Fukuyama v. Jeremiah

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMay 13, 2026
DocketSCPW-26-0000104
StatusPublished

This text of Fukuyama v. Jeremiah (Fukuyama v. Jeremiah) 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
Fukuyama v. Jeremiah, (haw 2026).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 13-MAY-2026 07:48 AM Dkt. 9 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

KEN FUKUYAMA, Respondent,

vs.

ARTHUR JEREMIAH, Petitioner. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DENYING PETITION AND MOTION (By: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the motion to transfer CAOT-25-

0000821 from the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) to this

court, filed February 12, 2026, and the record, including the

record of CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX, CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX has already been

dismissed by the ICA and thus not within the ICA’s jurisdiction

to be transferred to this court. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 602-58 (2016).

To the extent Jeremiah seeks review of the ICA’s decision

to dismiss CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX for lack of jurisdiction, the ICA’s order dismissing CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX is correct because it is this

court, and not the ICA, that has jurisdiction to issue an

extraordinary writ such as a writ of mandamus. HRS § 602-

5(a)(3) (2016); HRS § 602-57 (2016).

As to the petition for extraordinary writ, the motion filed

in this case and petition filed in CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX do not

demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief, nor a lack

of alternatives to obtain the relief sought. Petitioner agreed

to leave the property. And there is a pending appeal in CAAP-

XX-XXXXXXX where the same relief could have been requested. An

extraordinary writ is unwarranted. See Womble Bond Dickinson

(US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166

(2023).

It is ordered that the motion to transfer CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX

and the petition for extraordinary writ are denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 13, 2026.

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Peter T. Cahill

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Womble Bond Dickinson v. Kim
537 P.3d 1154 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fukuyama v. Jeremiah, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fukuyama-v-jeremiah-haw-2026.