Field v. Ochiai

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: October 23, 2020
• Docket: SCPW-20-0000584
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 23-OCT-2020 03:01 PM Dkt. 27 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________

DANE S. FIELD, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Aloha Sports, Inc., Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE DEAN E. OCHIAI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Judge,

and

THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 06-1-1832-10)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Dane S. Field, Trustee

for the Bankruptcy Estate of Aloha Sports Inc.’s petition for

writ of mandamus, filed on September 28, 2020, the documents

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the

record, it appears that, under the specific facts and

circumstances of this matter, this court’s intervention in the underlying dispute is not warranted or necessary. It cannot be

said that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction,

committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or refused

to act on a matter in addressing the subject issue, and

petitioner has alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner,

therefore, is 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 meant to restrain a judge of an inferior

court who has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a

flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act

on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in

which he or she has a legal duty to act). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 23, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ James H. Ashford