Ogeone v. Crabtree

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-17-0000679 24-OCT-2017 08:21 AM SCPW-17-0000679 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I GALINA OGEONE, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JEFFREY P. CRABTREE, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge, and DENTIST LESLIE AU, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NOS. 16-1-1347-7 and 16-1-1348-7) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Galina Ogeone’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on September 25, 2017, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, the supplemental submissions, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested 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; 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 writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 24, 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.