Tate Andale, Inc. v. Nishimura

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000819 13-FEB-2017 01:30 PM SCPW-16-0000819 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I _________________________________________________________________ TATE ANDALE, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge, and RODNEY A. FELICIANO and BEATRICE L. FELICIANO, Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 16-1-0141-01) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Tate Andale, Inc.’s petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, filed on November 18, 2016, the documents submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief requested from this court. 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; 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 which he or she has a legal duty to act); 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;” it is not meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 13, 2017. /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.