Li v. Ho — Mandamus denied because other judgment-enforcement remedies were available

Case
Zhao Kang Li v. The Honorable Timothy E. Ho, Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, and Honolulu Ford
Court
Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi
Judge
Vladimir P. Devens (Josh Green, 2023); Sabrina S. McKenna (Neil Abercrombie, 2011)
Date Decided
July 24, 2026
Docket No.
SCPW-26-0000409
Topics
Mandamus; Judgment Enforcement; Civil Process; Garnishment
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Zhao Kang Li obtained a writ of execution on a judgment entered in his favor against Honolulu Ford. Proceeding without counsel, Li alleged that he had been unable to enforce the writ because sheriffs and police refused to assist with its execution.

Li petitioned the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. The district court had struck a request by Li and directed him to seek legal advice.

The Court’s Holding

The supreme court denied the petition. It held that Li had not established either a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or the absence of other adequate means to redress the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.

The court explained that a civil process server is legally authorized to serve and execute a writ of execution issued under HRS Chapter 651, and that the Department of Law Enforcement maintains a list of eligible process servers. It also identified garnishment under HRS Chapter 652 as another available post-judgment remedy.

The court noted resources available to Li as a self-represented litigant, including District Court Access to Justice Rooms, Self-Help Centers, and the District Court Service Center. It ordered the petition processed without payment of the filing fee and directed that fees already collected in the proceeding be refunded.

Key Takeaways

  • Mandamus was unavailable because Li failed to show a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of adequate alternatives.
  • An authorized civil process server may execute a writ of execution issued under HRS Chapter 651.
  • Judgment creditors may have other enforcement options, including garnishment under HRS Chapter 652.

Why It Matters

The order underscores that mandamus is not a substitute for ordinary judgment-enforcement procedures. A petitioner seeking extraordinary relief must show not only a clear entitlement to the requested action, but also that no adequate alternative remedy exists.

For self-represented judgment creditors in Hawaiʻi, the decision points to practical enforcement avenues beyond sheriff or police assistance, including listed civil process servers and garnishment, as well as court-based legal assistance resources.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top