NO. 28390
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
JOHN O. GOODMAN, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EDEN ELIZABETH HIFO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF
THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.;
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50;
and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50,
Respondents, Real Parties in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 07-1-0062)
ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner John Goodman and the papers in support, it
appears that the granting or denial of the January 16, 2007 motion for
temporary restraining order was within the discretion
of the respondent judge, petitioner fails to demonstrate that the
respondent judge flagrantly and manifestly abused her
discretion in denying the January 16, 2007 motion, and petitioner can
seek an injunction against a transfer of the subject
property pending an immediate appeal of the denial of the January 16,
2007 motion. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to
a writ of mandamus. See
Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai`i 200, 204-205, 982 P.2d 334, 338-339
(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. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary
authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal
remedies in
lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to
act,
mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that
discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge
has
exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest
abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the
court under
circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act.). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, January 29, 2007.