Teisina v. Nishimura

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000596 12-JUL-2012 08:22 AM NO. SCPW-12-0000596 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIï £I PENISIMANI TEISINA and LESIELI TEISINA, husband and wife, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAIï £I; and HOVEY B. LAMBERT, Trustee under the Hovey B. Lambert Trust, an Unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated April 5, 2002, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 09-1-2529-10) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba and McKenna, JJ., Circuit Judge Ahn, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Trader, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Petitioners Penisimani Teisina and Lesieli Teisina s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Respondents Circuit Court Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura and Hovey B. Lambert, Trustee Under the Hovey B. Lambert Trust, an Unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated April 5, 2002, the papers in support and the records and files herein, it appears that: (1) Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Judge to vacate seven orders entered in Lambert v. Waha(k), Civil No. 09-1-2529, presently pending in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit and directing the Respondent Judge to stay a partition sale and order a jury trial; (2) a writ of mandamus is not intended to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of the normal appellate procedures, Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiï £i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999); and (3) Petitioners have a remedy by way of appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to any remedy Petitioners may have by way of appeal. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiï £i, July 12, 2012. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Karen S.S. Ahn /s/ Rom A. Trader

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.