Case Title: Lemus-Perez v. Loo

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRAR

no. 29916

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

   

RAUL LEMUS-PEREZ, Petitioner, =
me

THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO, JUDGE OF THE orsraRge cour
OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, Stare OF HAWAL'I, Respondent. =

o3ns

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 2DTA-07-01362)

ORDER
Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

 

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioner Raul Lemus-Perez and the papers in
support, it appears that the June 25, 2009 order resetting the
hearing date on the motion to dismiss Case No. 2DTA-07-01362 was
Signed by respondent Judge Rhonda Loo for Judge Simone Polak, the
presiding judge in Case No. 20TA-07-01362. The hearing date was
apparently reset to allow the motion to dismiss to be heard by
Judge Polak as presiding judge. Resetting the hearing date on
the motion to dismiss was within the discretion of Judge Polak
and was not 2 flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion.
‘Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief.
See Kena v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.24 334, 398 (1999)
(A weit of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not
issue unless the petitioner demonstrates @ clear and indisputable
right 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. here 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,

I? 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai't, July 13, 2009.

Gorm

Peete Oeuaeeny Ore

aN

nm Ab, Bye
Teer & Ae lebene{ /