Court Opinion

ID: 9380279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 19:03:00.291417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.957509
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                        Supreme Court
                                                        SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                        17-MAR-2023
                                                        08:04 AM
                                                        Dkt. 24 ORD

                          SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

           CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE, Petitioners,

                                vs.

                THE HONORABLE RANDAL VALENCIANO,
        Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit,
                  State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent.

                        ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                         (5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

                               ORDER
 (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

          Upon consideration of the March 8, 2023 submission

from Cameron and Martha Nice, and the record in this matter, we

conclude the submission is, in part, a second motion for

reconsideration of this court’s February 10, 2023 order, which

denied their original petition for a writ of mandamus, and is,

in part, a series of motions for fresh relief, including (1) for

interlocutory review of a February 23, 2023 hearing in the

underlying litigation; (2) an order from this court removing
Judge Valenciano from the underlying litigation and/or requiring

his recusal; (3) an order directing Judge Valenciano to vacate

his January 26, 2023 order, which granted withdrawal of the law

firm which previously had represented the Nices; (4) an order

directing Judge Valenciano to reschedule a number of hearings to

accommodate the Nices; (5) an order directing the former firm to

renew its representation and/or refund monies to the Nices which

were previously paid; (6) an order directing the Disciplinary

Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel to expedite any investigations of the Nices’ allegations

of misconduct against a number of attorneys involved in the

underlying litigation; and (7) the provision of free legal

representation and/or consultation.   We further conclude that

either the requested relief is prohibited by court rule, see

Rule 40(e) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure, or the

Nices, in their additional requests for relief, fail to

establish a clear and indisputable right to relief or that they

lack other means to adequately redress the alleged wrong, or

both.   See Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawaiʻi 410,

414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996); In re Disciplinary Bd. of

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, 91 Hawaiʻi 363, 368-69, 984 P.2d 688, 693-

94 (1999); Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Hawaiʻi 60, 68, 143 P.3d

1262, 1270 (2006).   Therefore,

                                  2
    It is ordered that the motions are denied in their

entirety.

            DATED:   Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 17, 2023.

                                       /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
                                       /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
                                       /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
                                       /s/ Michael D. Wilson
                                       /s/ Todd W. Eddins

                                   3