Tate Andale, Inc. v. Nishimura

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: February 13, 2017
• Docket: SCPW-16-0000819
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000819 13-FEB-2017 01:30 PM

SCPW-16-0000819 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I _________________________________________________________________ TATE ANDALE, INC., Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, Judge of the Circuit Court

of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge,

and

RODNEY A. FELICIANO and BEATRICE L. FELICIANO, Respondents.

________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIVIL NO. 16-1-0141-01)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Tate Andale, Inc.’s

petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, filed on

November 18, 2016, the documents submitted in support thereof,

and the record, it appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate

that they are entitled to the relief requested from this court.

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;

where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even

when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has

exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and

manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject

properly before the court under circumstances in which he or she

has a legal duty to act); Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw.

237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an

extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an inferior

court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction;” it is

not meant to 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, February 13, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson