Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay v. Browning

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
05-NOV-2020
11:46 AM
Dkt. 30 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE R. MARK BROWNING, Judge of the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(Trust No. 1TR141000019)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Wilson, J.,
Circuit Judge Cahill, assigned in place of Recktenwald, C.J.,
recused, Circuit Judge Tonaki, assigned in place of
Circuit Judge Cataldo, recused, and Circuit Judge Loo,
assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Association of
Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay’s petition for writs of
prohibition and mandamus, filed on September 24, 2020, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that, under the specific facts and
circumstances of this matter, petitioner fails to demonstrate
that it has a clear and indisputable right to relief or that it
lacks alternative means to seek relief. Further, it cannot be
said that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction,
committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or refused
to act on a matter in addressing the law clerk issue raised in
this original proceeding. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled
to the requested extraordinary writs. 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; where a court has
discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has
acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty
to act); Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d
58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy
. . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond
or in excess of his jurisdiction”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writs of
prohibition and mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 5, 2020.
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Peter T. Cahill
/s/ John M. Tonaki
/s/ Rhonda I.L. Loo
2