Honolulu Civil Beat Inc. v. Crabtree

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000622 25-SEP-2019 02:00 PM SCPW-19-0000622 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ HONOLULU CIVIL BEAT INC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JEFFREY P. CRABTREE, Circuit Court Judge of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO), exclusive representative for Bargaining Unit 12, Police; and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 18-1-0823-05) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Honolulu Civil Beat Inc.’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on September 5, 2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that an appeal is pending in CAAP-190000450. Petitioner may seek relief through the appellate process, as appropriate. 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; 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 procedures). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 25, 2019. /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.