Case Title: The Kailuan, Inc. v. Kim

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
wo. 28990

18 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I)
THE KAILUAN, INC., Petitioner, a 2

ve. He

THE HONORABLE GLENN J. KIM, JUDGE OF THE cIRCUEA? — @

Count OF THE FIRS? CIACUIT, STATE OF HAMAT'T engl

CASTLE FAMILY LLC,’ Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ef. Wo. “08"1-0012"01)
(By: Moon, C.d., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Dufty, oJ.)
upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioner The Kailuan, Inc. and the papers in
support, it appears that petitioner can litigate the circuit
court's jurisdiction and authority to enforce compliance with the
consent Agreement at a trial on the merits. the respondent judge
did not flagrantly and manifestly abuse his discretion in
requiring a bond of an amount based on administrative penalties,
potential civil fines, real property taxes and estimated exposure
to claims,

1 further appears that a writ of ejectment is
immediately appealable and petitioner can seek 2 stay of such
weit pending appeal. See Zena v. Tzansportation Lease ba
Lida, 2 Haw. App. 272, 274, 630 P.24 646, 649 (1981); Ciesla ve
Reddiah, 70 Hawai's 16, 89 P.24 702 (1995); HRAP &. Therefore,
petitioner 4s not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kena v
Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 336-39 (1999) (A
welt of mandamus 1s an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

 

aan
to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately
the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are
not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of
the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal
remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. 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 it has a legal duty to
act.). Accordingly,

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 14, 2008.

Gre
Deate Oreoeeuyares

oS

Yom 6, Rade dh