Ji v. Gangnes

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMay 4, 2016
DocketSCPW-16-0000322
StatusPublished

This text of Ji v. Gangnes (Ji v. Gangnes) 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
Ji v. Gangnes, (haw 2016).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000322 04-MAY-2016 08:51 AM

SCPW-16-0000322

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

SEONG HO JI and GX AUTO, INC., Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE HILARY BENSON GANGNES, Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge

and

KAALAWAI HOLDINGS LLC dba UNITED TRUCK RENTAL and SIONE VIMAHI aka SIONE VINMAHI, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. No. 1RC15-1-7933)

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

Upon consideration of Petitioner Seong Ho Ji and GX

Auto, Inc.’s petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition,

filed April 7, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted

in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners

fail to demonstrate that they have a clear and indisputable right

to the requested relief or that they lack alternative means to

seek relief. Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to an extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982

P.2d 334, 338 (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 and a writ

of prohibition are extraordinary remedies meant to, among other

things, restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond

or in excess of his or her jurisdiction; they are 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 writ of

mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 4, 2016.

/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)
Ji v. Gangnes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ji-v-gangnes-haw-2016.