Claim #13

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty

27%

Confidence: 12% - 42%

Model Predictions

GPT-5.2

35%

Gemini 2 Flash

35%

Grok 4.1

25%

Claude Opus 4.5

15%

View by Model

Probability Timeline(Consensus)

70%50%31%

Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1

Oct 31, 2025 order 65%

Motion for Relief Denied (order)

Denying a motion for relief from a pretrial order is a neutral event. It doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #348

Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +5% 65%

Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)

Ordering Sutskever to comply with the subpoena is a positive development for the plaintiff. Sutskever's testimony could be crucial in establishing the breach of fiduciary duty and the defendant's knowledge, strengthening the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #339

Sep 22, 2025 order▲ +2% 60%

Discovery Dispute Orders (order)

Resolving discovery disputes allows the parties to gather more evidence. Depending on the nature of the disputes and the court's rulings, this could slightly increase the probability if it favors the plaintiff's access to information relevant to the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #276, #278

▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)

Aug 12, 2025 order 58%

ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)

The dismissal of Counts III, XX, and XXI WITH PREJUDICE does not directly impact Count 13 (Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty), assuming Count 13 was not one of those dismissed. The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims is also irrelevant to the success of Count 13.

Source: Docket #228

Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -2% 58%

Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)

Granting the motion to strike, even in part, suggests some of the plaintiff's allegations are weak or inadmissible. This slightly lowers the probability of success.

Source: Docket #222

Jul 25, 2025 order 60%

Case Schedule Modified (order)

Modifying the case schedule for discovery is a neutral event. It doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #215

Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +5% 60%

Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)

Opposing the MTD demonstrates continued effort to defend the claim and presents legal arguments against dismissal, increasing the probability slightly.

Source: Docket #181-182

Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 55%

MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)

Another MTD introduces uncertainty and risk of dismissal for the claim. The probability decreases pending the court's ruling.

Source: Docket #173

May 7, 2025 motion 60%

Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)

This motion regarding counterclaims has no direct bearing on the probability of success for the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #166

May 1, 2025 order▲ +15% 60%

MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)

This is a CRITICAL ruling. If the aiding and abetting claim (Count 13) survived the MTD, the probability increases significantly. The judge found sufficient grounds to allow the claim to proceed, indicating a stronger legal basis.

Source: Docket #163

Apr 9, 2025 order 45%

Case Management Order (order)

The case management order setting discovery deadlines is a neutral event. It doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the aiding and abetting claim but sets the stage for further evidence gathering.

Source: Docket #146

Apr 4, 2025 hearing▼ -5% 45%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

Another MTD hearing introduces uncertainty. The judge's questioning and comments can provide insights into the claim's strengths and weaknesses, but the outcome is still unknown.

Source: Docket #144 Transcript

Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +5% 50%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

Opposing the MTD demonstrates continued effort to defend the claim and presents legal arguments against dismissal, increasing the probability slightly.

Source: Docket #127-129

Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -5% 45%

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)

Denial of the PI, while not directly ruling on the merits of the aiding and abetting claim, signals a general weakness in the plaintiff's case. It suggests the judge is not convinced of the likelihood of success, which indirectly lowers the probability.

Source: Docket #121

Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -5% 50%

Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)

Another MTD introduces further uncertainty and risk of dismissal for the claim. The probability decreases pending the court's ruling.

Source: Docket #102

Jan 13, 2025 order 55%

PI Hearing Scheduled (order)

Scheduling the PI hearing doesn't directly affect the aiding and abetting claim's probability. It's a procedural step in the PI process.

Source: Docket #93

Dec 27, 2024 brief 55%

PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)

Similar to the opposition to the PI, the reply brief primarily addresses the PI motion itself and has a neutral impact on the aiding and abetting claim's probability.

Source: Docket #73

Dec 13, 2024 brief 55%

Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)

The opposition to the PI motion doesn't directly impact the aiding and abetting claim's probability. While related to the overall case, it focuses on the need for immediate injunctive relief, not the underlying claim elements.

Source: Docket #64-65

Nov 20, 2024 hearing▼ -5% 55%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

The hearing introduces uncertainty. The judge's questioning and comments can provide insights into the claim's strengths and weaknesses, but the outcome is still unknown.

Source: Hearing Transcript

Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +5% 60%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

A strong opposition to the MTD increases the probability. It demonstrates the plaintiff's belief in the claim's viability and presents legal arguments against dismissal.

Source: Docket #31

Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +10% 55%

Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)

Exhibits, especially the Founding Agreement and email evidence, can provide crucial evidence of the fiduciary duty, its breach, and the defendant's knowledge. This significantly strengthens the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Exhibits 1-25

Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -5% 45%

Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)

The MTD introduces uncertainty. If successful, it could eliminate the claim. The probability decreases pending the court's ruling.

