Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0000730
09-OCT-2012
08:02 AM
NO. SCPW-12-0000730
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
EDMUND M. ABORDO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA L. CRANDALL, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 11-1-2228-09; S.P.P. NO. 11-1-0052)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna,and Pollack, JJ.,
with Acoba, J., dissenting)
Upon consideration of petitioner Edmund M. Abordo’s
August 22, 2012 petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition in
which he seeks a writ (1) directing the Honorable Virginia Lea
Crandall to recuse herself from Civil No. 11-1-2228-09, and
2) expediting the case, and the record, it appears that, at this
time, petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable
right to relief and, therefore, mandamus relief is not warranted.
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 writs are not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they
intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate
procedures.). This court, however, is mindful that petitioner
may not have access to court rules and forms, which may make it
difficult for petitioner to conform to the circuit court’s minute
orders and, as a result, the circuit court should consider
setting the motion for hearing or non-hearing disposition, as the
court deems appropriate. Moreover, minute orders do not satisfy
the requirement of written orders disposing of motions. The
standard for mandamus relief not having been satisfied, however,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
court shall process the petition for a writ of
mandamus/prohibition without payment of the filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus/prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 9, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
DISSENT BY ACOBA, J.
I dissent inasmuch as I do not believe a motion for
summary judgment can be a non-hearing motion.
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
-2