Title: Vimahi v. Blondin

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF EAWAT'TZ

   

NATASHA AVELA VIVANT and LOSEANE ENETI VIMAKT, ealtsonggo,
vs. J
THE HONORABLE KAREN N. BLONDIN, JUDGE OF THE, CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I and
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(GHVSE NO. Osc1=1788)
(ey: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, ACoEA Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus or prohibition filed by petitioners Natasha Anela Vinahi
and Luseane Enits Vinahl and the papers in support, it appears
that the circuit court and the intermediate court of appeals
denied petitioners a stay of the writ of ejectment pending
Ateposition of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, net
pending disposition of petitioners’ appeal. Petitioners’ notion
to stay the writ of ejectnent pending appeal ss pending before
the circuit court and petitioners have not filed a motion to stay
the writ of ejectment pending appeal with the intermediate court
of appeals, ‘Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to
extraordinary relief. See Kema v, Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204,
962 P.24 324, 238 (1999) (A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition
ean 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

oats
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
mandamus or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 2, 2009.