Lahaina Fashions, Inc. v. August

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: May 6, 2010
• Docket: 30474
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 30474

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

LAHAINA FASHIONS, INC., a Hawai‘i corporation,2; Petitioner, wl

vs.

THE HONORABLE JOEL E. AUGUST and THE HONORABLE sosHay E. CARDOZA, JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEGOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I; BANK OF HAWAI‘I, a Haag ia

corporation; HAWAIIAN TRUST COMPANY, LTD., as Trustee for Hawai‘i Real Estate Equity Fund; HAWAI'I REAL ESTATE EQUITY FUND; PACIFIC CENTURY TRUST, a division of Bank of Hawai‘i as Trustee of the Hawai‘i Real Estate Equity Fund, Respondents.

Le) yg 3~ A¥WO10z

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 07-1-0506)

QRDER

Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

(By: Moon, C.J., Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus filed by petitioner Lahaina Fashions, Inc. and the

papers in support, it appears that petitioner can seek review of

the respondent judges’ rulings by appealing from the final

07-1-0506. Therefore, petitioner

judgment entered in Civil No. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91

is not entitled to mandamus relief.

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is

Hawai‘i 200, 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 writs are not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts,

G34 nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly,

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 6, 2010.

Gi

Pea a Tere ae

AN

CKenar.< udegy Wr -

Mw EC. MM bh tute