Title: Siu v. Richardson

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRAI

 

no. 29834
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘T

DARRELL SIU, Petitioner,
ws. a «(8

SHE HONORABLE BARBARA F. RICHARDSON, vUDGE oF oMBRECr

    

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, “and =z
‘SHARON A.F. BERINOBIS, Respondents. 2 oF
zo

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING =

(CIVIL NO,  1RCOT=1-3660) é

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba. Duffy, and Recktenvald, JJ.)
upon consideration of petitioner Darrell Siu’s petition

for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, the papers in support,
and the respondents’ answers, it appears that the filing of
petitioner's November 21, 2007 notice of appeal did not divest
the district court of jurisdiction to enter the July 2, 2008
order staying the October 24, 2007 judgment pending appeal. see
HRAP 8, Concomitantly, the district court had jurisdiction,
during the pendency of petitioner's appeal, to lift the July 2,
2008 stay as necessary to protect the interest of respondent
Berinobis, whose Letter of Credit expires on August 11, 2009.
‘The district court, having lifted the stay, had jurisdiction to
enforce the October 24, 2007 judgment. See MOG Supply, Inc. v
Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw, 375, 381, 462 P.2d 525,
529 (1969). The lifting of the stay and the enforcement of the
October 24, 2007 judgment were within the discretion of the
respondent judge and were not flagrant and manifest abuses of
discretion. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to
extraordinary relief. See Kema v, Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204,
982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of m

 

ndamas and/or prohibit

 

is an extraordinary renedy 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
Leu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has
@iscretion to act, mandamus or prohibition 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 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 and/or prohibition 1s denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'l, June 23, 2009.

Om

Reese Lo ralbsaplirves

aa

Boon « Ont ,
INMAE , Feb arAd