2012-06-29_Scott_Andrews_Claudia_Rohr_v_County_of_Hawaii_Order_Granting_Defendants'_Motion_to_Dismiss

Home

Case 1:10-cv-00749-DAE-KSC Document 78 Filed 06/29/12 Page 6 of 31 PagelD #: 592 morning of December 13, 2008 before Plaintiff was allowed a phone call or a visit from Rohr. (Id. ¶ 80.) Miller allegedly detained Andrews for another 24 hours for "a cover-up scheme and/or punishment" before setting Andrews' bail. (Id. ¶ 82.) Plaintiffs allege that they were never verbally informed of the charge(s) against Andrews and was ultimately provided a "poor copy of the bail receipt that made the charges undecipherable." (Id. ¶ 83-84.) According to Plaintiffs, the prosecutor declined to prosecute and dismissed the case. (Id. ¶ 84.) Plaintiffs initiated the instant action on December 15, 2010. (Doc. # 1.) On September 20, 2011, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Initial Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. # 39.) The Court determined that the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' claims expired before the Initial Complaint was filed. However, the Court observed that "it may be possible for Plaintiffs to plead sufficiently that Defendants could be estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense if provided the opportunity to amend their Complaint." (Id. at 16.) The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and on November 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). ("FAC," Doc. # 41.) Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (Doc. # 44.) On February 9, 2012, the Court dismissed the FAC with leave to amend. (Doc. # 56.) The Court found that Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts 6