Wagner v. Hiraoka

EDWARD WAGNER, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE KEITH K. HIRAOKA, Judge of the Circuit Court of theFirst Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge,andSTEPHEN KEAWE ROY; REBECCA ROY; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCECO.; GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; TIMOTHY DAYTON; RICHARD DWYER;and JOHN DORNAN, Respondents.

SCPW-18-0000670

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

October 17, 2018

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-18-0000613), and petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is

Page 2

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....