IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GABRIEL G. ATAMIAN, MD, MSEE, JD FOR EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS: MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION.

No. 125, 2006.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: April 26, 2006.
Decided: July 7, 2006.

C.A. No. 03C-12-038.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.

ORDER
MYRON T. STEELE, Chief Justice.

This 7th day of July 2006, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Plaintiff-below, Gabriel G. Atamian, has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. He has also moved to supplement and correct the petition. Defendants-below, Michael J. Ryan, DDS (Ryan), and Becden Dental Laboratory (Becden), have each filed a motion to dismiss.

(2) In December 2003, Atamian filed a complaint in the Superior Court against Ryan and Becden. In his petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, Atamian requests that the Court review a Superior Court order that denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing and a letter that the court sent to the parties regarding the posture of the litigation.

(3) A writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are “coercive orders [that are] used to grant relief when the traditional appeal route is unavailable or will not provide an adequate remedy at law.”[1] When seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty.[2] When seeking a writ of prohibition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court is without jurisdiction or is attempting to exceed its jurisdiction.[3]

(4) Neither mandamus nor prohibition relief is warranted in this case. Atamian has not demonstrated that the Superior Court has failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him or that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction.

(5) Furthermore, an extraordinary writ is inappropriate in this case because Atamian has an adequate remedy at law,[4] i.e., appellate review, should Atamian choose to appeal the Superior Court’s final decision.[5] It is fundamental that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court rests upon the perfecting of an appeal within the time period fixed by law.[6]

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Atamian’s motions to supplement and correct are GRANTED. The motions to dismiss filed by Ryan and Becden are GRANTED. Atamian’s petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition is DISMISSED.

[1] Rogers v. State, 457 A.2d 727, 731 (Del. 1983).
[2] In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
[3] In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988).
[4] In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016 (Del.Supr.) (citin Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965)).
[5] It appears from the docket that the Superior Court issued an order on June 9, 2006, that granted motions for summary judgment filed by Ryan and Becden and denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Atamian.
[6] In re Dupras, 1995 WL 449323, *1 (Del.Supr.) (quotin Fisher v. Biggs, 284 A.2d 117, 118 (Del. 1971)).
Tagged: