Suzuki v. Board of Public Accountancy ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                      Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-12-0000968
    10-JAN-2013
    10:45 AM
    SCPW-12-0000968
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    NATHAN H. SUZUKI, Petitioner,
    vs.
    BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and
    Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)
    Upon consideration of petitioner Nathan H. Suzuki’s
    petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November 1, 2012, and
    the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof,
    it appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief.
    Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Board of Public
    Accountancy and/or the Department of Commerce and Consumer
    Affairs are not performing duties that are owed to him.
    Moreover, petitioner can seek further review in the circuit court
    and the appellate court, as appropriate.   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); State ex rel.
    Marsland v. Ames, 
    71 Haw. 304
    , 306, 
    788 P.2d 1281
    , 1283 (1990) (a
    writ of mandamus “may not be used to perform the office of an
    appeal”); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 
    929 P.2d 1359
    , 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an
    official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only
    if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s
    duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from
    doubt, and no other remedy is available).    Therefore,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
    mandamus is denied.
    DATED:      Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 10, 2013.
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ R. Mark Browning
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-12-0000968

Filed Date: 1/10/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014