Castro v. Castagnetti

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: January 24, 2019
• Docket: SCPW-18-0000978
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 24-JAN-2019 12:13 PM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MILAGROS LEANO CASTRO and BENNY F. CASTRO, Petitioners, vs.

THE HONORABLE JEANNETTE H. CASTAGNETTI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-4; OWAWA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION; CACH, LLC; ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF VALLEYVIEW MELEMANU WOODLANDS, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 14-1-0808)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioners Milagros Leano Castro

and Benny F. Castro’s “Real Emergency Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus with Prohibition and Prayer for Restraining Order and

Permanent Injunction,” filed on December 31, 2018, and the

“Amended Real Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with

Prohibition and Prayer for Restraining Order and Permanent

Injunction,” filed on January 17, 2019, the respective supporting

documents, and the record, it appears that petitioners, who

currently have an appeal pending in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, fail to demonstrate that they have a clear and indisputable right to the

relief requested from this court and that they lack alternative

means to seek relief. Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled

to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91

Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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; such a writ is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the

lower court, nor is it intended to serve as a legal remedy in

lieu of normal appellate procedures); Gannett Pac. Corp. v.

Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a writ of

prohibition is an extraordinary remedy; it is not meant to serve

as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 24, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson