Woods v. Valenciano ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                          Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
    20-FEB-2019
    01:50 PM
    SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    _________________________________________________________________
    VALERIE R. WOODS, individually and as Trustee of the VALERIE R.
    WOODS TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2001, Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE RANDAL G. B. VALENCIANO, Judge of the Circuit Court
    of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
    and
    BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Respondent.
    _________________________________________________________________
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIV. NO. 13-1-0105)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, Wilson, JJ., and Circuit
    Judge Somerville, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)
    Upon consideration of petitioner’s petition for writ of
    prohibition, filed on January 23, 2019, the documents attached
    thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it
    appears that petitioner is not entitled to the requested
    extraordinary writ.   There is no evidence that there is any
    matter pending in the underlying circuit court proceeding that
    questions the circuit court’s jurisdiction as it relates to the
    appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and that the circuit court will act in
    excess of its jurisdiction sufficient to warrant the requested
    writ.   Moreover, petitioner may seek any appropriate relief in
    the pending appeal.   See Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 
    59 Haw. 237
    , 241, 
    580 P.2d 58
    , 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is
    an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an inferior
    court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction”);
    Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 
    59 Haw. 224
    , 226, 
    580 P.2d 49
    ,
    53 (1978) (a writ of prohibition is not meant to serve as a legal
    remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures; rather, it is
    available in “rare and exigent circumstances” where “allow[ing]
    the matter to wend its way through the appellate process would
    not be in the public interest and would work upon the public
    irreparable harm”).   Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
    prohibition is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 20, 2019.
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    /s/ Rowena A. Somerville
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-19-0000052

Filed Date: 2/20/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/21/2019