Golden v. Tonaki

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 7, 2021
DocketSCPW-21-0000671
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Golden v. Tonaki, (haw 2021).

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Golden v. Tonaki, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-tonaki-haw-2021.