NO. 29830
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
DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO.
08-1-1788)
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition filed by petitioners Natasha Anela Vimahi and
Luseane Eniti Vimahi and the papers in support, it appears that the
circuit court and the intermediate court of appeals
denied petitioners a stay of the writ of ejectment pending disposition
of petitioners' motion for reconsideration, not pending
disposition of petitioners' appeal. Petitioners' motion to stay the
writ of ejectment pending appeal is pending before the
circuit court and petitioners have not filed a motion to stay the writ
of ejectment pending appeal with the intermediate court
of appeals. 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 and/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, June 2, 2009.