SCPW-14-0000523 Electronically Filed IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000523 ALLENE KAPLAN, Petitioner, 04-APR-2014 12:29 PM vs. THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, Respondent Judge, and STANLEY MARTIN LEHMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 11-1-000146) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kubo, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Allene Kaplan’s petition for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus, filed on March 5, 2014, the documents submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to the requested extraordinary relief, and petitioner has alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are extraordinary remedies meant to, among other things, restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his or her jurisdiction; they are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 4, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Edward H. Kubo, Jr.