Shaw v. Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: January 25, 2012
• Docket: SCPW-11-0000934
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0000934 25-JAN-2012 01:43 PM

NO. SCPW-11-0000934

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STEPHEN M. SHAW, Petitioner,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

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

Upon consideration of petitioner Stephen M. Shaw’s

petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner seeks

a writ directing the ICA to vacate its August 3, 2011 attorney’s

fees and costs order and to approve fees and costs in the full

amount requested because the order does not set forth reasons for

the reduction in fees. In support of his request, petitioner

cites to Bettencourt v. Gonda, SCAP No. 30616, October 19, 2011.

However, Bettencourt does not hold that court-appointed counsel

is entitled to the full amount of fees and costs requested if a

reduction in the requested fees and costs does not set forth

reasons for the reduction. The absence of reasons for a

reduction in fees and costs in the ICA’s August 3, 2011 order

does not entitle petitioner to the full amount of the fees and

costs requested. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to

mandamus relief. 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.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied as to all relief requested.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 25, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna