NO. 29025
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
DIANA FREEMAN, WAYNE UTA, and JAMES IREIJO, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE
GLENN S. HARA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE THIRD
CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I,
HAWAII
EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
SERVCO
INSURANCE SERVICES CORP. dba AMERICAN INSURANCE
AGENCY, INC.,
and HMP, INC. dba BUSINESS SERVICES
HAWAII,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO.
05-1-0240)
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition filed by petitioners Diana Freeman,
Wayne Uta and James Ireijo and the papers in support, it appears that a
judgment
against petitioners on the settlement lien in Civil No. 05-1-0240 will
be
appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a) (Supp. 2007) by petitioners
Freeman and
Uta, as plaintiffs, and by petitioner Ireijo, as a real party in
interest (see
e.g. Gap v. Puna Geothermal Venture,
106 Hawai‘i 325, 104 P.3d 912 (2004); State v. Adam,
97 Hawai‘i 475, 482, 40 P.3d 877, 884 (2002)). Petitioners can seek a
stay of the judgment
pending appeal from the circuit court and from the appellate court
pursuant to
HRAP 8. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to extraordinary
relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai‘i
200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus or prohibition 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.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is
denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, March 7, 2008.