Lord v. Kobata

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedApril 18, 2023
DocketSCWC-22-0000591
StatusPublished

This text of Lord v. Kobata (Lord v. Kobata) 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
Lord v. Kobata, (haw 2023).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 18-APR-2023 11:02 AM Dkt. 25 ORD

SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI _______________________________________________________________ ESTATE OF VIVIAN T. LORD, by her PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM H. GILLIAM; and WILLIAM H. GILLIAM individually, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. LESLIE KOBATA, REGISTRAR, in his official capacity only; PORTER McGUIRE KIAKONA & CHOW, LLP; PORTER McGUIRE KIAKONA, LLP; FOREST B. JENKINS; CHONG, NISHIMOTO, SIA, NAKAMURA & GOYA, LLLP; JEFFREY H.K. SIA; DOROTHY P.H. MEISNER; SHANA MAGUIRE; HAWAII FIRST, INC.; CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT, INC., dba ASSOCIA, HAWAII; and ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF KUHIO SHORES AT POIPU, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. ___________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIV. NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Souza, in place of Wilson, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the document filed on February

21, 2023, it is ordered:

1. The application for a writ of certiorari is

rejected. 2. The petition for a writ of mandamus or

prohibition is denied. Petitioners have alternative means to

seek relief because 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX is ongoing and the vexatious

litigant order and order addressing attorney fees and costs may

be reviewed on appeal. Petitioners have also not demonstrated a

clear and indisputable right to relief because it is within the

circuit court’s jurisdiction and discretion to decide the motion

for attorney fees and costs. An extraordinary writ is thus not

warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d

334, 338-39 (1999); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw.

237, 241–42, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978).

3. The request for a stay is denied. If and when

appropriate, Petitioners may seek a stay in the circuit court

pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 62 and Hawaiʻi

Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 8.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 18, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti

/s/ Kevin A.K. Souza

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)
Lord v. Kobata, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lord-v-kobata-haw-2023.