Blumer-Buell v. Heely ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                        Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-13-0005129
    11-DEC-2013
    10:40 AM
    SCPW-13-0005129
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    JOHN BLUMER-BUELL, Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE ADRIANNE HEELEY OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF
    THE SECOND CIRCUIT, HANA SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION, Respondent.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (DC-SC 13-1-0061)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of petitioner John Blumer-Buell’s
    petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November 6, 2013, the
    supporting documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner
    is attempting to take an appeal not provided by statute.     See HRS
    633-28(a) (“There shall be no appeal from a judgment of the small
    claims division[.]”).    Moreover, petitioner fails to show any
    grounds entitling him to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of
    mandamus.    See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 
    982 P.2d 334
    ,
    338 (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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 
    59 Haw. 237
    , 241,
    
    580 P.2d 58
    , 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to
    supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,
    cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of
    normal appellate procedure; rather, it is meant to restrain a
    judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his
    or her jurisdiction); Chamber v. Leavey, 
    60 Haw. 52
    , 
    587 P.2d 807
    (1978) (affirming the dismissal of tenant’s petition for a writ
    of mandamus against landlord and judge of small claims court who
    denied tenant’s claim for return of security deposit and
    subsequent motion for reconsideration).   Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
    mandamus is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 11, 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-13-0005129

Filed Date: 12/11/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014