Opinion
No. 28860
December 7, 2007.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 05-1-0114)
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioner Andrea Brower's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that (1) the setting of the December 14, 2007 hearing date on petitioner's motion to intervene in Civil No. 05-1-0114 was within the discretion of the respondent judge and was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, and (2) petitioner's challenges to Civil No. 05-1-0114 may be raised in the circuit court if petitioner is granted intervention. Therefore, petitioner is 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. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. 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 it has a legal duty to act.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 7, 2007.