Greenspon v. Ayabe ( 2015 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-15-0000594
20-OCT-2015
01:45 PM
SCPW-15-0000594
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE BERT I. AYABE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge,
and
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL
ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICE
AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006; INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B.;
ONEWEST BANK F.S.B.; CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CAAP-13-0001432; CIVIL NO. 11-1-0194-01)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Greenspon’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, filed August 24, 2015, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that
he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or
that the respondent judge’s actions demonstrate bias, infringe
upon petitioner’s constitutional rights, exceed the court’s
jurisdiction, or constitute a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of
mandamus. 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; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not
lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion,
even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge 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, October 20, 2015.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2