Hilton Hawaiian Village, LLC v. Nakasone

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001323 21-JAN-2015 02:54 PM SCPW-14-0001323 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE, LLC, d.b.a. HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE BEACH RESORTS & SPA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE KAREN T. NAKASONE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge, and LORETTA CHONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 11-1-0424-03) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Hilton Hawaiian Village, LLC, d.b.a. Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resorts & Spa’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November 26, 2014, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that the respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion in denying the motion to disqualify counsel, that the basis for the disqualification order is insufficient, and that it will suffer irreparable and immediate harm by counsels’ representation. entitled to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner, therefore, is not See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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 he or she has a legal duty to act); Straub Clinic & Hosp. v. Kochi, 81 Hawai#i 410, 415, 917 P.2d 1284, 1289 (1996) (the grant or denial of a motion for disqualification is within the discretion of the trial court); Wong v. Fong, 60 Haw. 601, 604, 593 P.2d 386, 389 (1979) (a petition for a writ of mandamus regarding a disqualification order will not be granted unless the basis upon which the trial court has rested its order of disqualification is clearly insufficient and a convincing showing is made in the petition that irreparable and immediate harm would otherwise be the necessary consequence); Chuck v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 61 Haw. 552, 559, 606 P.2d 1320, 1325 (1980) (the issue of whether counsel should be disqualified or allowed to continue representation “should not be decided on the basis of general and conclusory allegations”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus and the other requested relief are denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 21, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.