Case Title: Matter of Greenspan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 102, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF BRAD D. 
GREENSPAN FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 102, 2015 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 23, 2015 
  Decided: April 13, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice;  HOLLAND, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of April 2015, upon consideration of the petition of 
Brad Greenspan for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Brad Greenspan, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court under Supreme Court Rule 43.  He requests that 
this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing a Master of the Court of 
Chancery to: (i) grant his “Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment;” (ii) 
declare that he is immediately entitled to advancement of his legal fees; (iii) 
grant his “Motion Rule 54(b) or Rule 55(b);” (iv) grant his “Motion for 
Partial Summary Judgment;” (v) order a hearing on his “Motion 70b;” (vi) 
order an independent accounting of legal fees paid by defendants to the 
Master’s former employer; (vii) transfer his case to Vice Chancellor Laster; 
(viii) disqualify the law firm of Richards Layton & Finger from appearing 
2 
 
his case; (ix) join certain people as codefendants; and (x) set a new hearing 
date on his “Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment.” 
(2) 
Defendants below, News Corporation and Intermix Media LLC, 
as well as defendants, Sony Entertainment, Inc., Sony Music Holdings, Inc., 
and 550 Digital Media Ventures, Inc., have filed motions seeking to dismiss 
Greenspan’s writ of mandamus.  After careful consideration of the parties’ 
respective positions, we find that Greenspan’s petition manifestly fails to 
invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ.  
Accordingly, his petition must be dismissed. 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to 
perform a duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to the 
performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1  A writ of 
mandamus will not be issued “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  A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the 
present circumstances because the pending motions below are within the 
discretion of the Master in Chancery.3  This Court will not compel the Court 
                                                          
 
1In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
3 
 
of Chancery to rule in Greenspan’s favor on the substantive issues below.  
These are matters Greenspan may raise in any appeal from a final order 
issued by the Court of Chancery in the proceedings below.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the 
issuance of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
Chief Justice