Nice v. Valenciano ( 2023 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
17-MAR-2023
08:04 AM
Dkt. 24 ORD
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RANDAL VALENCIANO,
Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit,
State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the March 8, 2023 submission
from Cameron and Martha Nice, and the record in this matter, we
conclude the submission is, in part, a second motion for
reconsideration of this court’s February 10, 2023 order, which
denied their original petition for a writ of mandamus, and is,
in part, a series of motions for fresh relief, including (1) for
interlocutory review of a February 23, 2023 hearing in the
underlying litigation; (2) an order from this court removing
Judge Valenciano from the underlying litigation and/or requiring
his recusal; (3) an order directing Judge Valenciano to vacate
his January 26, 2023 order, which granted withdrawal of the law
firm which previously had represented the Nices; (4) an order
directing Judge Valenciano to reschedule a number of hearings to
accommodate the Nices; (5) an order directing the former firm to
renew its representation and/or refund monies to the Nices which
were previously paid; (6) an order directing the Disciplinary
Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel to expedite any investigations of the Nices’ allegations
of misconduct against a number of attorneys involved in the
underlying litigation; and (7) the provision of free legal
representation and/or consultation. We further conclude that
either the requested relief is prohibited by court rule, see
Rule 40(e) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure, or the
Nices, in their additional requests for relief, fail to
establish a clear and indisputable right to relief or that they
lack other means to adequately redress the alleged wrong, or
both. See Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawaiʻi 410,
414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996); In re Disciplinary Bd. of
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, 91 Hawaiʻi 363, 368-69, 984 P.2d 688, 693-
94 (1999); Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Hawaiʻi 60, 68, 143 P.3d
1262, 1270 (2006). Therefore,
2
It is ordered that the motions are denied in their
entirety.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 17, 2023.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
3