Puu Lani Ranch Corp. v. Ibarra

Hawaii Supreme Court

Puu Lani Ranch Corp. v. Ibarra

Opinion

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-15-0000639

13-NOV-2015

10:06 AM

SCPW-15-0000639

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PUU LANI RANCH CORP., a Hawai#i corporation, F. NEWELL BOHNETT, as Trustee under that certain unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 29, 1981, made

by F. Newell Bohnett, as Settlor, and F. NEWELL BOHNETT,

in his individual capacity, Petitioners

vs. THE HONORABLE RONALD IBARRA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the

Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

PL III, LLC, a Hawai#i limited liability company, ARICK B. YANAGIHARA, MICHAEL H. NEKOBA, WILLIAM G. BOYLE

and ANITA MATSUZAKI, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CAAP-14-0001115; CAAP-15-0000484; CIV. NO. 11-1-433K)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Garibaldi, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.)

Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on August 28, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate that the circuit court has a legal duty to enter their proposed final judgment under the current procedural posture of the case. Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. 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; such is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 13, 2015.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Colette Y. Garibaldi

2

Reference

Status
Published