From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vimahi v. Blondin

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jun 2, 2009
No. 29830 (Haw. Jun. 2, 2009)

Opinion

No. 29830

June 2, 2009.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 08-1-1788)

By: MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, and RECKTENWALD, JJ.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition filed by petitioners Natasha Anela Vimahi and Luseane Eniti Vimahi and the papers in support, it appears that the circuit court and the intermediate court of appeals denied petitioners a stay of the writ of ejectment pending disposition of petitioners' motion for reconsideration, not pending disposition of petitioners' appeal. Petitioners' motion to stay the writ of ejectment pending appeal is pending before the circuit court and petitioners have not filed a motion to stay the writ of ejectment pending appeal with the intermediate court of appeals. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition 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.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is denied.


Summaries of

Vimahi v. Blondin

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jun 2, 2009
No. 29830 (Haw. Jun. 2, 2009)
Case details for

Vimahi v. Blondin

Case Details

Full title:NATASHA ANELA VIMAHI and LUSEANE ENITI VIMAHI, Petitioners, v. THE…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Jun 2, 2009

Citations

No. 29830 (Haw. Jun. 2, 2009)