Schmidt v. Nakamoto

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 17, 2020
DocketSCPW-20-0000628
StatusPublished

This text of Schmidt v. Nakamoto (Schmidt v. Nakamoto) 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
Schmidt v. Nakamoto, (haw 2020).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 17-NOV-2020 01:16 PM Dkt. 19 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

THOMAS FRANK SCHMIDT and LORINNA JHINCIL SCHMIDT, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

HSC, INC., a Hawai#i Corporation; RICHARD HENDERSON, SR.; and ELEANOR R.J. HENDERSON, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 3CC061000228)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna and Wilson, JJ., Circuit Judge Cataldo, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Remigio, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Thomas Frank Schmidt

and Lorinna Jhincil Schmidt’s petition for writ of mandamus,

filed on October 20, 2020, the documents attached thereto and

submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that

petitioners fail to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to

the requested relief and have alternative means to seek relief.

Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to the requested

extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982

P.2d 334, 338 (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; a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede

the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a

mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal

appellate procedures). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 17, 2020.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Catherine H. Remigio

/s/ Lisa W. Cataldo

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)
Schmidt v. Nakamoto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-nakamoto-haw-2020.