Case Title: OGrady v. Nakamura

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 29612 ac

21 aaa suoe

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT‘E =

 

MICHAEL PATRICK O'GRADY and LEILANI 0! GRADY;
Petitioners,

2021

 

THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HANATI;

STATE OF HAWAI'I; STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;
COUNTY OF HAWAI'I; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC
LIGHT COMPANY; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC.; and
HULU LOLO, Lic, Respondents.

 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(civ. No. 07-1-0372)

(By: Moon, ¢.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and putty, 39.

and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge

Recktenwald, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioners Michael Patrick O'Grady and Leilani
O'Grady and the papers in support, it appears that there is no
federal or state constitutional right to pro hac vice appearance
of counsel before any Hawai'i state court, See Bank of Hawaii v.
Kunimote, 91 Hawai'i 372, 388, 984 P.2d 1198, 1214 (1999), citing
Leisy, Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 442-43 (per curiam), reh’g denied,
441 U.S, 946 (1979). The pro hac vice appearance of Raymond
Johnson as plaintiffs’ counsel in Civil No. 07-1-0372 was within
the discretion of the respondent judge. See RSCH 1.9, The
denial of pro hac vice appearance was not a flagrant and manifest
abuse of discretion, Thus, petitioners are not entitled to
mandamus relief. 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. Such writ is not intended to supersede the
legal discretionary authority of the lower court. 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.). Therefore,

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 12, 2009.

G—

Diecte Batra
J ee
Crea. Dey»
MoE: (alae!