Domingo v. Terrado

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: January 9, 2018
• Docket: SCPW-17-0000886
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-17-0000886 09-JAN-2018 11:21 AM

SCPW-17-0000886

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ESTELITA T. TERRADO, Petitioner,

vs.

CAROLINA DOMINGO; STEPHEN ISAMU SHIGAMOTO; STACY LYN SHIGAMOTO; PAULA LURI OGI; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-GEL2, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P. NO. 08-1-0202)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Eddins, in place of McKenna, J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioner Estelita T. Terrado’s

petition for writ of prohibition, filed on December 15, 2017, and

the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that

she is entitled to the requested writ of prohibition. See

Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62

(1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy . . .

to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in

excess of his jurisdiction”); Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson,

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

is not meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures; rather, it is available in “rare and

exigent circumstances” where “allow[ing] the matter to wend its

way through the appellate process would not be in the public

interest and would work upon the public irreparable harm”).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 9, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins