NO. 29745
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
NATASHA ANELA VIMAHI and LUSEANE ENITI VIMAHI,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE
KAREN N. BLONDIN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE
FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I and
PROVIDENT
FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L.P., Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO.
08-1-1788)
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and
Intermediate
Court of Appeals Judge Leonard,
assigned by
reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by
petitioners Natasha Anela Vimahi and Luseane Eniti Vimahi and the
papers in support, it appears that the granting and entry of a writ
of ejectment is immediately appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a)
(Supp. 2008). See Penn v. Transportation Lease Haw.,
Ltd., 2 Haw. App. 272, 274, 630 P.2d 646, 649 (1981); Ciesla v. Reddish, 78
Hawai‘i 18, 889 P.2d 702 (1995). Petitioners can appeal from a writ of
ejectment and can seek a stay of the writ pending appeal pursuant to
HRAP 8. Thus, 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 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 prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, April 21, 2009.