Chen v. Rodriguez-Velazquez

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 14, 2023
• Docket: S23M-02-026 RHR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

XIANG CHEN, ) ) Plaintiff Below/Petitioner, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. S23M-02-026 RHR ) JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-VELAZQUEZ, ) HEBER CIFUENTES MUNOZ, and ) NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants Below/Respondents. )

Submitted: March 1, 2023 Decided: March 14, 2023

Upon Plaintiff Below/Petitioner’s “Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus,” DISMISSED.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2023, upon consideration of Xiang

Chen’s “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus,”1 National General Insurance

Company’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6),2 and

the record in this case, it appears to the court that:

1 Pet’r’s Complaint for Writ of Mandamus, Feb. 9, 2023 (D.I. 1). 2 Def. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co.’s Mot. Dismiss, Mar. 1, 2023 (“Def.’s Mot Dismiss”) (D.I. 8). 1 1. On or about May 12, 2022, Xiang Chen (“Petitioner”) filed a civil

action in Justice of the Peace Court 17 against Jose Luis Rodriguez-Velazquez,

Heber Cifuentes Munoz, and National General Insurance Company (“National

General”).3 Petitioner’s complaint sought payment and interest for property damage

resulting from a motor vehicle accident.4

2. By written decision dated October 14, 2022, the Justice of the Peace

Court: i) granted National General’s motion to dismiss for being an improper party;

ii) denied a motion to dismiss defendants Emilita Roblero-Bartolon and Jose Luis

Rodriguez-Velazquez because the claims against them were sufficiently averred;

and iii) determined that service of process had not been perfected on defendant Jose

Luis Rodriguez-Velazquez.5 The claims against the remaining defendants are still

pending in the Justice of the Peace Court.6

3. Petitioner now seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 564.

Petitioner asks this court to require the Justice of the Peace Court to reinstate

National General, determine that defendant Jose Luis-Rodriguez was effectively

served, enter summary judgment in Petitioner’s favor, and award legal costs and

damages.7

3 Id. ¶¶ 1-3. See also Ex. A, Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, Mar. 1, 2023 (D.I. 8). 4 Def.’s Mot. Dismiss ¶¶ 2-3. 5 Ex. A, Def.’s Mot. Dismiss. 6 Id. 7 Pet’r’s Writ of Mandamus. 2 4. When considering a motion to dismiss a petition for writ of mandamus,

this court applies the traditional motion to dismiss standard. The court must

determine if any set of facts exist which could be proven to support the claims made

in the complaint such that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief. 8 In this court’s

review, it shall take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.9 “A writ of mandamus is a

command that may be issued by the Superior Court to [a lower] court, public official

or agency to compel the performance of a duty to which the petitioner has established

a clear right.”10 This court seldom issues writs of mandamus and will only order the

command if: i) the petitioner establishes a clear right to the performance of the duty;

ii) that no adequate remedy is available; and iii) the lower court has arbitrarily failed

or refused to perform its duty.11 For acts that are clearly discretionary, a mandamus

will not be issued.12

5. Petitioner had an adequate remedy to challenge the Justice of the Peace

Court’s decision to grant National General’s Motion to Dismiss through his right of

de novo appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, but he failed to petition for such relief

8 Super. Ct. R. 12(b)(6). 9 See Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap. Holdings LLC., 27 A.3d 531, 536-37 (Del. 2011). 10 Smith v. Henderson, 2021 WL 4593385 at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 5, 2021) (citations omitted). 11 Id. 12 Id. 3 before the statutory deadlines.13 Petitioner cannot now challenge the Justice of the

Peace Court’s ruling using a writ of mandamus.14

6. The civil action against the remaining defendants is still pending in the

Justice of the Peace Court. There is no evidence of any arbitrary refusal or failure to

act in this case. Therefore, this court need not address Petitioner’s request for

summary judgment, costs, and damages.

7. This court finds Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) and fails to show how he is

entitled to relief pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 564.

8. Therefore, National General’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Writ of

Mandamus is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Robert H. Robinson, Jr. Robert H. Robinson, Jr., Judge

cc: File & ServeXpress

13 See 10 Del. C. § 9571(c). 14 See Caldwell v. J.P. Ct. No. 13, 2015 WL 9594709 at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 30, 2015). 4