Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

“Under Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (See Molokai Servs. Inc. v. Hodgins, No. CAAP-15-0000464, at *12 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2018).)

“A complaint should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim, per Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6), if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him or her to relief.” (See Klausmeyer-Among v. Honolulu City Council, No. CAAP-13-0000184, at *3 (Haw. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2013); See Cnty. of Kaua'i ex rel Nakazawa v. Baptiste (2007) 115 Hawai'i 15, 24, 165 P.3d 916, 925.)

“Our review is limited to the allegations of the complaint, and we assume the facts of the complaint are true.” (See id; Pavsek v. Sandvold (2012) 127 Hawai'i 390, 402, 279 P.3d 55, 67.)

“While a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than labels and conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action, to establish the grounds for entitlement to relief.” (See Klausmeyer-Among v. Honolulu City Council, No. CAAP-13-0000184, at *3 (Haw. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2013).)

“Though pleadings should be construed liberally and not technically and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should rarely be granted, a complaint may be dismissed if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief.” (See Mendes v. Hawaii Ins. Guar. Ass'n (1998) 87 Haw. 14, 17.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

“A defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint, except when service is made under Rule 4(c) and a different time is prescribed in an order of court under a statute or rule of court.” (See Haw. R. Civ. P. 12.)

“A party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 20 days after being served. The plaintiff shall serve a reply to a counter-claim in the answer within 20 days after service of the answer or, if a reply is ordered by the court, within 20 days after service of the order, unless the order otherwise directs.” (See id.)

“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion… (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (See id.)

“A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party indispensable under Rule 19, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

“In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must interpret the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and should dismiss only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him or her to relief." (See County of Kaua‘i v. Baptiste (2007) 115 Hawai‘i 15, 24, 165 P.3d 916, 925; Kealoha v. Machado (2013) 315 P.3d 213, 216.)

“We must therefore view a plaintiff's complaint in a light most favorable to [them] in order to determine whether the allegations contained therein could warrant relief under any alternative theory.” (See Malabe v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Executive Ctr. (2020) 465 P.3d 777, 785.)

"As a practical matter, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is likely to be granted only in the unusual case in which plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief. In other words, dismissal is justified only when the allegations of the complaint itself clearly demonstrate that plaintiff does not have a claim." (See Touchette v. Ganal (1996) 82 Haw. 293, 303; 5A C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, sub. sec. 1357 (2d. ed. 1990) at 344-45.)

“For this reason, in reviewing a circuit court's order dismissing a complaint ... our consideration is strictly limited to the allegations of the complaint, and we must deem those allegations to be true.” (See id.)

“We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under HRCP Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.” (See Justice v. Fuddy (2011) 125 Hawai‘i 104, 107, 253 P.3d 665, 668; Thomas v. Sterns (2013) 129 Haw. 294.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

It is well settled that “generally, an HRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted shall be treated as a Rule 56, HRCP, motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court in making its decision on the motion." (See Au v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Iolani, No. CAAP-16-0000654, at *16 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).)

It is also well settled that “a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the cause of action is barred by a statue of limitations is treated as an HRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and can be granted when the validity of the affirmative defense is apparent from the face of the pleading.” (See Thomas v. Sterns (2013) 129 Haw. 294.)