Opinion
No. 30395
April 5, 2010.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 09-1-1935)
By: MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, and RECKTENWALD, JJ.
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioners Ronald Hanson's and Kathy Hanson's March "23, 2010 papers requesting this court to "intervene in [its] supervisory capacity," which we treat as a petition for writ of mandamus, as supplemented by petitioners' March 29, 2010 papers, it appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioners are 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.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.