Opinion
SCPW-22-0000372
06-24-2022
IN RE MARY LOUISE DRESSLER
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3CC171000024)
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Upon consideration of Mary Louise Dressler's (petitioner's) letter filed on June 1, 2022, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, the documents attached and submitted in support, and the record, petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and that she lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner's requests to dismiss the foreclosure action for lack of jurisdiction and order the return of the subject property are pending before the circuit court, and an extraordinary writ is not intended to supersede the discretionary authority of the circuit court. An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear 1 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 meant to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower court, nor are they meant to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the submission without payment of the filing fees. 2