A Delaware court has denied a motion from Melissa Brandao to recuse the presiding judge in her case against HerdDogg, Inc. The ruling comes as Brandao seeks the appointment of a receiver for the company, claiming it is insolvent. This decision affects Brandao, who is a former officer and current stockholder of HerdDogg, and could have significant implications for the ongoing litigation.
The case, Melissa Brandao v. HerdDogg, Inc., was filed on June 23, 2026, in the Court of Chancery of Delaware. Brandao, who founded HerdDogg and served as an officer and director until 2022, has raised concerns about the company's financial management and its treatment of shareholders. She argues that an independent fiduciary is necessary to investigate the company's operations and protect the interests of creditors and stockholders. HerdDogg, a Delaware corporation operating in agricultural technology, has responded by moving to dismiss Brandao's petition.
Brandao's motion to recuse was prompted by her belief that she was receiving different treatment than HerdDogg during court proceedings. She cited instances where she felt the judge's questioning favored the respondent and expressed concerns about bias. The judge, Timothy J. Fox, Jr., addressed these claims in his ruling, stating that he found no basis for recusal. He emphasized that he has no personal bias against Brandao and that his decisions have been consistent with the law and judicial conduct.
In his opinion, Judge Fox wrote, "I state unequivocally that none of the specific instances suggesting that disqualification would be appropriate are present in this case." He explained that an objective observer would not find evidence of bias in his conduct. The judge also noted that the standards for recusal are based on both actual bias and the appearance of bias, and he found that neither was present in this case.
This ruling is significant as it allows the case to proceed without delay. Brandao's claims against HerdDogg will continue as she seeks to establish the need for a receiver. The court's decision may also set a precedent for how similar recusal motions are handled in the future, particularly in cases involving self-represented litigants.
Moving forward, Brandao's case will continue with a hearing on HerdDogg's motion to dismiss scheduled for October 15, 2026. The court's ruling on the recusal motion indicates that it will not tolerate claims of bias without substantial evidence, which could discourage similar motions in future cases. Brandao may still seek to appeal the ruling, but the court has advised that such exceptions should be held until a final report is issued in the case.
Brandao's ongoing litigation in other forums, including a related case in Colorado, adds complexity to her situation. She has also filed motions in that case, seeking relief from prior judgments and raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving HerdDogg's legal counsel. As the legal battles continue, both Brandao and HerdDogg face significant challenges in navigating the intricacies of corporate governance and shareholder rights.