Matter of Harmon ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    IN THE MATTER OF THE               §
    PETITION OF   SANDRA               § No. 591, 2018
    HARMON FOR A WRIT OF               §
    MANDAMUS                           §
    Submitted: November 29, 2018
    Decided: December 3 2018
    Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
    ORDER
    After consideration of Sandra Harmon’s petition for a writ of mandamus,
    Harmon’s amended petition for a writ of mandamus, and the Superior Court record,
    it appears to the Court that:
    (1)     Harmon seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, under
    Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus ordering a Superior Court judge
    to dismiss an action pending in the Superior Court. We conclude that Harmon’s
    petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.1 The petition
    is therefore dismissed.
    (2)     The petition arises from a monition action in the Superior Court.
    Harmon appears to argue that she is entitled to issuance of a writ of mandamus
    because the statutory conditions for a monition sale were not satisfied before her
    1
    SUPR. CT. R. 29(c).
    property was sold on June 19, 2018, and because the action was not commenced and
    prosecuted in accordance with the Superior Court’s Rules of Civil Procedure.
    (3)    Harmon filed various objections to the monition sale both before and
    after the sale occurred. On August 20, 2018, the Superior Court entered a letter order
    setting a hearing on Harmon’s objections for November 9, 2018. On November 7,
    2018, following a teleconference with the parties, the Superior Court entered a letter
    order staying the proceedings in the Superior Court, pending resolution of certain
    related actions that were pending in the United States District Court for the District
    of Delaware.
    (4)    A writ of mandamus will issue only if the petitioner can show: (i) a
    clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is
    available; and (iii) that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform
    its duty.2 Absent “a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, this Court
    will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular
    judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of
    its docket.”3
    2
    In re Bordley, 
    545 A.2d 619
    , 620 (Del. 1988).
    3
    
    Id. 2 (5)
       There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.
    Harmon has not shown that she has no other adequate remedy or that the Superior
    Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. To the contrary, the
    Superior Court informed Harmon of her right to object to the monition sale, set
    Harmon’s objections for hearing and, after a teleconference with the parties, stayed
    the case pending resolution of related federal litigation filed by Harmon.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of a
    writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Gary F. Traynor
    Justice
    3
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 591, 2018

Judges: Traynor J.

Filed Date: 12/3/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/4/2018