Sonido v. District Court of the First Circuit

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedApril 22, 2026
DocketSCPW-25-0000584
StatusPublished

This text of Sonido v. District Court of the First Circuit (Sonido v. District Court of the First Circuit) 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
Sonido v. District Court of the First Circuit, (haw 2026).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 22-APR-2026 08:19 AM Dkt. 17 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

SHELDON KALANI SONIDO, Petitioner,

vs.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Court,

and

HAWAII STATE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Drewyer, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the petition for writs of

prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari, filed August 21, 2025,

and the record, the district court had jurisdiction to determine

whether it had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s counterclaim. See

Schwartz v. State, 136 Hawaiʻi 258, 263, 361 P.3d 1161, 1166

(2015). If the district court concludes it lacks jurisdiction over the counterclaim, as it did in 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX, the

district court may issue a decision stating as much. See In re

Kanahele, 152 Hawaiʻi 501, 514, 526 P.3d 478, 491 (2023). If

Petitioner disagreed with the district court’s dismissal of the

counterclaim, Petitioner could have sought review of the

dismissal on appeal from the district court’s judgment. See

Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016).

Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable

right to relief, nor a lack of alternatives to obtain the relief

sought. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi

307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023).

It is ordered that the petition for writs of mandamus and

prohibition are denied.

It is also ordered that the petition for a writ of

certiorari is dismissed without prejudice. See Hawaiʻi Rules of

Appellate Procedure Rule 40.1(a)(1) (requiring an application

for a writ of certiorari “be filed within 30 days after the

filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal

or dismissal order”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 22, 2026.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Vladimir P. Devens /s/ Michelle L. Drewyer

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

Related

Schwartz v. State.
361 P.3d 1161 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2015)
Womble Bond Dickinson v. Kim
537 P.3d 1154 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sonido v. District Court of the First Circuit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonido-v-district-court-of-the-first-circuit-haw-2026.