Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0000536
22-JUN-2012
10:11 AM
NO. SCPW-12-0000536
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
THE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF MOANA PACIFIC,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I; KC RAINBOW DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC,
a Hawaii limited liability company; KCR DEVELOPMENT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; EVERSHINE 1, LLC, a California limited
partnership; HAWAIIAN DREDGING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a
Hawaii corporation; PERMASTEELISA NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; a
Delaware corporation; BEACHSIDE ROOFING, LLC, a Hawaii
corporation; ALL POOL & SPA, INC., a Hawaii corporation; DORVIN
D. LEIS CO., INC., a Hawaii corporation; WASA ELECTRICAL
SERVICES, INC., a Hawaii corporation; GROUP BUILDERS, INC., a
Hawaii corporation; and UPONOR INC., aka UPONOR NORTH AMERICA,
fka WIRSBO, a Minnesota corporation,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(Civil No. 09-1-0922-04)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ.
and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Association of
Apartment Owners of Moana Pacific's petition for a writ of
mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the
respondent judge had inherent power, pursuant to HRS § 603-
21.9(6), to prohibit petitioner from replacing the Moana Pacific
PEX water system until completion of the HRS Chapter 672E
process. Prohibiting petitioner from replacing the PEX system
until the HRS Chapter 672E process is complete was not a flagrant
and manifest abuse of discretion. Therefore, petitioner is not
entitled to mandamus relief. 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. 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. Where a court has discretion to
act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the
exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted
erroneously, unless the judge 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 it has a legal duty to
act.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 22, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti
2