Kanaele v. Laubach

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000109 12-MAR-2020 02:58 PM SCPW-20-0000109 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I KALIKO KANAELE; DEENA OANA-HURWITZ; ALIKA DESHA; GENE P.K. BURKE; DESMON HAUMEA; PUALANI KANAKAOLE-KANAHELE; WALTER L. RITTE; and LORETTA RITTE, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE M. KANANI LAUBACH, Judge of the District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NOS. 3DCC-19-0000730, 3DCC-19-0000761, 3DCC-19-0000769, 3DCC-19-0000770, 3DCC-19-0000771, 3DCC-19-0000775, 3DCC-19-0000783, and 3DCC-19-0000784) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus, filed on February 28, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate that they have a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested from this court and that they lack alternative means to seek relief. Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to the requested 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; such a writ is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower court, nor is it intended to 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, March 12, 2020. /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.