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 9 of 31 PagelD #: 595 a Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition and an attached Memorandum in Opposition. (Doc. # 71). On May 25, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Opposition. (Doc. # 72.) On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition. (Doc. # 73.) On May 30, 2012, Defendant Richard Itliong filed a Joinder to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 74.) On June 4, 2012, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition. (Doc. # 76.) STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss will be granted where the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review is limited to the contents of the complaint. See Clegg Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for one of two reasons: "(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim." Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds; Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Allegations of fact in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). 9