NO. 30340 -»§ “"`! lN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAl §§ *W …, E; §§ RlCHARD B. GOODlN, Petitioner, W; FW §§ aj vs. TT C.».'J

INTERMEDlATE COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF HAWAI‘l, RespOhden .

ORIGINAL PROCEEDlNG (NO. 294l9) ORDER Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.) (By: Moon, C.J., Upon consideration of petitioner Richard B. Goodin’s petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the time provision of Rule 3 of the Rules of the Intermediate Court of Appeals was not triggered on June l5, 2009 294l9 inasmuch as the placement of the case on the 2009 did not denote that the case but denoted that briefing in case No. ready calendar on June l5, would be decided without oral argument, was completed. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus See Kema v. Gaddis, 9l HawaiU 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, relief. (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that (l999) 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.). Accordingly, g lT lS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, HawaiUq February 24, 2010.

WM¢~ ?>&¢»1n_C}F1\au4%¢1¢zrW~ /€”`“§ Q¢LQz€~*5W@@»YW’ M¢w( ¢¢¢¢A»¢a»w€{