In the Matter of the Petition of James L. Martin for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE §
PETITION OF JAMES L. MARTIN § No. 59, 2022
FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS §
AND PROHIBITION §
Submitted: March 8, 2022
Decided: May 17, 2022
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition, the
response of the defendant-below, the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, as well
as the Superior Court docket, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, James L. Martin, filed a personal-injury complaint in the
Superior Court against David H. Nixon, alleging that he sustained physical injuries
in an automobile/bicycle collision as a result of Nixon’s negligence. The Superior
Court bifurcated the trial into a liability phase and a damages phase. On September
17, 2019, a jury returned a verdict on the issue of comparative liability, assigning
fault to Martin at 43% and to Nixon at 57%. On February 2, 2022, a jury found
Martin had suffered $102,709.59 in damages. The Superior Court reduced the
amount by 43% in keeping with the jury’s comparative liability finding and entered
judgment in favor of Martin in the amount of $58,544.47, plus costs. Martin filed a
number of post-trial motions, which were recently resolved by the Superior Court
on April 13, 2022.1 On May 11, 2022, Martin filed a notice of appeal from the
Superior Court’s judgment.2
(2) While his case was still pending in the Superior Court, Martin filed this
petition, seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court under Supreme
Court Rule 43 to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition. Martin asks this Court
to direct the Superior Court to “correct” its docket and the corresponding records
and to enjoin the Superior Court from “interfering” with the docket and the record.
Martin also indirectly asks the Court to compel the Superior Court to rule on the
post-trial motions.
(3) A writ of mandamus will issue to a trial court 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 trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform
its duty.3 “[I]n the absence of 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.”4
1
Martin v. Nixon, 2022 WL 1123389 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2022).
2
Martin v. Nixon, Del. Supr. Ct., Appeal No. 160, 2022.
3
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
4
Id.
2
(4) As noted above, the Superior Court issued a decision on Martin’s post-
trial motions on April 13, 2022. Thus, to the extent that Martin’s petition for a writ
of mandamus asks the Court to direct the Superior Court to rule on the motions, it is
moot. And to the extent that the petition otherwise seeks to dictate control of the
Superior Court’s docket, it is improper and must be dismissed.
(5) A writ of prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable remedy of
injunction and may be issued to prevent a trial court from (a) proceeding in a matter
where it has no jurisdiction or (b) exceeding its jurisdiction in a matter that is
properly before it.5 The jurisdictional defect alleged by the petitioner must be clear
from the record.6 And a writ of prohibition will not issue “if the petitioner has
another adequate and complete remedy at law to correct the act of the trial court
[that] is alleged to be erroneous.”7
(6) Martin does not claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over
the underlying personal-injury action. Moreover, Martin has an adequate and
complete remedy at law: he may challenge the Superior Court’s rulings in his
opening brief on direct appeal. Martin’s petition for a writ of prohibition must
therefore be dismissed.
5
In re Goodlett, 2005 WL 2333923, at *1 (Del. Sept. 21, 2005).
6
In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988).
7
Id.3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for the issuance of writs of mandamus and
prohibition is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
4