Machado v. Van De Car ( 2014 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-14-0000786
03-JUN-2014
10:15 AM
SCPW-14-0000786
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
DIANA R. MACHADO, Petitioner-Defendant,
vs.
HONORABLE LLOYD VAN DE CAR, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE
THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent Judge,
and
JOHN A. MACHADO, Respondent-Plaintiff.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(FC-D NO. 08-01-0037)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Diana R. Machado’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on April 29, 2014, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that
the respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion by denying the motion to disqualify counsel inasmuch
as (1) petitioner was not a client of the law firm at the time of
the divorce proceeding as contemplated under HRPC Rule 1.7,
(2) petitioner does not establish that the prior matter in which
the law firm represented petitioner and respondent is
substantially related to the current divorce matter, and
(3) petitioner appears to have waived any conflict of interest
objection. 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 meant to restrain a
judge of an inferior court who 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); Otaka v. Klein, 71 Haw. 376, 386, 791 P.2d 713, 719
(1980) (applying the “substantial relationship” test to review
issues related to the disqualification of an attorney who is
allegedly representing a party whose interests are adverse to
those of the attorney’s former client); Straub Clinic & Hosp. v.
Kochi, 81 Hawai'i 410, 415, 917 P.2d 1284, 1289 (1996) (the grant
or denial of a motion for disqualification is within the
discretion of the trial court). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 3, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2