Shyne v. Watanabe ( 2023 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
20-OCT-2023
11:32 AM
Dkt. 22 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
CATHERINE M. SHYNE,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN N.A. WATANABE,
Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit,
State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,
and
TBC KOLOA TOWN LLC, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ.,
Circuit Judge Remigio and Circuit Judge Souza,
assigned by reason of vacancies)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus,
filed on October 16, 2023 (Petition), the documents attached and
submitted in support, and the record, Petitioner Catherine M.
Shyne failed to establish a “clear and indisputable right to the
relief requested and a lack of other means to redress adequately
the alleged wrong or to obtain the requested action.” See Kema
v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999).
Here, depending on the outcome of the hearings in the
underlying post-judgment proceeding it appears Petitioner could
pursue normal appellate procedures to challenge any purported
error by the circuit court. See e.g., Ditto v. McCurdy, 103
Hawaiʻi 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974, 978 (2003) (discussing post-
judgment orders and when they may be appealed); Harada v. Ellis,
60 Haw. 467, 480, 591 P.2d 1060, 1070 (1979) (discussing the
collateral order doctrine and contempt). It is well-established
that a petition for writ of mandamus is not meant to serve as a
legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure. See Kema,
91 Hawaiʻi at 204, 982 P.2d at 338.
Next, based on a review of the record it cannot be said
that the circuit court committed a flagrant and manifest abuse
of discretion in scheduling the hearing dates at the same time.
Here, a number of hearings related to the debtor examination
occurred before the upcoming October 25, 2023 hearing, yet
despite receiving notice of these hearings through the Judiciary
Electronic Filing System (JEFS), counsel for Petitioner failed
to appear. See Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of
Hawaiʻi, Rule 15(b) (“Expedition of Court Business”); see also
Electronic Filing and Service Rules, Rule 6 (“The Notice of
Electronic Filing automatically generated by JEFS and JIMS
2
constitutes service of the electronically filed document to JEFS
Users.”). In short, as to this ground and based on the
circumstances raised by Petitioner, we decline to entertain the
petition.
In sum, none of the arguments made by Petitioner support
the issuance of the requested writ. In so holding, we do not
decide any question as to the merits.
The burden was on Petitioner to establish the extraordinary
circumstances to warrant mandamus. We find that Petitioner
failed to carry this burden.
It is ordered that the Petition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 20, 2023.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
/s/ Catherine H. Remigio
/s/ Kevin A.K. Souza
3