Dacanay v. Sakamoto

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: August 1, 2016
• Docket: SCPW-16-0000477
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000477 01-AUG-2016 10:32 AM

SCPW-16-0000477

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

FELIX DACANAY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE

OF ROGER ROXAS and THE GOLDEN BUDHA CORPORATION,

a foreign corporation, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE KARL K. SAKAMOTO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent Judge,

and

IMELDA MARCOS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF

FERDINAND C. MARCOS and IMELDA MARCOS, INDIVIDUALLY, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NO. 08-0522-02)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

Upon consideration of petitioners Felix Dacanay, as

personal representative of the Estate of Roger Roxas, and The

Golden Budha Corporation’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed

on June 17, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted in

support thereof, and the record, it appears that Petitioners fail

to demonstrate that they are entitled to the specific relief they

seek at this time. Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to

the requested writ of mandamus. 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). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 1, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson