Matter of Atamian
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GABRIEL G. ATAMIAN, MD, MSEE, JD FOR EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS: MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION. § § § § § § No. 125, 2006 C.A. No. 03C-12-038 Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: July 7, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 7th day of July 2006, it appears to the Court that: (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. (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. 1 When seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty.2 When seeking a writ of prohibition, the 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,4 i.e., appellate review, should Atamian choose to appeal the Superior Court s final decision.5 It is 1 Rogers v. State, 457 A.2d 727, 731 (Del. 1983). 2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 3 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988). 4 In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016 (Del. Supr.) (citing Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965)). 5 It appears from the docket that the Superior Court issued an order on June 9, 2006, that granted motions for summary judgment filed by Ryan and Becden and denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Atamian. 2 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 6 In re Dupras, 1995 WL 449323, *1 (Del. Supr.) (quoting Fisher v. Biggs, 284 A.2d 117, 118 (Del. 1971)). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
