Camboni et al v. MGM Grand Hotel LLC et al

Filing 39

ORDER, Plaintiff's motion for clarification 8 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to complete service 9 is denied. The claims against Defendants Zubey, Van Winkle, Cardenas, and their spouses are dismissed without pr ejudice. Plaintiff's motion for recognition and understanding 16 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 34 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall respond to the motions to dismiss (Docs. 27, 28) on or before June 1, 2012. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file reply 37 is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/9/12.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CV11-1784-PHX-DGC

Anthony Camboni,

ORDER

v.
MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff has filed a number of motions. The Court will address them separately.

15

1.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for clarification. Doc. 8. Plaintiff states that he

16

has received notification from the Court that his First Amended Complaint is not in a

17

proper form, and asks for clarification as to which rules the Court has in mind. Plaintiff

18

apparently is referring to a stamp placed on his First Amended Complaint by the Clerk’s

19

Office. See Doc. 7. This stamp refers to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b). Because

20

the First Amended Complaint has not been rejected by the Court, however, Plaintiff need

21

not revise his First Amended Complaint in response to this stamp, but he should follow

22

the Local Rules in future filings.

23

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This request is denied. Plaintiff,

24

like any other litigant, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this

25

Court’s Local Rules. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

26

2.

Plaintiff’s motion asks that he be excused from

Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to complete service of his

27

summons and complaint. Doc. 9. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on September 9, 2011.

28

Doc. 1.

The complaint arises out of a lawsuit in which Plaintiff was named as a

1

Defendant and was sued for cybersquatting and trademark violations. The lawsuit was

2

brought by the MGM Defendants in this case, represented by the Lewis & Roca

3

Defendants in this case.

4

racketeering when they brought and ultimately settled the lawsuit against him.

Plaintiff alleges that MGM and its attorneys engaged in

5

Plaintiff apparently made no attempt to serve the complaint during the initial 120

6

days allowed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 28,

7

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete service, stating that he

8

recently had experienced a job transfer and relocation. He stated that the transfer was

9

announced on December 23, 2011. Doc. 3 at 2. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for

10

a 90-day extension, but granted an additional 30 days to complete service. Doc. 4. The

11

Court’s order specifically stated that “[t]he Court will not grant further extensions

12

absent truly extraordinary circumstances.” Id. (emphasis in original). Service was

13

due by February 10, 2012. Id.

14

Plaintiff apparently made no attempt to serve the complaint during the extended

15

period. On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second motion for additional time.

16

Doc. 5. Plaintiff asserted that he had not been able to obtain addresses for several

17

Defendants, that he was not familiar with the rules regarding service of process outside of

18

Arizona, and that he was having some health problems. Plaintiff stated that he would

19

retain a licensed process server to complete service. Id. at 2. As a result, the Court

20

granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days to complete service. The deadline was March 12,

21

2012. The Court stated that it would “not grant further extensions to this deadline.”

22

Id. (emphasis in original).

23

Plaintiff’s motion now seeks a third extension of time to serve Defendants Zubey,

24

Van Winkle, and Cardenas. Plaintiff asserts that these individuals have evaded service

25

by his licensed process server. The documents filed by the process server, however,

26

show that he did not attempt service until approximately two weeks before the twice-

27

extended deadline. See Docs. 10, 11, 12. The process server was unable to personally

28
-2-

1

serve the individual Defendants during this final two week period.

2

Rule 4(m) provides that the Court “shall extend the time for service upon a

3

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Good cause generally will be found only

4

in “exceptional circumstances, where the insufficiency of service results from

5

circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.” Feingold v. Hankin, 269 F. Supp. 2d 268,

6

276 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Mistake, neglect, and inadvertence generally cannot support a

7

showing of good cause. Lapone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277,

8

1281 (11th Cir. 2007). The docket in this case suggests that Plaintiff made no effort to

9

serve Defendants during the initial 120-day period allowed by Rule 4(m). Although

10

Plaintiff asserted that a job change interfered with service, the job change did not occur

11

until December 23, 2011, some three and one-half months after Plaintiff had filed his

12

complaint.

13

Defendants during the first 30-day extension, despite the Court’s explicit warning that it

14

would not grant further extensions absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Doc. 4. The

15

Court granted Plaintiff one additional 30-day extension, stating emphatically that no

16

further extensions would be granted, and yet Plaintiff waited until the last two weeks of

17

the extended period to begin attempting service of process. Doc. 10-12.

The docket further suggests that Plaintiff made no attempt to serve

18

Plaintiff has not shown good cause. Plaintiff has not acted diligently in seeking to

19

serve Defendants. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants evaded service, the facts set

20

forth in the response suggest otherwise. See Doc. 14. Because Plaintiff has not shown

21

good cause and this case is now more than six months old, Plaintiff’s request for a third

22

extension will, in the Court’s discretion, be denied. The Court will dismiss without

23

prejudice the claims against Defendants Zubey, Van Winkle, Cardenas, and their spouses.

24

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

25

3.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for recognition and understanding. Doc. 16.

26

The motion asks the Court to recognize Plaintiff as “an Ambassador of a Kingdom which

27

has been recognized by the Citizens, Founders, Leaders, Courts and Government of The

28
-3-

1

United States.” Id. at 1. The kingdom Plaintiff refers to is a divine kingdom, and

2

Plaintiff supports his assertion by reference to various scriptures from the Bible. Plaintiff

3

asserts that because of his status as “an Ambassador of an Officially-Recognized

4

Kingdom” he “cannot be compelled to deposit filings which conform to the FRCP and/or

5

local rules.” Id. at 2.

6

Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that his religious beliefs constitute a

7

basis for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court’s Local

8

Rules. Nor does Plaintiff explain how these rules conflict with his religious beliefs. As

9

already noted, pro se litigants “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other

10

litigants.” King, 814 F.2d at 567.

11

The Court and opposing counsel respect Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. Opposing

12

counsel has stated that they will extend reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff if

13

deadlines or other scheduling matters interfere with a day of religious observance.

14

Doc. 26. But the Court will not excuse Defendant’s compliance with the federal and

15

local rules. Defendant’s motion will therefore be denied.

16

4.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to extend time. Doc. 34. The motion does not

17

specify the time period Plaintiff wishes to have extended, but it appears Plaintiff may be

18

referring to motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. See Docs. 27, 28. Plaintiff’s

19

responses to the motions were due on April 13, 2012, the day he filed his motion to

20

extend. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion in part. Plaintiff shall respond to the

21

motions to dismiss (Docs. 27, 28) on or before June 1, 2012. To the extent the motion

22

asks the Court to demand that the Arizona Attorney General or a Justice of the Arizona

23

Supreme Court explain their actions, the motion is denied. Those individuals are not

24

parties to this lawsuit.

25

5.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to extend the time to reply to Defendants’

26

response to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. Doc. 37. Plaintiff easily could have

27

drafted a reply in the time it took him to draft his six-page motion for extension of time.

28
-4-

1

The motion will be denied. To the extent Plaintiff requests an opportunity to meet with

2

the MGM Defendants without the participation of their counsel, the motion is denied.

3

IT IS ORDERED:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (Doc. 8) is denied.

5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to complete service (Doc. 9) is

6

denied. The claims against Defendants Zubey, Van Winkle, Cardenas, and

7

their spouses are dismissed without prejudice.

8

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for recognition and understanding (Doc. 16) is denied.

9

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 34) is granted in part and

10

denied in part. Plaintiff shall respond to the motions to dismiss (Docs. 27,

11

28) on or before June 1, 2012.

12

5.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file reply (Doc. 37) is denied.

13

Dated this 9th day of May, 2012.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-