Taylor v. Chang
This text of Taylor v. Chang (Taylor v. Chang) 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.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001359 11-DEC-2014 01:53 PM
SCPW-14-0001359
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
SCARLETT A. TAYLOR, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, Respondent Judge,
and
ELISA M. OMEECHEVARRIA, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 1CC 13-1-003006)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Scarlett A. Taylor’s
letter dated November 17, 2014 and received on November 18, 2014,
which was filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to
Judge Gary W.B. Chang, it appears petitioner is seeking: (1)
removal of Judge Gary W.B. Chang from presiding over Taylor v.
Omeechevarria, Civil No. 13-1-003006, which is presently pending
in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit and the appointment of
another judge to hear the case; and (2) supreme court review of
the appended motion/objections to a minute order dismissing the
circuit court case. From a review of the record, it further
appears that there is a hearing scheduled on December 17, 2014,
and petitioner can raise any objections to the minute order at
that time and seek any further relief in the circuit court
related to the issues raised in her letter. Petitioner also has
a remedy by way of appeal from any adverse judgment. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus directed to Judge Gary W.B. Chang is denied without
prejudice to any remedy petitioner may have in the pending
circuit court case and without prejudice to any remedy she may
have by way of appeal from any adverse judgment. See Kema v.
Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999)
(writs of mandamus are not meant to supersede the legal
discretionary authority of the lower court, nor are they intended
to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate
procedures).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 11, 2014.
/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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Taylor v. Chang, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-chang-haw-2014.