Nomura v. Nakasone ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                       Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-13-0005254
    06-DEC-2013
    12:03 PM
    SCPW-13-0005254
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    LILY TAI NOMURA; ALOHA RAINBOW INVESTMENTS, INC.;
    LONG LIFE FOUNDATION; RICHARD LEE; JOHN DOES 1-50;
    JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50;
    DOE ENTITIES 1-50; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50,
    Petitioners,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE KAREN T. NAKASONE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
    COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I,
    Respondent Judge,
    and
    ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF CENTURY CENTER, INC.,
    by and through its Board of Directors, and PORTER MCQUIRE
    KIAKONA & CHOW, LLP,
    Respondents.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (CIV. NO. 13-1-1809-06)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of petitioners Richard Lee and Lily
    Tai Nomura’s petition for a writ of prohibition, filed on
    November 14, 2013, the documents submitted in support thereof,
    and the record, it appears that there are alternative means to
    seek the relief requested in the petition and petitioners fail to
    demonstrate that the respondent judge has acted beyond or in
    excess of her jurisdiction in presiding over the underlying case.
    Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to the extraordinary
    remedy of a 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, December 6, 2013.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-13-0005254

Filed Date: 12/6/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014