intentionally endorsing the post, claiming she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her she had used the heart-in-hand “support” icon, according to the Financial Times.
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally,” she wrote in a letter to attorneys.
As alleged in the filing, LinkedIn’s “Support” reaction — shown as a heart cradled in an outstretched hand — requires a deliberate selection from multiple options and is generally interpreted as a stronger endorsement than a standard “Like,” which is the platform’s default, one-click response.
A separate LinkedIn post criticizing Musk also drew engagement from the judge’s chambers, with a staff account “liking” a message saying “so many people who should be so deeply ashamed of themselves seem incapable of being so,” according to the filing.
In the filing, Musk’s lawyers argue the LinkedIn activity strikes at the core of judicial impartiality, writing that the posts “are not simply negative criticism” but “inflammatory,” mocking Musk and his attorneys while celebrating a multibillion-dollar verdict against them.
They say the judge’s alleged reaction creates an unavoidable appearance of bias under Delaware law, which requires recusal where there is “any reasonable basis to question the impartiality of the trial judge.”
A source close to Musk alleged to The Post that the judge was “corrupt.” In December 2024, Musk hit out at McCormick for her “absolute corruption” when she declined to reinstate his Tesla compensation package.
The problem, they argue, is compounded by the overlap between the federal case and the Delaware proceedings, noting that “the very facts underlying the litigation celebrated in the posts are squarely at issue” in the shareholder lawsuits now before McCormick.
Plaintiffs in the Delaware case have already pointed to the California ruling to support their claims — making the judge’s alleged endorsement of that outcome especially problematic, according to the filing.
“The Court’s support of posts about a ‘pending… proceeding’” in another jurisdiction, the lawyers wrote, “runs afoul” of judicial conduct rules barring public comment on active cases.
McCormick is currently presiding over consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits accusing Musk and Tesla’s board of breaching fiduciary duties, including claims tied to executive compensation and corporate governance.
One of the central cases — brought by a Detroit pension fund — challenges how Tesla’s directors awarded themselves stock-based pay, alleging the company was harmed by excessive compensation.
The litigation has been consolidated with related shareholder claims, some of which also touch on Musk’s conduct during the 2022 Twitter deal, putting multiple aspects of Tesla’s governance under scrutiny.
Lawrence Hamermesh, an emeritus professor at Widener University Delaware Law School, said he was not in a position to weigh in on whether the conduct meets the legal standard for recusal.
Hamermesh added that, regardless of whether recusal is warranted, public expressions tied to litigants raise concerns.
“To put it gently, I don’t think expressing support or antagonism toward a litigant… publicly and outside of the confines of the judge’s own work is appropriate,” he said.
He also warned that how the situation is handled could affect Delaware’s reputation.
“Delaware has justifiably prided itself on the sophistication and quality of its judiciary,” he said. “I don’t think anybody wants to see that compromised.”
The clash between Musk and McCormick dates back to 2022, when she presided over the blockbuster lawsuit that forced him to complete his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter.
McCormick put the case on a fast track and signaled she was prepared to order Musk to close the deal — a pressure campaign that ended with the billionaire backing down and finalizing the purchase just days before trial.
Musk has since made clear he blames the Delaware court for that outcome, testifying earlier this month that he believed he was “unlikely to win” because the judge was “extremely biased against me.”
Tensions escalated further in 2024 when McCormick voided Musk’s massive Tesla pay package — then valued at roughly $56 billion — finding the process that approved it was deeply flawed and overly influenced by Musk himself.
The Post has sought comment from the Delaware Court of Chancery and McCormick.
