Opinion
SCPW-15-0000716
12-23-2015
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO. 13-1-0842-03) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
()
Upon consideration of petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on October 2, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to seek relief as petitioner may seek relief, as appropriate, once a final, appealable judgment is entered in the case. Additionally, petitioner fails to demonstrate that the respondent judge has exceeded his jurisdiction or committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion in presiding over the partition action. See HRS § 668-1 (governing actions for partition). Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the relief requested. 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; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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 mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 23, 2015.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson