Title: Brower v. Cardoza

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

No. 28860

¢- 330.002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT‘T

1

6422 |

ANDREA BROWER, Petitioner,

‘THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. CARDOZA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
Respondent.

OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I,

THE SIERRA CLUB, a California non-profit corporation
registered to do business in the State of Hawai'i;
MAUI TOMORROW, INC., 2 Hawaiian non-profit corporation,
KAHULUI HARBOR COALITION, an unincorporated associatior
‘THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF HAWAI"
BARRY FUKUNAGA, in his capacity as Director of the
Department of Transportation of the State of Hawai'i;
MICHAEL FORMBY, in his capacity as the Director of
Harbors of the Department of Transportation of the State
of Hawai'i; and HAWAII SUPERFERRY, INC., Respondents,
Real Parties in Interest.

 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(cIv. No. 05-1-0114)

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

Upon consideration of petitioner Andrea Brover’s
petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it
appears that (1) the setting of the December 14, 2007 hearing
date on petitioner’s motion to intervene in Civil No. 05-1-0114
was within the discretion of the respondent judge and was not a
flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, and (2) petitioner's
challenges to Civil No. 05-1-0114 may be raised in the circuit
court if petitioner is granted intervention. Therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema 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 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, 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 2 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.). Accordingly,

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

DATE!

 

Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 7, 2007.

See Ecrnse—
Pccuse Case your

eon—e

Gore Sete