2012-06-29_Scott_Andrews_Claudia_Rohr_v_County_of_Hawaii_Order_Granting_Defendants'_Motion_to_Dismiss

Home

Case 1:1 0-cv-00749-DAE-KSC Document 78 Filed 06/29/12 Page 11 of 31 PagelD #: 597 A claim may be dismissed under Rule 12 as "barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when `the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint."' Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir. 2006)). Such motion should be granted "only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled." Morales v. City of Los Anggles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION Defendants move to dismiss the SAC on the ground that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support the application of equitable estoppel and that Plaintiffs' attempts to name Itliong as a defendant do not comply with the Rule 16 Scheduling Order in this case and fall outside the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that a rp o se litigant's pleadings must be read more liberally than pleadings drafted by counsel. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). When a plaintiff proceeds rp o se and technically violates a rule, the court should act with leniency toward the rp o se litigant. Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). However, "a rp o se 11