Molina v. Ginoza ( 2022 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
19-MAY-2022
09:39 AM
Dkt. 59 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
LINDA MOLINA, Petitioner/Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant,
vs.
CAROL GINOZA, President of Zen Properties, Incorporated,
Appointed Property Manager of The Estate of Sheila Spencer
Provost, a.k.a. Sheila Spencer, a.k.a. Shayla Spencer Provost,
Deceased, Respondent/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE. NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX; APPEAL NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Linda Molina’s
petition for writ of mandamus, filed on May 1, 2022, the
documents attached and submitted in support, and the record,
petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to
relief because petitioner has failed to show a flagrant and
manifest abuse of discretion or a lack of alternative means to
seek relief. An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See
Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)
(explaining that 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; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge who has exceeded
the judge’s 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 the judge has a
legal duty to act). Accordingly,
It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is
denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 19, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
2