Title: Vimahi v. Blondin

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

No. 29745

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

NATASHA ANELA VIMAHT and LUSEANE ENITI VIMAHI,
Petitioners,

THE HONORABLE KAREN N. BLONDIN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'T and
PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L.P., Respondent

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO. 8-1-1788)

ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, Ji

Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Leonard
‘assigned by reason of vacancy)

 

oxy.

 

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
prohibition filed by petitioners Natasha Anela Vimahi and Luseane
Eniti Vimahi and the papers in support, it appears that the
granting and entry of a writ of ejectment is immediately
appealable pursuant to HRS § 64i-1(a) (Supp. 2008). See Penn v.
‘Txansportation Lease Haw., Ltd., 2 Haw. App. 272, 274, 630 P.2d
646, 649 (1981); Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai'i 18, 689 P.2d 702

(2995). Petitioners can appeal from a writ of ejectment and can

 

seek a stay of the writ pending appeal pursuant to HRAP 8. Thus,
petitioners are not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema
Ys Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ
of prohibition 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 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,

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 21, 2009.

I
Peetu AT oa ay A

Re

Gane obey -