Antoni v. Loo

Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided December 30, 2016·No. SCPW-16-0000815·Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-16-0000815

30-DEC-2016

02:23 PM

SCPW-16-0000815

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JOHN ANTONI, N.C. DYLAN WILLOUGHBY and ANTONI ALBUS, LLP, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO et al., Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of John Antoni’s and N.C. Dylan Willoughby’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or of Prohibition, filed on November 17, 2016, we conclude the Petitioners fail to demonstrate they are entitled to the requested relief because the Petitioners failed to establish their right to relief is indisputable. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawaiʻi 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to address adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; such a writ is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus or for prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 30, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Antoni v. Loo, (haw 2016).

Antoni v. Loo (Antoni v. Loo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
Barnett v. Broderick
929 P.2d 1359 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1996)