Court Opinion

ID: 3182980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-04 23:14:30.131738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:51.325581
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                     Supreme Court
                                                     SCPW-16-0000047
                                                     03-MAR-2016
                                                     01:01 PM

                         SCPW-16-0000047

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

    WILLIAM HALEMANO FREDERICK and MARY KATHERINE FREDERICK,

                          Petitioners,

                               vs.

     THE HONORABLE BERT I. AYABE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

             OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I,

                        Respondent Judge,

                               and

   CENTRAL PACIFIC BANK and SEA COUNTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

                           Respondents.

                       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

            (CAAP-15-0000425; CIVIL NO. 14-1-2199-10)

         ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and

 Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

          Upon consideration of petitioners William Halemano

Frederick and Mary Katherine Frederick’s petition for writ of

prohibition, filed January 26, 2016, the documents attached

thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it

appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate that they are

entitled to the requested writ of prohibition.   See Honolulu

Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a

writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain

a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of

his jurisdiction”); Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw.

224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a writ of prohibition is not

meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate

procedures; rather, it is available in “rare and exigent

circumstances” where “allow[ing] the matter to wend its way

through the appellate process would not be in the public interest

and would work upon the public irreparable harm”).    Accordingly, 

          IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

prohibition is denied. 

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 3, 2016.

                              /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

                              /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

                              /s/ Richard W. Pollack

                              /s/ Michael D. Wilson

                              /s/ R. Mark Browning

                                2