Yellen v. Hara

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-15-0000341
13-AUG-2015
08:25 AM
SCPW-15-0000341
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL YELLEN, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE GLENN HARA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD
CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CG NO. 14-1-0001)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner Mike Yellen’s petition
for a writ of mandamus, the documents attached thereto and
submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that
Petitioner is not a party to the underlying guardianship/
conservatorship proceeding and fails to demonstrate that he has a
clear and indisputable right to relief, that he lacks alternative
means to seek relief, or that the Respondent Judge’s actions
amount to a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion.
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,
580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to
supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,
cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of
normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 13, 2015.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2