Case Title: In the Matter of the Petition of James Biggins for a Writ of Mandamus

Citation: 

Docket Number: 187, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES BIGGINS 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 187, 2022 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 21, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 18, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the Superior 
Court’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, James Biggins, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction 
of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus directing 
the Superior Court to take specific action in a Superior Court civil action captioned 
Biggins v. Tgwe, C.A. No. N21C-09-058 (the “Underlying Action”).  The Superior 
Court has filed an answer and motion to dismiss the petition.  After careful review, 
we conclude that the petition is without merit and must be dismissed. 
(2) 
On September 10, 2021, Biggins filed the Underlying Action against 
Emeka Tgwe, Esquire, seeking damages for intentional misrepresentation of fact and 
intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Superior Court docket reflects that 
Tgwe was served with Biggins’ complaint on September 23, 2021.  After Tgwe 
failed to file a responsive pleading, Biggins filed a motion for a default judgment on 
2 
 
October 26, 2021 (the “Motion”).  By letter dated November 11, 2021, the Superior 
Court directed Tgwe to respond to the Motion.  On December 2, 2021, Tgwe filed a 
motion to dismiss the Underlying Action and an opposition to the Motion.  By way 
of order dated June 16, 2022, the Superior Court denied the Motion and granted 
Tgwe’s motion to dismiss.  Thereafter, Biggins filed a motion for reargument, which 
remains pending in the Superior Court. 
(3) 
On May 31, 2022—before the Superior Court ruled on the Motion—
Biggins filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court, asking this Court to 
order the Superior Court judge to recuse herself from his case and to direct the 
Superior Court to enter a default judgment in his favor.   
(4) 
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.1  “[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.”2 
 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 Id. 
3 
 
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case for 
two reasons.  First, the matter is now moot because the Superior Court has ruled on 
the Motion.  Second, Biggins has another adequate remedy available to him: he may 
appeal the Superior Court’s decision.  A petitioner who has an adequate remedy in 
the appellate process may not use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Superior Court’s 
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for the issuance of a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
3 See id.