Mundon v. Nakashima

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 10, 2017
DocketSCPW-17-0000589
StatusPublished

This text of Mundon v. Nakashima (Mundon v. Nakashima) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mundon v. Nakashima, (hawapp 2017).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-17-0000589 09-AUG-2017 03:21 PM

SCPW-17-0000589

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

ELIA IKAIKA MUNDON, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE STEVEN M. NAKASHIMA, Judge of the Family Court of

the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge,

and

CHEVELLE LEIHOKU MUNDON nka CHEVELLE LEIHOKU TEVES, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(FC-D NO. 10-1-302)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Elia Ikaika Mundon’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on August 7, 2017, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that, at this juncture, petitioner fails

to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the

requested relief or that the respondent judge committed a

flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion in denying his motion

for the immediate physical and legal custody of his minor

children. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the relief

requested. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d

334, 338-39 (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; where a 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 he or she

has a legal duty to act). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 9, 2017. /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

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mundon v. Nakashima, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mundon-v-nakashima-hawapp-2017.