Ikaika Builders, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: July 2, 2010
• Docket: 30555
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 30555

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAl‘I

IKAIKA BUILDERS, INC., PetitiOner,

99 xi bid Z- "IH(` wl

VS.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD; JAMES C. CARVALHO; FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII, LTD.; and SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND, Respondents.

ORlGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. AB 2008-O82)

ORDER (By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald! JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Ikaika Builders, Inc. and the papers in support, it appears that the granting or denial of petitioner's motion for partial dismissal of Case No. AB 2008-082 was within the discretion and judgment of respondent Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals_Board. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. §§§ HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp. 2009) (The supreme court has jurisdiction and power to issue writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their offices.); In Re DisciplinarV Bd. Of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawafi 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (l999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available.); Salling v. Moon, 76 HawaiYi 273, 274 n. 3, 874 P.2d lO98, lO99 n.3 (l994) (“A duty is ministerial where the

law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such

UB"H.A

precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, HawaiTq Ju1y 2, 2010,

W-~ ¢5@“4,._ @_~r\a,¢¢:,.¢,/a/»\<>» Q/¢,..` €. »Q»Mb_,@»

/7¢».4 £. /2¢“¢ M»¢/¢/