Falle v. Castagnetti

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 2019
DocketSCPW-19-0000619
StatusPublished

This text of Falle v. Castagnetti (Falle v. Castagnetti) 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.

Bluebook
Falle v. Castagnetti, (haw 2019).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 16-SEP-2019 01:52 PM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

JOSE GARFIN FALLE and JOSETTE VEGAFRIA FALLE, Petitioners, vs.

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

and

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS (CWABS2004-04)GI ARM; DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 14-1-1480-06)

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

Upon consideration of petitioners Jose Garfin Falle and

Josette Vegafria Falle’s “Real Emergency Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus Enjoining Honorable Judge Jeannette H. Castagnetti from

Enforcing a Void Judgment Including Writ of Ejectment,” filed on

September 4, 2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted

in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners

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). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 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

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Falle v. Castagnetti, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falle-v-castagnetti-haw-2019.