Source: Docket #23

Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +5% 50%

Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)

Musk's declaration provides sworn testimony, which can be used to establish the underlying fiduciary duty and Altman's knowledge. This strengthens the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Musk Decl.

Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +10% 45%

Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)

Refiling with additional allegations and exhibits increases the probability. The FAC likely addresses weaknesses identified in the initial complaint, strengthening the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #1 (new)

Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -5% 35%

Voluntary Dismissal (filing)

Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests weakness in the initial case. It lowers the probability as it indicates a need for further investigation or refinement of the claim.

Source: Docket #12

Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%

Complaint Filed (filing)

Initial filing establishes a baseline probability. Aiding and abetting claims are derivative, so probability is moderate pending evidence of underlying breach and knowledge.

Source: Docket #1

Evidence from Filings

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint - Allegation of Fiduciary Duty

"As a charity and persons soliciting contributions on behalf of a charity, OpenAI, Inc., Altman, and Brockman each owe a fiduciary duty to Musk, from whom charitable contributions were actively solicited, including under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17510.8."

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint - Allegation of Breach

"Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. breached their fiduciary duties to Musk in the same manner by which they violated the terms of the Contract as either an express written agreement or implied-in-fact contract, and/or the trust Musk created for OpenAI, Inc.’s benefit, as detailed in paragraph 251(a)-(m), supra, because such actions failed to observe, without limitation, the duties of obedience, loyalty"

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

Motion to Dismiss - Argument Against Standing

"But because he has no standing to sue for the underlying breach, Musk cannot sue for aiding and abetting."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

Motion to Dismiss - Failure to Plead Breach with Particularity

"Likewise, Musk’s failure to plausibly plead the underlying breach with particularity independently dooms this claim."

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint - Aiding and Abetting Allegation

"COUNT XXI: AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH 4 OF FIDUCIARY DUTY TO MUSK (Musk Against the For-Profit Entities and Microsoft)"

Legal Standard

Preponderance of the evidence

1. A fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and a third party
2. A breach of fiduciary duty occurred
3. Defendant knew of the fiduciary relationship and breach
4. Defendant substantially assisted or encouraged the breach
5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result

See: Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn., 127 Cal.App.4th 1138 (2005)

Element Analysis (Consensus)

A fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and a third partymoderate

Evidence For

Musk alleges that Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. owed him a fiduciary duty as a charity and persons soliciting contributions on behalf of a charity (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk lacks standing to assert fiduciary claims because he is a donor without a reversionary, contractual, or property interest in OpenAI, Inc.'s assets (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: The existence of a fiduciary duty is contested. While Musk argues that a fiduciary duty arose from his charitable contributions, the defense challenges his standing to assert such a claim. The strength is moderate because the court must determine if a donor has standing to assert breach of fiduciary duty.

A breach of fiduciary duty occurredmoderate

Evidence For

Musk alleges that Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. breached their fiduciary duties by violating the terms of their contract, express or implied, and/or the trust Musk created for OpenAI, Inc.'s benefit (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk has failed to plausibly plead the underlying breach with particularity (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: The breach of fiduciary duty is tied to the breach of contract claims. The strength is moderate because the court must determine if a breach of contract occurred, which then leads to a breach of fiduciary duty.

Defendant knew of the fiduciary relationship and breachmoderate

Evidence For

Musk alleges that the for-profit entities and Microsoft knew of the fiduciary relationship and breach (cl_32_0, paragraph 427 incorporating previous paragraphs).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue lack of knowledge or that the relationship was not a fiduciary one.

Model Analysis: Knowledge is difficult to prove directly. It will likely depend on circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from the relationship between the parties. The strength is moderate because it depends on the evidence presented.

Defendant substantially assisted or encouraged the breachweak

Evidence For

Musk alleges that the for-profit entities and Microsoft aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty (cl_32_0, paragraph 427 incorporating previous paragraphs).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue that their actions did not substantially assist or encourage the breach, or that their involvement was minimal.

Model Analysis: This element requires showing more than just knowledge; it requires demonstrating that the defendant actively participated in or encouraged the breach. This is a higher bar to clear. The strength is weak because it requires showing substantial assistance.

Plaintiff suffered damages as a resultmoderate

Evidence For

Musk alleges that he suffered damages as a result of the breach, including financial contributions, loss of time and resources, and damage to his reputation (cl_32_0, paragraph 427 incorporating previous paragraphs).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue that Musk did not suffer damages or that the damages were not caused by the breach.

Model Analysis: Musk has alleged damages, but the extent and causation of these damages will need to be proven. The strength is moderate because it depends on the evidence presented.

Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

Musk alleges a fiduciary relationship and breach of duty by Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc.
Musk alleges that the for-profit entities and Microsoft aided and abetted the breach.

Key Weaknesses

Musk's standing to assert fiduciary claims is challenged by the defense.
Proving substantial assistance or encouragement of the breach may be difficult.