The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPLICATION OF ENLARGEMENT OF TIME; AND (3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On September 19, 2011, the Court heard Defendants County of Hawaii, Lawrence K. Mahuna, Samuel Thomas, George Makua, Romeo Fuviava, Brian Miller, Benny Ruffolo, and Annette Coolins' (collectively "Defendants") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Defendants' Motion"). The Court also heard Plaintiffs Scott L. Andrews and Claudia J. Rohr's (collectively "Plaintiffs") Motion for Application of Enlargement of Time ("Plaintiffs' Motion"). Scott L. Andrews and Claudia J. Rohr, pro se, appeared at the hearing on behalf of themselves; Michael J. Udovic, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. After reviewing the motions and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion (Doc. # 28), DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. # 32), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Complaint.
The factual predicate of Plaintiffs' Complaint dates back to April 21, 2008. ("Compl.," Doc. # 1, ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff Scott Andrews ("Andrews") was confronted by a group of individuals and called the police for help. (Id. ¶ 27.) While waiting for police Plaintiffs claim that Andrews was attacked. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants, each of whom are members of the Hawaii County Police Department, did not conduct an investigation into the assault. (Id. ¶¶ 6--14; see id. ¶¶ 32--34.) Thereafter the named Defendants allegedly failed to respond to Plaintiffs' repeated requests for assistance across a period of eight months. (See id. ¶¶ 34--52.) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants ultimately arrested Andrews on Friday, December 12, 2008. (Id. ¶ 53.)
Once arrested, Andrews claims that he thought he was having a heart attack, but no one took him to the hospital. (Id. ¶ 55.) Plaintiff Claudia Rohr ("Rohr") repeatedly requested to see Andrews but was denied access to him. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiffs claim that Andrews was eventually taken to the hospital and was diagnosed with an abnormal electrocardiogram. (Id. ¶ 58.) Andrews claims to have been incarcerated without bail for a total of forty-four hours "for no apparent purpose." (Id. ¶ 63.) An exhibit to Plaintiffs' Opposition shows that Andrews was released on December 14, 2008. ("Release Form," Doc. # 30-3, at 2.)
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action:
* Andrews "was falsely arrested and suffered the loss of his liberty without any probable . . . cause in violation of rights guaranteed to him by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Compl. ¶ 71.)
* Defendants "negligently failed and/or refused to properly train, supervise, and/or discipline police officers and other employees under their supervision and control . . . ." (Id. ¶ 73.)
* Defendants "negligently caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries, pain, mental anguish, emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, worry, and anger . . . ." (Id. ¶ 75.)
* Defendants "acted herein knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously without regard for the rights, interests, and well-being of Plaintiffs." (Id. ¶ 77.)
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 15, 2010. (See Doc. # 1.) On May 27, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion. ("Ds' Mot.," Doc. # 28.) On August 1, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition. ("Ps' Opp'n," Doc. # 30.) On August 8, 2011, Defendants filed their Reply. ("Ds' Reply," Doc. # 31.)
On August 22, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Application for Enlargement of Time. ("Ps' Mot.," Doc. # 32.) On August 29, 2011, Defendants filed their Opposition. ("Ds' Opp'n," Doc. # 34.) On September 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Reply. ("Ps' Reply," Doc. # 37.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(c) states, "[a]fter the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when the Court, accepting all the allegations in the pleadings as true and construing them in the light most favorable to ...