NO. 28581
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
RONALD D. SILVERMAN and RANDALL P. PODALS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EDEN ELIZABETH
HIFO, JUDGE OF THE FIRST
CIRCUIT COURT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, BARRY W. FEATHER andBARBARA
E. FEATHER, individually and as husband
and wife, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 05-1-1469)
ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J.,
Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioners Ronald D. Silverman and Randall P. Podals and the papers in
support, it appears
that the denial of a continuance of the summary judgment hearing was
within the discretion of the respondent judge and petitioners fail to
demonstrate that the
respondent judge flagrantly and manifestly abused her discretion in
denying a continuance. The May 31, 2007 order denying a continuance and
the respondent
judge's alleged bias are reviewable on appeal of the May 31, 2007 order
granting summary judgment that is forthwith appealable upon entry of an
HRCP 54(b)
certified judgment on the order. Petitioners have an adequate remedy by
way of appeal and are not entitled to mandamus relief. 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. 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, July 3, 2007.