Collins v. Crandall

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000655 21-OCT-2016 01:48 PM SCPW-16-0000655 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I GABI KIM COLLINS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA L. CRANDALL, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge, and THE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF KEMOO BY THE LAKE; EKIMOTO AND MORRIS, LLLC; JOHN DOES 1-100; JANE DOES 1-100; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100; and DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-100; Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 13-1-2513-09) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Gabi Kim Collins’s petition for an emergency writ of mandamus, filed on October 5, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and that she lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to an emergency 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 writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 21, 2016. /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.