COM 0163.012 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

VP &PK (ML) LLC v. August (Order) tie Traditions, Inc., Christine Wong and Frederick Wong and the papers it appears order denying support, � PPS � the June 4, r�'ing dismissal of Counts I and II for fai1ure to join indispensable parties is the subject ofa pending motion for reconsideration. If reconsideration ofthe June 4, 2008 order is denied and if declaratory and injunctive reliefis granted on Counts I and II, the June 4, 2008 order writ be reviewable on a appeal from a final judgment on Counts 1 and 11. It further appears that petitioners Christine Wong and Frederick Wong have actual knowledge ofthe pending litigation on Counts I and II, they are property owners whom the respondent judge considers to be interveners of right on Counts I and II, they can timely intervene on Counts I and II, and they can appeal from any adverse final judgment on Counts I and II and seek a stay of such judgment pending appeal p to HRAP 8. Likewise, all other petitioners, as parties to Civil No. 07 -1 -0258, can appeal from any adverse final judgment on Counts I and 11 and can seek a stay of such judgment pending appeal Therefore, petitioners Christine Wong Frederick Wong, and all other petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaii 200, 204- 05, 982 P.2d 334, 338 -39 (1999) (A writ ofmandamus is an extraordinary petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable ' � w� not issue unless the pet adequately the alleged p to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress ged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionazy authority ofthe lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Our standard for a writ ofmandamus cited in Hawaii Nat. Bank, Honolulu v. Okino, 51 Haw. 367, 368, 461 P.2d 136, 137 (1969) was based onHRS § 659 -2 (1968) that was repealed in 1972. It finally appears that petitioners Christine Wong Frederick Wong, and all other petitioners do not have standing to seek feather mandannus relief on behalf of other unnamed petitioners. Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ ofmandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 8, 2008. ate.hi.usrud /opinions /.../2g217ord.htm 2/2