SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 2017
DocketSCPW-16-0000856
StatusPublished

This text of SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case (SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case) 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
SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case, (haw 2017).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000856 05-JAN-2017 03:15 PM

SCPW-16-0000856 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ SPD II MAKAIWA RESORT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Petitioner, vs. SUZANNE CASE, Chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai#i, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (DLNR FILE NO. KA-407)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner SPD II Makaiwa Resort

Development, LLC’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on

December 9, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted in

support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails

to demonstrate that it has a clear and indisputable right to the

requested relief and may raise its concerns in the pending matter

before the Department of Land and Natural Resources or in any

subsequent appeal, as appropriate. Petitioner, therefore, is not

entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. 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); Barnett v. Broderick, 84

Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (a writ of mandamus

is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly

owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and

certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly

prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is

available). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 5, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

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)
Barnett v. Broderick
929 P.2d 1359 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spd-ii-makaiwa-resort-development-llc-v-case-haw-2017.