KL v. Nagata

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-17-0000891 09-JAN-2018 08:21 AM SCPW-17-0000891 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I K. L., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DARIEN W.L. NAGATA, Judge of the Family Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge, and A.L.B., Born ________, 2007, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (FC-S No. 15-0007; FC-A No. 17-0019; FC-A No. 17-0029) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner K. L.’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on December 15, 2017, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that, the family court has taken steps to ensure that all interested persons have the opportunity to be heard and meaningfully participate in the proceedings. At this juncture, petitioner is not entitled to an extraordinary writ. 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, January 9, 2018. /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.