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

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES L. MARTIN 
FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS 
AND PROHIBITION 
§ 
§  No. 59, 2022 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 8, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 17, 2022 
 
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
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 
2 
 
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. 
3 
 
(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. 
4 
 
 
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