Arensmeyer v. Ginoza
This text of Arensmeyer v. Ginoza (Arensmeyer v. Ginoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 16-APR-2019 02:10 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
FREDERICK ARENSMEYER, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE LISA M. GINOZA, THE HONORABLE ALEXA D. M. FUJISE, and THE HONORABLE KATHERINE G. LEONARD, Judges of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judges,
and
NATHAN EARL AIWOHI; LEAH LEIKO AIWOHI; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-5T2 MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES 006-5T2; GATHER CREDIT UNION; AOAO OF ARRUDA ESTATES I, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Frederick J.
Arensmeyer’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on March 20,
2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support
thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to
demonstrate a lack of alternative means to seek the requested
relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested
extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 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); Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237,
241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus, therefore, is
meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond
or in excess of his or her jurisdiction). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied. This disposition does not limit petitioner’s
right to seek other relief as appropriate.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 16, 2019.
/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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Arensmeyer v. Ginoza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arensmeyer-v-ginoza-haw-2019.