Greenspon v. Loo

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000378 19-MAY-2015 12:33 PM SCPW-15-0000378 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge, and ONEWEST BANK NA; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; and THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-15-0000315; CIVIL NO. 14-1-0379(1)) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Michael C. Greenspon’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed April 29, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that Petitioner has filed an appeal from the circuit court’s March 10, 2015 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant OneWest Bank N.A.’s Motion for Protective Order, Stay, and Sanctions with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, docketed as CAAP-15-0000315, and may seek relief in the appeal. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 19, 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.