Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-14-0001338
17-DEC-2014
09:45 AM
SCPW-14-0001338
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
EILEEN SHAVELSON, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RANDAL G.B. VALENCIANO, JUDGE OF THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT COURT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge,
and
KITAAMI, JEFFREY HIRANAKA, HARVEY HIRANAKA, and
MRS. MILTON (ANNA) HIRANAKA, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO. 13-1-0137)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner Eileen Shavelson’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on December 4, 2014, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that the complaint and summons may not
have been properly served upon the Respondents and, therefore, a
judgment ending the case is not appropriate at this time.
Petitioner is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus.
See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (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);
Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d
58, 62 (1978) (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 procedure; rather, it is meant to restrain a judge of
an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his or her
jurisdiction). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 17, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2
Shavelson v. Valenciano
Combined Opinion