Greenspon v. Loo

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMay 19, 2015
DocketSCPW-15-0000378
StatusPublished

This text of Greenspon v. Loo (Greenspon v. Loo) 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
Greenspon v. Loo, (haw 2015).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000378 19-MAY-2015 12:33 PM

SCPW-15-0000378

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge,

and

ONEWEST BANK NA; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; and THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-15-0000315; CIVIL NO. 14-1-0379(1))

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Michael C. Greenspon’s

petition for a writ of mandamus, filed April 29, 2015, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that Petitioner has filed an appeal from

the circuit court’s March 10, 2015 Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendant OneWest Bank N.A.’s Motion for

Protective Order, Stay, and Sanctions with the Intermediate Court

of Appeals, docketed as CAAP-15-0000315, and may seek relief in

the appeal. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,

cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 19, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

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

Related

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Greenspon v. Loo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenspon-v-loo-haw-2015.