Kim v. Tanigawa ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                         Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-14-0001096
    25-NOV-2014
    02:45 PM
    SCPW-14-0001096
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
    YOUNG HUI KIM and CK ENTERPRISES, LLC, Petitioners,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE MICHAEL K. TANIGAWA, Judge of the District Court
    of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge,
    and
    ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE CENTURY CENTER, INC., by
    and through its Board of Directors, THAI HAWAIIAN MASSAGE, INC.,
    POJJANEE VARNEY, CHARLES VARNEY, and HENRY LEE JENSEN,
    Respondents.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (CAAP-14-0000436; CAAP-14-0001238; CIV. NO. 1RC-13-8808)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, J.J.)
    Upon consideration of Petitioners Young Hui Kim and CK
    Enterprises, LLC’s petition for a writ of prohibition, filed on
    September 2, 2014, the documents attached thereto and submitted
    in support thereof, and the record, it appears that Petitioners
    fail to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted under
    the facts and circumstances of this matter and Petitioners may
    seek relief, as appropriate, in their pending appeals (CAAP-14­
    0000436 and CAAP-14-0001238).   Petitioners, therefore, are not
    entitled to the requested writ of prohibition.   See Honolulu
    Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 
    59 Haw. 237
    , 241, 
    580 P.2d 58
    , 62 (1978) (a
    writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain
    a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of
    his jurisdiction”); Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 
    59 Haw. 224
    , 226, 
    580 P.2d 49
    , 53 (1978) (a writ of prohibition is not
    meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate
    procedures; rather, it is available in “rare and exigent
    circumstances” where “allow[ing] the matter to wend its way
    through the appellate process would not be in the public interest
    and would work upon the public irreparable harm”).   Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
    prohibition is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 25, 2014.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-14-0001096

Filed Date: 11/25/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/27/2014