Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000818 13-FEB-2017 01:33 PM SCPW-16-0000818 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I _________________________________________________________________ HUGO PARKER, LLP, EDWARD R. HUGO, ESQ., and ANTHONY BENTIVEGNA, ESQ., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge,

and

WILLIAM SCHANE and MICHELLE SCHANE, Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 15-1-0034-01)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioners Hugo Parker, LLP, Edward R. Hugo, Esq., and Anthony Bentivegna, Esq.’s petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, filed on November 18, 2016, the documents submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners are seeking relief in the Intermediate Court of Appeals in CAAP-17-0000016 and fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief requested from this court. 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; where a 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 he or she has a legal duty

to act); Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy

. . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond

or in excess of his jurisdiction;” it is not meant to serve as a

legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 13, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson