Title: Matter of Atamian

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§
PETITION OF GABRIEL G. 
§
No. 125, 2006
ATAMIAN, MD, MSEE, JD FOR 
§
EXTRAORDINARY 
§
PROCEEDINGS:
§
C.A. No. 03C-12-038
MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION.
§
Submitted: April 26, 2006
Decided:
July 7, 2006
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7  day of July 2006, it appears to the Court that:
th
(1)
Plaintiff-below, Gabriel G. Atamian, has filed a petition seeking
a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition.  He has also moved to
supplement and correct the petition.  Defendants-below, Michael J. Ryan, DDS
(Ryan), and Becden Dental Laboratory (Becden), have each filed a motion to
dismiss.
(2)
In December 2003, Atamian filed a complaint in the Superior
Court against Ryan and Becden.  In his petition for a writ of mandamus and
prohibition, Atamian requests that the Court review a Superior Court order that
denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing and a letter that the court sent to
the parties regarding the posture of the litigation.
Rogers v. State, 457 A.2d 727, 731 (Del. 1983).
1
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
2
In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988).
3
In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016 (Del. Supr.) (citing Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214
4
A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965)).
It appears from the docket that the Superior Court issued an order on June 9, 2006,
5
that granted motions for summary judgment filed by Ryan and Becden and denied a motion
for summary judgment filed by Atamian.
2
(3)
A writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are“coercive orders
[that are] used to grant relief when the traditional appeal route is unavailable or
will not provide an adequate remedy at law.”   When seeking a writ of
1
mandamus, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court has arbitrarily
failed or refused to perform a duty.   When seeking a writ of prohibition, the
2
petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court is without jurisdiction or is
attempting to exceed its jurisdiction.3
(4)
Neither mandamus nor prohibition relief is warranted in this case.
Atamian has not demonstrated that the Superior Court has failed or refused to
perform a duty owed to him or that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction. 
 
(5)
Furthermore, an extraordinary writ is inappropriate in this case
because Atamian has an adequate remedy at law,  i.e.,  appellate review, should
4
Atamian choose to appeal the Superior Court’s final decision.   It is
5
In re Dupras, 1995 WL 449323, *1 (Del. Supr.) (quoting Fisher v. Biggs, 284 A.2d
6
117, 118 (Del. 1971)).
3
fundamental that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court rests upon the
perfecting of an appeal within the time period fixed by law.6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Atamian’s motions to
supplement and correct are GRANTED.  The motions to dismiss filed by Ryan
and Becden are GRANTED.  Atamian’s petition for a writ of mandamus and
prohibition is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice