Golden v. Tonaki
This text of Golden v. Tonaki (Golden v. Tonaki) 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 06-DEC-2021 02:20 PM Dkt. 7 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
LUANA GOLDEN AND JALYN GOLDEN, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JOHN M. TONAKI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
CRAIG Y. WATASE DBA MARK DEVELOPMENT INC., Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioners Luana Golden and Jalyn Golden’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on
November 24, 2021, and the record, petitioners fail to
demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief and have
alternative means to seek relief, including filing a renewed
motion for default in compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules of the
Circuit Court of the State of Hawai#i. Based on the record, 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 presiding over the
case. 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 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 ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is
denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 6, 2021.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Golden v. Tonaki, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-tonaki-haw-2021.