Yellen v. Hara

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: August 13, 2015
• Docket: SCPW-15-0000341
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000341 13-AUG-2015 08:25 AM

SCPW-15-0000341

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MICHAEL YELLEN, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE GLENN HARA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD

CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CG NO. 14-1-0001)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

Upon consideration of Petitioner Mike Yellen’s petition

for a writ of mandamus, the documents attached thereto and

submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that

Petitioner is not a party to the underlying guardianship/

conservatorship proceeding and fails to demonstrate that he has a

clear and indisputable right to relief, that he lacks alternative

means to seek relief, or that the Respondent Judge’s actions

amount to a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion.

Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.

See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39

(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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,

cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 13, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson