NO. 30474 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I LAHAINA FASHIONS, INC., a Hawai‘i corporation,2; Petitioner, wl vs. THE HONORABLE JOEL E. AUGUST and THE HONORABLE sosHay E.

CARDOZA, JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEGOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I; BANK OF HAWAI‘I, a Haag ia corporation; HAWAIIAN TRUST COMPANY, LTD., as Trustee for Hawai‘i Real Estate Equity Fund; HAWAI'I REAL ESTATE EQUITY FUND; PACIFIC CENTURY TRUST, a division of Bank of Hawai‘i as Trustee of the Hawai‘i Real Estate Equity Fund, Respondents.

Le) yg 3~ A¥WO10z ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 07-1-0506) QRDER Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.) (By: Moon, C.J., Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Lahaina Fashions, Inc. and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner can seek review of the respondent judges’ rulings by appealing from the final 07-1-0506. Therefore, petitioner judgment entered in Civil No. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 is not entitled to mandamus relief.

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is Hawai‘i 200, 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 supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, G34 nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of ‘mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 6, 2010.

Gi Pea a Tere ae AN CKenar.< udegy Wr - Mw EC. MM bh tute