Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-15-0000378
19-MAY-2015
12:33 PM
SCPW-15-0000378
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge,
and
ONEWEST BANK NA; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; and THE LAW OFFICE OF
DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CAAP-15-0000315; CIVIL NO. 14-1-0379(1))
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner Michael C. Greenspon’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, filed April 29, 2015, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that Petitioner has filed an appeal from
the circuit court’s March 10, 2015 Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendant OneWest Bank N.A.’s Motion for
Protective Order, Stay, and Sanctions with the Intermediate Court
of Appeals, docketed as CAAP-15-0000315, and may seek relief in
the appeal. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a 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); 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 19, 2015.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2