Case Title: Cutter Motor Cars, Inc. v. Ayabe

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 28496

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

CUTTER MOTOR CARS, INC.,
dba CUTTER ALA MOANA VOLKSWAGEN MAZDA, Petitioner

  

vs g
THE HONORABLE BERT I, AYABE, Respondent { 3
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ae 8
(e1v. NO, 06-1-1698-08 (BTA) He OS
2

ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandanus filed by petitioner Cutter Motor Cars, Inc. and the
papers in support, it appears that petitioner fails to
demonstrate irreparable and inmediate harm from the denial of the
motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel in Civil No. 06-1-1498
and the denial of the motion is reviewable on appeal from a final

judgment in Civil No, 06-1-1498. Therefore, petitioner is not

entitled to mandamus relief. See Wiong v. Fong, 60 Haw. 601, 593
P.2d 386 (1979) (a writ of mandamus may be brought where
irreparable and immediate harm would result from an order denying
a motion for disqualification of counsel); Kena v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary renedy that will not issue unless the petitioner
Genonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

aa
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.). Accordingly,

37 18 HEREBY OROERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu,

 

vai‘, April 27, 2007.