Shyne v. Watanabe

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: October 20, 2023
• Docket: SCPW-23-0000586
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 20-OCT-2023 11:32 AM Dkt. 22 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

CATHERINE M. SHYNE, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN N.A. WATANABE, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,

and

TBC KOLOA TOWN LLC, Respondent.

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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., Circuit Judge Remigio and Circuit Judge Souza, assigned by reason of vacancies)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus,

filed on October 16, 2023 (Petition), the documents attached and

submitted in support, and the record, Petitioner Catherine M.

Shyne 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).

Here, depending on the outcome of the hearings in the

underlying post-judgment proceeding it appears Petitioner could

pursue normal appellate procedures to challenge any purported

error by the circuit court. See e.g., Ditto v. McCurdy, 103

Hawaiʻi 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974, 978 (2003) (discussing post-

judgment orders and when they may be appealed); Harada v. Ellis,

60 Haw. 467, 480, 591 P.2d 1060, 1070 (1979) (discussing the

collateral order doctrine and contempt). It is well-established

that a petition for writ of mandamus is not meant to serve as a

legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure. See Kema,

91 Hawaiʻi at 204, 982 P.2d at 338.

Next, based on a review of the record it cannot be said

that the circuit court committed a flagrant and manifest abuse

of discretion in scheduling the hearing dates at the same time.

Here, a number of hearings related to the debtor examination

occurred before the upcoming October 25, 2023 hearing, yet

despite receiving notice of these hearings through the Judiciary

Electronic Filing System (JEFS), counsel for Petitioner failed

to appear. See Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of

Hawaiʻi, Rule 15(b) (“Expedition of Court Business”); see also

Electronic Filing and Service Rules, Rule 6 (“The Notice of

Electronic Filing automatically generated by JEFS and JIMS

2 constitutes service of the electronically filed document to JEFS

Users.”). In short, as to this ground and based on the

circumstances raised by Petitioner, we decline to entertain the

petition.

In sum, none of the arguments made by Petitioner support

the issuance of the requested writ. In so holding, we do not

decide any question as to the merits.

The burden was on Petitioner to establish the extraordinary

circumstances to warrant mandamus. We find that Petitioner

failed to carry this burden.

It is ordered that the Petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 20, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Catherine H. Remigio

/s/ Kevin A.K. Souza