Xu v. Ochiai

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
22-MAY-2020
02:17 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
YANLI XU; NAOMI HASEGAWA; KAZUHIRO ISHIDA; ATSUSHI MORITA; JUBEE
AIZAWA; KASUMI ISHIDA; TATSUTO EHARA; MACOTO ISHIDA; HUN-DONG YU;
LILI WU; TAO JIANG; CHUANJIAO YU; TIANGE YANG; XIAOMIN HUANG;
PINMEI WANG; XIAOHUI WU; YUYANG JING; LI WANG; DONG ZHANG; KE
YUAN; WEI JIANG; XIUJUAN LI; SONGHUA ZHANG; YIHAO XU; WEI WANG;
RUIGANG TAN; and JING LIU, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE DEAN E. OCHIAI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
ZHONG FANG aka JOHNSON FANG; MIN HU aka MICHELLE HU; ZHE FANG aka
JAY FANG; KIAYU WANG aka JIAJIA WANG; LAMEI FANG; USA REALTY
CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC.; CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT REGIONAL CENTER
LLC; CALIFORNIA REGIONAL CENTER LLC; WUHAN WESTERN U.S.
INVESTMENT IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT INC.; AMERICAN INVESTMENT
IMMIGRATION FUND; HAWAII CITY PLAZA LP; HAWAII OCEAN PLAZA LP;
LOS ANGELES CITY PLAZA LP; LA VALLEY GARDEN PLAZA LP; and 9920
VALLEY BLVD LP, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for writ of
mandamus, filed on May 6, 2020, the documents attached thereto
and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that
petitioners fail to demonstrate that they have a clear and
indisputable right to the requested relief 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); Wong v. Fong,
60 Haw. 601, 604, 593 P.2d 386, 389 (1979) (ordinarily, a writ of
mandamus is invoked in exceptional circumstances amounting to
judicial usurpation of power); Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59
Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is
meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond
or in excess of his or her jurisdiction). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 22, 2020.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2