Travelocity.com LP v. Chang

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0000313
02-MAY-2013
02:59 PM
SCPW-13-0000313
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, SITE59.COM LLC, EXPEDIA, INC.,
HOTWIRE, INC., HOTELS.COM, L.P., ORBITZ, LLC,
INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP., TRIP NETWORK, INC.,
PRICELINE.COM, INC., and TRAVELWEB LLC, Petitioners,
vs.
GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, Respondent,
and
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Real-Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(T.A. No. 11-1-0021)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Petitioners’ April 19, 2013
submission in support of its March 28, 2013 Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus – which this court characterizes as a motion to amend
the March 28, 2013 Petition – the exhibits appended thereto, and
the record, it appears the Petitioners, in addition to
reiterating a previous request for this court to stay the
provisions of HRS § 235-114 (Supp. 2010), which this court
declined to do by way of its April 22, 2013 order denying the
original Petition, also request this court to “clarify or
confirm” whether the February 8, 2013 order of the Tax Appeal
Court and the April 1, 2013 denial of the Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the February 8, 2013 order are final,
appealable orders. However, it is premature for this court to
opine on the appealability of the orders before an appeal is
brought, and this court declines to issue an advisory opinion.
See Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Cmty. Dev. Corp. Of
Hawai#i, 121 Hawai#i 324, 339 n. 13, 219 P. 3d 1111, 1126 n. 13
(2009) (advisory opinions are “impermissible”); State v. Lo, 116
Hawai#i 23, 25-26, 169 P.3d 975, 977-78 (2007) (“Thus, this court
must determine at the outset whether a mandamus petitioner may
have a remedy by way of appeal or any other means of relief from
the trial court’s action.”); 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; such writs are not intended to supercede the
legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they
intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate
2
procedures). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioners’ April 19,
2013 motion is denied on its merits.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 2, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
3