Nice v. Valenciano

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMay 13, 2025
DocketSCPW-25-0000359
StatusPublished

This text of Nice v. Valenciano (Nice v. Valenciano) 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
Nice v. Valenciano, (haw 2025).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 13-MAY-2025 11:04 AM Dkt. 23 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RANDAL G.B. VALENCIANO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,

and

THE HONORABLE ANNE E. LOPEZ, Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Remigio, in place of Devens, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus,

filed on April 17, 2025 (Petition), the documents attached and

submitted in support, and the record, Petitioners Cameron Nice

and Martha Nice have failed to establish 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.” See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982

P.2d 334, 338 (1999).

Petitioners have repeatedly sought extraordinary relief

from this court concerning the same underlying case (5CCV-22-

0000027). This court has denied those petitions. See SCPW-23-

0000056 docket 16; SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX docket 14; SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

docket 37; SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX docket 85; SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX docket 40;

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX docket 57.

The petition filed in this proceeding is more of the same.

This time, Petitioners add allegations regarding Judge

Valenciano’s January 22, 2025 order declaring Petitioners

vexatious litigants pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 634J-7

(2016).

None of the arguments made by Petitioner support the

issuance of the requested writ. The burden was on Petitioners

to establish the extraordinary circumstances to warrant

mandamus. We find that Petitioners failed to carry this burden.

It is ordered that the Petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 13, 2025

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Catherine H. Remigio

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)
Nice v. Valenciano, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nice-v-valenciano-haw-2025.