Wagner v. Hiraoka ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                          Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
    17-OCT-2018
    02:02 PM
    SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    _________________________________________________________________
    EDWARD WAGNER, Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE KEITH K. HIRAOKA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the
    First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
    and
    STEPHEN KEAWE ROY; REBECCA ROY; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
    CO.; GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; TIMOTHY DAYTON; RICHARD DWYER;
    and JOHN DORNAN, Respondents.
    _________________________________________________________________
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (CIV. NO. 13-1-2053-07)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of petitioner Edward Wagner’s
    petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus, filed on
    August 27, 2018, the documents attached thereto and submitted in
    support thereof, and the record, it appears that the respondent
    judge complied with the procedure set forth in Grube v. Trader,
    142 Hawai#i 412, 
    420 P.3d 343
    (2018) in addressing the sealing
    issue, an appeal is pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals
    (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX), and petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is
    entitled to the requested extraordinary writ.   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); Gannett Pac. Corp.
    v. Richardson, 
    59 Haw. 224
    , 226, 
    580 P.2d 49
    , 53 (1978) (a
    petition for writ of prohibition is not meant to serve as a legal
    remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures).   Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
    prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 17, 2018.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-18-0000670

Filed Date: 10/17/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2018