Greenspon v. Ayabe

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000594 20-OCT-2015 01:45 PM SCPW-15-0000594 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BERT I. AYABE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge, and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006; INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B.; ONEWEST BANK F.S.B.; CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-13-0001432; CIVIL NO. 11-1-0194-01) 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 August 24, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or that the respondent judge’s actions demonstrate bias, infringe upon petitioner’s constitutional rights, exceed the court’s jurisdiction, or constitute a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion. mandamus. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of 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; 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). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 20, 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.