Case Title: Matter of Delta Eta Corporation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 409, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF DELTA ETA 
CORPORATION FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 409, 2009 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 6, 2009 
Decided:  August 28, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of August 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Delta Eta Corporation, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to render a decision on the issue of pre-judgment 
interest in connection with its decision granting summary judgment in favor 
of the University of Delaware in Delta Eta Corporation v. University of 
Delaware, C.A. No. 07C-04-580 and, thereby, enter an appealable judgment.  
The University of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Delta Eta’s 
petition be dismissed.  We find that Delta Eta’s petition manifestly fails to 
invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must 
be dismissed.   
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2 
 
(2) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that, on July 29, 2009, at the 
request of the petitioner, the Superior Court held an office conference to 
address the issues of pre-judgment interest and whether its decision granting 
summary judgment in favor of the University of Delaware may properly be 
appealed to this Court.  The Superior Court docket further reflects that the 
parties filed their post-office conference submissions on August 7 and 
August 12, 2009, respectively, but that the Superior Court has not yet 
rendered its decision. 
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, a petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of a duty; b) no other adequate remedy is available; 
and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3  
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  The record reflects that the Superior Court has taken steps to resolve 
the issue of pre-judgment interest, as Delta Eta wishes it to do.  As such, 
Delta Eta’s petition is moot.  While the Superior Court has not yet rendered 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
 
3 
its decision in the matter, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to 
dictate control of the Superior Court’s docket.4  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
4 Id.