Title: Kalima v. Marks

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

No. 28594
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

LEONA KALIMA, DIANNE BONER, RAYNETTE NALANI AH CHONG,
Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Ching,
‘Deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others
Similarly situated, Petitioners,

"HE HONORABLE VICTORIA S. MARKS, SUDGE OF THE FIRST
CInGUIT COURT, STATE OP HAWAL'Y; STATE OF HANAT;
STATE Gr UownE'x DEEARDINT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LAND;

STATE OF HAWAI'T HAWAIIAN Howe Lanbs TwoSF g))

BIVECUM, Cities Revien Patenr Lien LENcialy

   

Inher eftictal cepucity a0 Governor of eh
Stace of Howat.” sespendente 2
ad
= m
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING = o
te Wo Sear) =

ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ.
‘and Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Nakamura,
in place of Acoba, J., recused)

 

 

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
prohibition filed by petitioners Leona Kalima, Dianne Boner, and
Raynette Nalani Ah Chong, Special Administrator of the Estate of

Joseph Ching, Deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated and the papers in support, it appears that the

transfer of Civil No. 99-4771 to another circuit judge was within
the discretion of the respondent judge and petitioners fail to

demonstrate that the respondent judge flagrantly and manifestly

abused her discretion in transferring the case. Accordingly,

petitioners are not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Xeme

vs Gaddie, 91 Hawai't 200, 204, 982 P.24 334, 338 (1999) (A writ

of mandamus or prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will

a clear and

 

not issue unless the petitioner demonstra
indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to

redress

 

lequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested
action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor ere 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.). Therefore,

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 9, 2007.

Gp
Paste CNet our
Yorone. Debt:

GAS Hla —_—