Title: Pflueger v. Chang

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Law UB)

 

 

 

wo. 26576 s
bhi tHE supRawe coun? oF ce stare oF wawar@|
ZOE
JAMES H. PPLUBOER, PPLUPGER PROPERETES, in
FELGBGER VAMMCEVENT, LLG, Peticionete z 6

Bi 2

vs 4 g

2

THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE FIRST CfkcUIT

COURT, STATE OF HAWAI'I; STATE OP HAWAI'I; C. BREWER
AND COMPANY, LTD.; C. BREWER PROPERTIES, INC.; C. BREWER
HOMES, INC.; HAWAII LAND AND FARMING COMPANY, INC. ;
EHALANI HOLDINGS COMPANY, INC.: KILAUEA IRRIGATION
COMPANY, INC.; THOMAS A. HITCH; HITCH CO.; JOHN DOES 1-10;
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 1-10, Respondents

 

 

 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV, NO. 06-21-1391)

ORDER

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

   

upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus or prohibition filed by petitioners James H. Pflueger,
Pflueger Properties, and Pflueger Management, LLC and the papers
in support, it appears that the change of venue of Civil No. 06-
41-1392 to the fifth cireuit court was within the discretion of
the respondent judge. Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the
respondent judge flagrantly and manifestly abused his discretion
in changing venue without prejudice to a re-transfer by the fifth
circuit court and that irreparable and immediate harm would
otherwise be the necessary consequence. ‘The change of venue or a
re-transfer of venue is reviewable on appeal from a final
judgment in Civil No, 06-1-1391, Thue, petitioners are not
entitled toa writ of mandams or prohibition. See Kena

Gaddig, 91 Hawai's 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of
mandamus oF prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not
issue unless the petitioner dencnetrates 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. where a
court has discretion to act, mandams 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
Giseretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to
act.). therefore,

IP IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 3, 2007.

g .
Men Petorege ~
Passes Cree One

PNW

Boren: Buds r+