Kokua Council for Senior Citizens v. Director of the Department of Health

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
14-SEP-2020
12:05 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
KÔKUA COUNCIL FOR SENIOR CITIZENS,
an unincorporated association, Petitioner,
vs.
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, J., and Circuit Judge Loo,
assigned by reason of vacancy, with McKenna, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part, with whom Wilson, J., joins)
Upon consideration of petitioner Kôkua Council for
Senior Citizens’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on
September 8, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted
in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner
fails to demonstrate that it is entitled to the requested
extraordinary relief from this court. 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); Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai#i
273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) (“A duty is
ministerial where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be
performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing
to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 14, 2020.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Rhonda I.L. Loo
CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT
I dissent in that I would require an answer pursuant to
Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21(c) with respect to
the limited English proficient issue. I otherwise concur.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2