Case Title: Reynolds v. Blondin

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No, 29911

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT * 3

SALLY RAE REYNOLDS and JOSEPH STEVENSON BEALE, 1
Petitioners, ~

THE HONORABLE KAREN N. BLONDIN, JUDGE OF THE CIR 8
COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'T aiff
R2B INVESTORS, LLC, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO. 08-1-2668)

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, AGoEa Duffy, and Recktenwald, 3.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus filed by petitioners Sally Rae Reynolds and Joseph
Stevenson Beale, the papers in support, and the respondents’
answers, it appears that petitioners’ May 26, 2009 motion for
approval of a supersedeas bond pursuant to HRCP 62(d) was denied
by the respondent judge. It further appears that petitioners
subsequently filed, on July 10, 2009, a “Renewed Motion for
Approval of Amount of Supersedeas Bond for Stay Pending Appeal,”
which is presently set for hearing on July 23, 2009. By filing
this motion, petitioners have an alternative means to redress the
alleged wrong and have availed themselves of it. Therefore,
petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kena 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 obt:

 

 

requested action.). Accordingly,

IT ts HE

 

Y ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawa:

 

July 21, 2009.