Kumar v. Remigio

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: April 12, 2012
• Docket: SCPW-12-0000379
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000379 12-APR-2012 09:40 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000379

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

RAJ KUMAR,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE CATHERINE H. REMIGIO, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, and SUNITA KUMAR,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

By letter dated March 26, 2012, Family Court litigant

Raj Kumar seeks the Chief Justice’s review of certain family

court decisions, the disqualification of the Hon. Catherine H.

Remigio from presiding in his case, and waiver of a sanction. We

view the letter as a petition for writ of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or to obtain the requested action. Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawai'i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996). Such writs are not meant to supersede the legal discretionary

authority of the lower court, nor are they

meant to serve as legal remedies in lieu of

normal appellate procedures. Id. Where a

trial court has discretion to act, mandamus

will not lie to interfere with or control the

exercise of that discretion, even when the

judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge

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 it has a legal duty to

act.

Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-205, 982 P.2d 334, 338-339

(1999).

Petitioner Kumar will have a remedy by way of appeal.

Consequently, mandamus will not lie. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall file, without

payment of the filing fee, Petitioner Kumar’s letter and its

attachments as a petition for writ of mandamus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied.

This denial is without prejudice to any remedies Petitioner Kumar

may have by way of appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 12, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

-2­