Kumar v. Remigio

Hawaii Supreme Court

Kumar v. Remigio

Opinion

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000379

12-APR-2012

09:40 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000379

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

RAJ KUMAR,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE CATHERINE H. REMIGIO, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, and SUNITA KUMAR,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

By letter dated March 26, 2012, Family Court litigant Raj Kumar seeks the Chief Justice’s review of certain family court decisions, the disqualification of the Hon. Catherine H. Remigio from presiding in his case, and waiver of a sanction. We view the letter as a petition for writ of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is an

extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear

and indisputable right to the relief

requested and a lack of other means to

redress adequately the alleged wrong or to

obtain the requested action. Straub Clinic &

Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawai'i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996). Such writs are not

meant to supersede the legal discretionary

authority of the lower court, nor are they

meant to serve as legal remedies in lieu of

normal appellate procedures. Id. Where a

trial 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 it has a legal duty to

act. Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-205, 982 P.2d 334, 338-339 (1999).

Petitioner Kumar will have a remedy by way of appeal. Consequently, mandamus will not lie. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall file, without payment of the filing fee, Petitioner Kumar’s letter and its attachments as a petition for writ of mandamus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied. This denial is without prejudice to any remedies Petitioner Kumar may have by way of appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 12, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

-2­

Reference

Status
Published