NO. 29834
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
DARRELL SIU, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE BARBARA P. RICHARDSON,
JUDGE OF DISTRICT
COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, and
SHARON A.F. BERINOBIS, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO. 1RC07-1-3660)
ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Darrell Siu's petition for a writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition, the papers in support, and the
respondents' answers, it appears that the filing of petitioner's
November 21, 2007 notice of appeal did not divest the district court of
jurisdiction to enter the July 2, 2008 order staying the October 24,
2007 judgment pending appeal. See
HRAP 8. Concomitantly, the district court had jurisdiction, during the
pendency of petitioner's appeal, to lift the July 2, 2008 stay as necessary to protect the
interest of
respondent Berinobis, whose Letter of Credit expires on August 11,
2009. The district court, having lifted the stay, had
jurisdiction to enforce the October 24, 2007 judgment. See MDG
Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw. 375, 381, 462 P.2d
525, 529 (1969). The lifting of the stay and the enforcement of the
October 24, 2007 judgment were within the discretion of the respondent
judge
and were not flagrant and manifest abuses of discretion. Therefore,
petitioner is 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. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus or
prohibition 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.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus and/or
prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 23, 2009.