Waipio Valley Artworks L.L.C. v. Roth

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
04-MAR-2022
09:57 AM
Dkt. 7 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
WAIPIO VALLEY ARTWORKS L.L.C., a Hawai#i limited liability
company; WAIPIO OHANA CORPORATION, a Hawai#i corporation dba
WAIPIO VALLEY SHUTTLE; NA#ALAPA STABLES, LLC, a Hawai#i limited
liability company; and MICHAEL OLIVAL, Petitioners,
vs.
MITCHELL D. ROTH, in his capacity as Mayor of the
COUNTY OF HAWAII, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for writ of
mandamus, filed on February 28, 2022, and the record, the issues
and request for relief presented in the petition do not warrant
this court’s intervention by way of an extraordinary writ, and
petitioners have alternative means to seek relief, including
seeking relief in the circuit court as provided by law. 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); Barnett v.
Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with
respect to a public official, mandamus relief is available to
compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an
individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain,
the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as
to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available).
Accordingly,
It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is
denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 4, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
2