The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by ATM Shafiqul Khalid against Elon Musk and multiple X Corp entities, ruling that the notice of appeal was filed three days after the statutory deadline under Supreme Court Rule 6.
The case, formally titled *Khalid v. Musk*, involved plaintiff ATM Shafiqul Khalid challenging defendants Elon R. Musk, X Corp, Twitter Inc., X Holdings I Inc., and X Holdings II Inc. The original complaint was dismissed by the Delaware Court of Chancery on Nov. 5, 2025, in case number 2024-0443.
Under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 6, appeals from Court of Chancery orders must be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. The deadline for Khalid's appeal was Dec. 5, 2025. However, Khalid filed his notice of appeal on Dec. 8, 2025, three days late.
The procedural timeline reveals a complex filing process that ultimately doomed Khalid's appeal. On Friday, Dec. 5, 2025, at 10:43 a.m., Khalid attempted to file his notice of appeal in the Court of Chancery through File&ServeXpress, an electronic filing system. However, the Register in Chancery rejected the filing at 12:14 p.m. and directed Khalid to file with the Supreme Court instead.
Recognizing the error, Khalid emailed his notice of appeal to the Clerk of the Delaware Supreme Court at 3:55 p.m. on Dec. 5. The Clerk did not respond until Monday morning, Dec. 8, at 8:51 a.m., informing Khalid of additional filing requirements.
The Senior Clerk of the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently issued a notice directing Khalid to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. This procedural step gave Khalid an opportunity to explain why his late filing should be excused.
In his response to the show cause notice, Khalid argued that his appeal should be considered timely because he served and attempted to file the notice on Dec. 5 and promptly addressed any defects in his filing. Khalid contended that his email submission on the deadline date should satisfy the filing requirement, despite the formal notice not being properly filed until Dec. 8.
The three-justice panel consisting of Justices Traynor, Legrow, and Griffiths reviewed the matter after it was submitted on Jan. 26, 2026. The Court issued its order on Feb. 2, 2026, though the complete text of the ruling was not provided in the available court documents.
The case highlights the strict nature of appellate deadlines in Delaware courts and the importance of proper filing procedures. Delaware Supreme Court Rule 6 provides no flexibility for late filings, even when technical difficulties or procedural confusion may have contributed to the delay.
The underlying dispute between Khalid and the X Corp entities, including the circumstances that led to the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the original complaint, remains unclear from the available court records. The case originated in 2024 and proceeded through the chancery court system before reaching the dismissal stage in November 2025.
This dismissal represents another legal setback in litigation involving Musk's business entities. Since Musk's acquisition of Twitter and its subsequent transformation into X Corp, the company has faced various legal challenges in Delaware courts, which serve as the primary venue for corporate litigation due to Delaware's business-friendly incorporation laws.
The strict enforcement of filing deadlines serves important judicial administration purposes, ensuring that court schedules remain manageable and that parties have finality in legal proceedings. Courts generally do not excuse late filings except in extraordinary circumstances involving excusable neglect or other compelling factors.
For Khalid, the dismissal represents the end of his legal challenge against Musk and the X Corp entities, at least through the Delaware court system. The underlying claims that were dismissed by the Court of Chancery will not receive appellate review due to the procedural failure.
The case also illustrates the complexity of Delaware's court system, where different filing procedures apply to trial court proceedings versus appellate matters. Khalid's initial attempt to file in the Court of Chancery, while understandable, proved fatal to his appeal timeline.
Legal practitioners regularly emphasize the importance of understanding proper filing procedures and deadlines, particularly in high-stakes commercial litigation. The three-day delay that doomed Khalid's appeal serves as a reminder that procedural requirements in appellate practice demand strict compliance, regardless of the merits of the underlying case or any technical difficulties encountered during the filing process.