Yang v. Drewyer

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: SCPW-24-0000086
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 05-APR-2024 07:57 AM Dkt. 23 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JIN QUAN YANG, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE MICHELLE L. DREWYER, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,

and

PACIFIC HAWAII FOOD SERVICE LLC, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Jin Quan Yang’s February

12, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus (Petition) to recuse the

respondent judge from Civil No. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX, and the record,

we conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted.

Here, Petitioner by timely appeal may raise this same

grievance. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016). Consequently, Petitioner’s case is not one in which the question

of disqualification cannot otherwise be reviewed, and immediate

review by way of mandamus is not warranted. See Womble Bond

Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154,

1166 (2023) (requiring a petitioner seeking an extraordinary

writ to “demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the

relief requested and a lack of other means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or to obtain the requested action” (cleaned

up)); Peters v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582-83

(1964) (“[A] writ of prohibition will lie to compel a trial

judge to recuse . . . because of bias or prejudice which appears

from the record, where . . . the case is one in which the

question of disqualifications cannot otherwise be reviewed.”).

The Petition made several other requests for relief, none

of which we find warrant further review by mandamus. In sum,

none of Petitioner’s arguments support the issuance of the

requested writ. In so holding, we do not decide any question as

to the merits.

The burden was on Petitioner to establish the extraordinary

circumstances to warrant mandamus. We find that Petitioner

failed to carry this burden. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate

Procedure, Rule 21(c) (“If the court is of the opinion that the

writ should not be entertained, it shall deny the petition.”).

Petitioner’s grievances may be pursued by appeal, rather than by

2 resort to this court’s original jurisdiction for extraordinary

writs.

It is ordered that the Petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 5, 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens