Arizumi v. Castagnetti

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000610 12-NOV-2020 11:46 AM Dkt. 10 ODDP SCPW-20-0000610 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I BRETT C. ARIZUMI, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JEANNETTE H. CASTAGNETTI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Judge, and U.S. BANK TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for WG2 Mortgage Trust VII, Series 2013-1; CITIFINANCIAL, INC.; DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI#I; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HAWAI#I LAW ENFORCEMENT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, fka Honolulu Police Federal Credit Union; RENE MATSUURA; ZACHARY KONDO; IVY ROOT; RADFORD REAL; and ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF 3036 KAHALOA DRIVE, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 1CC141001769) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and Wilson, JJ., Circuit Judge Kawano, in place of McKenna, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Crabtree, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Brett C. Arizumi’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on October 13, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is 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 meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ 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, November 12, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree /s/ Kelsey T. Kawano 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.