Wong v. Nakasone
This text of Wong v. Nakasone (Wong v. Nakasone) 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-12-0000754 06-SEP-2012 10:49 AM
NO. SCPW-12-0000754
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
LAUREN N. WONG, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE KAREN T. NAKASONE, In her capacity as Judge of the First Circuit of the State of Hawai#i; and CHAD CHING, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 1CC09-1-0500)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Pollack, JJ. and Circuit Judge Trader, in place of McKenna, J., recused)
Upon consideration of petitioner Lauren N. Wong’s
August 30, 2012 petition for a writ of prohibition and/or a writ
of mandamus, the documents attached thereto and submitted in
support thereof, and the record, it appears that, at this time,
petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to
relief and a lack of alternative means to obtain the requested
relief inasmuch as petitioner can seek approval to appear at the
September 21, 2012 settlement conference by telephone but, to
date, has never formally requested to appear by telephone at the September 21, 2012 settlement conference. Petitioner is
therefore not entitled to mandamus relief. 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. Moreover, 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
prohibition and/or a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 6, 2012
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Rom A. Trader
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wong v. Nakasone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wong-v-nakasone-haw-2012.