Fukuyama v. Jeremiah
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Fukuyama v. Jeremiah, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fukuyama-v-jeremiah-haw-2026.