Castro v. Castagnetti

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
24-JAN-2019
12:13 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MILAGROS LEANO CASTRO and BENNY F. CASTRO, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JEANNETTE H. CASTAGNETTI, Judge of the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET
INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-4; OWAWA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION; CACH, LLC; ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF VALLEYVIEW MELEMANU WOODLANDS, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 14-1-0808)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners Milagros Leano Castro
and Benny F. Castro’s “Real Emergency Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus with Prohibition and Prayer for Restraining Order and
Permanent Injunction,” filed on December 31, 2018, and the
“Amended Real Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with
Prohibition and Prayer for Restraining Order and Permanent
Injunction,” filed on January 17, 2019, the respective supporting
documents, and the record, it appears that petitioners, who
currently have an appeal pending in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, fail to
demonstrate that they have a clear and indisputable right to the
relief requested from this court and that they lack alternative
means to seek relief. Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled
to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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; such a writ is not
intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the
lower court, nor is it intended to serve as a legal remedy in
lieu of normal appellate procedures); Gannett Pac. Corp. v.
Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a writ of
prohibition is an extraordinary remedy; it is not meant to serve
as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 24, 2019.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2