Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-12-0000350 

26-APR-2012 

11:05 AM 

NO. SCPW-12-0000350
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

RONALD HANSON and KATHY HANSON, Petitioners,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT


OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT; THE HONORABLE CRAIG H. NAKAMURA, CHIEF


JUDGE OF THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS; and PALEHUA


COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Respondents.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CIVIL NO. 09-1-1935-08; ICA NO. CAAP-10-0000080)
 

ORDER
 

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.,


and Circuit Judge To'oto'o, in place of Recktenwald, C.J.,

recused)
 

Upon consideration of petitioners Ronald Hanson and
 

Kathy Hanson's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in
 

support, it appears that, as to the actions of the Intermediate
 

Court of Appeals in CAAP-10-0000080: (1) the January 12, 2011
 

order dismissing petitioners' appeal for lack of jurisdiction was
 

reviewable by this court by application for a writ of certiorari
 

filed pursuant to HRS § 602-59 (Supp. 2010) and HRAP 40.1, but no
 

application was filed; (2) the April 6, 2011 award of attorney's
 

fees and costs was authorized by HRS § 607-14, the Declaration of
 

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Article III, Section
 
7.02, and HRAP 39(a), and petitioners fail to demonstrate that
 

the amount of fees and costs awarded was unreasonable; and (3)
 

the August 4, 2011 order correctly struck petitioners' motions
 

filed six months after the dismissal of petitioners' appeal.
 

It further appears that, as to the actions of the 

respondent circuit judge in Civil No. 09-1-1935: (1) entry of 

final judgment pursuant to HRCP 54(b) on some of the parties' 

claims was within the respondent judge's discretion and the 

denial of HRCP 54(b) certification was not a flagrant and 

manifest abuse of discretion, and (2) all orders on all of the 

parties' motions will be appealable by petitioners upon entry of 

a final judgment. Therefore, petitioners are 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 a 

flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act 

on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in 

2
 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is denied.
 

which it has a legal duty to act.). Accordingly,
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 26, 2012. 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Fa'auuga To'oto'o 

3