Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car

Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided October 26, 2010·No. 30745·Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

30745

26-OCT-2010

03:04 PM

NO. 30745

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

RONDA LEE RAMOS-ELSENBACH, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE LLOYD VAN DE CAR, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I;

and THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, SENIOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(FC-D No. 07-01-132K)

ORDER

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

and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Ronda Lee

Ramos-Elsenbach's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers

in support, it appears that: (1) petitioner fails to demonstrate

a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested; (2)

petitioner can seek review of the respondent judges' rulings by

appealing from the divorce decree entered in FC-D 07-1-132K; and

(3) the question of the disqualification of the presiding judge is not a question that cannot otherwise be reviewed on petitioner's appeal from the divorce decree. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of

mandamus or prohibition 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.

Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary

authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as

legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.); Peters

v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582-83 (1964) (A

writ of prohibition will lie to compel the disqualification of a

trial judge where the question of disqualification cannot

otherwise be reviewed.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai' October 26, 2010.

i,

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car, (haw 2010).

Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car (Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
Peters v. Jamieson
397 P.2d 575 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1964)