Title: Murakami v. Hifo

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

No. 29274

YL ony aoua

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

GLENN NOBUKI MURAKAMI and ANN SUE ISOBE, Petitiondils,

se

‘THE HONORABLE EDEN ELIZABETH HIFO, JUDGE OF THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAMAT'I;

MICHAEL DAVID SAKATANI; CHRISTINE MARIE SAKATANI; and
808 DEVELOPMENT LLC, Respondents.

 

 

(CIVIL NO. 03-1-1712)

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

‘and Intermedizte Court of Appeals Judge Foley,

in place of Nakayama, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioners Glenn Nobuki Murakami and Ann Sue
Isobe and the papers in support, it appears that the confirmation
of the October 22, 2007 and June 5, 2008 arbitration awards will
be appealable upon entry of a judgment confirming the awards and
the denial of the motion to vacate the awards will be reviewable
on appeal from a judgment confirming the awards. See HRS
§§ 658A-28(a) (6) and 658A-23(d) (Supp. 2007). Petitioners have a
remedy by way of appeal and petitioners can seek a stay of the
judgment pending appeal pursuant to HRAP 8. Therefore,
petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kena vs
Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05, 982 P.24 334, 338-39 (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

amt
not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of

the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal
es.). Accordingly,

 

remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedu

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 7, 2008.

ore
ike PoRoinee—
a
Garon. t. Badly

Chui R Fre,